Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 05:38 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 07:11 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You missed the point. It makes the two equally subjective. The murder is required for both examples to have the same relevancy to the discussion.

An honor killing is in no way comparable to one's taste in shoes. The motive behind the killing is what should be discussed, and does not related to fashion unless the end action is comparable.

Murder is not required in both examples. Anymore so than yelp reviews are required to make fashion faux pax, and restaurant faux pax equivalent. Murder is just another way of writing a one star yelp review. A means of expressing our anger and frustration with a particular business or person.

When Charlie Hebdo drew offensive pictures of Muhammed as form of creative expression, the attackers expressed themselves creatively as well, in act of performance art. Their rifles serving as paint brushes, and the blood of their victims as their paint.

The only reason you said murder is a requirement, is because murder produces a far more visceral feeling in you, than a mere fashion faux pax. But they're all just a matter of discomforting feelings, some more intense than others, and some less intense.

And society has decided that such actions are immoral. So a society will punish those who commit such actions.

Perhaps a few hundred years ago (or a few thousand) the people who killed the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo wouldn't be seen as anything out of the norm. But society changes and so do morals....because morality is not static. Or to put it another way, morality isn't objective.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-05-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 09:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The ultimate point that I was making is that behaviors (be it nest building, predation strategies, or morals) evolve in the same way that morphological adaptations do, through natural selection. And (like morphological traits) different populations can evolve the same adaptation (morals) independent of one another if they occupy similar niches. Such as societies developing independent of one another and these societies are new niches with similar selection pressures, regardless of the population or geography, etc. Resulting in a convergent evolution of moral behaviors that are similar, despite there being no migration from one culture to another for direct sharing of these morals.

So, a South American culture could develop a set of moral behaviors that are similar to Chinese cultures or African cultures or any other other population occupying a similar niche.

If all you're trying to say here is that cultures can develop similar moral views indecently rather than through direct exposure or influence from another culture, isn't this basically what I claimed in regards to the Golden Rule? As opposed to Clydelee who suggested eastern influence as the cause?

Quote:Tomasia seemed to be insisting that cultures (and by extension, morals) were not inherently biological, but that they somehow were separate from biology.

No I never claimed they are independent from biology, a point I clarified when you insinuated the same thing earlier:

"Values, beliefs, and culture are no more independent of our biology, than our rational capacities, and abilities to recognize what the truth is. This doesn't mean they are reducible to it either. As if someone left a trace of their DNA, we could know exactly what they believed and valued."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 05:40 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 07:19 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nesting isn't genetic. It's a learned trait.

False.

http://longtail.hubpages.com/hub/how-do-...heir-nests

Nothing abut what you posted indicates that a behavior like nesting is genetic. It indicates that behaviors can be inherited. Which is PRECISELY what I've been saying.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 05:41 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 09:41 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The ultimate point that I was making is that behaviors (be it nest building, predation strategies, or morals) evolve in the same way that morphological adaptations do, through natural selection. And (like morphological traits) different populations can evolve the same adaptation (morals) independent of one another if they occupy similar niches. Such as societies developing independent of one another and these societies are new niches with similar selection pressures, regardless of the population or geography, etc. Resulting in a convergent evolution of moral behaviors that are similar, despite there being no migration from one culture to another for direct sharing of these morals.

So, a South American culture could develop a set of moral behaviors that are similar to Chinese cultures or African cultures or any other other population occupying a similar niche.

If all you're trying to say here is that cultures can develop similar moral views indecently rather than through direct exposure or influence from another culture, isn't this basically what I claimed in regards to the Golden Rule? As opposed to Clydelee who suggested eastern influence as the cause?

Quote:Tomasia seemed to be insisting that cultures (and by extension, morals) were not inherently biological, but that they somehow were separate from biology.

No I never claimed they are independent from biology, a point I clarified when you insinuated the same thing earlier:

"Values, beliefs, and culture are no more independent of our biology, than our rational capacities, and abilities to recognize what the truth is. This doesn't mean they are reducible to it either. As if someone left a trace of their DNA, we could know exactly what they believed and valued."

It isn't what you're saying with the golden rule, because you're implying the golden rule exists before human society develops it. As you've been told before, you have cart firmly in front of the horse.

Cultures and morals are behaviors of complex social beings.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2015 05:46 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Atheism and morality
(26-05-2015 08:08 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Not at all. I think that some things are evil and others are good, and I don't feel the need to append "by my own view" or other disclaimer simply because others do not understand the subjective nature of morality.

If you wish to show Dawkins supporting the idea of absolute morality, you'll need something a little less vague and more direct.

Looks like you're trying to paste your views under his.

I only argue that you could never make a true statement about the world by describing something as good or evil.

To make false statements removes credibility, which seems counterproductive in debates.

To suggest that murder simply for the fun of it, IS evil, is about as absurd as suggesting that a baseball is kind.

Of course, this is assuming that we want the things that we say to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
27-05-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 05:36 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  False.

http://longtail.hubpages.com/hub/how-do-...heir-nests

Nothing abut what you posted indicates that a behavior like nesting is genetic. It indicates that behaviors can be inherited. Which is PRECISELY what I've been saying.

Nesting is in the DNA (genetic). You said it was learned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 05:50 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:47 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 05:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Nothing abut what you posted indicates that a behavior like nesting is genetic. It indicates that behaviors can be inherited. Which is PRECISELY what I've been saying.

Nesting is in the DNA (genetic). You said it was learned.

"Learned" in that it is inherited from the parents but not in the same way that a morphological trait is. Behaviors aren't quite inherited the same way genotypes and phenotypes are.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:04 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Learned" in that it is inherited from the parents but not in the same way that a morphological trait is. Behaviors aren't quite inherited the same way genotypes and phenotypes are.

You're only fooling one person.....you'll find him in the mirror. Nesting, for at least some animals, is in the DNA. Read the article again.

These are your words, "Nesting isn't genetic. It's a learned trait," own them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
27-05-2015, 06:07 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 05:41 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It isn't what you're saying with the golden rule, because you're implying the golden rule exists before human society develops it. As you've been told before, you have cart firmly in front of the horse.

Cultures and morals are behaviors of complex social beings.

Of course I never tried to argue that the golden rule existed prior to human society.

But I am curious as to when you think it developed? Do you think it only came into existence around the time it was articulated in a variety of religious text? That each culture needed a sort of cultural niche, to develop it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 06:09 AM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 06:04 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 05:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Learned" in that it is inherited from the parents but not in the same way that a morphological trait is. Behaviors aren't quite inherited the same way genotypes and phenotypes are.

You're only fooling one person.....you'll find him in the mirror. Nesting, for at least some animals, is in the DNA. Read the article again.

These are your words, "Nesting isn't genetic. It's a learned trait," own them.

The blog post doesn't say that the behaviors observed are genetic and neither did I.

Nesting isn't genetic. It is a behavioral trait that is inherited from the parents or community and is a trait that is learned.

For instance, language isn't genetic, it too is learned. But it too can influence selection and selection for language could result in language having an influence on one's DNA.

Selection at the phenotypic level acts on the genotypic level. Behavioral selection can work in the same way.

This is what Dawkins referred to as memes

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: