Absolute Morals and evolution

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
I (and others) say Absolute Morals don’t exist if no God. Others say they either do/can/might exist on their own. Chez, kid, M to the 6th, et al what say you to the following:

[/ QUOTE ]

A nice series of questions that I will answer from the personl(obviously!) view of one of the "et als"

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, survival of the fitness and/or natural selection is the Moral Absolute if no God.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope there is no Absolute morality absent God whether or not natural selection is true. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with morality on any level whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
If this is so, what does this entail? Does any life form have the Absolute right to destroy any “enemy” it deems fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

By "if this is so" I assume you mean natural selection is true not the statement that natural selection defines , if true, morality (which it doesn't to repeat my previous answer)

[ QUOTE ]
Are there parameters for this? Is it ok to kill or rule over other life forms simply because we can and/or choose to? Do we have a right to direct selection within our own species?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no Absolute answer to ok to kill or rule or direct human evolution (eugenics). I believe it is wrong in some cases but that is my personal morality.

[ QUOTE ]
Man kills animals for food. Do we have a moral obligation to kill only for food? What about when we kill more animals than we can eat? Does this extend to plant life - all life forms?

[/ QUOTE ]

No moral obligation to kill only for food. I happily take antibiotics to kill bacteria that make me ill. I have had (dead of old age not ilness as it happens) Christian Scientist ancestors who wouldn't take antibiotics...is your faith that strong!?). Yep..I'll kill plants I don't eat too.....what about you, you don't scrape the green stuff off you window frames to keep them clean?

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the right to kill other life forms that do not endanger us (man)?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yep. for food if nothing else...I have no problem with eating fish etc.


[ QUOTE ]
Do we have the right to kill life forms because they endanger us?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes. I've had my jabs to kill life-endagering life forms.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it ok for Nature to select which species survives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok doesn't come into it. It is just the way things are. (Just as it is "OK" for the sun to rise and ice to melt when it warms up?)

[ QUOTE ]
Why can’t man decide too what species survives? Can we?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lack of organisation, common purpose. You tell me why all smallpox stocks have not been destroyed to make the smallpox virus extinct. (I know the reason but do you think this organism should be destroyed which IS within the power of Man)

[ QUOTE ]
We seem to direct this evolution to an extent anyway? We try to eradicate diseases. Is that “fair” to natural selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

No absolute code so "fairness" doesn't come into it. FREE YOUR MIND. Thereis no absolute code, OK, fairness, right or wrong. Proper become superfluous. we are part of nature.

[ QUOTE ]
How “naturally selective” is evolution now that the life from of homosapiens has evolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are part of nature. Natural selection carries on with us in the "equation". Only God makes things "unnatural"..by acting outside the bounds of natural law.

[ QUOTE ]
Are there Absolutes for evolution - are we ignoring them? Should we ignore them if it benefits our species?

[/ QUOTE ]
No absolutes. Nothing to ignore.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if this is not a Moral Absolute - how do we still answer these questions "ethically"? Should we try to at all - or is that anathema from an evolutionary point of view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personal and collective ethics do come into it. We should and do try to. We have endagered species lists and international agreements to save extinctions. We also strive to make things extinct, eg dangerous diseases (polio).


[ QUOTE ]
If no God, the assumption, then no Absolute rigt to do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And no absolute bar to do anything.

[ QUOTE ]
It may not be "right" according to an individual's moral code

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Or it may be "wrong"!

[RJT]

Trantor,

[ QUOTE ]
Nope there is no Absolute morality absent God whether or not natural selection is true. Natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with morality on any level whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know (agree) with this. I just brought it up for discussion.

I do want to get into really what I think is a good topic - but have to do a few things for a bit now: Man viz a viz evolution, now that man exists and how that changes (can direct) things.

Chat later

RJT

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]

As for killing animals - I personally have a problem with killing for any other reason except food. But is it wrong? To me yes - to the present standard - probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect the Hindu's belief in sanctaty of all life but I, personally, have no problem swatting a mosquito, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe so. There might be some strange cults that think pain/suffering is good... but, not that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see what you mean... but I think BAD is bad because it decreases happiness or increases suffering. I know that's by definition... I can try to expound if you want me to?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe so. There might be some strange cults that think pain/suffering is good... but, not that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see what you mean... but I think BAD is bad because it decreases happiness or increases suffering. I know that's by definition... I can try to expound if you want me to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just any old definition, you're trying to capture what we mean by morality. Otherwise you could have just as well chosen to maximise life expectancy or gene spread or shoesize.

It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness is "good", because, by definition, I'm calling things good that increase happiness. I know this is circular. But, it's different than most circular arguments (ie: "God exists because the Bible says so, and it's true because God wrote it."). For the most part, I think happiness being "good", and things being "good" to the extent that they increase happiness, is self-evident.

I'm not sure this is universal... but it seems to apply to most people. When people examine their hearts... to determine what matters to them... ultimately, they will be deciding that which will make them the most happy. "Good" is just a term we use to describe an event/action/thing. If that thing is helpful to people... it is in line with what matters to them... it makes them happy.... we call that "good". "Bad" would be the opposite. It would be something that is hurtful, hinders their life-goals, makes them unhappy.

I should interject here, that by "happiness", I don't mean "happy-go-lucky". I mean true happiness, and contentment. People struggle in life to find what will make them happy. And, when they find it... it is "good". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What are your thoughts, Chez? Why is "good" good and "bad" bad? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems you've chosen happiness because you recognise happiness as a good thing and suffering as a bad thing.

Why is that, and why does it seem to be the case that everyones agrees that your precept is basically correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness is "good", because, by definition, I'm calling things good that increase happiness. I know this is circular. But, it's different than most circular arguments (ie: "God exists because the Bible says so, and it's true because God wrote it."). For the most part, I think happiness being "good", and things being "good" to the extent that they increase happiness, is self-evident.

I'm not sure this is universal... but it seems to apply to most people. When people examine their hearts... to determine what matters to them... ultimately, they will be deciding that which will make them the most happy. "Good" is just a term we use to describe an event/action/thing. If that thing is helpful to people... it is in line with what matters to them... it makes them happy.... we call that "good". "Bad" would be the opposite. It would be something that is hurtful, hinders their life-goals, makes them unhappy.

I should interject here, that by "happiness", I don't mean "happy-go-lucky". I mean true happiness, and contentment. People struggle in life to find what will make them happy. And, when they find it... it is "good". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

What are your thoughts, Chez? Why is "good" good and "bad" bad? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it seems self-evident, thats why it seems a good candidate for an AM law. As I said in a previous post ^^

[ QUOTE ]
It may be that to understand the concept of suffering in others requires a level of empathy which makes you not want to cause it without some other need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe something similar for happiness: Its impossible to understand the concept of happiness without recognising it as a good thing.

I'm not claiming this is correct or even clear. Maybe its just an impressive sounding way of waving my hands about.

chez

[txag007]

The problem with defining right absolutely as "survival of the fittest" is that it fails to recognize the difference between power and goodness. One can have power without being good, and one can be good without having power.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all pleasures are good. Not all pain is bad. Therefore, the standard for "good" must come from something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say pleasure. I said happiness. And, "suffering" being the opposite of that. When you say "not all pleasures are good"... what do you mean by "good"? When I say that, I mean: "not all pleasures increase happiness".