Where does morality come from? – My take.

[unapologeticParticipant]

In a YouTube vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaVIOCsJPjM
A christian posed “10 questions no atheist can answer”.
And the vloger ‘Rationality Rules’ debunked them with numerous fallacys of the questions.
There is one morality question I would like to answer differently from his.
Q:
Atheism assumes we evolved from lesser beings “… — So what if a higher being came into existence?
Will it have the right to put us all in cages and use us as lab rats? The Darwinist answer is yes …”
A:
NO, Darwin never said anything like that, and of course we don’t agree with that.
Again christians have things back-asswards.
It is you sheeple that think there is a ‘higher being’ that has a right to fuck with us.
That is one of the reasons we REJECT your god. The question is dishonestly twisted.

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  unapologetic.

[_Robert_Participant]

unapologetic wrote:

In a YouTube vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaVIOCsJPjM A christian posed “10 questions no atheist can answer”. And the vloger ‘Rationality Rules’ debunked them with numerous fallacys of the questions. There is one morality question I would like to answer differently from his. Q: Atheism assumes we evolved from lesser beings “… — So what if a higher being came into existence? Will it have the right to put us all in cages and use us as lab rats? The Darwinist answer is yes …” A: NO, Darwin never said anything like that, and of course we don’t agree with that. Again christians have things back-asswards. It is you sheeple that think there is a ‘higher being’ that has a right to fuck with us. That is one of the reasons we REJECT your god. The question is dishonestly twisted.

Typical Islamic apologetics somehow manages to be more pathetic and errant than xtian apologetics.

[UnseenParticipant]

unapologetic wrote:

Atheism assumes we evolved from lesser beings

I know that’s not unapologetic’s point of view but the Christians.

How does one define “lesser”? Most so-called lesser beings have been around millenia longer than humans, which  seem well on their way toward self-extinction. Hardly evidence of being lesser.

[unapologeticParticipant]

Thank you Unseen.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think Robert was calling me is-lame-ick.
Just to be clear.

This is from the youtube vid I mentioned:
Q: Atheism assumes we evolved from lesser beings (my simplified wording) “… — So what if a higher being came into existence? Will it have the right to put us all in cages and use us as lab rats? The Darwinist answer is yes …”
(direct quote)

My reply:

A: NO, Darwin never said that, and …

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

This OP is actually a very relevant question.  Where does morality come from?  The hard-won answer is manifold:

1. risky foraging niche of humans

2. requires cooperation to survive in

3. cooperation requires morality to regulate it.

Those are the external factors that give rise to morality.  There is also an internal factor, that you could say forms the currency of morality: the pressure for more benefit and less harm.  Following the logic of interdependence, in our cooperative, risky foraging niche, since I know I need more benefit and less harm, I know you do too, and I am prepared to help you achieve it.  The evolutionary logic of interdependence states, if I depend on you to survive, then helping you is helping myself, and my genes are more likely to be naturally selected and reproduce.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

I’m sorry, but any highbrow discussion of the philosophical foundations of morality collapses in my mind as soon as the word “foraging” crops up. LOL

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

I’m sorry, but any highbrow discussion of the philosophical foundations of morality collapses in my mind as soon as the word “foraging” crops up.

Is that what is required, though?  To ask where it comes from can mean a number of things.  This is a scientific explanation of the evolutionary forces that gave rise to it (hypothetically).  Morality evolved in a time when the human family tree lived out in the wild, foraging for food.

[UnseenParticipant]

@ Simon

A sociological explanation of where moral behavior comes of is not an answer to the philosophical question.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

I don’t believe the OP was asking a philosophical question.  It’s a physical or scientific explanation that is required.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

I don’t believe the OP was asking a philosophical question. It’s a physical or scientific explanation that is required.

“Morality” is a philosophical concept at heart.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

“Morality” is a philosophical concept at heart.

It’s also a scientific one.  Is there really a difference?  I think the philosophy needs the science to philosophise about.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

“Morality” is a philosophical concept at heart.

It’s also a scientific one. Is there really a difference? I think the philosophy needs the science to philosophise about.

No. No more than one can answer “What is beauty?” with a scientifically-conducted poll, which can only tell you what people at a given time think is beautiful. Your scientific methods can only pin down morality with a historical asterisk attached to it.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Your scientific methods can only pin down morality with a historical asterisk attached to it.

I can back up the philosophy with scientific data and theories.

Philosophy and science both aim to construct a description of the world, do they not?

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Your scientific methods can only pin down morality with a historical asterisk attached to it.

I can back up the philosophy with scientific data and theories. Philosophy and science both aim to construct a description of the world, do they not?

If that were true, what would the function of philosophy be, then?

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

If that were true, what would the function of philosophy be, then?

I don’t know, it’s hard to tell the difference.  They both derive abstract patterns from the data (theories or hypotheses).  Is it the subject matter?  Is it the technique?  I would venture that science is about the physical world, and philosophy seeks to explain the world of human beings.  But then we have the sciences of psychology and anthropology.

[Author]

Posts