Where did morality come from?

[Wally]

Please bear with me as I'm no expert on either evolutionary theory or creationism. I simply have a question that's been bouncing around in my head for some time now and I hope that someone here can help me out with it. This question is more philosophical in nature than scientific.

If human beings are simply the products (byproducts?) of random processes and chance biological happenings and, like every other species on the planet, arose from earlier species that concerned themselves with little more than survival at all costs, then where did our sense of morality come from?

How is it evolutionarily advantageous to feel sympathy for your fellow human beings and even help them if there is absolutely no benefit for yourself or your immediate offspring? Why did humans develop the capability for sympathy for total strangers when this doesn't seem to provide any survival advantage at all?

If anything, this would seem to be a hindrance that would increase the likelihood that you would NOT survive. It would seem that any early human that had developed feelings of compassion and empathy towards his fellow men, as opposed to having simply a "survive at all costs" mentality, would be much more likely to put himself in unnecessary danger (by sticking his neck out for someone else, for example) or would be less willing to harm someone else to forward his own lineage, thereby drastically reducing the likelihood that these higher feelings of compassion would be passed on to subsequent generations.

Man has taken on habits that are in direct conflict with the "survival of the fittest" idea. We've devised methods of keeping people alive that have "defective" genes (diabetes sufferers, babies born with defective hearts, etc.) thereby weakening the gene pool with human lineages that mother nature is trying to get rid of. Why is it that humans, alone on the planet, have progressed past our base survival instincts?

Where did all this morality come from? Why did man alone develop these qualities in what is otherwise a sea of unadulterated survivalists?

Wally

[The Happy Humanist]

So when see a crazy pedophile like Micheal Jackson on the news, even if you can't feel compassion for him at least feel aidos and understand that he's still a person trying to find happiness just like you. And pedophiles and rapists and murderers in general, they are immoral (find they find their happiness in a nonproductive way that deprives others of happiness). But you should try to be the moral person and love them, love thy enemy, as Jesus taught and would do.

I think I understand what you're saying. You look at some depraved serial killer on the tube, and your immediate action is revulsion, "He should get the chair," etc., then you ask yourself, "How can people do that? There must be something wrong with them." Then you realize, there IS something wrong with them. Something is missing, a brain enzyme, a moral compass, whatever. And in a glimmer of understanding (not compassion, perhaps, but some kind of empathy) you realize that we ALL have something wrong with us, we are all deficient in some areas. Its a recognition of the humanity in all of us, and the realization that we all have a different life path that led us here.

Then you say, "Ah, give him the chair anyway."

So even the Ten Commandments aren't absolute. Like killing. We're suppose to support the troops even tho they're killing (to protect others, yeah, but don't you see the irony--they're fighting death, the death of their loved ones back home, by killing.

Exactly. There are no absolutes, not even in the Christian rulebook. We still have to process everything through our software.

And killing is ok a la coup de grace. If someone is suffering on the battlefield, it's ok... oh, isn't there a post on euthanasia? I guess I should save that for there.

Another of my favorite topics.

[Cliff]

If we are the products of evolution, then there is no good or evil. To suggest such would be like talking to a stone and telling it how good or bad it is. Or talking to a a thunderstorm or a lunar eclipse and informing them how moral they are. Nonsense.

If we are created beings however, there must be a creator who made us. And if that's true it's unlikely that such a being would have done so without any plan in mind. If we want to know what that plan is, it is better that we ask the planner than try to guess what it is or experiment by trial and error. Living within that plan is true morality. Anything short of that is urinating in the cosmic breeze or trying to talk to a stone.

[The Happy Humanist]

If we are the products of evolution, then there is no good or evil.

In the transcendant, cosmic, absolute sense, that is correct.

To suggest such would be like talking to a stone and telling it how good or bad it is. Or talking to a a thunderstorm or a lunar eclipse and informing them how moral they are. Nonsense.

Agreed.

If we are created beings however, there must be a creator who made us. And if that's true it's unlikely that such a being would have done so without any plan in mind. If we want to know what that plan is, it is better that we ask the planner than try to guess what it is or experiment by trial and error.

Would that we could. He seems to have given us an instruction book that's a little short on detail, and then left us to our own devices.

Living within that plan is true morality.

Oh? And just how do we know that for certain? This is going to be the topic of an upcoming message I plan to post, but thought I would tease it here: Say you're successful in convincing me that there is a Creator-God. How can I be certain that he is really the Good Guy? Couldn't an all-powerful being convince us that what he says is really, truly good, when he is, in fact, not so good? Perhaps even evil?

Don't respond yet...I will take this up in another forum. Just something to think about. (Can someone suggest an appropriate forum? Haven't quite got the feel of the place yet.)

[Corvus]

Oh? And just how do we know that for certain? This is going to be the topic of an upcoming message I plan to post, but thought I would tease it here: Say you're successful in convincing me that there is a Creator-God. How can I be certain that he is really the Good Guy? Couldn't an all-powerful being convince us that what he says is really, truly good, when he is, in fact, not so good? Perhaps even evil?

On a universal level, both good and bad lose all reference. I have stated elsewhere that all right and wrong is conceding to the existence of other people, while religion adds another level by forcing one to add to concede to a supreme being of some kind. I have often seen it written that good is simply a characteristic of God. One may as well say "everyone should be Henry VIII to each other, but let's avoid being Osama to each other". Why? Cliff introduces the concept of following a plan being good or moral, but why should I bother actually following this plan, and why is following this plan better than not following this plan, other than the harm that comes to me if I do not?

Don't respond yet...I will take this up in another forum. Just something to think about. (Can someone suggest an appropriate forum? Haven't quite got the feel of the place yet.)

The Right and Wrong forum is probably the best option. Here is a good topic on the subject on what standard we use to measure right and wrong.

[chrispalasz]

jimspeiser wrote: happy solstice everyone!

And Merry Christmas, too!

jimspeiser wrote:
Q: If morality is genetically induced, or "innate", why are there immoral individuals? More to the point, why are there entire movements, such as Nazism or slavery, that are immoral in nature?
A: I visualize the "morality gene" as a very small firmware chip in a very complex computer. I sense that this gene is only capable of sending a very small, quick message to our brain in response to any given situation; perhaps something like "Do the right thing." The rest of the process of moral choice involves a hugely complex "cocktail" of other messages, some from other firmware ("preserve self", "preserve species"), others from what I would call "software," which is the sum total of our experiences, recollections, musings, etc. all firing from different neural paths. As most of us computer geeks know, software can always override firmware. The process of moral choice involves assessing these various messages in order to comply with the trigger message, "Do the right thing." In short, we don't always know, either as individuals or as a species what the right thing is. Those of us whose "software" includes experiences with homelessness or a tough, dog-eat-dog environment such as the ghetto may adapt our programming to equate "do the right thing" with "preserve self". Others who may have had a more reflective education in this area may be able to see the wisdom in "preserve species" as a roundabout way of improving their own condition. It's not just a matter of "do the right thing," it's a mixture of that genetic signal plus what has been learned. This applies at the societal level as well. At one time, slavery was seen as "the right thing," perhaps because it advanced certain segments of society; but as the species went along, it became clearer to us that equality was more desirable. That equation will now be part of our revamped programming, possibly (hopefully) forever. Same thing with the Holocaust - as aptly underscored in the rallying cry, "Never again!" It's a learning process - and we still have much to learn

Religious doctrines such as the Decalogue are one response to this dilemma of mixed signals. The Ten Commandments sure makes it easy to know how to respond to the "Do the right thing" signal - at least on its face. The problem of course is that it is not comprehensive enough to cover individual situations, such as killing in self-defense, or stealing in order to survive. We still have to rely on internal software rather than external "Operator Input" for the solutions to most, if not all, dilemmas.

I like your computer analogy. Chips and signals. Sure, I'm okay with that. Every comptuer I know of has been created.

jimspeiser wrote: Exactly. There are no absolutes, not even in the Christian rulebook. We still have to process everything through our software.

God is an absolute in the Bible. I'm assuming you mean to refer to the Bible when you say "Christian rulebook".

jimspeiser wrote:
So, the answer to the question, Is morality still evolving? is yes, definitely, but not necessarily the genetic firmware so much as the software, our individual and collective learning experiences that we use to process and refine the "Do the right thing" signal. This will be anathema to many Christians, but I believe that mankind is becoming more moral, on his own, without spiritual guidance. I am prepared to defend that stance, in a separate post.

I agree that it's evolving... but not in the good sense that so many people tend to equate with the word evolution. In my Christian worldview, God is the definition of morality. For that definition to change would mean it would no longer be morality - by definition. I see morality as we know it on a downward spiral - flushed down the toilet. I will always live in defiance of this "evolution" to preserve morality as God established.

Cliff wrote:
If we are created beings however, there must be a creator who made us. And if that's true it's unlikely that such a being would have done so without any plan in mind. If we want to know what that plan is, it is better that we ask the planner than try to guess what it is or experiment by trial and error.

jimspeiser wrote: Would that we could. He seems to have given us an instruction book that's a little short on detail, and then left us to our own devices.

Well, that's precisely the point that is being made - which you have overlooked. God, Jesus Christ, is the everliving God. If He were not everywhere and in everything - nothing would be. So what's stopping you from asking Him? I already know the answer: your own will is stopping you. You refuse to ask Him and you refuse to pray to Him and you refuse to see Him. In fact, it is possible to know God exists - and the means of this knowledge is a medium called the Holy Spirit, which is in fact God. All Christians have this knowledge.

[chrispalasz]

Cliff wrote:
Living within that plan is true morality.

jimspeiser responded: Oh? And just how do we know that for certain? This is going to be the topic of an upcoming message I plan to post, but thought I would tease it here: Say you're successful in convincing me that there is a Creator-God. How can I be certain that he is really the Good Guy? Couldn't an all-powerful being convince us that what he says is really, truly good, when he is, in fact, not so good? Perhaps even evil? Don't respond yet...I will take this up in another forum. Just something to think about. (Can someone suggest an appropriate forum? Haven't quite got the feel of the place yet.)

Just so everyone can follow if they want. Here's the link so you can respond to his question now.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 1570#11570

[dangerdan]

I see morality as we know it on a downward spiral - flushed down the toilet.

How strange, I see morality moving in the exact opposite direction, though such a question is so large it’s difficult to quantify. But take, for example, slavery, women’s rights, equal opportunity employment laws, etc etc. Or more recently, one might note the largest protest the world had ever seen occurred only a few years ago, prior to the Iraq war. That was totally unprecedented. I would say the protesters (including myself) were taking part because of a moral responsibility that they felt. Or take for example the latest Band Aid song which ended up as a who’s who of modern music. The British government didn’t feel morally obliged to take action on Sudan, but there is an unmistakable grass roots movement, like Band Aid, trying to convince it otherwise. Sure, modern western society may not be able to proclaim it’s utter superiority on all things moral, but surely you must see there is a growing movement. Other examples are the ever-growing memberships to humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International and Oxfarm, etc, etc.

I will always live in defiance of this "evolution" to preserve morality as God established.

And no evidence or arguments will ever convince you otherwise, right Greenlight?

In fact, it is possible to know God exists - and the means of this knowledge is a medium called the Holy Spirit, which is in fact God. All Christians have this knowledge.

In fact, it is possible to know Santa exists - and the means of this knowledge is a medium called the Santa Spirit, which is in fact Santa. All Believers of Santa have this knowledge.

Hmmm, can’t argue with that logic.

[The Happy Humanist]

I see morality as we know it on a downward spiral - flushed down the toilet.

How strange, I see morality moving in the exact opposite direction, though such a question is so large it’s difficult to quantify. But take, for example, slavery, women’s rights, equal opportunity employment laws, etc etc. Or more recently, one might note the largest protest the world had ever seen occurred only a few years ago, prior to the Iraq war. That was totally unprecedented. I would say the protesters (including myself) were taking part because of a moral responsibility that they felt. Or take for example the latest Band Aid song which ended up as a who’s who of modern music. The British government didn’t feel morally obliged to take action on Sudan, but there is an unmistakable grass roots movement, like Band Aid, trying to convince it otherwise. Sure, modern western society may not be able to proclaim it’s utter superiority on all things moral, but surely you must see there is a growing movement. Other examples are the ever-growing memberships to humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International and Oxfarm, etc, etc.

I will always live in defiance of this "evolution" to preserve morality as God established.

And no evidence or arguments will ever convince you otherwise, right Greenlight?

In fact, it is possible to know God exists - and the means of this knowledge is a medium called the Holy Spirit, which is in fact God. All Christians have this knowledge.

In fact, it is possible to know Santa exists - and the means of this knowledge is a medium called the Santa Spirit, which is in fact Santa. All Believers of Santa have this knowledge.

Hmmm, can’t argue with that logic.

Thanks, Dangerdan, you just saved me a lot of typing.

Greenlight: What Dan said.

==JJS==

[dangerdan]

Thanks, Dangerdan, you just saved me a lot of typing.

Hehe, no problem mate.

Oh, and everyone knew I meant Oxfam didn't they, I don’t know how that “r” got in there…

[TQWcS]

How strange, I see morality moving in the exact opposite direction, though such a question is so large it’s difficult to quantify. But take, for example, slavery, women’s rights, equal opportunity employment laws, etc etc. Or more recently, one might note the largest protest the world had ever seen occurred only a few years ago, prior to the Iraq war. That was totally unprecedented. I would say the protesters (including myself) were taking part because of a moral responsibility that they felt. Or take for example the latest Band Aid song which ended up as a who’s who of modern music. The British government didn’t feel morally obliged to take action on Sudan, but there is an unmistakable grass roots movement, like Band Aid, trying to convince it otherwise. Sure, modern western society may not be able to proclaim it’s utter superiority on all things moral, but surely you must see there is a growing movement. Other examples are the ever-growing memberships to humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International and Oxfarm, etc, etc.

So you believe there is an objective moral that says we can not go into Iraq? Where did you recieve this transcending moral? If it was just a biological impulse, which is what evolutionists would have you believe, then this wasn't a moral at all. It was just an instinct.

Do you believe we should follow all of our instincts? Is that what morality really is, following instincts?