Diogenes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:27 pm
[
Replying to Wootah in post #1]
I don't know why this issue keeps coming up when the answer has been published many times and is not a matter of speculation. I have only seen this issue raised by theists who still cling to the notion that morality only comes from their god.
Morals in animals, including of course Homo sapiens, has a genetic basis. Animals that cooperated with each other and even across species, increased their chance of survival. The basic rules of morality (including most of the "Ten Commandments" are nothing more than examples of behavior that enhances cooperation.
We can see this in the evolution of wolves into dogs. The wolves that were friendly to humans increased their chances for survival. This 'friendly' gene has now been isolated in dogs.
There are many examples for cooperation among animals. Humans are the champions of cooperation: from hunter gatherer societies to nation states, cooperation is the decisive organizing principle of human society. No other life form on earth is engaged in the same complex games of cooperation and defection. The question how natural selection can lead to cooperative behavior has fascinated evolutionary biologists for several decades.
A cooperator is someone who pays a cost, c, for another individual to receive a benefit, b.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/
There are many similar examples. Many have been published in the popular press, from National Geographic to 60 Minutes.
Studies have shown that dogs are more sociable than wolves raised in similar circumstances, generally paying more attention to humans and following our directions and commands more effectively. (See "Can Dogs Feel Our Emotions? Yawn Study Suggests Yes.")
Von Holdt’s background in evolutionary genetics made her wonder about the potential genetic basis for these differences.
Their July 19 study in Science Advances provides an intriguing clue: Hypersocial dogs like Marla carry variants of two genes called GTF2I and GTF2IRD1. Deletion of those genes in people causes Williams syndrome, which is characterized by elfin facial features, cognitive difficulties, and a tendency to love everyone
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... -evolution
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ucO4JKtLcs
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... cJxRqTs5nk
There is no morality in animals. The actions of animals are wild by definition, other then the ones humans cultivate, they cover the broad range of all actions seen in nature. There is no guiding force to establish values of right and wrong, we see everything from murder, cannibalism, incest, familicide, to affection, bonding, packs, etc... There is nothing saying anything is right or wrong in the wild. I suppose you could put a premise on it, like that which lead to survival, but even then animal have been known to commit suicide themselves, or kill their families...
If nature is the source of morality, we would still have to conclude nature is wrong...
I would also like to point out that if survival is the basis of establishing morality... You ought to kill anything that is not for your survival
If it was true, that you wanted to increase your chances of survival, so you packed up with others like wolves... That this is the basis of morality... You ought to kill your enemies... Fact... If something is trying to kill you you ought to kill it.
But love you enemies is seen as a virtue in our moral fabric. And even Jesus showed God's love by laying down his life for people while they were sinning against him... You would obviously conclude that is wrong to do,
on the basis of morality... If survival is the basis of morality these virtues of sacrifice would be wrong based on the definition of right and wrong. You ought to kill anything against your survival, this would include any weak links in your culture, or any enemy that is against your survival....