Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[1213]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

What do you think morality means?

[TRANSPONDER]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

What do you think morality means?

The problem is the old, very old, one - assuming as a Gioven what is not validated.

In this case that Good and Evil are some kind of absolute cosmic law that exists (because given by a God, name your own) and what we have to do is try to work out what it is and live by it.

But Morality is no more a cosmic law or divine creation than the rules of chess or the rules of music. Humans devised them to make the game work, and morals and ethics are rules devised by humans to make the game of society work.

You can work out the other analogies for yourselves, but trust me - given the evolved survival instincts of preference, group empathy and like and dislike, and you get no more Objective Basis for Good and Bad than that - human morality is not only as good a hypothesis as God - given (and pick your own god, anyway) but explains what we have better, and is supported by the evidence, like present and even palaeontological evidence for pack empathy (1) that social rules, pack empathy and other moral basic evolved in animals before apes even evolved.

Thus the argument from morality failed in the 80's, and yet God - apologists keep gnawing at this old bone in the hope there is still some kind of theological meat on it.

(1) a bone of a sabre tooth cat was found to have been savaged but healed. There was no way the Smilodon could have lived to heal up unless the rest of the pack had brought it food. See also Piranhas don't attack each other. Because of evolutionary practical convenience, not because of a god - given law.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

Do you prefer any of these options:

(a) a human society where every hurt individual was healed up by the human community
(b) a human society where most individuals seek to heal others, but there are some that are okay with harming others and not healing others if they think it serves their benefits best
(c) different human tribes where they look out for their own tribes' interests, but not others
(d) something else
(e) none

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

What do you think morality means?

I think it means "the conscious ability to sort things as either right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al.

What do you think morality means?

[1213]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

What do you think morality means?

I think it means "the conscious ability to sort things as either right or wrong/correct or incorrect/perfect or imperfect" et al.

That is ok to me. I think that also means we can have morality without knowing good and evil.

[1213]

...You can work out the other analogies for yourselves, but trust me - given the evolved survival instincts of preference, group empathy and like and dislike, and you get no more Objective Basis for Good and Bad than that - human morality is not only as good a hypothesis as God - given (and pick your own god, anyway) but explains what we have better, and is supported by the evidence, like present and even palaeontological evidence for pack empathy (1) that social rules, pack empathy and other moral basic evolved in animals before apes even evolved.
...

Sorry, I see no evidence for your claim. On the contrary, if no one teaches, people seem to revert back to immorality. For example in U.S. it seems stealing, raping and murdering is perfectly fine, at least if person has right skin color. I don't think anything that can really be seen in this world supports your idea.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

Do you prefer any of these options:

(a) a human society where every hurt individual was healed up by the human community
(b) a human society where most individuals seek to heal others, but there are some that are okay with harming others and not healing others if they think it serves their benefits best
(c) different human tribes where they look out for their own tribes' interests, but not others
(d) something else
(e) none

Obviously, I want a society where we all work for the good of others, including the other species we live with. But ideals are one thing, the situation we have is another.

The answer is to keep the ideal in mind and push for it, but not wail about how terible it all is and promise some kind of magical wand (religious or political) that will make everything perfect.

So I prefer my own explanation rather than your list of options that doesn't explain my position very well.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You can work out the other analogies for yourselves, but trust me - given the evolved survival instincts of preference, group empathy and like and dislike, and you get no more Objective Basis for Good and Bad than that - human morality is not only as good a hypothesis as God - given (and pick your own god, anyway) but explains what we have better, and is supported by the evidence, like present and even palaeontological evidence for pack empathy (1) that social rules, pack empathy and other moral basic evolved in animals before apes even evolved.
...

Sorry, I see no evidence for your claim. On the contrary, if no one teaches, people seem to revert back to immorality. For example in U.S. it seems stealing, raping and murdering is perfectly fine, at least if person has right skin color. I don't think anything that can really be seen in this world supports your idea.

You never see evidence for anything inconvenient, like slavery in the Bible, failed prophecy and real contradicttions in the Bible and the proof of speciation in the cetan sequence.

But the funny thing is that you actually support the claim you say you don't see evidence for by admitting that without education, we revert to a more brutish state of our species. Primitive tribes do not know how to play chess, and if we don't teach it, we all forget how.

[theophile]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

Do you prefer any of these options:

(a) a human society where every hurt individual was healed up by the human community
(b) a human society where most individuals seek to heal others, but there are some that are okay with harming others and not healing others if they think it serves their benefits best
(c) different human tribes where they look out for their own tribes' interests, but not others
(d) something else
(e) none

Obviously, I want a society where we all work for the good of others, including the other species we live with. But ideals are one thing, the situation we have is another.

The answer is to keep the ideal in mind and push for it, but not wail about how terible it all is and promise some kind of magical wand (religious or political) that will make everything perfect.

So I prefer my own explanation rather than your list of options that doesn't explain my position very well.

You first suggested the religious view of morality involves an absolute, cosmic law set by God, but what stops it from being just as you describe here? i.e., God has a preference / ideal no different from you that God continuously pushes for and calls us to and that God would have as the basis for a cosmic law, should such a thing ever exist?

I don't think the worlds are as far apart as you may want to think. While we can know of good and evil, what we posit these to be is ultimately a matter of faith. Probably the most important belief in the entire religious belief system. (Far more important than, say, belief that God exists, or in any other mumbo-jumbo people tend to tie religious belief to.)