The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I am not converting. I am saying that if macroevolution is the case, there is no god, there is no absolute moral code, there is only the material world, and in it what is stronger and what is weaker.
If that is the world we live in, what is wrong with any of the things I mentioned in the original post? I tell you that none of them would be wrong. Without the absolute moral code, there could not be a wrong.

Wow, logical leaps sprung from question begging all based on an ignorance of the theory of evolution.

Macroevolution does not preclude the possibility of the existence of a god.

What is "the absolute moral code," and what does macroevolution or the possible existence of a god for that matter, have to do wit it?

The natural world, which like it or not, YOU are a part of, involves cooperation among individuals within social groups much more than competition. Elephants and other larger herding animals will surround their weaker members in defense against predators. Competition among individuals within a social group certainly does occur as for example in the establishment of a social hierarchy. It also occurs in certain instances of quick personal gain. But these tend to be circumstance specific cases. Cooperation is the prevalent behavior among individuals in social groups. What's more, there are occurrences of interspecific cooperation in mutualistic symbiosis.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

My faith is irrelevant to this thread.
But my faith also argues that macroevolution is an irrelevant theory at all. For if the universe were created, why would we need to explain life by a theory that has nothing to do with God?

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Evolution explains biodiversity, not life.

Note that Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

okay. Then what explains life?
This is in fact a diversion from the actual matter of this thread, but I am interested.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

okay. Then what explains life?
This is in fact a diversion from the actual matter of this thread, but I am interested.

You should start a new thread. There are many explanations for life.

1 Reply

Setanta, I again say that this thread was in no way started to disprove evolution. There's plenty of threads on that topic already.
I don't know how to make this clear if it isn't already...
the philosophy that would be the most logical to abide by if we take macroevolution to be true is the very philosophy that acquits Hitler of any crimes and not only that, but it pats him on the back for what he did.
The underlying argument I am making is that if macroevolution and abiogenesis are the case. There is no moral code. The moral code is a universal set of morals that all people know intuitively. It is why we think Hitler was a bad guy. it's why we think rape and murder and infanticide are wrong.
If there was no God to create the universe, there is no such code. The code is immaterial and therefore cannot exist if there is nothing beyond the material world.

The philosophical implications of macroevolution are what's at stake. Not the theory itself. I know Darwin was not a philosopher, but his theory has philosophical implications.

There IS historical evidence for what I have said, and I presented that immediately. Based on Darwinian/macroevolutionary philosophy, Hitler considered himself just giving nature a hand and 3 others consider rape to be a genetic adaptation "same as a giraffe's neck" and infanticide to be a valid option.

I am arguing that if we accept this philosophy, we would not be in the wrong to kill whoever we want, but most of all, those who we consider weaker or inferior.

Now the philosophy being wrong does not immediately mean that evolution is wrong. That is - as I said before - not at stake. But know that I am not arguing the science of evolutionary theory in this thread, only the philosophy that comes with the belief in it.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

I disagree, there is creation and there is abiogenesis.
I am also aware that Darwin considered the first life to be an inherent problem in his theory. Granted, that was back before scientists could really examine cells.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Setanta, I again say that this thread was in no way started to disprove evolution. There's plenty of threads on that topic already.
I don't know how to make this clear if it isn't already...
the philosophy that would be the most logical to abide by if we take macroevolution to be true is the very philosophy that acquits Hitler of any crimes and not only that, but it pats him on the back for what he did.
The underlying argument I am making is that if macroevolution and abiogenesis are the case. There is no moral code. The moral code is a universal set of morals that all people know intuitively. It is why we think Hitler was a bad guy. it's why we think rape and murder and infanticide are wrong.
If there was no God to create the universe, there is no such code. The code is immaterial and therefore cannot exist if there is nothing beyond the material world.

The philosophical implications of macroevolution are what's at stake. Not the theory itself. I know Darwin was not a philosopher, but his theory has philosophical implications.

There IS historical evidence for what I have said, and I presented that immediately. Based on Darwinian/macroevolutionary philosophy, Hitler considered himself just giving nature a hand and 3 others consider rape to be a genetic adaptation "same as a giraffe's neck" and infanticide to be a valid option.

I am arguing that if we accept this philosophy, we would not be in the wrong to kill whoever we want, but most of all, those who we consider weaker or inferior.

Now the philosophy being wrong does not immediately mean that evolution is wrong. That is - as I said before - not at stake. But know that I am not arguing the science of evolutionary theory in this thread, only the philosophy that comes with the belief in it.

I'm not sure from whence the connection between evolution and ethics springs? As my crude, but obviously true, understanding of evolution goes, it doesn't make any value judgements. The theory says something to the effect of this: Genetically inherited traits that facilitate survival and reproduction will become more common over successive generations. Clearly this is a merely empirical claim. If people with a hypothetical 'rape gene' reproduce more than those without (as one might perhaps expect), and the gene is passed on, cetaris paribus, there will be more rapists in successive generations. This does not mean that rape is in some sense morally vindicated, indeed, it has absolutely nothing to do with the moral worth of rape, only that it will be more plentiful.

Secondly, why do you think ethics must come under some all subsuming 'moral code'? Ethical life is incredibly rich and complex. We have a huge variety of ethical concepts at our disposal: Guilt, duty, welfare, virtue, sympathy, blame, etc. The idea that these can be captured without remainder by some kind of rule is hopeless reductionism. Once I have these concepts, I know at a very primitive level, that happiness is a thing to be promoted, cruelty is bad, I should look out for my friends, and that I'm obligated to do my duties. If you want to get into questions about what happens when friendship and duty clash, or whether or not I should allow a rape to prevent the second world war, well then you're going to have to pull out some persuasive reasons for whichever takes your fancy, but the primitive understanding is enough to get by everyday.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Hmmm well I kind of see your point. You are trying to say theres a few things missing from the theory. Saying this is a beutiful plant, Theres only 10 left in the world. So lets put it in an endager list so our future generations to apretiated, And so the plant species is able to survive. Or a tiger killed that boy. Get evreyone and lets hunt down tigers. Bringing them to the brink of extinction. Point being that is not all about eating and being eaten , that moral codes play a part in species evolution? Is that what youre trying to point out that there should be some amendments to the theory?

1 Reply

@mickalos,

"This does not mean that rape is in some sense morally vindicated."
So I would assume that you find rape to be wrong. On what grounds?

1 Reply

@peter jeffrey cobb,

I am not saying anything about the theory of macroevolution except that there is a philosophy that logically follows the belief of the theory.
I am not asserting that moral codes play a part in species evolution. I am saying that a moral code, which is eliminated in a strict evolutionist philosophy, is necessary in order to say that any particular action that we see at a primitive level(as said by Mikalos) as being wrong is actually wrong.
Basically I am saying that without a moral law - which Darwinism/macroevolutionary theory does not support and would actually argue against - there is no way to accuse hitler of wrong-doing.

In fact, if you want to use a purely Darwinian(I'm using this word again cuz it's a lot faster to type) philosophy, Adolph Hitler was helping the process of Natural Selection by starting a war. A war is a clear way to see which group is stronger. In said war, whoever is strongest would theoretically win, and therefore be deserving of survival.
It is survival of the fittest in the context of humans rather than animals(though humans are merely glorified animals in the context of Darwinism).

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Why should first life be a problem? Evolution is observed by scientists today.

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

Because there´s something called evolution of Evolution by which there is a difference in between a reptile a monkey and a person competitiveness layer in terms of progressing from a more linear frame to a more complex one in which cooperation is accepted if somehow proves valuable to particular interest through communal good...I am certain you noticed that complex tasks require cooperation, as through them we can achieve a level of development that easy´s most of our otherwise unsolvable problems...

1 Reply

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I recently became aware of the implications of what a pure Darwinist philosophy entails. This is not to say that all Darwinists believe this to be true, but if someone claims to be a Darwinist and does NOT believe these things, then they are not true Darwinists.

This is a logical fallacy known as the no true Scotsman.

Read more here.

The implications of genetic evolutionary theory being applied socially are well worn philosophical paths. If you're interested in social interaction from an evolutionary standpoint, you should be looking that meme propagation, not gene propagation.IT is far more likely that memes act on their own selective success independent of their genetic hosts. This means in simplest terms that social development is not necessarily tied to genetic development.

Beyond that, you subscribe to the idea of a "Darwinist." While Darwin is certainly the father of evolutionary theory, he is far from the only pioneer in it. Darwin's many assumptions have been challenged and reworked into a very functional model of biology. compare the development of evolutionary theory to two other models: The planetary (or celestial) model and the atomic model. In neither case will you find that the model has remained static nor, that the originators of these theories were without false assumption. Where you'd get into trouble is by trying to assert that any derivation from the original model means weakness in the model (or potential of the model).

e.g. - With orbiting planetary bodies, when we found out we were wrong about circular orbits actually being elliptical, we didn't say this was a point towards the idea that the sun actually orbited the earth. When we found out that the orbits were frequency based oscillations about an elliptical track, we didn't say that our orbital theory was false. Hell, we have yet to solve the n-body problem. This doesn't meant that modern orbital theory is garbage or that we should adopt primitive myth in it's place until we can be absolute.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

My statement was in response to Wandel when he said that there are many explanations for life.
I disagreed, you either believe that life was created, or that life evolved from non-life(abiogenesis).

I will say though macroevolution cannot be empirically observed by scientists today. Research on it began only 2 or 3 hundred years ago. Macroevolution is on the scale of millions of years. As such it can not be empirically observed and tested by scientists.
The argument for or against.

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

I am not converting. I am saying that if macroevolution is the case, there is no god, there is no absolute moral code, there is only the material world, and in it what is stronger and what is weaker.
If that is the world we live in, what is wrong with any of the things I mentioned in the original post? I tell you that none of them would be wrong. Without the absolute moral code, there could not be a wrong.

Evolutionary selection is about "fit," not strength or power. Understanding this distinction is the first step in correcting your misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory actually is.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

So I would assume that you find rape to be wrong. On what grounds?

It's self solvent or it is not. Consider the opposite, a moral authority demanding that after your army defeats another, you must kill the other army's children, and then take against their will (read: rape) the wives of the soldiers? So either rape is immoral by virtue of our social nature (which requires cooperation), or rape is not wrong (in fact it may be mandatory) by the commandment of a divine authority.

Perhaps, more to the point, I don't have to fight off the urge to rape someone. Rape is a theft of another peron's power/self-agency. Those who rape typically do so to exert control over another human being more than achieve sexual gratification.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So you are asserting that morals arise naturally as evolution continues, as I understand your statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of that.
If that were the case, these morals would be relative, right? As it would evolve differently among different groups of people. Again, if morals are relative, then there is no right or wrong. Hitler and Mother Teresa were both equally right in what they did for/to humanity.

Also, what you suggest would be a kind of social symbiosis, correct? A mutual need of others so that we can progress to new levels and get more done. Okay, I can accept this. But a symbiotic relationship in this nature does not account for morals, only the willingness to cooperate with others, and that only insofar as it is beneficial to your goal.

Let me ask this question... why is survival good?
That is, what objective standard determines that survival, communal or individual, is a good goal?

3 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

I don´t believe in a "normal" concept of Moral...
Moral to me is Social software nothing else, a bit like windows...it serves the purpose of optimizing evolution in terms of the group thus bringing up critical mass for the development of new competences and systems that can prove useful...

0 Replies

@HeroicOvenmitt,

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

If that were the case, these morals would be relative, right? As it would evolve differently among different groups of people.

All moral systems are already relevant independent of evolutionary theory being on the stage or not. Two (or more) systems that both agree on divine order and authority will still have different morals. So there is relativity even without evolution being on the stage at all.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Again, if morals are relative, then there is no right or wrong. Hitler and Mother Teresa were both equally right in what they did for/to humanity.

Since nobody exists outside of all moral systems, no, this is not correct. One can acknowledge the origin of their moral authority and moral relativity as well. Many do. It's false to assert that belief in moral relativity means that a person is unequipped with any moral standard of right and wrong.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

Let me ask this question... why is survival good?

Because we only have fifty cents when we walked into the arcade.

HeroicOvenmitt wrote:

That is, what objective standard determines that survival, communal or individual, is a good goal?

Here is a perfect example of where your equivocation falls flat. If a person never produces children in their life, they fail to pass on their genes, but they are not immoral for electing not to do so. Adopting is an communal collaboration that promotes the genes of another person. It's not immoral, nor is a person a failure of the species for doing so. See the animal kingdom for plenty of other examples of this.

A
R
T

1 Reply

The natural evolution of a Darwinist philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know