Do morals evolve?

[Kiahanie]

Origin of morals has come up a couple times. This is from another thread.

••••
Evolution is not a moral agent or force and it can't think... and therefore it can't produce normative objective morals that are morally binding.
••••
And if evolution is supposed to be slowly inching its way to an objective standard... a standard that we should follow as creatures... how does it do that when evolution can't think? 
••••
On evolution, how do you get an ought from an is?

This could be an interesting discussion. First, I do not hold that evolution is "slowly inching its way to an objective standard." Evolution does not have an ultimate goal. I do agree evolution is not a moral force, but suggest that evolution (biological and cultural) is the objective basis for the development of subjective morals.

Objective reality is the substrate on which cultural morals are founded. A desert tribe with little water and forage has very different moral values than a Southern Pacific culture surrounded by the bounty of land and sea. Morally "good" behaviors are those that encourage the survival and functioning of the society under the conditions in which they find themselves.

IMNSHO.

[kevin]

And if evolution is supposed to be slowly inching its way to an objective standard... a standard that we should follow as creatures... how does it do that when evolution can't think?

excuse me, but ^^^this is fascinating.

francis, are there theist organizations that actually believe this is true? or is it it a personal opinion of yours?

either way, it is a huge misunderstanding of evolution.

i have observed over the years that you have a vested interest in assuming that objective morality exists.

it permeates your philosophy.

is this part of it?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Scripturally, human morals developed in Eden when the couple decided to do what they desired to benefit themselves.  Human morality continues to revolve around that.  It's founding principle has not evolved at all.  What benefits us is good.  What is detrimental to us is bad. 

A faithful Christian's morality revolves around what brings honor to God.  This does include working together to build a community because that brings honor to God, but this is secondary to bringing honor to God.  Personal interests and the pleasures of life become secondary.

In my opinion, human morality alone lacks a greater, unifying purpose.  


  

[8livesleft]

Origin of morals has come up a couple times. This is from another thread.

••••
Evolution is not a moral agent or force and it can't think... and therefore it can't produce normative objective morals that are morally binding.
••••
And if evolution is supposed to be slowly inching its way to an objective standard... a standard that we should follow as creatures... how does it do that when evolution can't think? 
••••
On evolution, how do you get an ought from an is?

This could be an interesting discussion. First, I do not hold that evolution is "slowly inching its way to an objective standard." Evolution does not have an ultimate goal. I do agree evolution is not a moral force, but suggest that evolution (biological and cultural) is the objective basis for the development of subjective morals.

Objective reality is the substrate on which cultural morals are founded. A desert tribe with little water and forage has very different moral values than a Southern Pacific culture surrounded by the bounty of land and sea. Morally "good" behaviors are those that encourage the survival and functioning of the society under the conditions in which they find themselves.

IMNSHO.

I think the more the principle stems from our biology, the more objective it is.

True that our moral code diverges based on the requirements of our environment but as humans, we inevitably share many core values.

We all need some combination of sleep, nutrition, water and sex to satisfy our basic well-being - this is universal to our species.

The environment dictates the specifics, as you mentioned, the differences between desert tribes and islanders. It's these sub-morals that continuously evolve along with changes in the environment.

Our core moral code doesn't evolve much unless we experience some sort of evolutionary change or mutation - which could take hundreds of thousands of years and by then, we could be a different species altogether.

[kevin]

i dont know of any morals or moral code that isnt explained more easily by evolution than by religion.

if anybody can point one out to me id like to know about it.

[Kiahanie]

Scripturally, human morals developed in Eden when the couple decided to do what they desired to benefit themselves.  Human morality continues to revolve around that.  It's founding principle has not evolved at all.  What benefits us is good.  What is detrimental to us is bad.

If Yahweh had some value in mind (like obedience?) then that would have been the beginning of morality. The DoNotEat rule was an ethical instruction on proper behavior. The guys broke the rule for their own reasons: did they value Knowledge more than obedience? Were they just hungry? Dunno.

I agree that capitalism's elevation of the individual has had a negatively distorting effect on human morals. I an working on a post that goes a little deeper than that,, showing that the "founding principle" of human morality has indeed changed.

A faithful Christian's morality revolves around what brings honor to God.  This does include working together to build a community because that brings honor to God, but this is secondary to bringing honor to God.  Personal interests and the pleasures of life become secondary.

In my opinion, human morality alone lacks a greater, unifying purpose. 

Honoring god is not quantifiable and has a lot of radically different interpretations, most of which are pretty abstract involving behavior, many of which encourage antisocial behavior such as accumulation at the expense if others.

In my opinion, working together to build societies that encourage the cooperative flourishing of life and development of human potential provides that unifying purpose. Progress in those areas is quantifiable and can be directly experienced.

[Kiahanie]

••••

I think the more the principle stems from our biology, the more objective it is.

True that our moral code diverges based on the requirements of our environment but as humans, we inevitably share many core values.

We all need some combination of sleep, nutrition, water and sex to satisfy our basic well-being - this is universal to our species.

The environment dictates the specifics, as you mentioned, the differences between desert tribes and islanders. It's these sub-morals that continuously evolve along with changes in the environment.

Our core moral code doesn't evolve much unless we experience some sort of evolutionary change or mutation - which could take hundreds of thousands of years and by then, we could be a different species altogether.

Our biology determines what we need for life. Morals refer to the values that inform our actions as we live our lives. Those morals evolve fairly quickly when environmental or cultural conditions change, which is frequently. Some major changes:

• In hunter-gatherer societies the welfare of the community holds highest value. Cooperation is highly rewarded, individualism that does not serve the community is not rewarded.

The immediate source of moral values is welfare of the tribe.

• The economic transition to slavery resulted in moral transitions as well. The "community" became split between slave and non-slave, producers and relatively nonproducing "consumers." The morals and ethics involving the enslaved community placed primary value on their productivity, not wellbeing. The values of the unslaved community centered on the acquisition of surplus provided by slave labor. "More is more good."

During this period the extended family replaced the foraging tribe as the immediate source of individual moral values. Expanded leisure allowed the development of economically non-profitable activities like art, philosophy, mathematics that acquired moral "good" status for the leisure class, those with the most slaves.

The core values during this period would have been the welfare of extended family and welfare of the slave-owning class.

• The economic and political transition to feudalism marked another major change in moral values. The extended family still served as the focus of individual moral values at all  levels, but now service to the Lord of the Manor was also granted high-value status, derived from the god-given status of whatever king was on top at the time.

Serfs are cheaper than slaves because they house themselves and provide their own maintenance. The value of a serf was measured in productivity. Unproductive or uncooperative serf families could be exiled or killed. Those "To The Manor Born" were highly valued by virtue of birth. Their needs wants whims determined the lives of those beneath them.

The core values of feudalism were welfare of the extended family and loyalty to the hierarchy, king to landowner.

• The transition to capitalism resulted in major changes in morality, particularly in countries unhampered by a feudal history. The first Industrial Revolution saw the development of the means if production to the point where someone who owned the tools could hire someone to use those tools then sell the product for more than the cost of parts & labor, sustaining their own life through the labor of others.

This mode of production resulted in immediate changes in morality. As population increased in the English countryside beyond sustainability, people moved to larger towns and cities to make a living. This marked the beginning of the decline of the extended family as a source of moral value, culminating in the virtual disappearance of extended families in the USA by 2000CE.

For many religionists, a major indicator of moral worth was wealth, which indicated divine favor. Pursuit of wealth became a moral good, as if it were an indication of individual salvation.

The development of capitalism increased emphasis on the value of social production (cooperation) even while the individual owner as "producer" of wealth was glorified. The success of capitalists and capitalism became a moral good. Workers were valued according to individual productivity, and the permanently unemployed provided a source of willingly productive workers.

The core moral values in USA's capitalism are welfare of immediate family and welfare of the capitalist class. Those two are increasingly coming into conflict.

Those are the earth shaking changes. There are lots of smaller ones like mobility, American slavery, the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, etc.

[8livesleft]

••••

I think the more the principle stems from our biology, the more objective it is.

True that our moral code diverges based on the requirements of our environment but as humans, we inevitably share many core values.

We all need some combination of sleep, nutrition, water and sex to satisfy our basic well-being - this is universal to our species.

The environment dictates the specifics, as you mentioned, the differences between desert tribes and islanders. It's these sub-morals that continuously evolve along with changes in the environment.

Our core moral code doesn't evolve much unless we experience some sort of evolutionary change or mutation - which could take hundreds of thousands of years and by then, we could be a different species altogether.

Our biology determines what we need for life. Morals refer to the values that inform our actions as we live our lives. Those morals evolve fairly quickly when environmental or cultural conditions change, which is frequently. Some major changes:

• In hunter-gatherer societies the welfare of the community holds highest value. Cooperation is highly rewarded, individualism that does not serve the community is not rewarded.

The immediate source of moral values is welfare of the tribe.

• The economic transition to slavery resulted in moral transitions as well. The "community" became split between slave and non-slave, producers and relatively nonproducing "consumers." The morals and ethics involving the enslaved community placed primary value on their productivity, not wellbeing. The values of the unslaved community centered on the acquisition of surplus provided by slave labor. "More is more good."

During this period the extended family replaced the foraging tribe as the immediate source of individual moral values. Expanded leisure allowed the development of economically non-profitable activities like art, philosophy, mathematics that acquired moral "good" status for the leisure class, those with the most slaves.

The core values during this period would have been the welfare of extended family and welfare of the slave-owning class.

• The economic and political transition to feudalism marked another major change in moral values. The extended family still served as the focus of individual moral values at all  levels, but now service to the Lord of the Manor was also granted high-value status, derived from the god-given status of whatever king was on top at the time.

Serfs are cheaper than slaves because they house themselves and provide their own maintenance. The value of a serf was measured in productivity. Unproductive or uncooperative serf families could be exiled or killed. Those "To The Manor Born" were highly valued by virtue of birth. Their needs wants whims determined the lives of those beneath them.

The core values of feudalism were welfare of the extended family and loyalty to the hierarchy, king to landowner.

• The transition to capitalism resulted in major changes in morality, particularly in countries unhampered by a feudal history. The first Industrial Revolution saw the development of the means if production to the point where someone who owned the tools could hire someone to use those tools then sell the product for more than the cost of parts & labor, sustaining their own life through the labor of others.

This mode of production resulted in immediate changes in morality. As population increased in the English countryside beyond sustainability, people moved to larger towns and cities to make a living. This marked the beginning of the decline of the extended family as a source of moral value, culminating in the virtual disappearance of extended families in the USA by 2000CE.

For many religionists, a major indicator of moral worth was wealth, which indicated divine favor. Pursuit of wealth became a moral good, as if it were an indication of individual salvation.

The development of capitalism increased emphasis on the value of social production (cooperation) even while the individual owner as "producer" of wealth was glorified. The success of capitalists and capitalism became a moral good. Workers were valued according to individual productivity, and the permanently unemployed provided a source of willingly productive workers.

The core moral values in USA's capitalism are welfare of immediate family and welfare of the capitalist class. Those two are increasingly coming into conflict.

Those are the earth shaking changes. There are lots of smaller ones like mobility, American slavery, the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, etc.

Yeah, I think the main strategy of grouping for survival has placed group principles in the forefront. Group principles are somewhat secondary to individual needs, the way I see it, but there definitely is a balancing act.

At the end of the day, so long as the group continues to serve our needs, then we'll continue to serve the group in return - which also means adopting whatever guiding principles it has, or at least appear like that's what we're doing - some really buy into it tho.

[Kiahanie]

••••

Yeah, I think the main strategy of grouping for survival has placed group principles in the forefront. Group principles are somewhat secondary to individual needs, the way I see it, but there definitely is a balancing act.

At the end of the day, so long as the group continues to serve our needs, then we'll continue to serve the group in return - which also means adopting whatever guiding principles it has, or at least appear like that's what we're doing - some really buy into it tho.

Priority of the individual is a relatively new thing. I believe that is a wrong direction. We are a social species.

[8livesleft]

••••

Yeah, I think the main strategy of grouping for survival has placed group principles in the forefront. Group principles are somewhat secondary to individual needs, the way I see it, but there definitely is a balancing act.

At the end of the day, so long as the group continues to serve our needs, then we'll continue to serve the group in return - which also means adopting whatever guiding principles it has, or at least appear like that's what we're doing - some really buy into it tho.

Priority of the individual is a relatively new thing. I believe that is a wrong direction. We are a social species.

Yeah, not good as a group species if members are all "my way or the highway" or "so long as I'm happy" types.

How recent do you think the "me first" principle started to be at the forefront? You think it started at the same time of the drug surge?

[Kiahanie]

The advent of capitalism began the process. Religions promoted individual salvation. Philosophically, nihilism provided a foundation. Consumerism is focussed on the individual consumer. The disintegration of the extended family helped fracture a sense of community.

It has been only been a short time, A few hundred years. We previously had hundreds of thousands of years of cooperative experience. We might yet grow out of this infantile stage.

[Francis]

And if evolution is supposed to be slowly inching its way to an objective standard... a standard that we should follow as creatures... how does it do that when evolution can't think?

excuse me, but ^^^this is fascinating.

francis, are there theist organizations that actually believe this is true? or is it it a personal opinion of yours?

either way, it is a huge misunderstanding of evolution.

i have observed over the years that you have a vested interest in assuming that objective morality exists.

it permeates your philosophy.

is this part of it?

Honestly... I couldn't find where that quote is located. You don't supply a hyperlink... and the hyperlinks supplied by Kiahnie doesn't lead to that quote.  I used the search function and couldn't find that quote.  and I even looked at the date of the hyperlink that Kiahnie used... and see if I wrote anything on that date that said what the above quote says.  I couldn't find it.  The hyperlink that Kiahnie supplied goes back to a topic about "raping little babies" in the the thread "Re: is god imaginary?"

Maybe i'm just blind, but I couldn't find it.

The quote.. .the way it is written... looks like my writing style... but without context... it's hard to understand whether it's my idea or whether I'm simply using something that was implied by someone else.

Indeed, this thread is only one page long... and it's not in this thread... so the quote had to  have come from another thread somewhere... and the hyperlinks don't appear to reveal where it came from

Blessings


I finally found it...

 It is in "god imaginary?" on Sept 26, not on Sept 25 as the hyperlink said....
https://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,66702.msg944163.html#msg944163



Anyway... now that I found the original proper source and context...

Oxford defines evolution as: "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form".

Nearly 150 years ago, Charles Darwin proposed that morality was a byproduct of evolution, a human trait that arose as natural selection shaped man into a highly social species

this is not something new, but seems to be a standard understanding of the development of "our" morals.

"The Evolution of Morality"
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0167-7

"Morality and Evolutionary Biology"
https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › morality-biol

I could make a long list according to a simple internet search.

But the point is... the idea that morals are the product or result of evolution... which is a gradual development... then morals are gradually... inching along... and have been since man's existence... to what we have today... and will probably be different in the future.

That is the context of what I was trying to say

Hope that clarifies things

Merry Christmas

[kevin]

https://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,66702.msg944163.html#msg944163

i picked a random string from your quote, inserted it into the advanced search box within quotation marks, with you as the poster. it was the first hit. perhaps your account doesnt have the search function configured.

at any rate, the oxford dictionary does not define evolution correctly when the subject is gene frequency change over time: a biological term needs a biological dictionary to define its specific biological meaning.

Oxford defines evolution as: "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form".

^^^this is not correct. no one thinks a dinosaur was simpler than a bird. and evolution can also develop simple organisms from complex ones. some of the most highly evolved organisms on the planet include the tapeworms, which are characterized by losing entire systems present in their ancestors as evolution specialized on their role as gut parasites- no circulatory system, no muscular system, no digestive or nervous system  evolution is nothing more than gene frequency change over time. complexity may or may not be involved.

anyway, your first quote referred to a version of directed evolution, which is a long-discredited 19th century idea.

your second quote is different. i dont think morals evolve in any particular direction or towards any particular end, because evolution is as likely to go one way as another, depending upon the selection regimen.

under some times and circumstances it is evolutionarily adaptive to eat your babies, and sometimes animals do. under other times and circumstances it is not so, and then they dont.

the idea that there a directionality is what is mistaken. evolution follows a mechanical path, which is subject to constant changes as the environment changes.

[Francis]

test to see if this is working because was not able to post my response

[none]

Scripturally, human morals developed in Eden when the couple decided to do what they desired to benefit themselves.  Human morality continues to revolve around that.  It's founding principle has not evolved at all.  What benefits us is good.  What is detrimental to us is bad.

A faithful Christian's morality revolves around what brings honor to God.  This does include working together to build a community because that brings honor to God, but this is secondary to bringing honor to God.  Personal interests and the pleasures of life become secondary.

In my opinion, human morality alone lacks a greater, unifying purpose. 


 

Lilith

[8livesleft]

Scripturally, human morals developed in Eden when the couple decided to do what they desired to benefit themselves.  Human morality continues to revolve around that.  It's founding principle has not evolved at all.  What benefits us is good.  What is detrimental to us is bad.

A faithful Christian's morality revolves around what brings honor to God.  This does include working together to build a community because that brings honor to God, but this is secondary to bringing honor to God.  Personal interests and the pleasures of life become secondary.

In my opinion, human morality alone lacks a greater, unifying purpose. 


 

Lilith

^that is interesting...supposedly Adam's first wife but was banished for not obeying?

Her character supposedly exists in Sumerian tablets (predating judaism?) as some sort of spirit (or demon) associated with a tree...maybe this is where the wood nymph concept came from?

[none]

I dunno
I heard Moses wrote about it in the Torah
I went to the main library in the beta male city and there wasn't a single copy of the Torah or much anything close
Also I heard Adam left eve for Lilith

[8livesleft]

I dunno
I heard Moses wrote about it in the Torah
I went to the main library in the beta male city and there wasn't a single copy of the Torah or much anything close
Also I heard Adam left eve for Lilith

Very interesting. And there's not much regarding how she got there - as opposed to eve from adam's rib...

In other traditions, she's associated with a tree with some kind of serpent/snake figure...sometimes a bird.

So, maybe her character was some sort of holdover from a previous source that everyone sort of believed in at the time - the whole tree, serpent, demon/spirit (lilith) thing...

This sort of ties with a theory I'm thinking of that the tree represents the old thinking.

[none]

Ethics are a standard for the individual with regard to themselves
Morals is for everybody else

[Kiahanie]

I dunno
I heard Moses wrote about it in the Torah
I went to the main library in the beta male city and there wasn't a single copy of the Torah or much anything close
Also I heard Adam left eve for Lilith

Very interesting. And there's not much regarding how she got there - as opposed to eve from adam's rib...

In other traditions, she's associated with a tree with some kind of serpent/snake figure...sometimes a bird.

So, maybe her character was some sort of holdover from a previous source that everyone sort of believed in at the time - the whole tree, serpent, demon/spirit (lilith) thing...

This sort of ties with a theory I'm thinking of that the tree represents the old thinking.

In most mythologies a tree represents solidity, growth, power, connection between heaven and earth.

[kevin]

religions change over time, and absorb the teachings of those that came before.

look at santeria, and the pseudo christian saints it reveres.

or look at christianity, that made demons out of canaanite deities.

why do judaism, islam, and christianity all have shrines on the same spot?

why do indians convert muslim mosques to hindu temples?

sometimes thr reasons are political, other times people bring along cherished parts of other beliefs when they convert

[Kiahanie]

Speaking of which:

Imperial cult temple discovered in Spello: It opens a new chapter in the Roman Empire's transition from paganism to Christianity
American researchers have announced the discovery of an Imperial cult temple in Spello, Italy.

The discovery was announced by Douglas Boin, a history professor at Saint Louis University, at the annual meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America.

The temple was discovered during excavations in Spello, an ancient hilltop town located more than 70 miles north of Rome. The structure is thought to have been built in the fourth century during the reign of Emperor Constantine, who ruled Rome from A.D. 306 to A.D. 337. Constantine was the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity.
••••
---https://arkeonews.net/imperial-cult-temple-discovered-in-spello-it-opens-a-new-chapter-in-the-roman-empires-transition-from-paganism-to-christianity/

[8livesleft]

.

why do judaism, islam, and christianity all have shrines on the same spot?

why do indians convert muslim mosques to hindu temples?

From what I understand, it was for practical reasons. The churches/shrines were already there and the people already made a habit of going so it was easier to simply rebrand. 

The familiarity made adoption easier and all they had to do was amend and count on people's short memory. 

[8livesleft]

I dunno
I heard Moses wrote about it in the Torah
I went to the main library in the beta male city and there wasn't a single copy of the Torah or much anything close
Also I heard Adam left eve for Lilith

Very interesting. And there's not much regarding how she got there - as opposed to eve from adam's rib...

In other traditions, she's associated with a tree with some kind of serpent/snake figure...sometimes a bird.

So, maybe her character was some sort of holdover from a previous source that everyone sort of believed in at the time - the whole tree, serpent, demon/spirit (lilith) thing...

This sort of ties with a theory I'm thinking of that the tree represents the old thinking.

In most mythologies a tree represents solidity, growth, power, connection between heaven and earth.

Right...or of something lasting. And the inclusion of a serpent, bird are also in other mythologies.

But the inclusion of Lilith is cool because she's just sort of there, along with the serpent. It seems like a whole other backstory to me.

So "god" creates adam, then from him, eve in this forest/jungle place...tell adam to name all animals and have eve follow him around...

But there's this special threatening tree with some special creatures and where this Lilith is hanging around in - who's not quite as subservient and so gets banished....

[dutchy]

I completely agree with George Carlin who was ahead of his time.
Morals ? Where ?

We should stop pretending and see what huge immoral mess we created for most people on earth.
Our global moral code sucks, our global solutions suck, our collective denial is huge, our collective self betrayal even bigger.

Only if your personal environment is comfortable, this world seems a good place to live in.
But i find this immoral too, when your personal well being clouds your perception for 90%.
As long as people needlessly suffer because of our ongoing refusal to implement solutions we could easily implement....we are immoral as a whole.
We are immoral because of war, an extremely unjust global economical system, endless debts that will never be payed back, modern forms of slavery and immoral dirty rotten and imbecile jobs we let our fellow humans carry out each and every single day of their god forsaken life,...and  hightech torture chambers for billions of animals with emotions and feelings that we consume every single year.

We should be utterly ashamed to even suggest we have a moral code as modern society in relation to earth as an organic and living whole.
We simply don't, so stop the charade.

[Kiahanie]

^^^^^ !!!!!

[8livesleft]

I completely agree with George Carlin who was ahead of his time.
Morals ? Where ?

We should stop pretending and see what huge immoral mess we created for most people on earth.
Our global moral code sucks, our global solutions suck, our collective denial is huge, our collective self betrayal even bigger.

Only if your personal environment is comfortable, this world seems a good place to live in.
But i find this immoral too, when your personal well being clouds your perception for 90%.
As long as people needlessly suffer because of our ongoing refusal to implement solutions we could easily implement....we are immoral as a whole.
We are immoral because of war, an extremely unjust global economical system, endless debts that will never be payed back, modern forms of slavery and immoral dirty rotten and imbecile jobs we let our fellow humans carry out each and every single day of their god forsaken life,...and  hightech torture chambers for billions of animals with emotions and feelings that we consume every single year.

We should be utterly ashamed to even suggest we have a moral code as modern society in relation to earth as an organic and living whole.
We simply don't, so stop the charade.

I think it boils down to our "aboulophobia" - or fear of boredom, leading to an extremely unhealthy obsession with entertainment. 

Everything seems to be geared towards finding more elaborate ways to entertain ourselves. 

We have to make everything more interesting by being drunk, high or put money on the table to bet on some outcome. 

We're constantly trying to outdo ourselves, needing everything to be right there at our fingertips right in front of our faces 24/7.

But of course, none of this is free. We have to work hard, or lie-cheat-steal hard to play hard.

The problem is literally staring at us right in our faces.

We've lost touch with reality by creating one built solely on entertainment. 

And we wonder why it's hard to sleep and even harder to stay sane.