06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipI'll guess at what you mean and try and explain as best I can.
In this group cooperation is it ever possible for the majority of a group to be wrong?
What we call morality is a complex concept largely consisting of behaviours that encourage cooperation. To a large extent is it post justification for our natural instinct.
Our natural instinct has a number of key features that we see played out in what we call morality.
1. The concept of helping / and not harming others but only if it doesn't come at significant personal cost.
2. The concepts surrounding what to do when people do not help / avoid harming others. So all the notions of 'justice' etc. ie how do we react to non-cooperative behaviour and try to encourage cooperation in others.
3. The concepts surrounding relation and group behaviour. We not only accept that people are more likely to help their close relations or group but to some extent include group dynamics in morality, so that things like national pride or dying for your country becomes the moral thing to do.
The above is just a rough summary, it would take a whole book to really go into it all.
You are asking whether in group cooperation the majority can be wrong. In a simplified form of morality where 'cooperation=right' and 'not cooperating=wrong' then if the majority are cooperating for the good of the group then they are right and if they are not cooperating for the good of the group then they are wrong. The latter does occur.
What I suspect you are getting at is the age old question of whether or not morality is decided by the majority. I am saying that no, morality isn't decided at all, morality is about cooperation.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipHillary and the US federal government is evolving morality even further. 😵
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?
How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipIn human society, rape does result in enhanced survivability in certain situations, and this is one reason why rape does take place especially during times of war.
If Evolution is the source of moral truth then its ever changing nature results in ever changing morals ?
Then rape may be good someday when it enhances a species survivability.
Interestingly, even the Bible encourages it in such situations.
That doesn't make it morally good. Morality is not equivalent to survival. Morality is more related to empathy and cooperation - which do not always enhance survival.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI would suggest a search on the.evolution of morality if I thought your questions were any more than rhetorical devices.
To get to the place of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory some chemical reaction is going
to acquire some form of understanding to make a judgment call. Getting to that place
seems quite a reach if the only thing driving change is well, nothing. So something
evolves to a place it can have a thought and hold it to the point of pondering meaning,
What ...[text shortened]... ile we were floating around as asexual creatures, when we started walking
on two legs, or when?
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
I would suggest a search on the.evolution of morality if I thought your questions were any more than rhetorical devices.
down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?
Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, a battery-operated microprocessor can apply a chemical reaction to logical analysis in ways not known a century ago.
Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?
Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
You might consider whether your reaction to the above is getting off the starting block.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you asking if mind can exist without God?
Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?
Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
06 Sep 16
1 edit
Here is peak at the morality of the pre-Christian era.
http://listverse.com/2016/09/06/10-insane-ways-spartan-boys-were-made-into-warriors/
It starts with about half of all Spartan babies being left to die. The weak were discarded.
Gee, I wonder if they had dumpsters like they do today to throw them in.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by JS357Yes that is like saying an abacus had a thought because logic was applied with it.
Well, a battery-operated microprocessor can apply a chemical reaction to logical analysis in ways not known a century ago.
You might consider whether your reaction to the above is getting off the starting block.
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNeither of us could prove either side of that discussion, though I think showing how it
Are you asking if mind can exist without God?
came together then started functioning would be a tall tale that a lot of faith would have to
be used. To be accepted as a plausible we would need to accept more than a small
number of "should haves", "could haves", "might of", "its possible that" on top accepting
everything else required just happen to be at the right place at the right time and on and
on.