Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat I have said about the role of morality in stitching together and manifesting the communal side of human nature and existence has got absolutely nothing to do with what you may or may not approve of about "the nineteen sixties".
lets ask you again, how has the hedonism and self indulgence of the nineteen sixties contributed to us being more fitter and stronger for survival? second time asking.
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh dear what was it that sent convicts to Australia in the first place, a legal system based on a moral code. What was it that was a contributing factor in European squatters grabbing aboriginal land? a morality based on greed. What was it that influenced the Australian government to employ a white only policy? a morality based on racism and thus contrary to your rhetoric we can determine that morality was involved in every stage.
It seems that once again you have failed to grasp reality and the idea that the aborigines morality made them more fit and stronger for survival has been refuted because it made them nothing of the sort because another people came with a different moral code which superseded it and almost wiped them out as I have clearly shown. The unfounded, uncorroborated and quite frankly ludicrous hypothesis that morality evolved to make the aborigines more fitter and stronger for survival is naught but some limp secular biscuit airy fairy pie-in-the-sky notion with no empirical evidence with which to inflate it. Its a dud.
You appear to be paying absolutely no attention to anything I am posting and are instead harping on about something that has nothing to do with what I said.
Originally posted by FMFSo you cannot tell us how the hedonism and self indulgent morality of the nineteen sixties has made us more fitter and stronger. Ouch! you are not doing very well. Ok lets broaden the spectrum. Can you cite any epoch from history that has made us more fitter and stronger for survival due to the employment of morality?
What I have said about the role of morality in stitching together and manifesting the communal side of human nature and existence has got absolutely nothing to do with what you may or may not approve of about "the nineteen sixties".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said before, morals govern human interactions and behaviour. Being social creatures, and living in communities and societies, humans have developed as moral beings because that is how those communities become strong and survive, and, indeed, the weak can be cared for or protected from stuff like "the fittest outstripping the weakest". This applies to all epochs in the history of human existence.
Can you cite any epoch from history that has made us more fitter and stronger for survival due to the employment of morality?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not discussing what you think of "the nineteen sixties". It's of no interest to me what you think about that decade or even how you happen to perceive it.
So you cannot tell us how the hedonism and self indulgent morality of the nineteen sixties has made us more fitter and stronger. Ouch! you are not doing very well.
I am talking about the origin of moral sense in humans. I don't even think what I am saying is controversial.
A moral sense is partly inherent in the hard wiring of humans, and it's partly obtained through socialization. Your liking for ancient Hebrew mythology stuff is part of the latter (exposure to the Bible is part of your experience and it appealed to your moral sense); you're ability to make morally sound decisions in cases where your Christian/Hebrew folklore doesn't offer solutions is probably partly dependent on the hard wiring aspect in combination with your experience and upbringing.
I would have thought that you'd seek to attribute the hard wiring part to your God figure as part of His creation. But instead you've gone off on a red herring run about Aboriginals and the 1960s.
Originally posted by FMFThe question with regard to the nineteen sixties was intended to seek from you how it contributed to our being fitter and stronger. Here is your claim again.
I'm not discussing what you think of "the nineteen sixties". It's of no interest to me what you think about that decade or even how you happen to perceive it.
I am talking about the origin of moral sense in humans. I don't even think what I am saying is controversial.
A moral sense is partly inherent in the hard wiring of humans, and it's partly obtained ...[text shortened]... His creation. But instead you've gone off on a red herring run about Aboriginals and the 1960s.
Humans have developed as moral beings because that is how those communities become strong and survive.
Clearly you cannot answer it either because you don't know how it helped us become fitter or stronger or because your hypothesis that morality evolves to help us become fitter and stronger is complete pants. (There may be other reasons also for example that it did not contribute at all to us being fitter and stronger and infact had the opposite effect)
Once again let us broaden the spectrum even further to give you a much needed helping hand. ( perhaps a slap on the back of the head is what is really needed) Can you cite any evidence for the claim? any evidence of a developing morality that has made us become fitter and stronger as you have claimed.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIndeed. This is true. Without codes and standards and mores that govern their interactions as social beings, their families, communities and societies would be weaker and unsustainable. Humans acting alone would have become extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago most likely. I believe this capacity for moral sense is innate in humans.
"Humans have developed as moral beings because that is how those communities become strong and survive."
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFOnce again let us broaden the spectrum even further to give you a much needed helping hand. ( perhaps a slap on the back of the head is what is really needed) Can you cite any evidence for the claim? any evidence of a developing morality that has made us become fitter and stronger as you have claimed.
Indeed. This is true. Without codes and standards than govern their interactions as social beings their families, communities and societies would be unsustainable. I believe this capacity for moral sense is innate in humans.
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHumans working collectively are "fitter and stronger", as you put it (not me), than humans working only as individuals. If you dispute this, just say so.
...any evidence of a developing morality that has made us become fitter and stronger as you have claimed.
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFI am not interested in what you believe per se, what you conjecture or what you fabricate, I am interested in evidence, please provide evidence of a morality that has evolved to help the adherent of that morality become fitter and stronger.
Indeed. This is true. Without codes and standards and mores that govern their interactions as social beings, their families, communities and societies would be weaker and unsustainable. Humans acting alone would have become extinct hundreds of thousands of years ago most likely. I believe this capacity for moral sense is innate in humans.
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you please copy past the post of mine in which I used the phrase "become fitter or stronger"?
Clearly you cannot answer it either because you don't know how it helped us become fitter or stronger or because your hypothesis that morality evolves to help us become fitter and stronger is complete pants.
17 Jul 16
Originally posted by FMFI am not disputing anything at this juncture. What I am trying to do is to extract evidence for your claim, evidence that a morality has developed that made the recipient fitter and stronger.
Humans working collectively are "fitter and stronger", as you put it (not me), than humans working only as individuals. If you dispute this, just say so.