|
I would have to agree with this debate, I can't think of any animals other than humans, where a true
morality exists.
I do see evidence of love in some animals, beyond what would be considered for strictly keeping the
species going.
But compassion and forgiveness are 2 big parts of morality, and the animal kingdom is severely
lacking there.
Which leads us to humans, being quite UNIQUE, and a huge question. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Yet again the illiterate bugman show he has never bothered to read a book in his Wal-mart working
life.
Richard Dawkins made the point 30 years ago in "The Selfish Gene" that many/most animal species work
in cooperation, that mutual survival guarantees success of the species, both within one species and
in symbiosis. It has been proven that animals accept less or give up benefits, or work in
relationships, to guarantee success and survival.
Conversely, when a godbot claims "you need to be religious to be moral," what he's saying is that
the religious would be raping and murdering if they weren't godbots. It's the rabidly religious who
are the most dangerous, the most selfish and thuggist, and need to be locked away from civilized
people. |
| |
 K9  19 Sep 2008 15:26
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Haha...Bugman, you have the most interesting debates going on. Unfortunately, I would disagree with
you and not in the general speech you made because Genetic Evolution is something completely
different from Sociocultural Evolution. Humans have reached a level that no other creature on this
planet could, which is why it doesn't make sense to compare the greed of humanity in terms of
stealing land from the Native Americans and using slaves for free labor to plain ol' genetic
evolution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is entirely logical for a social animal to develop empathy and morality towards its fellow
organisms. Survival of the group equals survival of the individual. From this biological base more
complex mortality developed as intelligence allows society to develop. Morality is quite simply a
survival mechanism that allows humans to live with humans. And you must admit it has been relatively
successful. By the way, survival of the fittest is a misquoted, misunderstood, and somewhat outdated
evolutionary concept. If you’re going to make this argument you should probably read up on your
subject matter a bit more. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Since evolution is simply the change in allele frequency over time, it has nothing whatsoever to do
with morality. Only a fool would confuse evolution with morality. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Just because we evolve through survival of the fittest doesn't mean that we have no morals are a
"good general sense of guidelines". Evolution actually promotes morals, and in fact, that is why we
have them. Being nice to people is good for us so people who were nicer propagated more and then we
have nicer people. Evolution is why we have a sense to be good.
Your life was moral if evolution was false so if it IS true then why is your life suddenly less
moral. Do you REALLY not "act like an animal" just because you think that we aren't animals. If
someone proved to you that we were animals you'd just start acting like on? Interesting.
It's simple fact in 2008 and you really just need to grow up.
The whole statement just shows how little you really understand about evolution. |
| |
 rawk 12 Sep 2008 08:50
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
To me evolution has nothing to do with morals... I believe in evolution and the whole 'survival of
the fittest' but that doesn't mean i don't think killing another man is horrible. Now ... In the
natural state of things, i can see a point in wanting to think otherwise.. For instance.. Thinking
we shouldn't kill another and we should uphold the value of life has some what contributed to us
over populating the earth ((of course this is a small part of what's contributed to our over
population)).. I think that yes in some ways, we might have tried to separate our species from
nature. Either way nature will prevail. If we continue to over populate then we will eventually
run out of food, and a lot of our species will die off.. Maybe not all, but nature will restore it's
balance in the end. BTW....next time try to give your argument more backbone... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This claim exemplifies the old naturalistic fallacy used by creationists by arguing that the way
things are implies that this is how they should be. The word “is” does not imply “should”.
Evolution is descriptive. It tells how things are, not how they should be. Also, any morals derived
from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. The
process of evolution naturally leads to social animals, such as humans (who have developed ethical
principles). Morals are an advantage of evolution when it comes to social species. So it’s quite
ridiculous to claim that evolution prevents the concept of moral laws. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oh shut up. Been there, done that. There are countless debates on this website with exactly the same
topic. Search for them. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
