On the subject of animals!

Soul Winner

I know its late but I’m bored and can’t sleep so humor me.

If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof? Wouldn't this be considered "species-ism" by other species? To where do we anchor this assumption that we are the highest? Because we make tools? Other animals will just say that they don’t need tools, that all their tools are built in naturally and they do not need to extend their sensory apparatus any more than they have to in order to survive, so you could say that they are more advanced than us in many different ways, because if we are only just another species then our primary functions is to survive also.

And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one? If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived? And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it? Why not adopt the crocodile’s moral value system if that’s' the case? They've been around longer than us and will probably outlive us too, so why not adopt their moral value system (whatever that is) if we are not the highest form of animal? Theirs at least has a proven track record due to their longevity of survival, and as already said if all we are is animals then our primary objective is to merely survive as a species for as long as possible anyway.

Whether God exists or not, man is not the source from which any moral value systems are derived. Why? Because if God does exist then He is the source from which we derive our value system. And even if He doesn't exist where do get off thinking we are the source? We are just a byproduct of an evolutionary process which will become extinct in a relatively short space of time anyway, so where do we get off thinking that our system is the highest moral good? If all we are is just another species of animal then who is to say that if a super intelligent race of aliens came to earth that they would pick us as the primary species to study and not say, cows or bears or eagles or ants?

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know its late but I’m bored and can’t sleep so humor me.

If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?

Personally, I don't consider humans a higher form of life than other animals. Each species has it's own niche in the biosphere which has maintained equilibrium (more or less) for billions of years.
Once the next mass extinction passes it will be time to judge again. We won't seem so mighty if we don't make it through.

AtomicHorror

No organism is "higher" than any other, simply because there is no means to measure evolutionary height. We are fit to our environment or we are not. We reproduce or we fail to. We are measured only by the perpetuation of our genes. By that measure, bacteria, beetles and an overwhelming number of parasitic worms are doing just as well as us if not better.

Now, we could go by complexity, but there's plenty of animals that match us or beat us in that regard.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Now, we could go by complexity, but there's plenty of animals that match us or beat us in that regard.

Dam you octopus!!!

*shakes fist* :mad:

*Octopus shakes back, times 8!* :eek:

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

To where do we anchor this assumption that we are the highest?

To my mind, we don't anchor it anywhere since us atheists don't believe ourselves "higher" than anything else -- we're all here on this earth, puttering along, doing our best, maintaining our ecological niche, same as every other organism.

Our eyes are less well designed than octopuses, we see less clearly than eagles, we run slower and smell less accurately than dogs, we don't live as long as trees, we swim worse than fish, we don't fly at all and pound for pound, we'd probably lose a fight with most animals our size. Not much to be proud of there.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived?

It's derives from the effort and the informed consent of the ruled -- perhaps like a bit like a statute-book version of wikipedia.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it?

Because under the above, we agree to be bound by the rules that we create. And why, as animals, should we not stick to our word?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Whether God exists or not, man is not the source from which any moral value systems are derived.

Nonsense. There are very simple, very convincing, explanations about why co-operation and honesty are much better choices than defaulting and dishonesty and none of them require gods. There are plenty of other species that exhibit the same kind of extensive co-operative social behaviour that humans do -- it's not that special at all.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?

This is an arbitrary objective judgement. A side effect, I assume, of your belief in an omnipotent God.

Humans are smarter and more complex than most other animals. That doesn't make us "better".

And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?

There is no best moral system. Just the ones we prefer. We can agree on certain basic principles, such as "people suffering is bad" and "people deserve to be happy" and such things, and then argue about how that is best achieved.

Sometimes we just can't discuss it usefully, such as with religious values. If a Christian asserts that what is "good" is what God wants, then thats the end of the conversation. This is the central thrust of Sam Harris' arguments. He is terrified of the immunity to rational discussion that faith brings. I can't convince a fundamentalist Muslim that infidels don't deserve to die, because God says they do, and God is right.

If there's no God, then what does the humanist anchor its idea of their moral value system to? How is it derived?

Feelings. It sounds a little soft but still, most people share feelings about how we should treat each other, and sometimes we can agree on how we'll behave.

And why if we are just animals should we adhere to it?

Because we want to. Lets not be naive, if someone wants to behave in a manner others will find reprehensible, they'll do it anyway. Hence the amount of rapists and murderers in the world.

If all we are is just another species of animal then who is to say that if a super intelligent race of aliens came to earth that they would pick us as the primary species to study and not say, cows or bears or eagles or ants?

Yes, they might. But I doubt it. Like I said, our distinguishing trait is advanced intelligence, which allows us to have technology. Thats a trait an alien species is likely to share, and therefore find us interesting.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Personally, I don't consider humans a higher form of life than other animals.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No organism is "higher" than any other, simply because there is no means to measure evolutionary height.

robindch wrote: »

To my mind, we don't anchor it anywhere since us atheists don't believe ourselves "higher" than anything else

Zillah wrote: »

This is an arbitrary objective judgement. A side effect, I assume, of your belief in an omnipotent God.

Humans are smarter and more complex than most other animals. That doesn't make us "better".

I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals. We wouldn't swerve into a child on a pavement to save a dog in the road, we wouldn't allow drugs be tested on children that might save chimpanzees in the long term, we don't keep humans as pets and we certainly wouldn't kill and eat another human.

Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.

Zillah

pH wrote: »

Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.

In terms of my own subjective feelings, yes, I will frequently value human life over other forms of life. I don't think that stems from any inherent superiority of human life. I won't for a second defend it as anything other than a feeling I have.

Apparently you share this feeling. Good, lets build a society. But if you'll sit in an armchair and try to argue that human life has some universally objective superiority then I'll call you a fool. I'll do it! I can take the infraction!

The religious would of course attempt to counter this with the childish notion of the soul. Twice the fools I say!

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?

If you believe religion is made up, then there is no material difference between a non religious humanistic moral value system and a religious one. One system is dynamic, and created from inherent human compassion with the requirement for a structured society to live in, the other is, for example, a static one created by bronze age nomads.

Value systems can be perfect, it's the lack of adherence to them that's the problem.

robindch wrote: »

There are very simple, very convincing, explanations about why co-operation and honesty are much better choices than defaulting and dishonesty and none of them require gods. There are plenty of other species that exhibit the same kind of extensive co-operative social behaviour that humans do -- it's not that special at all.

QFT...

The very fact that other species (e.g. primates) live within primitive social structures is evidence against the notion that a God especially "gave" humans morality.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Among all species on earth, humans probably have the most computing power. Maybe that's why some people consider themselves 'higher' than animals. But humans also waste the earths resources, and we go to extreme lengths to eliminate our rivals and cause mass bloodshed, so maybe that 'balances' out our value here on earth.

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God, and all we are is a species of animal like all the other species of animals, then where do we get off assuming that we are the highest form thereof?...

because we can. As a species we have a selfish need to protect ourselves and our genes and propagate them on to another generation. All species share this unstoppable urge to exist. Do you think a Lion weighs up whether it is better for that gazelle to live rather feeding its cubs? No, it kills it instinctively to keep its genes propagating.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if we are not the highest form of animal then how can a non religious humanistic moral value system be regarded as the better order on which to live one's life than the religious one?

The difference is one set of morals puts the onus on all humans to decide what's right and wrong, the other set of morals puts the onus on a small minority of humans to decide what is right and wrong because they believe a magical spirit speaks to them.

pH wrote: »

I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.

Nothing really that amazing tbh. I accept that I have as much right on this planet as any other creature, but I also accept that I am human and want my species to survive over all others. This opinion of being "higher" really is subjective. Put any of us alone in the middle of the Amazon and tell me you feel higher in importance than any of the other animals living there.

robindch

pH wrote: »

In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.

Nope, I think you're misinterpreting what was said. We're not "better" than animals -- we are animals -- we're the same as them. That means that we don't adopt the influential religious view that:

god wrote:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

...in which the world is thought to exist for the benefit of human beings alone.

I'd imagine that most atheists believe that we're all in this together and we should treat life and the earth with as much respect as possible. It's not as though we're prone to thinking that god's going to show up with a new earth if we break this one.

Tomk1

The real question should be why religionists believe they are/have to be the higher form of life (apart from sky-daddy of course). Currently we Humans are the most intelligent life form on Earth well suppose to be cough.."Soul Winner". But in real society the most intelligent don't aspire to being at the highest level....George Bush for example.

Soul Winner: you just want to feel special, the world was created just for you, the trees, the flowers, rainbows, cancer. cop-on and grow up gods'-little-child.

Dades

Tomk1, you cop on, and stop dragging the discussion down to that level.

Soul Winner

Ok lets go a little deeper with this.

If there is no God, then how do we judge what is good and what is evil? One of the reasons that atheists are atheists is that they cannot believe that a God who is supposed to be all good would allow evil (as we see it) to exist.

Ok so, let us assume that there is no God. From what do we derive our moral judgment on things? Can animals be evil or just humans? If only humans can be evil, then why only humans? If all we are is just another form of animal? Why aren’t male lions for instance considered evil for killing cubs from another male lion in order that the mother lioness will become receptive again and produce cubs for him? If a human man did that he would be adjudged evil wouldn’t he? Why not the male lions? Are monkeys in a sense evil for their casual sex behaviour and promiscuity? Do they even know any of these concepts? And even if they did know and still did these things would that make them evil? Why do humans have these concepts if all we are is but a by-product of an evolutionary process like all other animals? Where do we get this stuff from? What use is it? If we are just animals then where did this seemingly solely human trait arise? Where is the evolutionary advantage in it? Where will it lead? Why have it if it ultimately has no purpose for anything?

Why is it immoral (in our view) for somebody to rape and yet animals do it all the time? Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating an anything goes behaviour type world, I just want to get into the world where we have no God, never had one, never made one up, or were never exposed to any form of deity in our entire history, we only ever lived in a world where we and all the other animals exist. Would it be right or wrong to rape or kill? If wrong then why is it wrong? How do we define wrong and why do we define wrong? Why are there things that are deemed unacceptable? And why is it that only humans are hung up on this if all we are is just another (and in most cases) lesser form of animal?

To presume something is evil, then we must have some sort of standard by which we measure what is deemed evil and what is not. If there is no God and therefore no law from God then by what standard do we deem something as evil whereby we may not do the evil and do the good? Why are we bound to have a law at all if there is no God? What is the evolutionary advantage in having a law that prohibits certain types of behaviour that seem natural for other animals to do in order that they maybe propagate and survive? And allow other more acceptable behaviours like love and compassion and charity? Are we freaks of evolution? It would appear so if there really is no God. Why do we value ourselves more than animals? From whence comes this value system, if not from God? And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why do we value ourselves more than animals?

Er, did you read any of the posts up above?

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

Er, did you read any of the posts up above?

+1

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok lets go a little deeper with this.

If there is no God, then how do we judge what is good and what is evil?

I little bit of common sense?

Soul Winner wrote: »

One of the reasons that atheists are atheists is that they cannot believe that a God who is supposed to be all good would allow evil (as we see it) to exist.

It does seem unlikely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok so, let us assume that there is no God. From what do we derive our moral judgment on things? Can animals be evil or just humans? If only humans can be evil, then why only humans?

Well, where does the term evil come from? Who decides what evil is? Evil is a term which has been ascribed to certain behaviours which are seen in the animal kingdom. I think that as we see ourselves as more developed (arguably) we hold ourselves to a higher set of values. Therefore actions which may be natural and still happen in other animal species are not acceptable in our particular social setting.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all we are is just another form of animal? Why aren’t male lions for instance considered evil for killing cubs from another male lion in order that the mother lioness will become receptive again and produce cubs for him?

Because in the case of a lion it is perfectly natural and it is the way things are done in that society.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If a human man did that he would be adjudged evil wouldn’t he?

Evil, perhaps, it is a bit of an emotive word. Bad? Yes. Operating outside of normal social norms and values? Most definitely.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why not the male lions?

Because they aren’t human. They have no concept of evil.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are monkeys in a sense evil for their casual sex behaviour and promiscuity?

But then I would not call a human exhibiting the same behaviour evil.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do they even know any of these concepts?

I don’t know.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And even if they did know and still did these things would that make them evil?

Evil to who?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why do humans have these concepts if all we are is but a by-product of an evolutionary process like all other animals? Where do we get this stuff from? What use is it? If we are just animals then where did this seemingly solely human trait arise? Where is the evolutionary advantage in it? Where will it lead? Why have it if it ultimately has no purpose for anything?

Because there is an advantage to behaving that way.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why is it immoral (in our view) for somebody to rape and yet animals do it all the time?

We think it is wrong to rape because we live in a civilised society that protects the rights of its people.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong I am not advocating an anything goes behaviour type world, I just want to get into the world where we have no God, never had one, never made one up, or were never exposed to any form of deity in our entire history, we only ever lived in a world where we and all the other animals exist.

I think that there are advantages to not raping and murdering willy nilly.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Would it be right or wrong to rape or kill? If wrong then why is it wrong? How do we define wrong and why do we define wrong? Why are there things that are deemed unacceptable? And why is it that only humans are hung up on this if all we are is just another (and in most cases) lesser form of animal?

We live in a highly developed society. As such the advantages of raping and murdering are probably reduced. We have developed norms and values as well as procedures which most people follow. In addition, there are punishments for not following these norms and values. A lion has good reason for killing the offspring of another mail. It makes genetic sense, there is only advantage. He kills of the genes of a competitor and get the chance to spread his own. He won’t be looking over his shoulder for the cops and is unlikely to get much resistance from the females when he wants to mate. The same cannot be said for human society.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To presume something is evil, then we must have some sort of standard by which we measure what is deemed evil and what is not.

Evil is slightly different. You call things evil because the bible tells you so. As I get older I become less comfortable with the term evil. As an atheist I am not sure that I can really use the term evil as you do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God and therefore no law from God then by what standard do we deem something as evil whereby we may not do the evil and do the good? Why are we bound to have a law at all if there is no God?

Because a stable society needs law.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is the evolutionary advantage in having a law that prohibits certain types of behaviour that seem natural for other animals to do in order that they maybe propagate and survive?

The group benefits from these laws. The society is more stable and people have a better chance of surviving and therefore passing on their genes.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And allow other more acceptable behaviours like love and compassion and charity?

Love help to keep society stable. As does compassion and charity. We are looking after our own for the benefit of the species.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Are we freaks of evolution?

Perhaps. Our lives are a lot easier than they used to be. Obviously evolution is still working on us, but it is very very slow and we have developed other method to allow ourselves to survive in changing environments.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would appear so if there really is no God. Why do we value ourselves more than animals?

I am not sure that everyone does, as has already been pointed out to you.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From whence comes this value system, if not from God?

How did we get to the point where religion developed?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?

I think the obvious answer is that they have not been eliminated because they do not cause a fatal disadvantage.

That is my uneducated & very simplistic 2 cents anyway.

MrP

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

Now maybe you're all playing clever word games with "better" and "higher", but I certainly value human life a lot higher than all animal life.

Depends on the human TBH.

pH wrote: »

I'm amazed. In practical terms in everyday life I bet every one of you values a human life as "higher" and "better" than animals.

Depends on the animal.

pH wrote: »

We wouldn't swerve into a child on a pavement to save a dog in the road,

Replace 'child' with 'murderous paedophile' and I'm sure a lot of people will save the dog.

pH wrote: »

we wouldn't allow drugs be tested on children that might save chimpanzees in the long term,

Again, replace 'children' with 'Hitler' and some of us might.

pH wrote: »

we don't keep humans as pets

Some people are kept as pets. I would provide links to fetish websites but I don't think that is allowed.

pH wrote: »

and we certainly wouldn't kill and eat another human.

Again some people do. I'm sure it would be more common were it not illegal.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why do we value ourselves more than animals?

Evolutionarily that has worked out well for us don't ya think? Most other animals do it don't they? We've just been particularly good at it or better at it for now at least. A lion values itself more than a dear when it eats it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

From whence comes this value system, if not from God? And if we are not more valuable then why do we have these traits? What use are they and what purpose do they serve? Why hasn’t Natural Selection eliminated them yet if there is no ultimate purpose in evolving such traits?

Again same question? Why can't morality be an animal trait? Why do you have such low opinions of animals? After all with all due respect you and I are both animals.

Galvasean

I recall reading somewhere that certain kinds of monkey/ape shun those in their society who commit rape.
I'd find a source but I'm not in a position to google 'monkey rape' right now.

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

Evil is slightly different. You call things evil because the bible tells you so. As I get older I become less comfortable with the term evil. As an atheist I am not sure that I can really use the term evil as you do.

Now hold on a minute. We hear all the time that God cannot exist because evil is allowed to exist don't we? That one is non stop from atheists as an argument to prove that God does not and cannot exist. If there is no God because evil is there then it is a non Biblical evil isn't it? It is an evil adjuged so by atheists who contend that God is not there, so it cannot be derived from God or the Bible. It is not the evil that I was thought from the Bible because God doesn't exist which makes that version of evil invalid. So if it’s a non Biblical evil then who decides that it is in fact evil? Don't turn the tables on my Biblical views, we all know that they are stupid and invalid now because God doesn't exist. I'm talking about evil outside of the Biblical frame, the atheist’s evil. By what moral compass does an atheist regard something or someone as evil outside the Biblical frame? Common sense doesn't really cut it. What is common sense and what purpose does it serve? Collective good maybe but morally what does it achieve? Why do we want to be moral?

OK-Cancel-Apply

Numbers 15:32-37 wrote:

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

I think it's safe to say that nobody on this forum gets their morals from 'God'.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

....Why do we want to be moral?

Cause doin business is easier than fighting

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

I recall reading somewhere that certain kinds of monkey/ape shun those in their society who commit rape.
I'd find a source but I'm not in a position to google 'monkey rape' right now.

Here’s the deal: We are told that Natural Selection is a purposeless non sentient process that eliminates traits that weaken the survival chances of a species and keeps the ones that are more advantageous.

So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection? What advantage does it have? Wouldn't they be better off without this trait as it would avoid the necessity of lessening their numbers and strength as a group through shunning? Surely this shunning is not advantageous to the species unless it has a purpose. And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?

Soul Winner

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

I think it's safe to say that nobody on this forum gets their morals from 'God'.

That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here’s the deal: We are told that Natural Selection is a purposeless non sentient process that eliminates traits that weaken the survival chances of a species and keeps the ones that are more advantageous.

NS doesn't eliminate or keep anything. Better genetic traits simply have more chance of survival, and hence propagate.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?

You are the only one who continues to use the word "purpose", the effect of which is only to confuse yourself it seems.

Why do you see morality in primates as a disadvantage, but believe humans need morality as prescribed by God? Only a few short years ago humans were still banging rocks together and dragging their knuckles. Morality seems to have brought them some way along.

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now hold on a minute. We hear all the time that God cannot exist because evil is allowed to exist don't we? That one is non stop from atheists as an argument to prove that God does not and cannot exist.

That, I believe, is using your definition of evil.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If there is no God because evil is there then it is a non Biblical evil isn't it? It is an evil adjuged so by atheists who contend that God is not there, so it cannot be derived from God or the Bible.

Well that is kind of my point. I don’t believe in god, so I am not sure, personally about the use of the word evil. To me it has religious or biblical connotations. For example you think that having loads of sex is evil. I don’t even necessarily think that is bad, let alone evil.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is not the evil that I was thought from the Bible because God doesn't exist which makes that version of evil invalid. So if it’s a non Biblical evil then who decides that it is in fact evil?

I would not say evil. I would say bad, or unethical, or anti social or just plain nasty.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Don't turn the tables on my Biblical views, we all know that they are stupid and invalid now because God doesn't exist.

You said it, not me.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm talking about evil outside of the Biblical frame, the atheist’s evil.

Does evil exist outside the biblical frame? This is what I am questioning. I don’t know myself. When I use the term evil I am not 100% comfortable with it.

Soul Winner wrote: »

By what moral compass does an atheist regard something or someone as evil outside the Biblical frame?

See above.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Common sense doesn't really cut it.

I would has to disagree with you there. Common sense tells us we should not do certain things.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is common sense and what purpose does it serve?

It allows us to make behavioural decisions based on incomplete information. You can visit a country and not know the laws, common sense would tell you they are likely to be similar to those you are familiar with.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Collective good maybe but morally what does it achieve? Why do we want to be moral?

I tend to give us humans a bit more credit than you seem to. I know how I like to be treated and how I don’t like to be treated. I have children and I have very strong feelings about how they should be treated. I want to be moral because that is how I believe humans in a civilised society should behave.

MrP

OK-Cancel-Apply

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?

Dawkins likes to go on at length about just where we get our morals from. He believes that there are Darwinian reasons for the behaviour we now call 'good' behaviour. The whole 'treat others as you would have them treat you' thing seems to make sociological sense.

EDIT: Another good answer might be "We don't yet know".

MrPudding

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection?

This has already been answered a couple of times.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What advantage does it have?

It doesn’t necessarily need to have an advantage, just not have a lethal disadvantage.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Wouldn't they be better off without this trait as it would avoid the necessity of lessening their numbers and strength as a group through shunning? Surely this shunning is not advantageous to the species unless it has a purpose. And if its purpose is to strengthen the group then how can we say that Natural Selection is purposeless process? You can’t have it both ways, can you?

It is not having it both ways. I am no expert, but I think it is possible to see an reason why the shunning could still exist. Over a long period of time the animals in question will have developed a method for reproduction and the continuance of their species. Presumably this will be along the lines of limited access to the females for the purposes of mating. One of the number that carries out a rape, will presumably be bypassing the “normal” mating procedure for this group, after all, if he was allowed to mate with the females then it would not be rape. Therefore this type of behaviour goes against that which is seen as acceptable for the group. The animal is shunned by the group. This will reduce the likelihood of this particular animal passing on its genes. As the group do not like the behaviour of this particular animal, this is good as it prevents this behavioural trait from being passed on, assuming of course there is a genetic reason for the behaviour.

Therefore this shunning behaviour will have the effect of preserving the mating behaviour that has developed over a long period of time. Again there is no purpose required. Either there is an advantage or not.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?

I think people use the term evil because you use it.

MrP

Botany Bay

Soul Winner.


Read the Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection? What advantage does it have?

The very obvious advantage that for a species which reproduces slowly, it's much easier to replicate successfully in a nice peaceful neighborhood with co-operative friends than a dangerous one in which kids keep on getting killed. There is no selection advantage to being a dead child.

Make sense?

robindch

Botany Bay wrote: »

Read the Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

Or even just the chapter named, afair, "Nice Guys Finish First".

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

For example you think that having loads of sex is evil. I don’t even necessarily think that is bad, let alone evil.

I know it probably read like that to you but I don't actually think having loads of sex makes somebody evil, so maybe I shouldn't have used the promiscuous monkeys as an example of evil. But the lions killing the cubs, if a man did that he would be considered evil, or bad. Bad by what standard though? Lets assume that traits in this man took over our race, and this trait became the dominant trait in mankind and did in fact benefit healthy propagation in our species, would it then be considered bad? No it wouldn't, it would be considered natural. Which means that our definition of good and bad is relative to our survival needs.

MrPudding wrote: »

Does evil exist outside the biblical frame? This is what I am questioning. I don’t know myself. When I use the term evil I am not 100% comfortable with it.

What would you consider to be an evil person, by your own definition? Mine would be somebody who took great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors.

MrPudding wrote: »

I tend to give us humans a bit more credit than you seem to. I know how I like to be treated and how I don’t like to be treated. I have children and I have very strong feelings about how they should be treated. I want to be moral because that is how I believe humans in a civilised society should behave.

To what end though? Or is that itself an end? That people just should behave this way?

I think most of the posters missed my general question. If God does not exist because evil exists then by what standard to we call something evil. I use the word evil because that is the word atheists use when they use this method of reasoning. All I get is that I don’t understand this and I don’t understand that kind of answers, can nobody simply give me straight honest from the heart answer? There is no right or wrong one, just whatever’s in you that you want to say about it, it doesn’t necessarily have to involved having a pop at me en-route.

Edit: Admittedly the "having a pop at me" remark sounds a bit harsh. Pop at my beliefs might have been a better phrase.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think most of the posters missed my general question. If God does not exist because evil exists then by what standard to we call something evil. I use the word evil because that is the word atheists use when they use this method of reasoning.

But atheists don't hold much stock with the word evil - for the exact reasons you mention. It is a religious word that generally describes stuff that goes against that religion's laws. Of course if has found it's way in common parlance, but it has no merit in a discussion about evolution and societal structure.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What would you consider to be an evil person, by your own definition? Mine would be somebody who took great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors.

I think the definition of a person who takes great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors would be found in a psychiatry textbook, and I'm fairly sure the term "evil" wouldn't be involved.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

But atheists don't hold much stock with the word evil - for the exact reasons you mention. It is a religious word that generally describes stuff that goes against that religion's laws. Of course if has found it's way in common parlance, but it has no merit in a discussion about evolution and societal structure.

I think the definition of a person who takes great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors would be found in a psychiatry textbook, and I'm fairly sure the term "evil" wouldn't be involved.

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

From Wiki: "Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior.

My questions is what is it? I know there are religious meanings for it, but what are the atheistic meanings for it coming via the "God cannot exist because evil exists" argument? Was what the Nazis did in Europe evil? Was it evil to them or where they carrying out an ethic that was acceptable within their own society? We call what they did evil, but only by what we ascribe to be evil. They were still adhering to an accepted state propagating ethic in their view.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Dictionary.com - Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

Given that there are sociological and logical reasons to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, which extends all the way down to respecting the liberties and freedoms of others, it can be objectively stated that what the Nazis did was wrong. Even they knew it was, and that's why they were not open about the Holocaust.

sdep

On the evolution of 'good behaviour', the best models (worked on by the likes of Bill Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, and popularised by Richard Dawkins) predict that altruism will be selected where either:

1) it's directed towards close relatives, thereby increasing 'inclusive fitness' - the reproductive success of the individual plus a weighted contribution from these close relatives.

2) it happens on a reciprocal basis - you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and I'll stop if you cheat.

You're arguably more likely, then, to find altruism evolving in species living in extended families, or in stable groups where the same individuals meet repeatedly and remember each others' generosities and misdeeds. All this applies to us. My guess is that evolution of more complex brains helped us empathise to figure out what others need, to keep a tab of help given vs. received, and to spot opportunities to cheat with impunity. At any rate, amongst primate species, brain size does correlate with social group size and complexity (see here).

I reckon that our most basic 'Golden Rule' definition of good and bad has indeed been influenced by the evolutionary history I've outlined. We know what actions help others - they're what would help us -and we call these 'good'. 'Evil' is broadly the opposite. I'd also say we have an evolved tendency to a bit of evil now and then if it serves us, and we can get away with it.

Refreshingly, Tory wonk David 'Two Brains' Willetts recently climbed out of the box to muse on how society might run more smoothly if we took a leaf from our evo textbooks (lecture here). Summarising, we now live in free market societies marked by one-off interactions with people a continent or two away (I'd say big city living has similarities). This doesn't lend itself to trust based on reciprocity - as with Willetts' much touted neighbourly, meal-sharing vampire bats. Willetts concludes, "The task of Government is to create the environment in which the social norms and institutions which enable reciprocity can flourish."

Discuss!

Oh, and on the animals: from an Olympian height, we're no 'better'. But we, just as all animals, are - and are entitled to be - species-ist. Evolution selects for no less!

Dave!

Soul Winner, 'evil' is a term that has alot of religious connotations. If it's used in a scientific study, I would consider it quite inappropriate. You have pointed to its use in a scientific tv show; I'm not sure what that achieves. It's a tv show. Point to it in a scientific study and I'll say "they should use a different term".

Anywho, as to the matter of what you consider to be evil... I would make the following points:

a. You might call 'evil' "a societal consensus". There is no objective external source by which we can measure what is appropriate in society and where the boundaries of morality lie. To ascertain that, the person must gain experience, explore their world, experiment, listen, commit faux pas, and learn from them.

b. Christians presumably consider the Bible to be an external source on which we should base morality. I don't need to go into the reasons why this is a bad idea, nor do I need to go into how it can be shown that Christians (and others) do not actually use the Bible as a basis for their morality, though they like to think they do.

c. 'Evil', and what society considers appropriate behaviour in general, is constantly in flux. Look back over history and you'll see the different societal trends and movements. War was a way of life, life was cheap, women were subordinate to men, blacks were subordinate to everyone, the death penalty was a given, homosexuality, apostacy and heresy resulted in death... Things obviously change. So what was appropriate 500 years ago is not necessarily appropriate today; what was taken as a given (black people have no soul, so can't be treated as humans) no longer holds true.

So from that you can take it that I think morality is a subjective thing, and not something that is dictated by anybody. But when everyone's subjective morality is taken as a whole, you have a societal consensus, and when someone steps outside that, it's met with abhorrence. Because of the way society has evolved, that person may end up being imprisoned, killed (paedophiles run this risk), excluded, or whatever.

But most people don't want to pillage and rape and kill, do they? Do you? I don't. I don't think anyone who has posted here does. And for those who do, society has established a legal system to deal with them.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

Science is published in journals, not on crappy american TV shows.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which means that our definition of good and bad is relative to our survival needs.

Yes.

Lets assume that traits in this man took over our race, and this trait became the dominant trait in mankind and did in fact benefit healthy propagation in our species, would it then be considered bad? No it wouldn't, it would be considered natural.

You're totally getting it. Imagine for a moment a world where carnivores never evolved. All the life forms there feed from a nutrient rich algae. Then imagine that they were presented with the notion of siezing another lifeform, tearing apart its flesh and feasting upon the stuff of its body. For food. It would be abominable to them. Disgustingly, repusively evil. We, however, happily sit around a kitchen table munching away on animal flesh, feeding it to our children and laughing away as we partake in such slaughter.

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

it is possible to see an reason why the shunning could still exist. Over a long period of time the animals in question will have developed a method for reproduction and the continuance of their species. Presumably this will be along the lines of limited access to the females for the purposes of mating. One of the number that carries out a rape, will presumably be bypassing the “normal” mating procedure for this group, after all, if he was allowed to mate with the females then it would not be rape. Therefore this type of behaviour goes against that which is seen as acceptable for the group. The animal is shunned by the group. This will reduce the likelihood of this particular animal passing on its genes. As the group do not like the behaviour of this particular animal, this is good as it prevents this behavioural trait from being passed on, assuming of course there is a genetic reason for the behaviour.

That's pretty much it. The ones who try to rape, steal from other members of the group or anything else with a negative effect on the group end up on the fringes of it. Since only popular individuals are allowed mate the rapist monkey doesn't get to pass on his genes in the long run. Now he may have got them out while committing said rape if he wasn't stopped by the other members of the group before he could finish. Like I said in the long run it is not a sound investment.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

From Wiki: "Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior.

Ever watched that show? Very little science in it.

--amadeus--

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?

There is a diference in how we use language in here and how language is used in the broader, "real" world. In here eveil has a particular, religious, overtone. In the real world it is another word to describe a particular type of person. The guy in the UK who killed his family before torching his house, the Moors Murderers, Ian Huntley. I'd call them evil in conversation. I'm not refering to demonic possesion I just mean that peopl elik ethat who commit acts so far beyond the norms of human behaviour must be "wired up wrong". They seem to have something intrinsically wrong with them and they are beyond rehabilitaion - the word evil is just a useful shorthand. After all I don't believe in god but i still use his name when I stub my toe.

Soul Winner

Ok I think its fair to say that we all have a different take on evil. Another one of those emotive words that can have either strong religious overtones or can be used to describe religion itself. I've observed both methods untilled here and over in the Christianity forum many times. Ah well, not to worry. Thanks for the replies regardless guys.

I think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

But but but... the monkey rape

Dades

Soul Winner wrote:

think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

Soul Winner, we don't really close threads unless they get unruly.
Like all of us, they'll fade away in time.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Soul Winner, we don't really close threads unless they get unruly.

I knew that, I was just testing ya :pac:

Dades wrote: »

Like all of us, they'll fade away in time.

Do we though? Or is it just our bodies. I think this could trun into a debate again if we're not careful

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

But but but... the monkey rape

You weren't in the mood to Google remember???

studiorat

Soul Winner wrote: »

You weren't in the mood to Google remember???

that'll kill it alright.

Galvasean

*sigh*

NSFW, seriously. You don't see anything explicit, but the concept will get you odd looks.