At best, an evolutionary explanation would only account for why we have moral instincts. But once we're aware of the fact that that's been programmed into us by a blind amoral process, we'd realize that we've been duped by evolution into believing in right and wrong. Our moral instincts would be delusive.
25 comments
Bingo!
This guy has uncovered the truth - that there is no objective right and wrong - and staring right at it, and not seeing it. That's not surprising, since we've grown up with the world view that everything has a right side and a wrong side drummed into us continually. The possibility that there is another way to look at things doesn't occur to us even when we discover it.
Instead of denouncing something because it is wrong - often because a particular culture or tradition has told us it is wrong - why not refrain from actions that cause harm or pain to others? When you replace the question of "Is this wrong?" with "Is this harmful?" your life is much simplified because so many things that have been arbitrarily placed into the "wrong" category become non-issues.
WRONG! Man has no "moral instinct" of any kind. what we have - sometimes - is a learned sense of right and wrong, which is entirely cultural. It is only through self reflection that we develop any kind of moral sense. Most people's "moral instinct" is simply doing what society expects, so their deeper, darker desires aren't discovered. How many times have we seen fundies posing how the only reason they aren't out shooting their neighbors, and raping every 12-year-old is because of their religion? Thus admitting that these actions are their true nature, they simply sublimate them in order to fit in.
This reads like a poorly adapted version of the deterministic consequence argument against free will, which makes me think this is an argument against morality rather than against evolution. And yet, it isn't. This is the equivalent of saying that since free will exists, determinism is false. It's appealing, but unsupported so useless.
@BadWolf: You are wrong, and humourously enough, your eponym is just one demonstration of this. Empathy is hardwired into communal animals, and aversion to brutality is a natural consequence of this. There are very few bad wolves.
"Duped" is not the right word. Evolution does everything for a reason. We humans have morality for the same reason we have immune systems, pack behavior and lungs: they help us to survive. Saying morality isn't "real" would be ignoring that crucial fact. Morality is as real as your sense of sight or smell.
Bad Wolf,
"Donald Mallard"? Really? A mallard is a type of duck... so... Donald Duck is right!
Though some studies on children suggest that they do have some kind of genetic basis for ethics... helping people seems to come naturally to most of them.
Lol, which is no different from your religious 'morality' except that you think that there's some kind of magical power in the background that makes your so-called morality true. Morality programmed by evolution - being duped (?). Morality programmed by an invisible creature via ancient desert people - totally rational!
A behaviour being programmed into us by a blind amoral process doesn't make it suddenly easy to disregard.
The same goes for doing something we instinctively feel as evil. Give me a bound victim, a knife, and a million dollars in exchange for stabbing it, and merely wanting that million dollars would be as unnatural as holding my breath till I die.
Of course, there are artificial ways around that. If you really want to stop breathing until you die, you can use a rope, and if you really want to kill an innocent, you can use an ideology - religion is a pretty good one at that.
At best, an evolutionary explanation would only account for why we have moral instincts. But once we're aware of the fact that that's been programmed into us by a blind amoral process, we'd realize that we've been duped by evolution into believing in right and wrong. Our moral instincts would be delusive.
Like others have said, evolution doesn't give us the instinct of "right" and "wrong", but "will this hurt me/the group" or "will this harm me/the group" Things which are more helpful to the group's/individual's survival tend to be treated as "right" or "moral," while things that are detrimental to them tend to be treated as "wrong" or "immoral." Where we get ethics is where there is a conflict between things that are good/bad for the individual, while being the opposite for the group.
In other words, we are moral and ethical because being so aids both in our survival and the species survival. No supernatural entity needed.
“At best, an evolutionary explanation would only account for why we have moral instincts.”
“But once we're aware of the fact that that's been programmed into us by a blind amoral process”
“, we'd realize that we've been duped by evolution into believing in right and wrong.”
“Our moral instincts would be delusive.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
