[i]If we are constantly evolving into superior moral beings, why are we aborting babies left and right and calling it 'moral'? Why are we still murdering? Why are we still hurting others?
Why is there divorce? Why don't we all hold hands and love each other?
Why would it be in anyone's self-interest to do something immoral? Hmm?
You see, you operate from a flawed view, that man is inherently rational, and for you that means, 'good'. With evolution, it's all gravy as time goes on.
But with the advent of moral relativism, with modernism, morals don't mean anything anymore, right? They are intechangeable, they are equal.
We should be advancing, not regressing.
I would love some proof of the theory of evolutionary morality. Otherwise, faith in the theory is no different than faith in my God.[/i]
Evolving into superior moral beings in large part requires simply acquiring the knowledge to provide for a greater capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. We are not perfect beings now and quite likely never will be. Some members of any species lack the more advanced traits of others- this could be true for some humans in terms of morality. Those who murder and hurt others clearly do not have as high a sense of right and wrong as those who see that these acts are wrong and harmful. Also, it is quite possible to understand that an action is wrong but still do it. As for abortion, many who support abortion rights do not consider it moral, but think that the decision should not be forced upon anyone. It's a bit erroneous to say that we allow abortion and call it moral. Divorce is only immoral if you consider marriage to be a sacred bond, or if you consider breaking the vows to be a form of lying. That's a difficult call to make as it depends on your religious views as well as your views on marriage itself. I'd say most people get divorced to promote the possibility of love (not that I'm condoning divorce; it's more a disdain for marriage).
It is not in anyone's self-interest to do anything immoral, and that is precisely the point of the theory of evolutionary morality. We are selfish beings who seek the best means of survival. Acting in ways that are immoral is the same as acting in ways that are detrimental to our survival, thus, as we evolve, we seek ways to avoid immoral acts- the greatest way being the ability to determine what is wrong and what is right.
Man is inherently rational. Not all have the same capabilities of rationality, and neither is the same rationale implemented by all. In your view, I suppose we are all helpless unless we have some superior being guide us poor imbeciles into realizing what is right and wrong. I think it makes better sense (and is more comforting) to consider our morality not as coming from some God, but from ourselves and our basic need for survival.
I am really getting tired of saying that moral relativism doesn't make morality meaningless. If it did, there would be no point to moral relativism itself. As individuals with different intellects, ideas, views, values, and different understandings of things, we each determine our own moral code. These individual moral codes, or the morality of an entire culture, often differ with the moral codes of other individuals or other cultures. Thus, it is egocentric and narrow-sighted to claim that one person's or one culture's morality must be the code for all humanity. That does not mean that morality is meaningless, just that one person or group's moral standards cannot be applied to all.
Morality is intangible and difficult to measure or test, just as God is. It would be just as odd to say that morality exists as it is to say God exists. However, morality is a sense of knowledge, God is not- He is supposedly a being. Comparing a theory of a system of knowledge and a theory of the existence of a being is rather silly. The only proof I can give you (I'm no scientist) is as I've stated in my explanation of the theory. It only makes sense that we have developed a sense of right and wrong in order to survive. Whether our morality itself has evolved, I couldn't tell ya. The basic premise, however, is not that our moral standards have advanced, but that the cause of morality is rooted in our capacity for survival.
Very true, but it is rare for an individual to work out a system of morality on their own- the role of the culture they were brought up in also plays a role in their behavior.
Reply to: therealspartacus007
Yes, culture and socialization play a major role in what the individual understands to be considered moral or immoral, but ultimately the individual decides their own moral standards (typically in line with those of their society).
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
