Morality

[lemonbeam]

Hello, I have a couple of questions:

1. I’ve been looking on a few other places online and this question arose which I hope you can answer: If man didn’t always exist and we evolved slowly through earlier ape-like mammals in turn those ape-like mammals evolved directly or indirectly from all previous species, inc. things like T-Rex and early Jurassic crocodiles, can you then say that T-Rex and all other primitive carnivores were also born with absolute morals … which they eventually passed on to the early ancestors of Man? If Evolution is true, then the idea of absolute innate morals cannot be right, because that would mean Man had to be receiving morals passed on by T-Rex.
2. I saw another question on here that also got me thinking; If you believe in subjective morality, if it came to something like rape could you proclaim that rape is not permissable based upon our naturally aquired proclivity towards empathy. We can logically conclude also that rape is “bad” for society. We can create an objective social contract based upon mutual values and reason. The laws of physics have made us social creatures where we survive better and suffer less w cooperation.

Thanks in advance! God Bless!

 

[fhansen]

I think morality is always destined to remain “iffy” whenever it’s held to be subjective in nature. Cases can be built to support whatever brand of morality one prefers.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hello, I have a couple of questions:

1. I’ve been looking on a few other places online and this question arose which I hope you can answer: If man didn’t always exist and we evolved slowly through earlier ape-like mammals in turn those ape-like mammals evolved directly or indirectly from all previous species, inc. things like T-Rex and early Jurassic crocodiles, can you then say that T-Rex and all other primitive carnivores were also born with absolute morals … which they eventually passed on to the early ancestors of Man? If Evolution is true, then the idea of absolute innate morals cannot be right, because that would mean Man had to be receiving morals passed on by T-Rex.
2. I saw another question on here that also got me thinking; If you believe in subjective morality, if it came to something like rape could you proclaim that rape is not permissable based upon our naturally aquired proclivity towards empathy. We can logically conclude also that rape is “bad” for society. We can create an objective social contract based upon mutual values and reason. The laws of physics have made us social creatures where we survive better and suffer less w cooperation.

Thanks in advance! God Bless!

Oh for crying out loud!

Yes, I am always tempted to rape people as a non believer. It is only God that we can credit for why people don’t just rape all day.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Hello, I have a couple of questions:

1. I’ve been looking on a few other places online and this question arose which I hope you can answer: If man didn’t always exist and we evolved slowly through earlier ape-like mammals in turn those ape-like mammals evolved directly or indirectly from all previous species, inc. things like T-Rex and early Jurassic crocodiles, can you then say that T-Rex and all other primitive carnivores were also born with absolute morals … which they eventually passed on to the early ancestors of Man? If Evolution is true, then the idea of absolute innate morals cannot be right, because that would mean Man had to be receiving morals passed on by T-Rex.
2. I saw another question on here that also got me thinking; If you believe in subjective morality, if it came to something like rape could you proclaim that rape is not permissable based upon our naturally aquired proclivity towards empathy. We can logically conclude also that rape is “bad” for society. We can create an objective social contract based upon mutual values and reason. The laws of physics have made us social creatures where we survive better and suffer less w cooperation.

Thanks in advance! God Bless!

1. You assume that the human soul evolved. The human soul was instantaneously created by God and put into Adam and thus it was at that point we were subject to the laws of God and not simply the natural law. Adam did not struggle with sin and temptation like we do, but was perfect. However he chose to disobey God (how this happened the Church does not say, but one can believe it was due to a literal tree of knowledge of good and evil if they wish to) and from then on we have struggled with sin. Animals themselves glorify God by just…being. So in their case there really is no ‘T-Rex’ or any animal morality.
2. huh? Morality is never relative. There are absolute truths, absolute rights and absolute wrongs. You must have love in everything you do.

 

[wasmit]

Hello, I have a couple of questions:

1. I’ve been looking on a few other places online and this question arose which I hope you can answer: If man didn’t always exist and we evolved slowly through earlier ape-like mammals in turn those ape-like mammals evolved directly or indirectly from all previous species, inc. things like T-Rex and early Jurassic crocodiles, can you then say that T-Rex and all other primitive carnivores were also born with absolute morals … which they eventually passed on to the early ancestors of Man? If Evolution is true, then the idea of absolute innate morals cannot be right, because that would mean Man had to be receiving morals passed on by T-Rex.
2. I saw another question on here that also got me thinking; If you believe in subjective morality, if it came to something like rape could you proclaim that rape is not permissable based upon our naturally aquired proclivity towards empathy. We can logically conclude also that rape is “bad” for society. We can create an objective social contract based upon mutual values and reason. The laws of physics have made us social creatures where we survive better and suffer less w cooperation.

Thanks in advance! God Bless!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[wasmit]

(1) As shown in the previous picture, the population of primates(of which humans are a subsection), are not directly related to dinosaurs. They are different branches.

Empathy evolved in primates because it is a beneficial behaviour when living in groups.

(2) is not a question. Can you clarify?

here is another nice pic:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/02/animalsEvolution_lg.jpeg

 

[promethius]

1. I’ve been looking on a few other places online and this question arose which I hope you can answer: If man didn’t always exist and we evolved slowly through earlier ape-like mammals in turn those ape-like mammals evolved directly or indirectly from all previous species, inc. things like T-Rex and early Jurassic crocodiles, can you then say that T-Rex and all other primitive carnivores were also born with absolute morals … which they eventually passed on to the early ancestors of Man? If Evolution is true, then the idea of absolute innate morals cannot be right, because that would mean Man had to be receiving morals passed on by T-Rex.

… except that even if we HAD evolved from T-Rex, the point would be that humanity is an instantaneous creation… not based necessarily on physical form, but rather on intelligent will and moral understanding. In other words, an animal lacks intelligent will because it has certain aspects of instinct it cannot avoid, as well as lacks understanding of intrinsic right and wrong. Humanity did not exist before the evolution of the first humans, and animals did not have intrinsic moral understanding before that point (nor do they now)

1. I saw another question on here that also got me thinking; If you believe in subjective morality, if it came to something like rape could you proclaim that rape is not permissable based upon our naturally aquired proclivity towards empathy. We can logically conclude also that rape is “bad” for society. We can create an objective social contract based upon mutual values and reason. The laws of physics have made us social creatures where we survive better and suffer less w cooperation.

Except that truth is an absolute. What if you believe murder is wrong and I believe murder is right? That’s a direct contradiction, and one of us MUST (by definition) be wrong. However, you break halfway through and switch from the idea of subjective morality (properly known as moral relativity) to a law of maximum employment… something Nietzsche posited. At that point, I must add in that there are varying moral theories, and each of them is a way of describing moral decision making processes… but that doesn’t make them right. Example: Newton’s laws properly describe non-quantum motion… but they are not inherently correct because they are a generalization which only works for macro systems, and yet they can still be used with accuracy. Simply because something WORKS as an explanation does not make it actually correct and accurate. Morality exists because God created the natural law. End of story.