[ElayneJ]

bookmark

[the invisib1e hand]

to some people the world is a great big rorschach test.

[outofstyle]

Morality is a surprising feature of humanity because it seems to defy the laws of evolution

Laws?

[freespirited]

Even reciprocal altruism, however, cannot explain the good things that we do that offer no actual return. A fellow gets up to give his seat on the bus to an 80-year-old woman. No, she isn’t grandma, nor is it reasonable to say that he’s doing it so that next week she will give him her seat. So neither kin selection nor reciprocal altruism provides any solution in this case.

I have to disagree. This kind of chivalry makes a man attractive to women (there are, after all, other people on the bus witnessing the act of kindness).

Men who attract mates are winners in the evolutionary scheme of things.

[freedumb2003]

Interesting, if rather sophomoric, musings.

It is like not understanding stochastic processes and asking “is life goal-based?”

[PizzaDriver]

Of the Ancient Cultures that survived long enough to make it into our History Books, almost ALL came up with something akin to “the Golden Rule”.

Do unto Others, as You would have them do unto you.

Darwin, or Deity?

Zealot Thugs, of any persuasion, offend God and Darwin.

[Nosterrex]

If you approach this from a Christian perspective, God has written his moral code into our hearts. That would explain why people from various cultures across the ages would have very similar moral standards. You might say that it is “hard-wired” within us. Of course, if you do not hold to a Christian ethic, then the only recourse is some sort of evolutionary development in which a moral code is an illusion. It is simply our genes protecting themselves. How dying for strangers and even enemies benefits our genes is hard to explain.

[YHAOS]

Beep! TTP

[HerrBlucher]

There is a huge difference between doing right because it is the right thing to do, than doing “right” because it is the practical thing to do to aid the survival of the species. In the latter case, “right” could mean eugenics and genocide. The Nazis truly believed they were advancing the species with their human experiments and culling of the weak and infirm, and as such, they considered themselves “good.”

Those shocked at the Nazi’s did not condemn them for simply being in “error that their actions were not helpful for the survival of the species, they condemned them because their actions were wrong and evil in the absolute sense i.e. they were wrong even if their actions DID advance the species.

[VOA]

bump

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

[Mudtiger]

Hard to conceive that when a grandmother donates a kidney for the granddaughter, it is becuase she is, in fact, just really selfish. She doesn’t love the granddaughter, she loves her own genes, so it goes.

[SuziQ]

D’Souza ping!

[Nosterrex]

“How dying for strangers and even enemies benefits our genes is hard to explain.”

If such actions lead to the betterment of human society, it leads to the components of that society to lead more productive lives, thus beginning a virtuous cycle.

In which society would the average individual have the best chance to lead a long, healthy life? In an altruistic society, or an amoral one?

{This was a private reply to my posting, and not my view.}