First of all, I am new here. I will open by saying that I am a Christian and former agnostic. Although I am not very old, I think I may be able to express my views in an intelligent manner. Anyway, the first question I would like to ask to the atheist is this: We can all agree that rape is horrible. (I hope no one disagrees with this statement.) Would not rape be beneficial to an organism because it is reproducing? Murdering could also be seen to be beneficial to a creature because an enemy is being disposed of. Why do we not approve of these acts today? One cannot say that we evolved these thoughts because they can be helpful to the being committing these crimes, and the lack of these morals would be passed on to the offspring. Would an animal pass on a moral that could potentially hinder it's chance of survival compared to another animal?
Malachi: In what way? Horrible for the victim, okay. Does this make it objectively horrible? What do you mean by "horrible" anyways? Morally wrong? Because the benefits of a society in which rape and murder are prohibited outweigh the losses. BTW, rape has been historically disapproved of not as a crime against a fellow human, but as a offense against another man's property. Murder has been condoned for the rich and the well connected. So neither rape nor murder has been historically regarded as wrong. Huh? What makes you think that these morals evolved or are at all innate? I'm a bit confused, sorry.
Don't over look the obvious. We don't even need to discuss moral. The most important thing in modern society is the economy. Anything that disrupts the economy is illegal. Lets say if murder hasn't been illegal, the stock market at some point in our history will take a dive whenever someone got murdered in the news, the congress will be pressured to pass a bill to ban murders so that the stock will go back up. There is no moral invovled. Laws today have less and less to do with morality but have more to do with practicality.
"We can all agree that rape is horrible. (I hope no one disagrees with this statement.) Would not rape be beneficial to an organism because it is reproducing?" That's why rape is pretty much an instinct. "Why do we not approve of these acts today?" In our society, laws are made based on whether they will benefit society or not. Rape being legal does not benefit society as it would cause many innocent victims and would cause much anger among the people - ditto murder. Xev; "Murder has been condoned for the rich and the well connected" And by well connected she means cool mafia guys who will be later played by one of Robert Deniro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci or possibly Ray Liotta. Hehe.
Well, I could be wrong. I assumed that most sane people would agree that rape is horribe to the victim, and I was just wondering why we, generally, do not agree with the idea of rape and murder in society. Why do we not approve of something that is beneficial to the organism committing the act? Where did the first idea come from that we should ban rape and murder? I just want to know if it is possible to evolve morals. If we did evolve morals, it seems that murder and rape should be accepted since it is beneficial to the organism committing the offense. Why would a culture rebel against its primitive instincts if we evolved these ideas? If we did not evolve morals, then we just came up with the idea because they sounded good, right? I do not agree with this. Why do I not agree? Did I evolve this way of thinking? If in fact we did not evolve morals, I suppose my post is irrevent. However, I do wonder where they came from then if God does not exist.
Morals do obviously evolve. Take imperialism for example, today it is no longer acceptable. Also if we discover a new planet with intelligent life, we are unlikely to murder and take the land away from them like what we did to native Americans.
Malachi: Sane? I am sure there are insane people who think that as well, and sane people who think the reverse. But okay, we can agree that rape is horrible to the victim. Your point being? That's a very broad statement. Obviously, rape is condoned to some degree, otherwise there would not be statues sheilding victims from being harassed by the defense attorneys. Putting the victim's character on trial is a common enough attempt. I think this shows some social condonement of rape. Why is rape in agreement with primitive instinct? I think you are confusing biological and cultural evolution. I also think you need to do a bit more research on the history of rape laws, and study some of the history of the prision, and do a quick search on utilitarianism. Society, obviously. Morals are a human creation. Tyler: I am thinking of the connection between a nobleman who is mentioned in Discipline and Punish - the nobleman killed a priest, and an attempt was made to have him declared insane - and Dupont, who killed a man and was declared insane a few years back.
"Why do we not approve of something that is beneficial to the organism committing the act? Where did the first idea come from that we should ban rape and murder?" Reread what everyone wrote. Laws are made to benefit society. Banning rape and murder are beneficial to societies. "I just want to know if it is possible to evolve morals. If we did evolve morals, it seems that murder and rape should be accepted since it is beneficial to the organism committing the offense" But is detrimental to the society in which the individual lives. Now you ask yourself - what will make an area a better place; a happy whole or a few happy individuals. Or rather, which would the majority prefer? "Why would a culture rebel against its primitive instincts if we evolved these ideas?" We rebel against many of our instincts. "If we did not evolve morals, then we just came up with the idea because they sounded good, right?" Hmmmmmm. Xev always seems to have an encyclopedia of internet resources. Perhaps she could show us where the idea of morals first evolved (not in written philosophy as I believe that would just take place in pre-Socratic Greece?) in man. But first we would have to define morals. And, I believe that means; "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character" (dictionary.com). And I will bet that judging people as good or bad has existed since the first societies. "If in fact we did not evolve morals, I suppose my post is irrevent. However, I do wonder where they came from then if God does not exist." Humans. They're a pretty idea, and were once an easy way to assimilate and control people. Xev; "I am thinking of the connection between a nobleman who is mentioned in Discipline and Punish - the nobleman killed a priest, and an attempt was made to have him declared insane - and Dupont, who killed a man and was declared insane a few years back" Okey dokey then.
I have often asked myself about morals.. Hi everyone, it's been a while I've been moving from apartment to another apartment "slightly bigger one" I once asked the question about morals, only to be shut down by a guy who hated my philosophical mentor, "Ayn Rand". However when he concluded that I was merely asking beyond her philosophical point of view, he proceeded to tell me a bit on his experice on morals. *Morals are different for every society, and different for every age. In ancient greece for example morals were quite different than our own today, and in un-civilized societies suchas Amazonian indians there societies are quite different than ours and their morals are primitive to our standards of morals. For example, in some Amazonian indian societies A man is a twelve year old boy, after going through some painful ritual, to make him a man. A girl is a woman at 11 basically after going thruough some ritual as well, at this age she is available to copulate, with men. In our society this would be considered amoral.* my thoughts: In England if an individual was a nobleman and he raped a peasant woman this was not considered an offence, and perfectly acceptable even by the freaking church!!. As we "evolved" and became a civilized society this practice was then frowned upon. In our society there exists a bias of rape. or in this case, sagitorial rape i.e. If a woman say in her mid 30's was to have a sexual afair with a 13 year old boy, she would merely get a slap on the wrist, however if this is revesed and a man in his mid 30's was to have a sexual afair with a 13 year old girl, he would get twenty years!!. This is how our society has evolved to this standard of morals, the above scenario can be proven, just look at the freaking news sometimes. Above I say evolved, cause it's also well documented that in America in the early stages of development of this country a 13 year old girl, was considered a woman, and able to marry. The morman still practice this today. "If you ask yourself why this was?" it is easy to explain, "longetivity of life" 250 years ago men did not live as long as we do today therefore women became women at a younger age in order to breed, and populate!. As we evolved, this changed and our morals have also changed adequately with the times..
