CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well, evolution isn't used completely to explain morality unless you go more into Evolutionary Psychology.
Biological evolution just explains the organic growth of human beings. Our psychology is so complex, though, that morality and aesthetics have come to be through thousands of years of culture and civilization.
I don't believe that God or the Bible gave us morality. I believe that man created morality and God to help understand things that they didn't at first. We still don't understand everything, and in some ways morality is important for the masses. For the ones in pursuit of the Universal answers, I find morality to just be an obstacle.
345 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
Evolution explains morality. Groups of humans who trend toward altruism would have survived better than those who didn't, as they would destroy eachother pretty quickly. Morality is necessary in social groups of animals, as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; in other words, there's strength in numbers.
Morality is only beneficial to us when it aids our survival. Notice how, for example, our morals our pretty slack when it comes to who we have sex with. This is because obviously, animals who refrain from sex don't get to "spread their seed" as it were, whereas animals who will fuck anything that moves, do. The exception to the "sexual morality" rule is incest. Incest avoidance in universal in basically all human cultures, as it kills variation and results in deformed offspring.
342 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
Yes, each evoltion cycle our morality explains in science. And science prove that bible exists precise and true. Science prove why bible is Holy. In science Abraham's shelter identified in Ur with the ancient artifacts unearthed. In evolution, science proved the ancient skeleton and the unearthed way of life linked in evolution and morality.
342 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
Well actually, I hate to point it out to you that science is the reason a lot of us have left the bible behind as a trustworthy source, check out brettpalmers' series on "what Genesis got wrong" just to have the very first chapter of the bible destroyed. By science.
What Genesis got wrong: Part 1
341 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
I usually don't like to get involved with "moral" debates because morality itself is such a loosely defined term, that it becomes increasingly difficult to construct a proper argument. However, more recently, evolutionary biologists have put forth some interesting theories attempting to explain the origin of certain "moral tendencies" in human behavior. One of them states (roughly) that it is plausible that feelings of altruism may have risen when early societies began forming. If someone does a favor for someone else, they are more likely to get something in return because they are seen as a contributing member of the society and are therefore more important than other members (winning special them benefits). So in this case a person can actually "evolve" specific moral traits.
345 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
person can actually "evolve" specific moral traits.
Assuming those traits are in fact matters of morality. Evolution does not make distinctions such as altruistic or egoistic, such traits are developed by philosophy to be interpreted by individuals. I see the correlation in a natural setting, but the topic is whether or not evolution explains morality. While it can be argued that evolution provides everything from moral intuition to moral behavior, I don't see how it can be argued that evolution itself explains these things. The typewriter is not the source of the logical ideas of the works printed within, but the catalyst that allows such things to be read and pondered.
345 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
Our evolution has determined our social makeup as a people. Our social makeup as a people determines our morality. I see no instance where a moral issue as perceived by an individual or group of people, is not either a direct or indirect result of how we have evolved, both physically and intellectually.
345 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
Our social makeup as a people determines our morality
As an objectivist I disagree, but the point in its entirety is irrelevant. Evolution may provide the morality and even the means to produce explanations of it, but alone evolution does nothing to explain morality. Perhaps I am using a different definition of explain in this discussion. I take explain to mean providing answers to a posed question.
345 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
If not evolution, which devices would have triggered various current moralities? I see no alternative explanation. Is there some detail of morality evolution cannot explain specifically? And if so what would your alternate explanation be?
345 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
I use a typewriter example a lot when discussing evolution. Evolution is the typewriter, the enabler of typed works. Morality is one of those works. Evolution has provided the capacity for rational inquiry, the gateway to moral theory. But alone, evolution does not make distinctions like Kantian, egoistic, Taoist, these are the products of rational thought. Morality in its most primitive forms may be observable without these distinctions, but it then goes into the realm of unexplained.
344 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
That rational thought is the basis for various moral theories is proof enough that evolution results in various moral theories.
That you can name specific moral theories evolution via rational thought has lead to no more proves that evolution is not responsible for it than if you were to say "Sure, splitting cells are what lead to advanced reproduction, but look, we have two arms and two legs. This cannot be explained by evolution alone!"
Evolution has made morality for us, of one sort or another, innevitable. The specfics of the sorts of morality around in no way show that evolution is not responsible. The opposite if anything.
Our particular morality has evolved because these types of morality are benefician to our species. If we had evolved differently we would have different kinds of morality than at present. Simple as that.
344 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
It enables it yes, but it does so through a catalyst. The topic is whether or not evolution explains morality. Even Sam Harris, the greatest(or at least most known) proponent of evolution based morality requires philosophy and logical method to put his ideas into a understandable medium. I'll say it again, the typewriter is not responsible for the works made on it, it is only the means of achievement.
That you can name specific moral theories evolution via rational thought has lead to no more proves that evolution is not responsible for it than if you were to say "Sure, splitting cells are what lead to advanced reproduction, but look, we have two arms and two legs. This cannot be explained by evolution alone!
Which morality do you hold?
The specfics of the sorts of morality around in no way show that evolution is not responsible. The opposite if anything.
The specifics are the explanations of morality. Evolution didn't provide them.
Our particular morality has evolved because these types of morality are benefician to our species. If we had evolved differently we would have different kinds of morality than at present. Simple as that.
Our particular morality? I'm an Objectivist, some are hold Kantian morality, some hold Buddhist. I see the reference to generally accepted moral premises, but I don't think you can place any majority demographic into one moral theory. Except of course, the religious people.
343 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
You'll need to show me something which is a catalyst which is not the result of evolution which caused morality than. It seems to me morality is developed very clearly from our pack instinct and an ability to feel empathy, both are the basis of any morality I've run across, and both are the direct result of evolution. Until you present a better catalyst than this, it seems to me evolution is the best explanation.
343 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
You'll need to show me something which is a catalyst which is not the result of evolution which caused morality than
Rational thought is the result of evolution, but the thoughts after that point are brought by observation and processing the world around you. The factory provides the bullet, the person decides where the bullet shoots. The factory(in most cases at least) is not held responsible for the bullets point of impact.
It seems to me morality is developed very clearly from our pack instinct and an ability to feel empathy
In order to gauge things like empathy you need some sort of philosophical sense. That is the issue. I have already conceded that primitives forms of morality exist without established moral theory, but they are far from explained.
343 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
But without the factory the bullet doesn't exist, hence it is the source. Just as our evolved brain is the source of morality. I don't believe that is even an accurate analogy though. A factory can be refurbished to produce different things. Our brain (though there are cases of faulty frontal lobes mixed with traumatic events that can leave one void of morality) in general has developed morality out of necessity. Morality is a survival instinct for us.
Had we not evolved would morality be possible? I say no. The state of our being demands the existance of it. If we were not who we are, than perhaps morality, at least as it exists, would not exist. For morality to not be the result of our evolution is to say bullets appeared of their own accord without a factory to make them.
Bringing in the additional factor of where the bullet is shot does not change this. Complexity of the result does not in any way change the origin. I could as easily say "Yes, teeth evolved, but what I chew on says teeth must have factors outside of evolution which determined their existance." I chew because I must eat. I may choose to chew things which are not essential for my survival yes, but that I have them to do such is the result of evolution. We have morality because we must cooperate to survive. We've evolved this way. That what we perceive as moral, that we have different opinions, different ideas, and work on philosophies of it and such is like chewing on things with evolved teeth.
In order to gauge things like empathy you need some sort of philosophical sense. That is the issue. I have already conceded that primitives forms of morality exist without established moral theory, but they are far from explained.
Ah, good point. I'd argue we can only gauge empathy though through self-imposed standards and it is infinitely complex by its nature... well, as complex as there are numbers of beings capable of feeling some form of it times all the different ways and circustances in which they feel it.
I do not object to curiousity about additional origins to empathy, morality, etc, at all outside of the spectrum of evolution. It would be silly to dismiss anything out of hand given human history and how often we are wrong, more precisely only partly right, about various mysteries. With that in mind though, any alternative explanations of how the bullet got in the gun seem a stretch to me. I think that much is figured out. Deciphering the reason each bullet is eventually shot wherever may be an issue for individual psychology, not anthropology, but I don't see that the end result's complexity justifies dismissing a fairly sensible and in many ways demonstratable origin.
So, okay. Evolution no more "explains" morality than Evolution explains why a toddler picks up a piece of plastic and chews on it... kind of. But within evolution and explanation can lie. The toddler chews the piece of plastic because it looks like something which they may or may not be able to eat and we've evolved to try to figure out what is what. We have varying degrees of morality, theories, etc because we are toddlers chewing on pieces of plastic-morality we find on the floor, trying to figure out what is what.
343 days ago | Side: Yes it does, I has the science
I'll make this my last response on this debate. Great responses and arguments.
But without the factory the bullet doesn't exist, hence it is the source
The bullet itself was not the subject of the analogy. The point of impact, the sum of rational thought resulting in moral theory, was not brought about by the factory. Only the possibility of it was enabled.
A factory can be refurbished to produce different things
Resulting in any order of views or moral standpoints.
For morality to not be the result of our evolution is to say bullets appeared of their own accord without a factory to make them.
Some moral arguments say exactly that.
Complexity of the result does not in any way change the origin.
Something need not be complex to explain something, but the primitive forms of morality needed to be progressed for a reason. In a state of nature, no moral standard can be expected to be upheld to any degree. It took a social contract, a product of philosophy, for morality to be understood and expanded into moral theories and concepts. It is at that point that morality is explained.
That what we perceive as moral, that we have different opinions, different ideas, and work on philosophies of it and such is like chewing on things with evolved teeth.
But again, teeth are but tools to achieve and end are they not? We do not pay the tools for jobs do we?
But within evolution and explanation can lie
Of course it can, that would be the moral theory progressed by Sam Harris.
In conclusion, Evolution enables rational inquiry and the capability of advanced knowledge. Alone, evolution provides no advanced knowledge. The individual in possession of the tools must develop his own mind, his own knowledge. Philosophy is a form of knowledge. Philosophy is what defines and determines one's moral standards. Evolution did not provide philosophy. Hence evolution does not alone explain morality.
Thanks for an interesting debate.
343 days ago | Side: No it doesn't, I has the Bible
