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.
Through my experiences and considerations, I have come to the conclusion that morality exists, whether there is a God or not, because evolution is compelling us towards the idea that compassion and benevolence is more effective for surviving and progressing then selfishness and malevolence.
And the only reason evolution would be propelling us towards such an idea is because said idea must, indeed, be correct.
Imagine a society. This society operates successfully fiscally, militarily, and any other way. This society however has one ritual. All children, for some arbitrary reason, are raped at birth. Using solely the philosophy of evolutionary morality, how can that act be deemed morally wrong?
But from an evolutionary perspective, that's not strictly wrong. Evolutionary morality states that which is beneficial for society is right, and that which is detrimental to society is wrong. In my scenario, raping children is neither beneficial nor detrimental, and thus raping children is a morally neutral act.
its not morally neutral, society is a broad term, children are part of that society, and thus raping them will probably lead to detrimental behavior later down the road
It hasn't. As I said, in this hypothetical society, the child rape has been a ritual for thousands of years, yet the society is successful. So from a strictly evolutionary morality, child rape is not wrong.
Well i guess but then thats like saying "weve been slaughtering anyone with deformities for thousands of years, and our society is very prosperous, so its ok to keep slaughtering the people with deformities"
Technically, if nothing is right or wrong, why do peoples and cultures sense a right or wrong. Regardless of in society A, killing unhealthy children is proper and beneficial for them, yet in Society B, killing unhealthy children is wrong and looked down upon; there are stills "rights" or "wrongs" per culture and people.
This makes me believe there is in fact a right and wrong, and people speak different languages, are accustomed to different situations, rules, and circumstances, yet we're all human with a conscious of right and wrong. What does this mean?
Perhaps that "separation? between cultures and societies are searching for something, whether that be balance or peace. I'd like to believe without balance, peace cannot exist. However without peace, balance could still be there, perhaps called something different than our definition of peace. Either way it's viewed, people are and want goodness, not "badness", if that makes sense.
I assume this was supposed to be a dispute to my stand alone post on the debate, not in this exchange about evolutionary morality. Regardless, I will continue anyway.
Do cultures really sense right and wrong? The way I see it, what is deemed right/wrong in a culture is dictated by the personal whims of the authorities in that culture. Take a primitive tribe. If the leader of the tribe says that killing the deformed is morally right (or at least morally justified), then the tribe will follow. Conversely, if the leader says that is wrong, then the tribe will follow. Cultures can only sense right or wrong as much as the leaders will allow.
But then why do individuals sense right and wrong? Again; do they? Just think for a moment. If you were raised from birth in an environment where what is normally considered wrong is considered right, would you be able to say that murder was wrong, or that rape was wrong?
I am of the mindset that the morals that we claim to possess are byproducts of subliminal indoctrination. Morals are what we arbitrarily label the general views of the society that we grew up in. Which leads me to believe that if one human were cut off from all society, and never contacted anyone, then they would be amoral.
The only part I disagree on is that if a person was cut off from society I feel they would still sense a right or wrong, whichever and whatever it may be. Maybe they call it X, Y, Z, but I feel the human mind is bound to morals, to feeling theres this or that, right or wrong. Again, perhaps not the right or wrong that American society has called it, but even so, something is there to begin with.
Even if I were raised into let's say a random more primitive culture, and I accidentally pumped into an elder, or person even, then they cut my sisters head off because they say thats a "no no", in other words, then in my mind I'd probably accept it but think to myself "is this normal?" or "do I agree with this". Fact: there will always be disagreements between person to person and culture to culture, so therefore since we're not all "on the same page, geographically or psychologically", to me this means there must be some sort of right or wrong, amongst all the rights and wrongs. Know what I mean?
Perhaps you and I are begging to differ, perhaps we're agreeing, I'm not sure.
I think we both agree that there is no real foundation for objective morals outside of God or religion. I think where we differ is that you believe in subjective morals, whereas I lean towards a more nihilistic perspective.
Really there is no proof one way or the other, people will believe what they believe I suppose.
Also, I suppose the only part of me that believes in objective morals, are due to the fact that I do believe, in god that is.
So really, i believe everything is subjective to the individual and society, and objectively everyone is striving to understand the same thing? That fucking hurts my head and it makes sense to me.
That society would not exist in the first place. Our evolutionary morality is determined by the most reasonable response in order to maintain health and structure in a group. Raping babies damages babies. Damaging babies goes against our primary purpose, which is reproduction and nurturing of our own genes, hence why baby harming is irrational and therefore considered immoral by our instincts.
Stranger things have happened. Circumcision is still a massive part of Israeli society, and while it is not on the same level as child rape, it is still "damaging babies".
And, without wishing to delve too much into the specifics, does raping a child actually harm them? Tangibly so. I would like to clarify that it is completely vile and disgusting to do so, but I don't see how a baby can be harmed by it, if they are raised in a society that sees it as a blessing or some kind of initiation ritual.
baby harming is irrational and therefore considered immoral by our instincts.
If this is true of evolutionary morality, then there are millions of things that are immoral. Religion would be immoral. Participating in the lottery would be immoral. Having phobias would be immoral. If evolutionary morality says that irrationality=immorality, then the above examples show another flaw of the system.
I did not know whether to clarify my statement in a reply to you, or simply dispute you; I am not used to the clarify function. Does it inform the person I reply to, or does it not? Since I am uncertain, I am going to press dispute instead, though I would not exactly consider this reply a true disputation.
Imagine a society. This society operates successfully fiscally, militarily, and any other way. This society however has one ritual. All children, for some arbitrary reason, are raped at birth. Using solely the philosophy of evolutionary morality, how can that act be deemed morally wrong?
It would technically NOT be morally wrong, for said society.
But, as society has been progressing since it's dawn, it has slowly and steadily become more benevolent, graceful, trusting, etc, instead of malevolent, malicious, and selfish.
Which is why I will point out, the society you describe is, in fact, imagined by you. Societies today that behave that way are frowned upon, or even loathed, by most others.
Why is that? There of course, has to, and is, a reason. And historical evidence would answer this by stating that we are progressively becoming more socially benevolent then socially competitive.
If we were not progressing in this fashion, then why are we not still all barbarians? Why do most of us believe rape is wrong? Why do most of us believe in freedom and equality? Why do most of us prefer nice people over harsh and/or mean people?
Why do we dislike Hitler?
Obviously, because we are meant to, and if we are meant to, then that makes clear the idea that benevolence is evolutionarily better for a society to advance then it's opposites. For if we were not mean to be, then we would not be at all. But we are.
I did not know whether to clarify my statement in a reply to you, or simply dispute you; I am not used to the clarify function. Does it inform the person I reply to, or does it not? Since I am uncertain, I am going to press dispute instead, though I would not exactly consider this reply a true disputation.
The clarify function now informs the recipient, so clarify away I suppose.
But, as society has been progressing since it's dawn, it has slowly and steadily become more benevolent, graceful, trusting, etc, instead of malevolent, malicious, and selfish.
Has it really? We've become more civilised and technologically advanced, but are we truly more benevolent and "moral"?
Perhaps the acts that we do are less... disgusting as they used to be (human sacrifice, necromancy, etc), but these "immoral" acts are still in our society. The leaders of the USA declaring illegal war on Iraq, torture, in Britain there's mass benefit fraud. Just because society gets fancier clothes and toys to play with, doesn't make them any more moral.
Which is why I will point out, the society you describe is, in fact, imagined by you. Societies today that behave that way are frowned upon, or even loathed, by most others.
How about Israel? Compulsory circumcision is as close to mass damaging babies against their free will I can think of. Yet Israel is not a society that is frowned upon or loathed. It's a very civilised place I'm sure, yet it still has an act that could well be deemed morally wrong by most people, yet not by evolutionary morality.
Why is that? There of course, has to, and is, a reason. And historical evidence would answer this by stating that we are progressively becoming more socially benevolent then socially competitive.
I disagree. Have you heard the phrase "History is written by the victors"? I think it applies here. The reason that we appear to be becoming more benevolent is because we have been raised in a society lead by people with ideals that we are told are benevolent.
Imagine that Hitler won WW2, and we were living in the third reich. Seeing as the United States never would have risen, American ideals never would have reached the people in the third reich. They would live in a society where mass genocide and human vivisections are considered "socially benevolent".
However, Hitler didn't win WW2, the allies did. As a result, Western ideals spread, ones that taught freedom, privatisation, etc. Because the allies won, they got the right to teach their ideals as the socially benevolent ones.
If we were not progressing in this fashion, then why are we not still all barbarians? Why do most of us believe rape is wrong? Why do most of us believe in freedom and equality? Why do most of us prefer nice people over harsh and/or mean people?
There is a key part missing in your statement.
Why do most of us in western culture believe...
Because those things are only considered correct in western culture. The middle east on the other hand, does not believe in these things. Rape can be justified (in these countries), a lack of freedom and equality can be justified (in these countries), and as a result, what we see as mean people, they see as nice people.
Why do we dislike Hitler?
Neo-Nazism is quite a large movement, but regardless. We dislike Hitler (aside from the fact that he was wrong) because history is written by the victors. If Hitler won, we'd like Hitler.
Obviously, because we are meant to, and if we are meant to, then that makes clear the idea that benevolence is evolutionarily better for a society to advance then it's opposites. For if we were not mean to be, then we would not be at all. But we are.
But benevolence is subjective. Hitler saw it as benevolent to gas Jews. My imaginary society saw it as benevolent to rape children. Current society sees it as benevolent to ransack countries and destroy infrastructures that disagree with them.
Morals are subjective. What makes Hitler feel bad might not make Gandhi feel bad, but the opposite might also be true.
It's up to you whether or not you feel guilt about something. Learning about why something hurts other people or why it is wrong or incorrect is important. If being kind doesn't come naturally, there are many books on ethics and doing the right thing. Laziness is a bad excuse for lacking empathy or the ability to care about the feelings of others.
If you do what you feel is right, based on wise decisions, past experience, the ideals of other people, and what your heart tells you, then feeling guilt is a way of knowing what is right or wrong. If you do not feel guilt, it is likely you have a mental disorder, and that is quite a bit different than any sort of philosophical ethics problem like this. Gods have no bearing on morality, or there would be no holy wars, pedophile rapist priests, people who use religion to make money and other corrupted ideas that spurt forth from believers.
Whether or not a god exists, people can still hurt people or help people. Believing in a god does not make you a good person. It makes you a believer in a god.
Being a good person is far more complex than that.
No, because nothing is intrinsically wrong. When fucking Charles Manson or whoever killed a bunch of people, it was sickening and disgusting and blah blah blah. But there was no universal code that was violated.
Sort of "at the level of the universe" there is no right or wrong. Nothing matters.
But, we exist and do survive. To us, what opposes or obstructs our survival is, basically, wrong. We cannot survive without science and technology - think of the future and the many possible extinctions.
Think of the future and the many possible extinctions. You think we could overcome the expansion of our sun to a red giant, if we were to survive that long? If we could get that far we would need to find a new home elsewhere, in another solar system, or as nomads of the galaxy. The only way to achieve that is through science and technology.
