Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Sheldon
Choosing between right and wrong attitudes and behaviours. No such thing in evolution. It only exists as a fabrication for the purposes of crime and punishment in human societies. Or for instilling guilt or fear in children or the masses - wherever religion is concerned.
Everything in evolution is about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. WTF.. It exists initially as survival mechanisms. It evolves as a species evolves. When the species develops language a language of morality - right and wrong, good and bad is also developed.
"Everything in evolution is about right and wrong, good and bad behaviors. WTF.."
No no, a trained biologist has just told you, morality is ENTIRELY provisional, and he won't be challenged on any of his beliefs, ever.
@Sheldon
Right and wrong in the context of survival, not morality. You can challenge me, pipe fitter - but as surely as you might be able to unclog my toilet at home; I will be there to correct your fucked up liberal attitudes towards attributing morality to all the god damn ants and centipedes of this world.
"Right and wrong in the context of survival, not morality. "
Morality IS the difference between right and wrong, it's right there in the fucking definition ffs, christ how many fucking times are you going to get a basic word definition wrong? There is an abundance of research validating the idea that societal animals have evolved morals.
I'm not nor have I ever been a pipe Fitter? Though just what you have against pipe Fitters is hard to fathom, but you are an arrogant prick so it was to be expected.
" I will be there to correct your fucked up liberal attitudes towards attributing morality to all the god damn ants and centipedes of this world."
Great off you go then, as all you've done so far is use ad hominem and deflection, and linked Wikipedia, then immediately dismissed with hand waving links to the same source because they don't agree with you.
I'd love if your tedious arrogant attacks contained some substance for once.
@Sheldon
“
Morality IS the difference between right and wrong, it's right there in the fucking definition ffs, christ how many fucking times are you going to get a basic word definition wrong? There is an abundance of research validating the idea that societal animals have evolved morals.”
And the difference between right and wrong? Is that morality in mathematics, auto-repair? Just for example. I’m curious.
Mathematics is not a choice, the outcome already has a right and wrong answer.
Jesus wept, that is some moronic obfuscation
Ratspit "Right and wrong in the context of survival, not morality. "
morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
No amount of irrelevant obfuscation about maths will make your totally unevidenced claim less wrong. How absurd is it to ask for examples of moral choices in an evolutionary context, then ignore them when they re given, and just keep blathering on about whether maths is a moral choice.
@Cog
Yeah. I know. I’m just giving you guys a yank on your chain. Of course - gene mutations are either right or wrong. They’re right if they make the animal more fit and they’re wrong if they make the animal less fit. It’s called “the morality of genetics”.
ratspit "Choosing between right and wrong attitudes and behaviours. No such thing in evolution."
So choosing an option that is probably going to kill you before you can reproduce isn't wrong in an evolutionary context?
"It only exists as a fabrication for the purposes of crime and punishment in human societies. Or for instilling guilt or fear in children or the masses - wherever religion is concerned."
That's human morality, who knows why a "trained biologist" keeps anthropomorphising it onto other species, but it's irrelevant as no one is claiming all animals have the same morality. Morality demonstrably exists within many other species, this has been well researched in all societal animals, and they make choices based on their perception of right and wrong behaviours, the wrong ones might get them driven from the group and or killed, not a very shrewd move in an evolutionary context. Do dead animals generally pass on their genes?
ratspit "Same as the fish right? it’s morally right to travel in a shoal. Fuck knobs."
Sheldon "You still don't know what moral means do you?"
ratspit "Choosing between right and wrong attitudes and behaviours. No such thing in evolution. "
You just described one. A right behaviour in evolution is one that natural selection enables to survive long enough to reproduce. Like fish instinctively shoaling in a group, and not trying to make a run for it alone. One behaviour is more likely to produce offspring than the other, in evolutionary terms it is the right choice, hence it is the moral choice. Again lets a take a look at what you said.
"ratspit "Choosing between right and wrong attitudes and behaviours. No such thing in evolution."
@Sheldon
Okay Sheldon. I see. We just redefine “right” and “wrong” to the point where a shoal of fish now knows the difference. Truly ingenious logic coming from an apprentice pipe fitter.
What on earth are you blathering about, morality is defined as difference between right and wrong behaviours? Many animals that have evolved to live in societal groups have evolved morality. Thus your claim that ALL morality is ENTIRELY provisional is demonstrably wrong, but you can never admit to an error no matter how absurd the result, as we see here.
Typical theist rationale really. Cling to any belief and pile absurdity upon absurdity.
I passed my apprenticeship in 1987, and I am not nor have ever been a pipe Fitter, why are you obsessed with pipe Fitters? First it was penis size now pipes, you're bizarre tangents always seem to have the same theme ultimately.
@Sheldon
Absolutely oblivious to your own lack of intellectual integrity. You graduated in 1987? Congratulations. I couldn’t be more happy for you. Pipe fitting can be a lucrative trade for those who are willing to get their hands dirty. I have nothing but respect for them. Why didn’t you pursue it?
Did you know what? I graduated from University with a B.Sc. in 2010. Would you like to know what subjects I majored in? Math and Biology. Interesting, eh? I like to think I know a little about each topic. You know what fucking pisses me off? People like you on their high horse who seem to think they can insult me for having four years of in depth experience in the field - as if that makes me some kind of intellectual snob - because I have a degree. Did I say I was a “trained Biologist”? Oh, fuck. My mistake. A million apologies for that. I don’t know what I was thinking. How fucking absurd and laughable. No. I’m just a person “educated” in the field of Biology. I’m not “trained” in the same way that you are “trained” in pipe fitting. So, excuse the fuck out of me for admitting I have a degree in Biology. Gee, I guess I should be ashamed.
What do I have against pipe fitters? Nothing. What do you have against University graduates?
This was my post "What on earth are you blathering about, morality is defined as difference between right and wrong behaviours? Many animals that have evolved to live in societal groups have evolved morality. Thus your claim that ALL morality is ENTIRELY provisional is demonstrably wrong, but you can never admit to an error no matter how absurd the result, as we see here."
You have ignored it entirely with yet more of your arrogant ad hominem, and lies.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon "I passed my apprenticeship in 1987, and I am not nor have ever been a pipe Fitter,""
ratspit "in the same way that you are “trained” in pipe fitting."
Do you think this is impressive, or I will somehow get annoyed by your trolling? Again grow up is the only response you deserve.
A degree doesn't make you right, and you are citing it as an appeal to authority fallacy, it has no bearing on the validity of your claim that morality is entirely provisional.
@Sheldon
The very fact that we have religions with morals; the very fact that we need legal systems with punishment for crimes attests to the fact that (more than any other animal) we are severely amoral. Not “immoral”. “Amoral”. We are lacking morals. Our leaders and legislators saw a society of chaos - if not for the institutionalization of a moral system. And the very fabric of this institution acts on primitive fear and guilt mechanisms - along with the legal gamble of spending time in jail for some crime. Or worse, in some cultures - losing a hand or a head.
There are a whole lot of other people spending time studying “descriptive evolutionary ethics”. It is the more accepted branch of evolutionary ethics and it has its roots in genetics - not some childish, liberalized system of infantile anthropomorphism.
“Oh. Look at the monkey! He’s just like us! He picks his nose and eats it!”
“No, son. We’re just like him. It’s the other way around.”
“What about the hyenas, dad?”
“Yep. Them too.”
(A trip I once took to the zoo with - no, I don’t have a dad. It was my grandma).
"The very fact that we have religions with morals; the very fact that we need legal systems with punishment for crimes attests to the fact that (more than any other animal) we are severely amoral. Not “immoral”. “Amoral”.2
So humans are amoral because they create complex moral ethics to live by?
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and on here that is some achievement. Again the only one anthropomorphising human morals onto other species is you, so do please stop lying that I have or am doing this. Different species have evolved different concepts of morality, but all societal animals have evolved the ability to make moral choices, and this is in an evolutionary context, unless you think choosing an action or behaviour that gets them killed before they reproduce is what evolution selects for. I guess we won't know until you answer my question you're ignoring.
"Is choosing an option that is probably going to kill you before you can reproduce wrong in an evolutionary context?"
@Sheldon
Look. Fuck. *deep breath* okay. I’ll try to tell you my point of view one more time. For example, an animal makes a choice that gets it killed before it’s able to reproduce ... okay. It eats a poisonous mushroom. It walks into a lion’s den - whatever. The choice itself was a bad one. But it was not moral. It was a matter of survival. It chose a path which led to its death. Knowing the path to surviving and making the right choices doesn’t equate to morality.
You get an answer wrong on a math test. Was that a moral event?
Right and wrong don’t always equate to morality.
Right and wrong in the context of whether we fuck our neighbor over or not ... that is the domain of morality.
The animal world is full of species who fuck their neighbors over on the daily because evolution selects for it.
"The choice itself was a **bad** one. But it was not moral."
"making the **right** choices doesn’t equate to morality."
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between **right** and wrong or good and **bad** behaviour
"Right and wrong in the context of whether we fuck our neighbor over or not ... that is the domain of morality."
So an animal in a group that has evolved instincts that enable it to know fucking anything might lead to an early demise is making a choice between right and wrong behaviour, ipso fact it has evolved morality.
Selecting examples that have not evolved morality in the sense we understand is irrelevant, you're trying to anthropomorphise human concepts on morality onto other species, and no one has claimed animals have all evolved the same morality. A male lion that kills another dominant male and takes over the pride will immediately kill every lion cub so it can mate with the female lions and reproduce it's genes, it evolved to know this is the **right** choice in an evolutionary context. Now once again what do we call the ability to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour?
Do take your time...
The precursors of human morality are based in our evolved past, so whilst human morality can and often is provisional, it is not, as you claimed, entirely provisional.
I wasn't a nihilist before this thread started.
Coming from you, Sapporo, I know that’s some kind of humour too sophisticated for my type of “small penis” joke take on things.
Are you actually admitting that I’m right? Or is the joke that this whole thread has caused you to lose all hope in man kind? Because that’s where I’m heading with Sheldon right now.
@ratspit
yes, it was a joke.
@Sapporo
Should have guessed. Well. Don’t stop reading. I’m getting ready to make the case for why “parental care” is totally amoral. Should make for good fodder.
@Sapporo
You and me both, I can only apologise the part I have played in prolonging this agony.
@Sheldon
“You just described one. A right behaviour in evolution is one that natural selection enables to survive long enough to reproduce. Like fish instinctively shoaling in a group, and not trying to make a run for it alone. One behaviour is more likely to produce offspring than the other, in evolutionary terms it is the right choice, hence it is the moral choice. Again lets a take a look at what you said.”
It’s the right choice, but it is not a moral choice. It is not even a choice. You have your self described it as an instinct. It’s an adaptation for survival.
Again. If I asked you to answer this question: what is 2 plus 2 - would the answer of 4 be the right choice, and therefore the moral choice?
"It’s the right choice, but it is not a moral choice."
morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour
"It is not even a choice. You have your self described it as an instinct."
Again you're anthropomorphising this as part of a no true Scotsman fallacy. However are you seriously saying that no animal except humans have evolved the ability to think, and make choices? You do know that research shows that even dirty smelly rats have the ability to problem solve right?
@Sheldon
“Again you're anthropomorphism this as part of a no true Scotsman fallacy”
Lots of big words in there, Sheldon. Are you having trouble constructing sentences again? Because this one I’ve quoted makes zero sense. I can’t even guess at what you’re trying to say. You’re throwing some loaded phrases out there - but you’re not doing it with much finesse.
I don’t limit intelligence or choice to humans. I would grant that to many animals. I simply don’t think it’s morality. Look at the cooperation of ants, for example. Do you really think ants are being moral when they collect food for the hill?
"I don’t limit intelligence or choice to humans. I would grant that to many animals. I simply don’t think it’s morality."
Making choices between right and wrong behaviours is the very definition of morality. Research has shown many societal animals exhibit this ability.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell...
"Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans.
Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions and have a sense of morality.
But Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups.
He has compiled evidence from around the world that shows how different species of animals appear to have an innate sense of fairness, display empathy and help other animals that are in distress."
"Prof Bekoff, who presents his case in a new book Wild Justice, said: "The belief that humans have morality and animals don't is a long-standing assumption, but there is a growing amount of evidence that is showing us that this simply cannot be the case."
@Sheldon
Okay. I’ve had enough. I will just highlight the absurdity of your argument and move on with my life.
Morality - “the choice between right and wrong behaviours”
Sheldon’s position: “if it is a behaviour and if it is either right or wrong, then it must be moral”
Examples:
A man is playing chess and moves his knight to an unprotected square. On the next move his knight is captured by a bishop and he cannot recapture.
A bear sees a poisonous snake and climbs a tree to escape it. The snake also climbs the tree and bites the bear. The bear dies as a result.
A shoal of fish moves right rather than left to avoid a swarm of predators. Some of the shoal are eaten - but less than if the shoal had moved left.
A child answers “4” to the question “what is 2 plus 2?” He gets the answer right. His mom gives him a cookie.
An ant collects food for its colony.
End of examples.
All of the above are examples are right or wrong behaviours in animals which Sheldon defines as “moral” in nature.
As this assertion is patently and blatantly absurd, I no longer wish to argue with anyone who cannot of their own accord see the problems with their definitions and their application of their definitions to real world examples.
With that being said, I subscribe to the Descriptive branch of evolutionary ethics - and I no longer have any patience for the arguments of those who subscribe to the Normative branch of evolutionary ethics.
With that being said, Sheldon, please acknowledge that I no longer have any interest in talking to you. The entire ordeal has been nothing but argument for the sake of argument, coupled by insult after insult. Have a nice life.
ratspit "Sheldon’s position: “if it is a behaviour and if it is either right or wrong, then it must be moral”"
morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad **behaviour.
It's not my position it's in the definition, and you're lying again, as I have never claimed this, these are your words, not mine. You're just lying to misrepresent me, and create straw man arguments, rather than address what I have posted. You claimed all morality is entirely provisional, that is the only thing I have disagreed with.
ratspit "please acknowledge that I no longer have any interest in talking to you. "
I couldn't give a flying fuck what you're interested in responding to, this is a public forum and I will post where and when I am minded to. Why you need this fact explained repeatedly is beyond me. If you donlt want to respond then don't instead of this pathetic showboating nonsense.
ratspit "All of the above are examples are right or wrong behaviours in animals which Sheldon defines as “moral” in nature."
Another lie from you, and anyone can search this thread to see I have not used all those examples. You're lying is tedious, but I won't simply let you lie about what I have posted.
For those interested in an in-depth analysis of evolution, animal behaviour and the mathematics used to understand it, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_game_theory
Pages