Originally posted by JS357
Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.

To get to the place of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory some chemical reaction is going
to acquire some form of understanding to make a judgment call. Getting to that place
seems quite a reach if the only thing driving change is well, nothing. So something
evolves to a place it can have a thought and hold it to the point of pondering meaning,
What had to happen for that to occur? What point in this evolutionary process did all of
this begin while we were floating around as asexual creatures, when we started walking
on two legs, or when?

Originally posted by vivify

Morality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea.

I agree.

As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved.

The mutation of genes gave rise for reasoning to emerge?
The further mutation of genes caused reasoning to become more and more acute, able to handle more difficult abstractions?

Look at the conversation we are having now. Do you believe that a purposeless process with no goal, no foresight, no ability to look ahead, cascading down changes like the changes in the central nervous system of organisms caused thinking and reasoning to emerge?

Without the direction of a superior intelligence, I don't know why such minds should be trusted. And if an organism is aided in survival by being "equipped" with a thinking mind, it is hard for me to imagine a process with no goal produced this.

What caused such a thinking mind to evolve from just giving information to help the organism to survive to musing on truth ? The amoeba must have been able to distinguish between an object smaller than itself from an object larger than itself. Your saying that with selection of profitable mutations of genes the nervous system could conceptualize such abstractions as laws of logic, propositions, moral oughts and ought nots, ethical comparisons, contemplations on the meaning of the organisms own existence.

And all this without any orchestration of a higher intelligence or higher prescribing moral agent. This requires more "faith" then God created man in His own image and according to His own likeness.

Humans, over countless generations, started to realize some practices were best for both the individual and the whole, and gradually, though trial and error, developed moral concepts.

According to Evolution theory the most fit organisms survive. In acts of self sacrifice the carrier of the genes which need to be propagated die with the one giving up her or his life.

In the second World War American Japanese were treated very badly in the US. But some found their way into the US Army. Because they knew that as American Japanese they had a stigma over them, many of them more willingly walked into death situations knowing that they would be killed. They had a sense of solemn obligation to prove to their fellow American soldiers that they were loyal to the uttermost to the US.

My father said he asked one of them WHY they were leading the charge up a hill held by the Germans upon which they were certain to be cut down by machine gun fire. He was told that they had to prove that they were loyal when other soldiers thought they were fools to die so willingly.

I don't know how Evolution made this kind of mind emerge. Rather than survival instinct it was a will to not survive to prove something higher in the moral realm of courage and loyalty.

Here survival was not the highest virtue. Self sacrifice for love and loyalty to a country unfair to them as a race is demonstrated here. Blind Watchmaker "Survival of the Fittest" Evolution produced that kind of a moral mind?

If Evolution is the source of moral truth then its ever changing nature results in ever changing morals ?

Then rape may be good someday when it enhances a species survivability.
Cowardly action may be good one day for the same reason.
Disloyalty to a friend may one day evolve to reinforce species survivability.

In Malachi God says He hates divorce and that He does not change.

" And I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against ... the adulterers ...and who do not fear Me, says Jehovah of hosts.

For I, Jehovah, do not change; ... " (From Mal. 3:5,6)

This is an unchanging moral standard from an unchanging Divine authority.

But ever changing Evolution may conceivably give rise to the VIRTUE of divorce that the species survive.

Could society evolve to murder off the weak and undesireable to make the most survivable gene pool ? Wasn't that tried by the funny little man in Germany with the square mustache ?

Originally posted by sonship
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Evolution results in genes which are successful at reproducing. Successful reproduction usually requires some cooperation with other members of the same species. This results in some amount of cooperative behaviour and empathy. It is notable that empathy in wild animals is strongly correlated to their social order. Animals that typically live alone have less empathy than animals that live in groups. Animals show more empathy to their own group than to other groups. Animals that act as parents show more empathy than animals that do not.
There is very very strong evidence that empathy evolved.
Morality is really just post justification for empathy with a bit of culture mixed in.
And, as with almost everything in Biology, it only makes sense in light of evolution.
In fact, you would be very hard pressed to explain our dedication to family members, desire for self preservation, notions of sex, and a host of other aspects of morality without evolution.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution results in genes which are successful at reproducing. Successful reproduction usually requires some cooperation with other members of the same species. This results in some amount of cooperative behaviour and empathy. It is notable that empathy in wild animals is strongly correlated to their social order. Animals that typically live alone have l ...[text shortened]... or self preservation, notions of sex, and a host of other aspects of morality without evolution.

Animals that typically live alone have less empathy than animals that live in groups.

So a domestic cat for example has less empathy than a pack of hyenas? Do you ever think before you write something?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So a domestic cat for example has less empathy than a pack of hyenas? Do you ever think before you write something?

A pack of hyenas is far more able to exhibit cooperative behaviour than a "pack" of domestic cats.

Originally posted by FMF
A pack of hyenas is far more able to exhibit cooperative behaviour than a "pack" of domestic cats.

And your point is?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And your point is?

It was an answer to your question. If you don't see the answer's point, perhaps your question didn't have one.

Originally posted by FMF
It was an answer to your question. If you don't see the answer's point, perhaps your question didn't have one.

So what does cooperative behaviour have to do with empathy?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So a domestic cat for example has less empathy than a pack of hyenas?

I don't know. Domestic cats do not live alone. I have two cats (mother and daughter) and they constantly seek out each others company, groom each other, and also seek out my company. And they show empathy for each other and for me.
I am sure Hyenas show empathy for each other too.

Do you ever think before you write something?
Yes, I do. Do you?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So what does cooperative behaviour have to do with empathy?

Cooperative behaviour depends on an understanding of the needs and actions of others.

Originally posted by FMF
Cooperative behaviour depends on an understanding of the needs and actions of others.

Seems more like instinct, do they take into account the needs of the animal that they are ripping to shreds when they hunt in a pack? Would hardly call that empathy.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Seems more like instinct,

Instinctual empathy is also empathy. Empathy in humans is also largely instinctual.

do they take into account the needs of the animal that they are ripping to shreds when they hunt in a pack? Would hardly call that empathy.
Nobody in their right mind would call that empathy, which begs the question why you are even tempted to. Were you under the mistaken impression that anyone here had done so?

Would you call humans eating meat an example of empathy?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution results in genes which are successful at reproducing. Successful reproduction usually requires some cooperation with other members of the same species. This results in some amount of cooperative behaviour and empathy. It is notable that empathy in wild animals is strongly correlated to their social order. Animals that typically live alone have l ...[text shortened]... or self preservation, notions of sex, and a host of other aspects of morality without evolution.

In this group cooperation is it ever possible for the majority of a group to be wrong?

Originally posted by sonship
In this group cooperation is it ever possible for the majority of a group to be wrong?

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at. I suspect you are mixing up concepts. Could you try and expand on your question?