First, I will appologize for any spelling errors in advance, as they are sure to be numerous.
A friend of mine and I were sitting around the other day talking about this and that (primarily evolution), and we began to argue about the purpose of having morals or a conscience. I argued that morals were the product of religion, and were not ‘human’ as he seemed to believe. I imagine a early, self-conscious hominoid sitting around with his buddies, and seeing his friend’s stick. It’s a nice stick, capable of all sorts of wonderful ant-gathering, gazelle braining, wife-clubbing uses, and he wants it. I don’t believe that he would hesitate from taking the stick from his cohort, and he certainly wouldnt feel bad about it afterward. The telling thing is that this analogy works equally well if the caveman were a baby instead, and the stick were a delicious sucker (and there wouldn’t be so much gazelle consideration going on). I also argued that any organism would not possibly evolve it were confined by morals and Ten Commandments, and that religion may be the primary factor in descerning why we as a species have stopped evolving.
My friend argued that man was born with morals, and that the product of him searching for justification for those morals was religion and gods.
I am sure that this has been debated before, by stronger and more capable minds than mine, so if anyone has any input, secondhand or otherwise, I would be fascinated to read it. Let me know who you think was closer to the truth.
Morals is a societal construct created to make a group of people conform to a standard to keep them in order. Morals are useless on an individual level for the puposes of survival.
You have stick
I want stick
You dont give me stick
I take stick
Option A
you kill me
Option B
I kill you
…end of stick story. no morals but someone has a stick.
At some point in time, some wise but pansy person suggested you and I should discuss the stick situation rationally without killing anyone. After we kill him, we think he may have been right. So we end up fighting for the stick but stop short of killing.
At another point in time and much later, a wiser but pansy person saw all the fighting going on and told everyone that they should become civilized! When asked what the hell does civilized meant, he answered people who live in cities that didnt fight and kill each other …all the time. When asked why should they do that, he said God told him. …and anyone who laid a hand on him will get a lightning bolt shot up his ass. Those who believed called themselves religious, took the wise pansy and called him a priest and made a city. Those who didnt kept on fighting and killing until they either believed and followed morals or they killed themselves out.
I disagree. Religion doesn’t equal morality. Using the caveman example: If the caveman realized that a stick was a desirable commodity and thus wanted to have his own and did not want to share his stick with others he’d have two options:
Steal the stick from his neighbor and fight off the rivals of that stick.
or
Come to a property agreement with his rivals. He may have to share the stick but at least that means he doesn’t have to continously fight.
In either case I don’t see where religion fits in.
Now that’s not to say that religion hasn’t been used as a tool to facilitate societal norms (or morals).
Cite? What do you base that ridiculous assumption on? Since when has man stopped evolving? On a side note, why would morals prevent a species from evolving? How do the Ten Commandments prohibit a species from evolving? While not being particularly religious myself I fail to see how a society that adheres to a moral code (such as the Ten Commandments) stops evolving and developing? Social norms encourage the advancement of civilization (not the same as evolution I’ll give you, but on the same track.)
Maybe a definition of morality would help your cause…
Im saying that our desire to make sure that the weakest among us is taken care of in a sense of ‘brotherly love’ has prevented us from becoming what we could. We are more concerned with being able to get our hamburgers cheap, our parking close to the door, and building a better car to avoid having to run to our jobs that we stop becoming stronger and started to become fat and complacent. If everyone of us tommorrow were thrown into a field, given a rock, and had to kill our meals, 99.9 percent of the population would starve; either crying that the pretty animal would have to die, or asking for a lighter rock. These are the situations that forced us to becoming physically strong and mentally cunning, the building blocks of our evolution. We may be able to operate complex machines, like a computer, but instead of becoming physically stronger, we have made it so we NEED the products of our intelligence to survive. We wouldn’t be able to handle life without cars, coffee shops, computers, and toasters.
That’s a pretty big assumption to make. I’m sure it could be argued that it’s not “brotherly love” but the cunning of the weak…eh, but that’s another argument. Giving to the poor (or brotherly love like activities) doesn’t necessarily weaken us as a species (if that’s what you’re getting at.) Hell, if I give money to a begger my hope is that he eventually becomes a productive unit of society, ie: he gets back on his feet and gets to work thereby increasing the GDP.
Once again that is a big assumption to make. I dunno about you, but it seems to me that the health and fitness industry is doing quite well. If it weren’t there would be no Gold’s gyms opening near you. Efficiency is why we park close to doors. It has all to do with time conservation and little to do with “becoming stronger.” Instead of building ships perhaps Christopher Columbus (or Eric the Viking…etc.) should have just practiced his breast stroke.
Cite? I know I for one would be able to kill and eat an animal if I needed to. That is a completely absurd and invalid biased statement to make.
Bullshit says I. Perhaps you should take off your rose colored glasses and go out into the world sometime. Outside of the United States most people do not own computers, do not drive cars, and do not go to coffee shops and they seem to be getting along just fine. What you have described as "NEED"s are merely luxuries which allow us to be more efficient- which is stronger. I work at a computer which saves me hours upon hours of time. Time which allows me to go to the gym to become physically stronger. Time which allows me to study and become mentally stronger. I don’t understand why efficiency is detrimental to society.
What does any of this have to do with morality and religion???
While I may agree with HoviBaby sentiments, I dont agree with
This is called specialization. Its found in the natural world as well. Bees, ants and termites have specific tasks that they must do and are not interchangeable. The place dies if one portion or speciality is removed. Stronger isnt always better. If it were, humans wouldnt have evolved to achieve the highest link in the food chain.
Thats why I find the show “Survivor” so amusing. A group of people pretending to know how to survive, voting off the most capable and most qualified to survive in favor of the one who is the most able to suck up to the others. Morals in microcosm.
BTW, I would say that I belong in the .1 percent of human beings (in amerca) that would survive being in a field with only a rock to live with. Without boasting I can honestly say that I know how to kill my fellow humans for food.
…well, i might save some of the pretty ones for sex. The female ones at least.
Animals argue over a mate/food/etc. and stop just short of killing each other.
It is advantageous to have a society with morals. An individual can be much more productive if he or she doesn’t have to continually look over his or her back to see if a rival wants the ‘best’ stick. Weak individuals would still die off, strong individuals would be a little less evolutionary (can’t think of a better term) fit, but the larger number of average individuals would be better able to survive. Religion can be a source of a moral system, but it can also come to be on its own.
I love the idea that the weak among us are sucking up our resources, all the while plotting our downfall. But I wasn’t talking about one man giving one begger one dollar. I was talking about huge government programs that take care of the disabled, single parents, and those who can’t (or don’t) work. Right about now, you’re all heading off to your respective armories to find your Bash-an-Asshole Stick (it all comes back to sticks), but I can assure you, Im not the asshole your stick was designed for. I think many of the programs make perfect economic sense, and we all know someone who survives because these programs are available. I am simply saying that if Marshal Law were declared tommorrow, and we all had to fight for oursleves, these would be the groups that would be the first casualties.
The idea that Christopher Columbus getting in his ship to discover a the new continent and you getting in your car to discover the new additions to McDonald’s Value Menu are in any way comprable is ridiculous. We use our items of technological surperiority for the mundane, not the spectacular.
As far as gyms go, we don’t go to Golds so we can slay the mighty woolly mammoth, but so that we look nice in a tanktop. And before you say that that is for mating purposes, I would submit that Cadillac is our preferred method of attracting the opposite sex. Stupid fat guys get laid too.
As for the members for this board being able to kill and eat thier own food, I, sir, say “Bullshit!” This beast won’t be tied down people. Do you mean to say that you could run down this beast, bash it’s skull in, skin it, clean it, and cook it? I am in shape and healthy, but having never had to do this, I am not sure I could. To say otherwise is foolish.
And in my example, I was most definately talking about the United States. But you saying that other countries “get along just fine” is overlooking the point. First of all, we ARE getting along just fine, but we’re doing it in the easiest, fastest, least physically or demanding way. THIS is the problem. The only way that we as a species can ever hope to evolve is if we were to have some sort of crisis we have never seen before i.e. a nuclear holocaust, invasion from outer space, whatever. It would force us to take the next step in our evolution as human beings. Second, when you say that countries without these superfun toys are ‘getting along just fine’, I would say you are wrong. Third world countries are overflowing with famine and anarchy, but those that survive are sure to be the stongest or most resourceful.
Minor note: Evolution does not always work to produce badass individuals. It is entirely possible that morals evolved because people working together can easily outcompete lone wolf sociopaths. It therefore follows that working and playing well with others is a more important quality of strength then being able to take your neighbor’s stick.
Is it? Ponder the amount of resources expended to let you purchase a meal for under $4.00 and have it ready in seconds. Think where that beef and those fries started, and what had be done to convert them to transportable items to cookable items to edible (well, saleable) items. Now count the number of times this happens per minute. That’s pretty damn spectacular.
I would say we have taken that step. To wit, a person with a brain and minor tool access can take down most any strong, stupid type. Said person can also farm better, hunt better, etc. Therefore, the ability to make and use tools is the primary factor in determining fitness.
If some crisis ocurrs that would render tools useless, then people would die by the billion. No such crisis has ocurred. Ergo, people are evolving by making themselves better tool-users.
You seem to be placing a value on the physical attribute of strength and mental cunning.
These are merely attributes that may or may not increase an individuals ability to survive in a given environment.
There are many others (poison, speed, etc. etc.)
We occupy a specific niche in a multidimensional space of attributes that is neither better or worse than any of the other possible niches (IMO), it just is.
Mnyah. The problem is, the guy who makes a habit of taking other people’s sticks run a considerably larger risk of getting his brains bashed in (and his sticks taken away) while he sleeps. Whereas a group that’s able to uphold the principle of not taking each other’s sticks offers its members a better shot at survival.
IOW, cooperation is a survival strategy. Being able to trust other members of the group not to act in their own short-term interest makes for more efficient cooperation and improves the survivakl chances for all members of the group. One could easily imagine the core of a moral system solidifying around that simple idea, no ?
(Obviously, the idea that people outside your tribe/city/nation/religion should be treated under the same moral code as those on the inside is quite recent. Newer than the 10 commandments, certainly…)
Ok, if you want to argue from a public policy perspective then I’d say which would you prefer, government subsidies to help people get back to work and start contributing to society, or nothing. While I won’t argue the logic behind welfare instead of workfare or the pros and cons of subsidized housing (I’m not in favor of welfare or subsidized housing ftr) I will say that the majority of social programs are intended to help citizens get back on their feet. It’s not just about “surviving” but also making the person a contributer to society which is better than welching off society.
But I’m not the one making the comparison. You seemed to imply that our progressive technology has made society evolutionarily weaker. My argument was if not for technology Columbus would never have sailed the ocean blue thereby spreading our species over a larger area and making us less likely to be obliterated by disease or local devistation.
and to say
is foolish. Is going into space mundane? Landing on the moon mundane? As a species it is in our best interest to insure the survival of the species, so that means we have to cure diseases and fly to other planets incase earth becomes inhabitable.
That’s funny. Really. I’m a hair away from using #3 as my sig line. I’ll conceed that Stupid Fat Guys (SFG) get laid too if you conceed that not all people who go to the gym do so just for mating purposes (health and fitness levels to play into it, otherwise married people wouldn’t go to the gym even though they’ve “mated” for “life” .)
Now you’re changing your description of the beast. I’m fairly certain I could take out a sheep rather quickly. But lest you forget man had to invent tools (bow and arrow and spear) to bring down bison and elk. Also I’m sure I could at least catch fish, but that’s away from your argument.
I think you’re bluring the lines evolution. First off man cannot control his own evolution. Sure we can mess with genetics, but that doesn’t prevent evolution from yielding new traits. There is all kinds of diversity on this planet, evolution doesn’t stop because a species becomes less physically active (look at the tree sloth.)
No it’s not a problem to get along the easiest way possible. That’s how evolution works. If evolution strickly worked by strength there would be no prey for lions but each other. Elk would have died off as they are not physically stronger than lions.
I still fail to see what this has to do with morals and religion. Have we abandoned that topic by the wayside?
In my experience religion and morals have reletively little to do with each other. They may each reference the other but either can exist without the other.
Morals, (social rules maybe a better term), evolved from living in a troop, (religion evolved out of group morals)… As Norman pointed out, the troop would kill any real bully, that’s why he doesn’t just take the stick. No social animal evolves without rules guiding the pack/troop/clan.
We can not live without tools, we would not have evolved without tools. Long before Sapien, earlier homos had already evolved tool use. A homo Sapien would die of starvation without tools, (assuming he wasn’t eaten first).
Man is evolving right now, evolution never sleeps.
Another “tribe” might be full of Bad-Asses, but the tribe that looks after the weak might just end up with a caveman Stephen Hawkings, or someone similar. That could go a long way towards a SERIOUS evolutionary advantage.
