This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new

Empathy has nothing to do with success, though it may be an advantage in some professions. Empathy does likely have a positive influence on the evolution of our species (prevents us killing each other for example), so those with strong empathy were likely to survive longer and successfully reproduce, thus strengthening the gene pool with the genes of those more inclined to show empathy.

The characteristics that allow species to survive and hence have greater chance of being able to reproduce do not necessarily have any correlation to business success or, if talking about the animal kingdom, have any correlation to status within the herd.

Evolution is about natural selection favouring those traits that allow the species to successfully reproduce. Cockroaches did and dinosaurs didn't.
 
bellenuit said:
What is the Christian morality that many extol here? Is it simply the 10 commandments or is it just everything that is in accordance with the "Do unto others..." tenet?
Click to expand...
Put simply, and on a practical level, it is to do the right thing (whatever that is) in everything, and nothing less. It is an objective morality.

“
... that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless ...
“
(Phil)

As you can see from this verse (Craig Lane mentions it using a different translation), in more obscure cases the right thing to do isn't always clear to us. It is some correct action/decision (objective morality), whatever it may be. Paul's view is that they would automatically know within themselves how they should act in everything, or what they should do/say, if they developed more virtue.

If there is a God and an objective morality, what is this objective morality like? Which moralities of those offered is the best, and is it correct and true? If so, that might be God's preferred religion. Unless He has set things up to confuse us. So you will see debaters often trying to find flaws in the morals of various religions they debate against.

Cynic summed them up well enough, but I also like some other ones too. Like treating your enemies nicely, and then watching them treat you differently. Or what about never worrying? I won't explain this. And some are peculiar to secular people regarding relationships, but we won't go there. In all of them though, it's about doing the right thing/objective morality, rather than following rules.
 

But we see little to no differences between this Christian morality and secular morality at the conceptual level. Every secularist would say that it is morally correct to do the right thing and additionally concur that it is not always easy to know what the right thing is. But we do know from current observation that those countries that are more secular are also the most moral, which really shows that religion is more likely to direct people to do the wrong thing, hence it is greatly inferior to secular morality. And the reason it directs people to do the wrong thing is because even though it may have been congruent with the secular morality of the time it was conceptualised, it has remained stagnant since. Secular morality, which is constantly evolving with our understanding, can adapt and be relevant to our current situation.
 
First up, there is an important distinction to be made here:

Morality, and its interpretation, are two distinctly different things/concepts.

Hopefully the abovementioned distinction, should be sufficient to dispel any confusion caused by improper conflation of the following distinctly different concepts:
Morality
Moral understanding
Moral expression
Moral behaviour
Moral interpretation

When I write my descriptions of contemporary, morally correct, behaviour/s, I am expressing my interpretation of what morally correct behaviour is, in our current day environment, in accordance with my personal understanding of morality.

A point worth noting here, is that, my current understanding of morality, despite my best efforts, may or may not be in accordance with objective morality. Hence, my understanding of what objective morality actually is, may be subject to change!

Even objective morality, will at times, demand changed behaviours in response to changed environmental and/or sociopolitical conditions, from its subscribers.

Can you see how my understanding, of the morality concept, requires of me, a very different approach to scriptural interpretation?

I note that you are persisting with claims to the existence of this "secular morality" which, for reasons already stated, is logically incompatible with one of the key secular beliefs. If the secularists were to turn out to be correct, then objective morality cannot ever have truly existed!
 

But unlike VC, I do not accept that there is objective morality. Morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progression and religious morality (at least that which is codified, such as the 10 commandments) is just a snapshot of secular morality at the time it was written with some nonsense added in to placate their God.
 
You do not believe in the existence of objective morality, and I do not believe in the existence of relative morality.

A moral adherent, may at times, need to alter customary behaviours in response to changed conditions. The behaviour required for adherence to the moral code has changed, but the moral code remains intact.

An example of this would be a moral code that places importance on a particular medical practice that does a small amount of immediate harm, in order to enhance the longer term survival prospects of members of the species. Environmental and technological progress may later render the lesser harm practice redundant, making a practice that was once morally correct, morally incorrect, consequent to it now being needlessly harmful, but the moral criterion that first demanded, and then later prohibited that practice, remained intact!
 

But is the moral criterion that you say remains intact that which enhances the longer term survival prospect of the species or is it not inflicting needless harm? If the latter, what determines needless harm? Obviously using obsolete medical practices is an easy one. But would torturing a terrorist that has planted a dirty bomb in a city in order to find out its whereabouts be needless harm?
 
A good example of what could be considered a moral dilemma.

Presuming that the moral imperative is survival, then harm minimisation is an immediate consequence of this imperative. Reference to the harm minimisation criterion, would prohibit needless infliction of harm, but would allow the harming of the terrorist, provided, that there were no less offensive way, of preventing his prior activity (i.e. planting a bomb), from causing devastation to many.
 

If the moral imperative is survival (I assume that to mean survival of the species if taken to the extreme), then to me that is a moving target. Objective morality may seem fixed and firmly bolted to the floor, but it is to the floor of a moving carriage (not the best analogy I know, but it is all I can come up with right now). That is why I say morality is relative to where we are in our evolutionary progress. Survival of the species may appear to be an objective moral imperative that hasn't changed since the beginning of life, but what it means in practice certainly is different dependent on where we are on that timeline.

If religious morality (and specifically Christian morality) was objective, codifying it in lists like the 10 Commandments would presumably provide a set of criteria suitable for all circumstances. But we can see that simple commandments like "Thy shalt not kill" would be unsuitable to cover every circumstance while complying with the higher imperative of species survival. It would need pages and pages of footnotes to allow exceptions, which would need to be added to ad infinitum as we evolve.
 
One point that I believe needs to be clarified, is that I do not personally believe, survival of our species, to be the true objective morality, but rather one outcome, of the true objective morality.

I believe there is, at least one, important need, that required the creation of life, as part (if not all) of that need's remedy. It is from the existence of that underlying need, that life as (at least part of) the remedy, derives its purpose, thereby acquiring importance and value.

Without the objective morality, to which I allude, survival of our species would be rendered irrelevant, due to the absence of any meaningful purpose. Life would be needless, devoid of any useful meaning, and morality could not exist in any true sense of the word.
 
bellenuit said:
Evolution is about natural selection favouring those traits that allow the species to successfully reproduce. Cockroaches did and dinosaurs didn't.
Click to expand...

What, so you are saying that cockroaches have empathy and dinosaurs didn't ? Dinosaurs would still be walking the earth if not for a catastrophic event that had nothing to do with evolution, and there are many species that have survived much longer than man without any evidence that they have empathy for their own species or others. Sure, species cooperate among themselves towards survival, but that is different to having concern for others.

It's interesting that the only species that has overall contempt for its natural habitat appears to be the one with the most empathy; ie the human race.
 
Great posts, Cynic, and everyone else.

Rumpole, separation of Church and State is right there.
People need to do their own research on our history.

I have always said that we have a Christian culture and it reflects on our public holidays.
Even Dawkins said he was a cultural Christian.

As I said -

Faith
Family
Truth
Freedom.

This is my view.
 
SirRumpole said:
Just wondering what our staunch Catholics, Anglican et think should be done about the refugee issue, and what biblical teachings guide you to your feelings on this matter ?
Click to expand...

Let them in. It's particularly grievous to turn one's face away from someone in desperate need (it's a backward type of sin actually). There would be many Biblical teachings about the need to help and alleviate people's suffering. Also, ever since Christianity came, this duty of helping people also came along with it. It's part of that objective morality. And also can be derived without any religious influence.

The thing is, if we were doing this (helping refugees) , it likely that we'd also be executing justice in other areas as well, equals less problems for everyone. But when you have this, you will also have other bad legislation and abuses, and more problems of course.

I wouldn't worry too much about them. I doubt letting them in will change the existing downtrend too much.
 
Last edited:

Yes, there are similarities in both moralities, since basic morality is ingrained in us. And some or much of it has been derived in other non-christian places in history as you say. In this case, they were able to find out what that objective morality was through reason, as probably also did some of the Jews b4 Christ came. Afaik though, they didn't have all of it. Consider some of the prime revelations in the Bible:

A man shall no lie with a man (not aiming this at gay people, just an example)

And Jesus' revelation on marriage: one man and female, lifetime.

If not for these we may have had gender-less marriage long ago. And if those names you quoted had discovered these truths in objective morality, then that's impressive. But even then, they weren't inventing anything, but through reason discovering the nature of this objective morality.

You're other comment is your opinion. Many people believe that it was because of Christianity that those countries had good conditions. And living conditions seem to be getting worse (but that is subjective in this thread).
 
SirRumpole said:
If you like social morality the you must be a Lefty !
Click to expand...

Pretty much left on some things right on others, I think I am rationally down the middle.

I want to have all the safety nets, and maximum freedoms, while also encouraging private investment Etc
 
Value Collector said:
Pretty much left on some things right on others, I think I am rationally down the middle.

I want to have all the safety nets, and maximum freedoms, while also encouraging private investment Etc
Click to expand...

You seem to be socially Left but economically right, whereas I think I tend to the reverse. Makes for some good discussions !
 

Society can live with a certain number of psychopaths, but it can’t survive if psychopath was the general rule.

In fact a society without psychopaths is evolutionary unstable in the long term,

Richard explains it here.

 

No I am not saying that. You have completely misunderstood. My discussion on empathy was entirely in the context of humans (and our close previous ancestors) and human morality. With regards to cockroaches and dinosaurs, they both lived at the same time as the catastrophic event. Cockroaches had characteristics that allowed them to survive that event. Dinosaurs had different characteristics, which didn't help them. The reason one survived and the other didn't has everything to do with evolution, although in some cases it may have been just bad luck. Since the formation of the earth when it was a cauldron of gases and liquids to today, there have been myriads of events (floods, fires, ice ages, meteor strikes, etc) that had the potential to destroy ever living organism. Some survived because the event was local and only effected a small portion of that species' population allowing the rest to continue reproducing. Others survived because the event caused a complete destruction of a food source that that species was not dependent on, but other species were. Birds, by nature of their evolution, with their ability to fly would have been able to survive events that land bound creatures may not have been able to. And of course there is pure luck. Some species may have been wiped out by a local meteor strike because that species only existed in that locale.

It's interesting that the only species that has overall contempt for its natural habitat appears to be the one with the most empathy; ie the human race.
Click to expand...
.

Unfortunate, but true to an extent, But it is likely that those humans with the most empathy are more caring for their natural habitat. I would, for instance, think that one who has a high degree of empathy to fellow humans would not be the type to go shooting lions in Africa.
 

All I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be an evolutionary driver for empathy as a lot of species do fine without it including cockroaches. I think it is something that is acquired when a brain reaches a certain level of development and starts growing bits that tap into an emotional consciousness. But necessary for survival ? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...