On the subject of animals!

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

So why hasn't morality in these primates been eliminated by Natural Selection? What advantage does it have?

The very obvious advantage that for a species which reproduces slowly, it's much easier to replicate successfully in a nice peaceful neighborhood with co-operative friends than a dangerous one in which kids keep on getting killed. There is no selection advantage to being a dead child.

Make sense?

robindch

Botany Bay wrote: »

Read the Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

Or even just the chapter named, afair, "Nice Guys Finish First".

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

For example you think that having loads of sex is evil. I don’t even necessarily think that is bad, let alone evil.

I know it probably read like that to you but I don't actually think having loads of sex makes somebody evil, so maybe I shouldn't have used the promiscuous monkeys as an example of evil. But the lions killing the cubs, if a man did that he would be considered evil, or bad. Bad by what standard though? Lets assume that traits in this man took over our race, and this trait became the dominant trait in mankind and did in fact benefit healthy propagation in our species, would it then be considered bad? No it wouldn't, it would be considered natural. Which means that our definition of good and bad is relative to our survival needs.

MrPudding wrote: »

Does evil exist outside the biblical frame? This is what I am questioning. I don’t know myself. When I use the term evil I am not 100% comfortable with it.

What would you consider to be an evil person, by your own definition? Mine would be somebody who took great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors.

MrPudding wrote: »

I tend to give us humans a bit more credit than you seem to. I know how I like to be treated and how I don’t like to be treated. I have children and I have very strong feelings about how they should be treated. I want to be moral because that is how I believe humans in a civilised society should behave.

To what end though? Or is that itself an end? That people just should behave this way?

I think most of the posters missed my general question. If God does not exist because evil exists then by what standard to we call something evil. I use the word evil because that is the word atheists use when they use this method of reasoning. All I get is that I don’t understand this and I don’t understand that kind of answers, can nobody simply give me straight honest from the heart answer? There is no right or wrong one, just whatever’s in you that you want to say about it, it doesn’t necessarily have to involved having a pop at me en-route.

Edit: Admittedly the "having a pop at me" remark sounds a bit harsh. Pop at my beliefs might have been a better phrase.

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think most of the posters missed my general question. If God does not exist because evil exists then by what standard to we call something evil. I use the word evil because that is the word atheists use when they use this method of reasoning.

But atheists don't hold much stock with the word evil - for the exact reasons you mention. It is a religious word that generally describes stuff that goes against that religion's laws. Of course if has found it's way in common parlance, but it has no merit in a discussion about evolution and societal structure.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What would you consider to be an evil person, by your own definition? Mine would be somebody who took great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors.

I think the definition of a person who takes great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors would be found in a psychiatry textbook, and I'm fairly sure the term "evil" wouldn't be involved.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

But atheists don't hold much stock with the word evil - for the exact reasons you mention. It is a religious word that generally describes stuff that goes against that religion's laws. Of course if has found it's way in common parlance, but it has no merit in a discussion about evolution and societal structure.

I think the definition of a person who takes great pleasure in stabbing people in the eye with scissors would be found in a psychiatry textbook, and I'm fairly sure the term "evil" wouldn't be involved.

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

From Wiki: "Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior.

My questions is what is it? I know there are religious meanings for it, but what are the atheistic meanings for it coming via the "God cannot exist because evil exists" argument? Was what the Nazis did in Europe evil? Was it evil to them or where they carrying out an ethic that was acceptable within their own society? We call what they did evil, but only by what we ascribe to be evil. They were still adhering to an accepted state propagating ethic in their view.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Dictionary.com - Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

Given that there are sociological and logical reasons to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, which extends all the way down to respecting the liberties and freedoms of others, it can be objectively stated that what the Nazis did was wrong. Even they knew it was, and that's why they were not open about the Holocaust.

sdep

On the evolution of 'good behaviour', the best models (worked on by the likes of Bill Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, and popularised by Richard Dawkins) predict that altruism will be selected where either:

1) it's directed towards close relatives, thereby increasing 'inclusive fitness' - the reproductive success of the individual plus a weighted contribution from these close relatives.

2) it happens on a reciprocal basis - you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, and I'll stop if you cheat.

You're arguably more likely, then, to find altruism evolving in species living in extended families, or in stable groups where the same individuals meet repeatedly and remember each others' generosities and misdeeds. All this applies to us. My guess is that evolution of more complex brains helped us empathise to figure out what others need, to keep a tab of help given vs. received, and to spot opportunities to cheat with impunity. At any rate, amongst primate species, brain size does correlate with social group size and complexity (see here).

I reckon that our most basic 'Golden Rule' definition of good and bad has indeed been influenced by the evolutionary history I've outlined. We know what actions help others - they're what would help us -and we call these 'good'. 'Evil' is broadly the opposite. I'd also say we have an evolved tendency to a bit of evil now and then if it serves us, and we can get away with it.

Refreshingly, Tory wonk David 'Two Brains' Willetts recently climbed out of the box to muse on how society might run more smoothly if we took a leaf from our evo textbooks (lecture here). Summarising, we now live in free market societies marked by one-off interactions with people a continent or two away (I'd say big city living has similarities). This doesn't lend itself to trust based on reciprocity - as with Willetts' much touted neighbourly, meal-sharing vampire bats. Willetts concludes, "The task of Government is to create the environment in which the social norms and institutions which enable reciprocity can flourish."

Discuss!

Oh, and on the animals: from an Olympian height, we're no 'better'. But we, just as all animals, are - and are entitled to be - species-ist. Evolution selects for no less!

Dave!

Soul Winner, 'evil' is a term that has alot of religious connotations. If it's used in a scientific study, I would consider it quite inappropriate. You have pointed to its use in a scientific tv show; I'm not sure what that achieves. It's a tv show. Point to it in a scientific study and I'll say "they should use a different term".

Anywho, as to the matter of what you consider to be evil... I would make the following points:

a. You might call 'evil' "a societal consensus". There is no objective external source by which we can measure what is appropriate in society and where the boundaries of morality lie. To ascertain that, the person must gain experience, explore their world, experiment, listen, commit faux pas, and learn from them.

b. Christians presumably consider the Bible to be an external source on which we should base morality. I don't need to go into the reasons why this is a bad idea, nor do I need to go into how it can be shown that Christians (and others) do not actually use the Bible as a basis for their morality, though they like to think they do.

c. 'Evil', and what society considers appropriate behaviour in general, is constantly in flux. Look back over history and you'll see the different societal trends and movements. War was a way of life, life was cheap, women were subordinate to men, blacks were subordinate to everyone, the death penalty was a given, homosexuality, apostacy and heresy resulted in death... Things obviously change. So what was appropriate 500 years ago is not necessarily appropriate today; what was taken as a given (black people have no soul, so can't be treated as humans) no longer holds true.

So from that you can take it that I think morality is a subjective thing, and not something that is dictated by anybody. But when everyone's subjective morality is taken as a whole, you have a societal consensus, and when someone steps outside that, it's met with abhorrence. Because of the way society has evolved, that person may end up being imprisoned, killed (paedophiles run this risk), excluded, or whatever.

But most people don't want to pillage and rape and kill, do they? Do you? I don't. I don't think anyone who has posted here does. And for those who do, society has established a legal system to deal with them.

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

Science is published in journals, not on crappy american TV shows.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which means that our definition of good and bad is relative to our survival needs.

Yes.

Lets assume that traits in this man took over our race, and this trait became the dominant trait in mankind and did in fact benefit healthy propagation in our species, would it then be considered bad? No it wouldn't, it would be considered natural.

You're totally getting it. Imagine for a moment a world where carnivores never evolved. All the life forms there feed from a nutrient rich algae. Then imagine that they were presented with the notion of siezing another lifeform, tearing apart its flesh and feasting upon the stuff of its body. For food. It would be abominable to them. Disgustingly, repusively evil. We, however, happily sit around a kitchen table munching away on animal flesh, feeding it to our children and laughing away as we partake in such slaughter.

Galvasean

MrPudding wrote: »

it is possible to see an reason why the shunning could still exist. Over a long period of time the animals in question will have developed a method for reproduction and the continuance of their species. Presumably this will be along the lines of limited access to the females for the purposes of mating. One of the number that carries out a rape, will presumably be bypassing the “normal” mating procedure for this group, after all, if he was allowed to mate with the females then it would not be rape. Therefore this type of behaviour goes against that which is seen as acceptable for the group. The animal is shunned by the group. This will reduce the likelihood of this particular animal passing on its genes. As the group do not like the behaviour of this particular animal, this is good as it prevents this behavioural trait from being passed on, assuming of course there is a genetic reason for the behaviour.

That's pretty much it. The ones who try to rape, steal from other members of the group or anything else with a negative effect on the group end up on the fringes of it. Since only popular individuals are allowed mate the rapist monkey doesn't get to pass on his genes in the long run. Now he may have got them out while committing said rape if he wasn't stopped by the other members of the group before he could finish. Like I said in the long run it is not a sound investment.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

But the word is also used in scientific studies. The TV program "Most Evil" is a perfect example of this.

From Wiki: "Most Evil is an American forensics television program on Investigation Discovery starring forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone from Columbia University. On the show, Stone rates murderers on a scale of evil that he has developed in order to help science understand and thus prevent this type of behavior.

Ever watched that show? Very little science in it.

--amadeus--

Soul Winner wrote: »

That's my point, we've already established that God doesn't exist so where do we get off calling something evil? You seem to not respect what that scripture says, and that is because it doesn't live up to a standard you have in your head about what is and is not acceptable. My question is, where did you derive this value judgment? If God doesn’t exist because of evil then what is evil?

There is a diference in how we use language in here and how language is used in the broader, "real" world. In here eveil has a particular, religious, overtone. In the real world it is another word to describe a particular type of person. The guy in the UK who killed his family before torching his house, the Moors Murderers, Ian Huntley. I'd call them evil in conversation. I'm not refering to demonic possesion I just mean that peopl elik ethat who commit acts so far beyond the norms of human behaviour must be "wired up wrong". They seem to have something intrinsically wrong with them and they are beyond rehabilitaion - the word evil is just a useful shorthand. After all I don't believe in god but i still use his name when I stub my toe.

Soul Winner

Ok I think its fair to say that we all have a different take on evil. Another one of those emotive words that can have either strong religious overtones or can be used to describe religion itself. I've observed both methods untilled here and over in the Christianity forum many times. Ah well, not to worry. Thanks for the replies regardless guys.

I think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

But but but... the monkey rape

Dades

Soul Winner wrote:

think you can close this one Dades if that’s ok with everyone else.

Soul Winner, we don't really close threads unless they get unruly.
Like all of us, they'll fade away in time.

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Soul Winner, we don't really close threads unless they get unruly.

I knew that, I was just testing ya :pac:

Dades wrote: »

Like all of us, they'll fade away in time.

Do we though? Or is it just our bodies. I think this could trun into a debate again if we're not careful

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

But but but... the monkey rape

You weren't in the mood to Google remember???

studiorat

Soul Winner wrote: »

You weren't in the mood to Google remember???

that'll kill it alright.

Galvasean

*sigh*

NSFW, seriously. You don't see anything explicit, but the concept will get you odd looks.

Dades

LOL at the comments...


"I dont like the conditions this baboon is being kept in. Look at how its chained up for god sake."

Reply
"haha look at why that baboons chained up, seriously...it raped a baby goat."

ANYHOO.... :pac:

studiorat

Of course this is doing no good to the cause of clear thought and reason at all lads...

Galvasean

studiorat wrote: »

Of course this is doing no good to the cause of clear thought and reason at all lads...

Sorry, what? :pac:

studiorat

Galvasean wrote: »

Sorry, what? :pac:

The monkey/goat digression...

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

LOL at the comments...


"I dont like the conditions this baboon is being kept in. Look at how its chained up for god sake."

Reply
"haha look at why that baboons chained up, seriously...it raped a baby goat."

ANYHOO.... :pac:

Instead of doing the 'funky gibbon' (remember the Goodies??) he's doing the 'funky gimp', he just needs a mask and he's set

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXq8rELhUkw

Yes this was in the charts. Cringe!!!

Galvasean

studiorat wrote: »

The monkey/goat digression...

I understand taht bit just fine. it's the ' clear thought and reason' taht perplexes me.

Zombrex

What a bizarre thread. I think this is a classic example of not thinking outside the "religious box"

Soul Winner first started asking why we all thing humans are the higher form of life if we don't have God to justify this. Most people said we don't think humans are "higher" anything and the term doesn't really make sense in terms of biological evolution.

Next the argument was how we do we all justify the belief in evil as an actual thing without God to determine what is or is not evil. Again the response was that few here seem to think "evil" is an actual thing, more an emotive human classification of something that we find particularly repulsive in terms of violence or harmful behavior to others.

So I hope this thread kinda made Soul Winner think a little bit about how he views atheists

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think most of the posters missed my general question. If God does not exist because evil exists then by what standard to we call something evil. I use the word evil because that is the word atheists use when they use this method of reasoning. All I get is that I don’t understand this and I don’t understand that kind of answers, can nobody simply give me straight honest from the heart answer?

The answer is of course, our own standards. I never fully understand why religious people have such problems with that, but maybe that is why they are religious, the need for a concept of a higher authority (a progression from parent to God perhaps?) to decide things in an objective fashion.

At the end of the day "evil" is simply a term we use to describe things we find particularly horrible, cruel or violent.

Now you can say that if God doesn't exist we have no way of universially judging if something is, to this non-existent universal standard, horrible cruel or violent.

But then does that actually matter. It is horrible cruel and violent to us, why do we need a universal benchmark to make that some how have meaning. Is it not given meaning simply because we find it "evil" without the need for God to also find it evil?

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is no right or wrong one, just whatever’s in you that you want to say about it, it doesn’t necessarily have to involved having a pop at me en-route.

But that is the point, that is what right or wrong is.

Religious people remove God from their hypotheicals and then say no one can say anymore what is right or wrong. Which is nonsense. Of course they can.

They can't say what is right or wrong compared to the universal standard (God for example), but then we have removed the concept of the universal standard anyway so why would they want to.

Removing God simply removes God's opinion on what is right or wrong, it doesn't remove the concepts themselves. I still have an opinion of what is right or wrong. I can't say if my opinion matches God's opinion (since he doesn't exist), and you might say that because of that my opinion has no value to you. That is fair enough, I don't really care, my opinion still has value to me and I imagine to others.

Until this issue boils down to whether or not a person needs an authority to base their opinion upon or can they decide for themselves. I think most people can actually decide for themselves, even religious people, but I think a lot are very cautious to do so because they lack the ability to justify their own opinions on morality without referring to an authority that they feel is higher than them and therefore gives them an unquestioning (in their view) opinion on right and wrong.

Sorry if that came across as a shot at you. I don't mean it to be insulting. I am trying to get you to see that when you remove God you are not removing right and wrong, you are simply removing one opinion of right and wrong, an opinion that you turn to to tell you what is right and what is wrong. You can see this in how religous people say things like "well if God doesn't exist who is to say what is right or wrong" Who though is to say what is right or wrong if God does exist. It is only because you turn to God (a represented by your books) and place your opinion with him that you determine that God can say what is right or wrong for you. You can do that with anything, from your parents to Tom Cruise to Allah to a wise college professor.

So what you are removing is the place or person you turn to, not the actual concepts themselves.

Brian Capture

Animals are cruel and heartless.

They are incapable of love or loyalty.

KILL THEM ALL.

Dades

Brian Capture wrote: »

...

Begone.