Evolutionary Purpose of Morality

[Wootah]

I think I worked it out.

The evolution purpose of morality is to forget the evil we have done and do.

No one can cope with the horror show of biology and human history. We are all descended for murderers, etc.

So in response morality evolved to help with an illusion that we are the good guys.

Does anyone want to debate my notion on the evolution of morality?

-----
Edited by otseng

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #9]

I already spoke to this... Your response parrots or mimics the already given assertion for the Christian. Which is to mean, "we are all filthy sinners and are in need of redemption.". I would agree in that this is exactly what Christianity tells its readers, from the Bible. The ultimate take-away question then becomes, what IS "good"? Is it whatever this so-called God proclaims 'good' to be?

I might be coming from a Christian perspective but I think that is helping to get to the truth not hurting.

I mean who wants to hear what I am arguing really. That all morality is just another weapon.

Another thought is that morality is the male attempting to show the female that he won't just eat the babies, or abandon them?

[POI]

[Replying to Wootah in post #9]

I already spoke to this... Your response parrots or mimics the already given assertion for the Christian. Which is to mean, "we are all filthy sinners and are in need of redemption.". I would agree in that this is exactly what Christianity tells its readers, from the Bible. The ultimate take-away question then becomes, what IS "good"? Is it whatever this so-called God proclaims 'good' to be?

I might be coming from a Christian perspective but I think that is helping to get to the truth not hurting.

I mean who wants to hear what I am arguing really. That all morality is just another weapon.

Another thought is that morality is the male attempting to show the female that he won't just eat the babies, or abandon them?

I'm sorry, but I have no response here really. I'm not sure what you are attempting to accomplish in this thread?

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #12]

Try to get to the root of the evolutionary purpose of morality.

And I am arguing it is s necessary self deception so we can sleep at night.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #12]

Try to get to the root of the evolutionary purpose of morality.

And I am arguing it is s necessary self deception so we can sleep at night.

Well, I'd say one of the purposes of "morality" is to coexist with others. Since most/all of us are not alone, on a remote island, we must learn how to cohabitate with others. We must learn how to do so, and also survive without ticking the wrong person off. It also stems back to some of the topics I brought forth.

But sure, I do not disagree that some believe they are 'good'. But what IS 'good'? If it is merely what the beholder believes 'good' is, and they believe they follow such attributes, then I guess they have succeeded.

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Yes the coexist component is the standard view.
We learned to pick nits out of each other's hair etc and realised killing everyone left us with an itch we can't scratch.

My thought is that the itch we couldn't scratch was the evil of what we did and morality was the solution to that problem.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Yes the coexist component is the standard view.
We learned to pick nits out of each other's hair etc and realised killing everyone left us with an itch we can't scratch.

My thought is that the itch we couldn't scratch was the evil of what we did and morality was the solution to that problem.

Sounds like you are the posterchild for an advertisement for Christianity. What I mean is that "we all are imperfect and are all in need of redemption, and the only way to receive such redemption is by surrendering yourself to the ultimate scapegoat, which is a Jesus."

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Yes the coexist component is the standard view.
We learned to pick nits out of each other's hair etc and realised killing everyone left us with an itch we can't scratch.

My thought is that the itch we couldn't scratch was the evil of what we did and morality was the solution to that problem.

Sounds like you are the posterchild for an advertisement for Christianity. What I mean is that "we all are imperfect and are all in need of redemption, and the only way to receive such redemption is by surrendering yourself to the ultimate scapegoat, which is a Jesus."

Thank you. But on topic.

What could be more important than murdering someone and thinking I am the good guy? Hence morality.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #14]

Yes the coexist component is the standard view.
We learned to pick nits out of each other's hair etc and realised killing everyone left us with an itch we can't scratch.

My thought is that the itch we couldn't scratch was the evil of what we did and morality was the solution to that problem.

Sounds like you are the posterchild for an advertisement for Christianity. What I mean is that "we all are imperfect and are all in need of redemption, and the only way to receive such redemption is by surrendering yourself to the ultimate scapegoat, which is a Jesus."

Thank you. But on topic.

What could be more important than murdering someone and thinking I am the good guy? Hence morality.

Take war, for instance. X goes to war with Y. If someone from X kills someone from Y, is that "good"? If not, is it "good" if it is vice versa? Remember, the Bible God sanctions killing. Is killing only good if God okays it?

[Wootah]

Take war, for instance. X goes to war with Y. If someone from X kills someone from Y, is that "good"? If not, is it "good" if it is vice versa? Remember, the Bible God sanctions killing. Is killing only good if God okays it?

That's my point. The post-hoc rationalisation is morality's purpose.

[POI]

Take war, for instance. X goes to war with Y. If someone from X kills someone from Y, is that "good"? If not, is it "good" if it is vice versa? Remember, the Bible God sanctions killing. Is killing only good if God okays it?

That's my point. The post-hoc rationalisation is morality's purpose.

Okay, but you continue to not answer my repeated question. You keep taking about how humans use 'morality' to mask what is really evil. What is actually "good" and what is actually "evil"? Is there such a thing? And if so, what is the standard and how do you know?