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 Purple Knight in post #69]

Well, personally I think if morality is what allows us to sleep at night for what we did then what we did must have been objectively immoral.

Or

The sight of blood and guts naturally offends us.

[Purple Knight]

I'm not saying societies have to compete to survive. I'm saying they have to compete not to end up at all instant gratification, all the time. For example, very clever, very selfish person always wins within his society. But as those become more numerous, societies with a lot of them will lose to societies with fewer.

Not necessarily. A society with a majority of people who work directly against that society's cohesion and function probably won't fare very well for very long.

In a society that builds itself on any sort of morality, those who work against society's cohesion and function can simply say, "I am more moral than this society, so I seek to destroy it," and that society will have one of two very nasty options: Concede that it was never built on morality, or carry their enemy on their shoulders to his victory over them.

It's because even though this forum is a nice place to be, and it's nice to discuss these things, morality is fundamentally illogical and ungrounded. I argue it can't be grounded. Because nobody ever justified "thou shalt not kill" but everyone said it was moral, ten commandments are more moral than one, a thousand more moral than ten, and the person who finds literally everything to be evil and argues for nothing being permissible, is most moral of all. The most restrictive wins. Wow, he's so moral, the rest all say, and try to outdo him. Morality seems to be a race to the bottom in this way.

Case in point, we already have more laws than anyone could possibly know, and all the time not only are more being made, but more and more people are making their way on making moral proclamations extra-legally or punishing people extra-legally (cancel culture for example) and more and more people are agreeing with them.

[Wootah]

Case in point, we already have more laws than anyone could possibly know, and all the time not only are more being made, but more and more people are making their way on making moral proclamations extra-legally or punishing people extra-legally (cancel culture for example) and more and more people are agreeing with them.

We had one law in the garden and today no person can know if they have broken the law or not.

[Jose Fly]

In a society that builds itself on any sort of morality, those who work against society's cohesion and function can simply say, "I am more moral than this society, so I seek to destroy it," and that society will have one of two very nasty options: Concede that it was never built on morality, or carry their enemy on their shoulders to his victory over them.

No that's not how most societies work at all. In most of them, such a person is punished and/or removed from society (e.g., prison).

It's because even though this forum is a nice place to be, and it's nice to discuss these things, morality is fundamentally illogical and ungrounded. I argue it can't be grounded. Because nobody ever justified "thou shalt not kill" but everyone said it was moral, ten commandments are more moral than one, a thousand more moral than ten, and the person who finds literally everything to be evil and argues for nothing being permissible, is most moral of all. The most restrictive wins. Wow, he's so moral, the rest all say, and try to outdo him. Morality seems to be a race to the bottom in this way.

I disagree. Morality is mostly a means to keep a society functional.

Case in point, we already have more laws than anyone could possibly know, and all the time not only are more being made, but more and more people are making their way on making moral proclamations extra-legally or punishing people extra-legally (cancel culture for example) and more and more people are agreeing with them.

That doesn't make sense.

[Purple Knight]

In a society that builds itself on any sort of morality, those who work against society's cohesion and function can simply say, "I am more moral than this society, so I seek to destroy it," and that society will have one of two very nasty options: Concede that it was never built on morality, or carry their enemy on their shoulders to his victory over them.

No that's not how most societies work at all. In most of them, such a person is punished and/or removed from society (e.g., prison).

Then that society picks the second option and concedes it was never moral.

Morality is mostly a means to keep a society functional.

You're correct. But people don't like to admit that and like to think morality is real, and it's independent of practicality.

Case in point, we already have more laws than anyone could possibly know, and all the time not only are more being made, but more and more people are making their way on making moral proclamations extra-legally or punishing people extra-legally (cancel culture for example) and more and more people are agreeing with them.

That doesn't make sense.

I disagree. I think there's a strong connection between more morality, and more restriction of permissible action.

[Jose Fly]

Then that society picks the second option and concedes it was never moral.

So any society with a justice system cannot be moral? That doesn't make sense.

You're correct. But people don't like to admit that and like to think morality is real, and it's independent of practicality.

Of course morality is real.

I disagree. I think there's a strong connection between more morality, and more restriction of permissible action.

If it's permissible it's not really restricted.

[Purple Knight]

Then that society picks the second option and concedes it was never moral.

So any society with a justice system cannot be moral? That doesn't make sense.

It can't be moral first. Remember the context. Someone with what he claims is higher morality is out to abolish the system. The system must either let him do it for the sake of morality, or concede that the laws were always about practicality and never morality. This is because the system can never prove it is more moral than the person who says he is more moral. And if the system doesn't sacrifice all it has to throw it on the altar of morality, it will look less moral than if those sacrifices are made.

You're correct. But people don't like to admit that and like to think morality is real, and it's independent of practicality.

Of course morality is real.

What I mean by real and independent of practicality is that, for example, you could have a moral premise like "thou shalt not kill," and it applies no matter the circumstances, no matter if it is practical or harmful to those following it.

I disagree. I think there's a strong connection between more morality, and more restriction of permissible action.

If it's permissible it's not really restricted.

What I'm building is the idea that if Bob's philosophy has only one big no-no, and Amy's philosophy has Bob's restriction plus another restriction - let's say Bob thinks only murder is wrong and Amy thinks both murder and assault are wrong - then most people, for most restrictions that actually exist in moral philosophy, will say that Amy is more moral than Bob. The more restrictions a moral system has, the more moral it appears. (Not legal systems, belief systems.)

[Jose Fly]

Then that society picks the second option and concedes it was never moral.

So any society with a justice system cannot be moral? That doesn't make sense.

It can't be moral first. Remember the context. Someone with what he claims is higher morality is out to abolish the system. The system must either let him do it for the sake of morality, or concede that the laws were always about practicality and never morality. This is because the system can never prove it is more moral than the person who says he is more moral. And if the system doesn't sacrifice all it has to throw it on the altar of morality, it will look less moral than if those sacrifices are made.

You're correct. But people don't like to admit that and like to think morality is real, and it's independent of practicality.

Of course morality is real.

What I mean by real and independent of practicality is that, for example, you could have a moral premise like "thou shalt not kill," and it applies no matter the circumstances, no matter if it is practical or harmful to those following it.

I disagree. I think there's a strong connection between more morality, and more restriction of permissible action.

If it's permissible it's not really restricted.

What I'm building is the idea that if Bob's philosophy has only one big no-no, and Amy's philosophy has Bob's restriction plus another restriction - let's say Bob thinks only murder is wrong and Amy thinks both murder and assault are wrong - then most people, for most restrictions that actually exist in moral philosophy, will say that Amy is more moral than Bob. The more restrictions a moral system has, the more moral it appears. (Not legal systems, belief systems.)

Well PK I have to be honest here....I've lost interest in this discussion, and since it's one I was barely interested in when I first started....

I thank you for your time. Take care.