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

[POI]

[Replying to Wootah in post #60]

No, it's nothing like that. I'm saying your Bible-God condones human on human chattel slavery where-as you do not. Your pushback is that we are "slaves" to God. Which is a different issue, for 2 reasons. 1) you are not talking about the same type of slavery in which I am referring to. And 2), you are referring to us being subservient to God where-as I'm talking about it instead being okay for humans to treat other humans as slaves.

You are deemed 'evil' because you do not TRULY condone human on human slavery. This must mean your moral compass is not given by God, since you do not truly condone human on human chattel slavery. So how what?

[Wootah]

[Replying to POI in post #61]

OK. Whateva.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #61]

OK. Whateva.

Since you concede, why don't you answer the follow-up question?

[Clownboat]

Oh no, I am OK with chattel slavery.

Chattel slavery is a system where humans are treated as property, owned and bought/sold like any other object, with no rights or freedom.

I would note that a pedophile is OK with what they do to children. Pedophiles are evil even if they are OK with what they do.
I assume you don't actually own other humans as property even though you are OK with it, just like some people that are attracted to children don't act on their impulses. So thanks for not acting on the evil you are OK with. I hope you never buy another human and I'm sad that you can use your religion to justify such a thing.

But as they say:
On this planet, we have good and bad humans, but sometimes it takes religion in order for good humans to commit evil.

Perhaps someday you will be set free from your religion and will then note that owning/treating humans as property is evil. Until then, with a sad heart, I accept your claim that you are OK with owning/treating other humans like an object with no rights nor freedoms.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #64]

Exactly. Morality is an illusion that helps us sleep at night. Based on your moral outrage you get a good 8 hours at least .

Edit: honestly if you understood your words you would see we are arguing the same thing.

[Purple Knight]

Your exchange is onto the idea that there has to be competition between societies for the societies with those sorts of rules to flourish.

Not really. Societies definitely do sometimes compete against each other, but it's not always necessary for them to do so in order to survive.

With only one society, the only rules that will win are those that give the big benefits now, in exchange for greater hardship later. Without having to compete against a sustainable society, a society will always end up sacrificing later for now, because there's nothing to offset getting that big up-front benefit from the hasty, unsustainable rule.

So far in human history, there's never been just one society.

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.

This is probably the origin of tribalism. Those who walled themselves off, well, some of them died, because walling yourself off is stupid. But for a few groups, they happened to wall out the clever exploiters, who would exploit if they got in and could not be stopped because they were cleverer. So by being grug-brains who grunted "in-group, in-group" they won, and lived, even though they were doing something dumb.

[Purple Knight]

On this planet, we have good and bad humans, but sometimes it takes religion in order for good humans to commit evil.

Honestly I kind of see this as unfair to religion. Any time someone is told something false and believes it, they might commit evil. If I told you Wootah did horrid things to children, had an operational gas chamber in his basement which he used frequently to rid the world of bald people (whoops that's me), puts pineapples on pizzas, and had a time machine which he solely used to go back to when smoking was legal and smoke in the non-smoking section of restaurants, you might be inclined to off him.

Would that be evil, if you did it? Because I have no idea. Libertarians will say my part wasn't evil and I have every right to lie about people. I disagree, because if I know that truly righteous outrage was the logical result if someone believed it true, I'm the only one with malice in this scenario.

I don't think you can say the dupe's part is even really evil. I'm inclined to say it doesn't matter what you are doing and it only matters what you think you're doing, though law should still punish for what is actually done.

It's like the people who blow up Planned Parenthood. They think they're taking out murderers.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #67]

So do you think my take on morality is right?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #67]

So do you think my take on morality is right?

I definitely think it's right. People have to fight for themselves and their own to survive. Without a way to say to themselves, "When we do it, it's good, and when they do it, it's bad," it would be hard, maybe impossible, for a sentient creature to do it. It's not just to forget or justify the evil we do though: It's also to help us actually do it.

I do think morality has also morphed into a way for the people on top to justify their being on top, and everyone else being pushed down in the muck. It's a subset of your thing, but it behaves differently. Instead of simply justifying to themselves, it puts up a front of pristine moral perfection while chastising people who, for example, might not be able to afford a Tesla, or afford to give millions to charity.

Despite the fact that I agree with you, pretty totally actually... I am aware that the reason I agree is probably that I am cynical. So I am looking for reasons to disagree. I am looking for reasons morality might be more real than your proposition. And I'm honestly not finding any.

[Jose Fly]

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.

This is probably the origin of tribalism. Those who walled themselves off, well, some of them died, because walling yourself off is stupid. But for a few groups, they happened to wall out the clever exploiters, who would exploit if they got in and could not be stopped because they were cleverer. So by being grug-brains who grunted "in-group, in-group" they won, and lived, even though they were doing something dumb.

Interesting possibility.