highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
sapphi_snake said:
Slimebeast said:
The mystery of human altruism and morals. Even Dawkins admits that it's very mysterious.
|
What's so mysterious about morals? Us humans are social animals that live in societies based on interdependence. This is actually one of the main reasons for our success as a species. Morals are nothing more than general socieal rules that need to be respected in order for people to be able to live together. All social animals (ants, bees, chimps etc.) modify their behaviour in order to restrain selfishness and make group living possible. Basically morality has the purpose of restricting excessive individualism and promoting cooperation.
|
There are hundreds of species that are highly social, interdependent and successful - dolphins, wolves, prairie dogs, ants, bees - so does that mean that ants have morals?
You describe morals as "general social rules" (bolded). Well, a wolf pack has very strict social rules. Rats have social rules too, like most mammals do. So are you saying that rats and wolves have morals?
|
Thunderf00t explains things well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=related
|
I've seen it before. Thunderfoot, I kinda like him, he is intelligent. But he can't explain human morals better than any other evolutionist.
I strongly believe in absolute morals. And the concept of absolute morals contradicts with the evolution of morals á la Thunderfoot's model.
(btw, a note to you Highwaystar: just because I ask something it doesn't mean that I don't know the answer. By now you should have noticed my style of discussion, my method to argue)
