Evolutionary Moral Progress...

[seer]

It seems to me that if one is looking for moral progress there must be a fixed point that we are aiming at. Yet in the evolutionary model there is no fixed point. You could say that survival is a fixed point, but any act, good or evil, can serve that purpose. And even here, our survival is not a fixed point for the evolutionary process - our extinction is just as likely as our survival.

[Juvenal]

It seems to me that if one is looking for moral progress there must be a fixed point that we are aiming at. Yet in the evolutionary model there is no fixed point. You could say that survival is a fixed point, but any act, good or evil, can serve that purpose. And even here, our survival is not a fixed point for the evolutionary process - our extinction is just as likely as our survival.

Evolution doesn’t include processes for making moral judgments, which is consistent with human history. Maybe your god should have taken that into consideration when he used it for our creation.

[seer]

Evolution doesn’t include processes for making moral judgments, which is consistent with human history. Maybe your god should have taken that into consideration when he used it for our creation.

So you agree that moral progress is an illusion?

[whag]

Evolution doesn’t include processes for making moral judgments, which is consistent with human history. Maybe your god should have taken that into consideration when he used it for our creation.

Morality.exe was uploaded. You’re not theologically sophisticated enough to understand how rational this is.

[whag]

It seems to me that if one is looking for moral progress there must be a fixed point that we are aiming at.

It doesn’t follow that investigating moral progress requires a fixed point to aim at. You’ll have to explain that one and maybe even give an example since you’ve thought about it so much.

Yet in the evolutionary model there is no fixed point.

What do you mean by “the evolutionary model”? That’s a software term. In biological evolution, there is no such thing as “the evolutionary model.”

You could say that survival is a fixed point, but any act, good or evil, can serve that purpose.

And even here, our survival is not a fixed point for the evolutionary process -

Evolution says nothing of fixed points. Where are you getting this stuff?

our extinction is just as likely as our survival.

Our extinction is FAR more likely than our survival. We know that because 99.9% of species that have lived have gone extinct.

[Stoic]

It seems to me that if one is looking for moral progress there must be a fixed point that we are aiming at.

It doesn't seem that way to me.

Yet in the evolutionary model there is no fixed point. You could say that survival is a fixed point, but any act, good or evil, can serve that purpose. And even here, our survival is not a fixed point for the evolutionary process - our extinction is just as likely as our survival.

Agreed.

[Starlight]

It seems to me that if one is looking for moral progress there must be a fixed point that we are aiming at. Yet in the evolutionary model there is no fixed point. You could say that survival is a fixed point, but any act, good or evil, can serve that purpose. And even here, our survival is not a fixed point for the evolutionary process - our extinction is just as likely as our survival.

Consider the Laws of Physics an analogy for Morality. Over time we have evolved to be more intelligent, and over the last few thousand years we have gained a greater and greater understanding of the laws of physics, and found ways of using them. We don't know all the answers yet, we don't have an agreed-upon Grand Unified Theory of Everything. But we're gradually narrowing in on it and circling toward it. There's enough convergence toward it to think we'll eventually get there.

Similar with morality. Over time we have evolved to be more intelligent, and over the last few thousand years we have gained a greater and greater understanding of morality, and found ways of implementing it. We don't know all the answers yet, we don't have a Grand Unified Theory of Morality. But we're gradually narrowing in on it and circling toward it. There's enough convergence toward it to think we'll eventually get there.

[Machinist]

We don't know all the answers yet, we don't have a Grand Unified Theory of Morality.

What good would it serve if we had a Grand Unified Theory of Morality?

[seer]

It doesn’t follow that investigating moral progress requires a fixed point to aim at. You’ll have to explain that one and maybe even give an example since you’ve thought about it so much.

If you don't have a fixed point, then how can you know what you are progressing to? I am either driving around aimlessly or I have a fixed destination.

[seer]

Similar with morality. Over time we have evolved to be more intelligent, and over the last few thousand years we have gained a greater and greater understanding of morality, and found ways of implementing it. We don't know all the answers yet, we don't have a Grand Unified Theory of Morality. But we're gradually narrowing in on it and circling toward it. There's enough convergence toward it to think we'll eventually get there.

So you agree that there is a fixed moral goal or goals.

[seer]

It doesn't seem that way to me.

If no such fixed goal exists then how could one know whether or not he is progressing morally? Unless you don't believe in moral progress, which is the rational position for the atheist.

[whag]

If you don't have a fixed point, then how can you know what you are progressing to? I am either driving around aimlessly or I have a fixed destination.

Your premise doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “the evolutionary model” except in software development, so you’d have to explain what you mean and how it looks for fixed points.

[seer]

Your premise doesn’t make sense. There is no such thing as “the evolutionary model” except in software development, so you’d have to explain what you mean and how it looks for fixed points.

Stop being an idiot whag - you know exactly what I mean. That with evolution or naturalism moral progress is an illusion.

[whag]

Stop being an idiot whag - you know exactly what I mean. That with evolution or naturalism moral progress is an illusion.

You have to know the topic and use the correct terminology to have a serious talk about this. You invented a term, ascribed one of its goals as “looking for fixed points” (evolutionary biology does no such thing), then responded with name calling when called out.

Someone truly interested in this discussion rather than springing lame gotchas wouldn’t do that. Start again.

[Stoic]

If no such fixed goal exists then how could one know whether or not he is progressing morally? Unless you don't believe in moral progress, which is the rational position for the atheist.

Oh, I believe in moral progress. I just think it's a matter of opinion, like everything else about morality.

I think outlawing slavery was moral progress. Some would disagree.

I think allowing interracial marriage was moral progress. Some would disagree.

I think allowing same sex marriage was moral progress. Some would disagree.

etc.