[jasakwa]

The theory of evolution fails to explain where ethics and morality came from because they propose that life and existence is a mere chance and that beyond death is oblivion.

How can we really value another life if we think that life is an accident? How can we really care about another person's feelings if we see those feelings as part of mindless natural selection?

If a man walks to a surgeon and requests for his arm to be amputated,should he be allowed?would it make a difference to a thief maimed by muslim sharia law?

[ernestombayo7]

Originally Posted by jasakwa

The theory of evolution fails to explain where ethics and morality came from because they propose that life and existence is a mere chance and that beyond death is oblivion.

How can we really value another life if we think that life is an accident? How can we really care about another person's feelings if we see those feelings as part of mindless natural selection?

If a man walks to a surgeon and requests for his arm to be amputated,should he be allowed?would it make a difference to a thief maimed by muslim sharia law?

Neo-Darwinists try to explain the existence of ethics and morality by

1.The human species needed to have the best ethics and morailty that will ensure the survival of the society.Bad ethics such as rape,torture and wanton murder would adversely affect the whole society and impinge on the survival rate of a particular society.

2.From a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence. whereby,the human species learnt that some moral behavior led to certain consequences.eg killing daughters and sons,would mean no new generation for that family,hence harder for the older generation to survive on its own without a good and young workforce.


The two explanations have been widely criticized:

1.Ethics and morals evolved due to the desire for survival.

- This still fails to account for moral behaviors which are not necessary for survival.why would it be wrong to marry a 9 year old?

- some moral acts seem to go against our need to ensure survival for the society.eg Why the need to keep AIDS patients on ARVs instead of letting them die,or better,dispose of them/quarantine.Why do we still have homes for the old,lepers,crippled,people who seem more of a liability than contributing to the society positively.

- IF our motives is to survive,then why is it wrong to attack another country and take their resources?

- Who determines whether an act is moral or not and how it will ensure the survival of the society.IF its a collective agreement,then why isn't everyone in the society following this moral code?

2.consequentialist ethics

-Consequentialism fails to adequately explain why a morally wrong act is wrong. If the human species discourages acts that bring about bad outcomes,how about acts that seem to have no consequences?
Eg if a lone stranger wanted to be baked in an oven,why would that be considered wrong?

- the other problem of consequentialism is that it provides no guidance or ethics or a moral standard before an act is committed.One can only judge whether an act was good or bad after the outcome/consequences.Hence a person who has never done a particular act,may not know whether that act is bad or good,before he or she has done it.

-consequentialism can also be faulted in that since it only recognizes the best results of a particular act,then human rights violations in a particular war ore fight cannot be condemned if the overall results of the war were successful.
Eg the torture of innocent people by the army in Mt.Elgon cannot be criticized since the overall result of the exercise led to the elimination of the SLDF rebels.
- Sometimes it may be difficult to gauge whether the outcomes of a particular action were overall good or bad.Was the consequences of the post election violence good or bad?
some would argue it was bad because:
1.It led to the deaths of 1000+ plus kenyans
2.Severely affected Kenya's economy in the short run.
3.Led to thousands of displaced peoples.
but some would argue that it had its benefits
1.It led to a win0-win situation for both parties in the signing of the accord.
2.IT sparked the drive for a new constitution
3.An enquiry formed to investigate rigging claims whereby the ECK will undergo reforms to avert future mistakes and rigging.

etc etc a cumulative argument can be mounted by both sides.And there are many other examples eg the holocaust.while it led to the deaths of millions of jews,it did lead to the eventual creation of Israel a home for the jews.

Consequences of certain acts are not easy to determine beforehand,and hence can lead to an ethical dilemma.

And so both explanations fail to account adequately why humans have ethical systems and moral codes.

[Ester]

Originally Posted by jasakwa

The theory of evolution fails to explain where ethics and morality came from because they propose that life and existence is a mere chance and that beyond death is oblivion.

How can we really value another life if we think that life is an accident? How can we really care about another person's feelings if we see those feelings as part of mindless natural selection?

If a man walks to a surgeon and requests for his arm to be amputated,should he be allowed?would it make a difference to a thief maimed by muslim sharia law?

I think ethics and morality arose as a result of civilization.

Before that, man was primarily concerned with his survival which was a very difficult task to sustain in those pre historical times. If his survival meant killing his own brother in order to steal the little food that was available, he wouldn't think twice about it.

However, as man advanced technologically, he became more concerned with accumulating resources rather than just living hand-to-mouth.

To ensure the security of that personal wealth; men formed societies, created laws and penalties which still upheld personal freedom, but not at the expense of others.

[grip_daddy]

Ethics of morality can be tied to fear. Fear of death, fear of bodily harm, fear of emotional discomforts, fear of loss, FEAR.

Ethics and morality can be found in the animal world and I bet evolutionists have a lot to say about it.

[grip_daddy]

Ethics and morality can be tied to fear. Fear of death, fear of bodily harm, fear of emotional discomforts, fear of loss, FEAR.

Ethics and morality can be found in the animal world and I bet evolutionists have a lot to say about it.

[barb]

J, i think this is a superb question.....well first of all you do have a valid point there abt evolution failing to explain the origin of ethics and morals.

A simple definition of ethics is choosing principles of conduct as a guiding philosophy, so it is only fair to say that they originate from God, what God recognizes as right is right and wrong is wrong.

Morals to me mean conforming to a standard of right behavior and this standards originate from social conventions and human psychology. They are basically society's norms and they start from social catharsis and eventually end in social resentment and animosity.

the major difference btwn this two is that, with ethics you have the freedom to choose what to believe in contrary to morals where thinking has already been done for you.

so with that said it would only be an ok thing for me to say that most Christians have morals but bila ethics.

[Ester]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Ethics and morality can be found in the animal world and I bet evolutionists have a lot to say about it.

No, you cannot find it in the animal world because morals and ethics require a level of cognitive ability that even a rhesus monkey doesn't have. What exists in the wild is more of a hierarchy (ex. where the dominant males have access to all females) and distribution of tasks so that every member knows what's expected of it.

[reggie_woic]

I think its conscience...and civilization, as Ester pointed out.

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by jasakwa

The theory of evolution fails to explain where ethics and morality came from because they propose that life and existence is a mere chance and that beyond death is oblivion.

How can we really value another life if we think that life is an accident? How can we really care about another person's feelings if we see those feelings as part of mindless natural selection?

If a man walks to a surgeon and requests for his arm to be amputated,should he be allowed?would it make a difference to a thief maimed by muslim sharia law?

I'll ask again - what's the point of your above post? Are you truly wondering where ethics or morality come from? Are you trashing the theory of evolution? Are you pointing out that it doesn't explain where morality came from? What point are you trying to make, or what exactly are you asking?

[ATLian]

Originally Posted by Ester

No, you cannot find it in the animal world because morals and ethics require a level of cognitive ability that even a rhesus monkey doesn't have. .

I agree. Animals operate on instinct, not morality.