Moral evolution, a response

"I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue."

I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.

However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.

"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."

No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?

"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."

Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.

"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"

Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.

"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"

I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:

"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia

"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com

Maggot Morality

A couple of things, Steve.

"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."

A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."

I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.

But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."

Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"

It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?

Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.

In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.

It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.