Human evolution: Whats right and wrong?

Question

If we are to follow and believe in the darwinian outlook on evoltion, who is to say that anything that humans do is wrong. Take for examle on a simple level wind farms. Humans have developed themselves in such a way that they have the brain power and way with all to develop this "free" process of making electricity. How can this be wrong? If nature decreed it wrong to build wind farms and have that available to us, then nature would have stopped us from developing it (as per evolution principles... brightests and strongest survive). Then we woudnt have all the nimbyism going on. On a higher but equally valid level, nuclear power/weapons. Would it not be true therefore that if nature did not want this it would stop us from developing? Perhps it is part of the evolutionary plan that we have all these "bad" things, but who has the right to pick and chose what we invent? Fire is bad, but without it also being good where would we be. What are you thoughts on this line of thinking?

Answer 1

Im believe that humans follow the same evolutionary pattern of behaviour as all other organisms. That is, we do what will perpetuate our species in the short term without thought of the bigger picture. Billions of years ago blue-green algae converted the Earth's atmosphere from methane to oxygen. In the process they made life possible for other life, including our own, but almost destroyed themselves in the process. Could that be the reason we are here? To progress life to the next stage?

Answer 2

If you don't bring faith into the mix, what's wrong is simply what doesn't work. The trick is to figure out your criteria for measuring success.

A nuclear strike could be a success because it cuts short a potentially catastrophic war and saves many more lives (that might have been lost in an extended conflict) than it takes. On the other hand, it could be deemed a failure if it leads to very long-term damage to the environment, a legacy of radioactivity, and generations of antagonists embittered by the loss of friends and family.

The current situation in Iraq is a similar example. The only way we could know for certain if this is wrong or right is if we could stand at the end of human history (or, even better and less anthropocentric, at the end of everything) and count the consequences from there. Because that is currently impossible, then we cannot *objectively* say that the war in Iraq is wrong or right.

However, we can certainly *subjectively* decide whether it is wrong or right. We can decide whether we prefer a short term solution with long term risks, or a long term effort with immediate risks. We can weigh up the evidence for both options and decide - here and now, based on our current knowledge and preconceptions. Hence, we can be right at the time, but wrong in the long run or even vice versa.

If faith does come into the mix, then often that implies that it *is* possible to be objectively right or wrong. Or at least, 'right' and 'wrong' might become the subjective opinion of one or more supernatural beings.

Perhaps faith springs from the animal desire to pin down and categorise. If I believe in a god or gods, then I can categorise everything around me as pleasing or displeasing to them - as 'wrong' or 'right'. If I don't have such a belief, then I am left in constant uncertainty.

(As an aside - in pantheistic faiths, where different deities have different personalities and motives, is there still a concept of objective truth? If so, how is it obtained?)

Answer 3

It seems that you are missing the point on evolution. Yes our brains evolved to a point to where we are able to develop these concepts... however, evolution does not implant these concepts in our minds. To say that something is not wrong because we are able to do it or evolved to do it is a major fallacy. That would make it so that murdering my neighbor for no reason at all isn't the wrong thing to do... which it clearly is.

When you try to apply morality to evolution you are misunderstanding both concepts which are by nature mutually exclusive. Furthermore evolution is not guided by any conscious mechanism. There is no endgame plan that we are all evolving towards. It's simply ongoing adaptation to our changing environment.

Answer 4

well buddy the very simple law is that nothing , nothing not even a tea it made by itself even if we place tea leaves,water, and sugar in the very same box.......if only tea which is so easy to make can never be made if somebody doesn"t make it..................how can the so so soooooooooo coplex living cell be made by itself.

just read cell biology and u will Know that a billion of processes are happening in the cell in harmony with each other and suprisingly much of the processes are linked with each other.There is a creator for all this.THat is ALLAH.

close your eyes for a moment and ponder that u , such a perfect human being ,how can it be created from nothing???? When u with all ur knowlege cannot create a human being like urself, how can non-living inanimate series of processes create a human being.....THERE MUST BE A CREATOR!!!

Answer 5

Nature doesn't decree what is wrong; it only decrees what doesn't work.

It was humans that came along with the concept of right and wrong, and that that is because humans can feel pain.

But pain is nothing more than an invention of the brain. There is no pain outside the brain. Am I boring you?

Answer 6

so a strategies as real scientific information is worried, not something proves human evolution incorrect. What the creationists element out, is fairly that there is not any honestly particular information that proves it appropriate the two. that's to declare: they pick to furnish the impact that faith in evolution is as faith-based as faith in creation. in spite of the undeniable fact that, this grievance does not bear the sunlight hours. No theory of technological expertise could have honestly particular evidence, and that's our unlucky human situation that exterior mathematical sciences, we are coping with not something yet uncertainties of diverse ranges. This, in spite of the undeniable fact that, does not recommend that we've no solid motives to have faith a theory is genuine. theory of relativity or Quantum Mechanics, case in point, have so solid empirical information that that's almost surprising that they weren't genuine, whether they are actually not appropriate theories. theory of human evolution isn't besides shown as ToR or QM, yet this does not recommend it lacks credit. that's improved in comparison to the different theory, i.e., that's the terrific theory obtainable to describe the emergence of human species. it must additionally be stated that evolution isn't synonymous with darwinism. Darwinism is in hassle-free terms a mechanism of evolution and there may be (and there certainly are) others besides it. all of us understand Darwinist mechanism is real, and we've amazing information helping evolution of human beings from different primates. in case you pick to have faith in God, the only scientifically justified way is unquestionably to attempt to in good shape your faith with the theory of evolution. this could not be too confusing.

Answer 7

'Nature' does not have desires or intentions or preferences. I think you need to go through a thorough introduction to biology, and in particular evolution, before asking any more questions on the matter.

Answer 8

Your reasoning is wholly invalid because its premise is anthropomorphic

Answer 9

There is good and bad in almost everything.

Answer 10

Everything we do is natural.