If that is the case then why are there utterly loving, compassionate people, or even just when a mother tucks her childs hair behind her ear, or when people cry at a funeral. Their behavior is not based on survival is it? Conversely, when a sadists tortures his victims, he does not do so for survival but for pleasure? How do these "emotions" relate to microorganisms?
2006-09-20 07:26:31 · 4 answers · asked by LIVINGmylife 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Chino- yes but what of the case of Hitler and the Nazi's. Mankind would agree that although his emotions led to the destruction that his, as you call it, social group would benefit and not the rest of the world? gotta go , i'll check back in a few hours, tks
2006-09-20 07:39:31 · update #1
Pippy Poo- i get your point, and although it strays from my question, the answer is emphatically No!, I would not eat someone else for survival if i were the last person on earth. There ARE other factors besides instinct!
2006-09-20 08:27:42 · update #2
Reverence- yours is an extremely subjective opinion, its all over the place with no grounds to stand on. Ah well, no surprise there...
2006-09-20 08:31:02 · update #3
It seems like you have a common misconception about evolution. The driving force in evolution is of course not the survival of the individual. It is the survival of the Gene. The Mother Duck shares genes with her babies which is why she has evolved to protect them. The tribe member shares genes with the rest of the tribe.
2006-09-20 07:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think this idea relates to the most fundamental aspects of life on this planet. "Sex" in all it's various forms and in every variety of life that exists here. I believe that is the most primal of instincts when it comes to survival along with the necessity for "food & water." With that in mind...
How far would you go, what moral laws would you break, if you were isolated from society and starving to death?
If you were either the last man or last woman alive, would you care if the "other" was a faithful believer of a religion that functions counter to yours? Or if the "other" was an atheist or agnostic? Would you not eventually succomb to the greater good of reproducing your own species?
2006-09-20 07:40:21 · answer #2 · answered by gjstoryteller 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morailty is the social construct of right and wrong.
You are confusing morality with emotions.
In a social group (e.g. Humans) empathy and compassion enforce reciprocity and cooperation between members of the group, thereby benefiting the group as a whole.
When the group flourishes, the individual benefits.
2006-09-20 07:34:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As opposed to what? Emotions being qualities derived from god? What does god have to do with emotion? Humans have empathy and sympathy because as we evolved, we lived in tribes of family members, and when we helped them, they would help us, giving us the sense that doing good upon others led to others going good upon them. As we developed as a species, we grew to live in larger communities where some kind of pay back was not always guaranteed, but sometimes would come anyways. Our sense of sympathy for people we do not know is an evolved trait, not some gift from a sky pixie.
2006-09-20 07:36:04 · answer #4 · answered by reverenceofme 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋