To Evolutionists: Where did morality come from? Part 2?

Question

Alright becuase a number of people insisted (some quite rudely) that I respond to the people that answered the first time I asked this question, I'll further explain.

Another logic experiment.

Soldiers in war. One guy gets left behind. Our moral judgement suggests that we should do everything in our power including the sacrifice of more soldiers lives to save that one person. I'll call this the "saving private ryan" argument.

No matter how many people sacrifice themselves to save the one guy, saving the one guy is still the right thing to do.

Pointing out similar traits in other animals does not provide evidence for a mechanism. It could be a similar result from a mechanism or show that the two species had a similar creator.

Natural selection suggests that whatever will be best for the species as a whole will win out. Sacrificing the lives of 8 soldiers for 1 will never make logical since, but it is the right thing to do.

People don't have to follow this moral compass to know that it's there. I present it as a logical hypothetical argument to show that you have a predetermined answer to the moral question. Once more the answer is overwhelmingly the same. A group of people should help the one even though it's illogical to do so. We have free will which allows us to disobey this notion but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Answer 1

"Soldiers in war. One guy gets left behind. Our moral judgement suggests that we should do everything in our power including the sacrifice of more soldiers lives to save that one person. I'll call this the "saving private ryan" argument. No matter how many people sacrifice themselves to save the one guy, saving the one guy is still the right thing to do."

Actually it's not the right thing to do. It's the sentimental thing to do, it's the thing to do to assuage sentimental guilt feelings, but risking lives of many to save the life of one is not an intelligent thing to do, period -- nor is it "right".

Would you want three or four people to die trying to save you?

Answer 2

Many a submarine skipper has had to seal off a compartment still filled with seamen in order to save the ship and the majority of its crew. Moral choices are often difficult. They aren't always logical, though the best ones, I believe, are logical and rational.

The "Saving Ryan's Privates" scenario wasn't just about one man. It was about compassion. It was about one family making more than its share of sacrifices. And one of the questions the film asked was, "Is it moral to risk the lives of eight soldiers to save one?" Great films ask important questions but don't always provide a pat answer. They inspire thought.

Personally, I thought the fictional superiors made a good moral decision. The Ryan family had done its part. Let the last surviving son return and allow the family line to continue.

Then again, I'm one of those who believes every life has worth and no soldier should be left behind alive, if there is any reasonable chance of rescuing him or her. It may be that this is a case of my heart overruling my head, my sense of compassion overruling logic.

Answer 3

Morale. The fact that people will come to get you where possible increases morale. It increases the effectiveness of the fighting force, men on your side are more likely to take the necessary risks to win the war, and the winner of the war definitely has a survival advantage. Whatever strengthens the group is a survival advantage of the group.

Your rejection of animal models is spurious and you offer no support for your claim. The fact that ants do things by chemical programming and humans act by learned cultural responses (also known as morality) shows that there are multiple paths to the same fundamental strategy.

Answer 4

I know you think you're making sense, but you're not. It's a bunch of pseudo science crap that anyone with a lick of common sense can see right through. You're making yourself look silly and you should stop. I can tell by your questions you know nothing about evolution besides a few key phrases you might have learned in church from your pastor, or some web site.

You should do some earnest research and then make a reasoned decision based on all facts.

if that sounds like too much work, then just say god did it

P.S. If you lose 8 soldiers to save one every time you are going to lose that war in a hurry.

Answer 5

First of all I am not refuting that their might have been an outside force (god) starting life but the mechanism of evolution could have been made by the same force. Now to your argument the morale of the troops can be more powerfull then numbers look at the battle of Thermopylae (300 spartans holding off 100k persians) if soldiers know that if they get captured or surrounded their comarades or goverment will do everything to save them. That will make the brave, read art of war.

Answer 6

i disagree. sacrificing the lives of 8 soldiers for 1 is not the right thing to do. such an action causes far more pain and grief and loss of life for all parties involved, the soldiers AND their families, and has a greater negative impact than if they would have just let that single person die. if there is a good chance that all people can be saved, sure, go ahead. but if its pretty certain that the person will die, and that going in will cause MORE people to die, then it is certainly not moral. just because an action is selfless, doesn't make it moral. morality is what causes the GREATER good.

Answer 7

The reason soldiers are willing to risk their lives on a rescue attempt of a compatriot is rooted in the fear that they themselves could end up in that position. Willingly being part of such a rescue is an insurance policy toward one's own future rescue. Each soldier thinks he will be coming out of the rescue attempt alive.

Note that if they KNEW they would not come out alive, they would NOT participate in the rescue. If they were motivated by what was "the right thing to do" rather than rational self interest, they would still participate in the rescue even if they had certain knowledge of their own death. You and I both know that isn't the case.

Maybe you should stick to "the bible says it, I beleive it, and that's that", and leave the philosophy to the philosophers.

Answer 8

Simple logic really does elude you. Let's suppose there is a group of 11 soldiers, one of whom is missing in action. This one private is certain to die. In an attempt to free him, there is a good chance more will die. But that is not a guarantee. So the individual soldiers will feel they can do it, save someone from certain death and come back alive. If, however, they would know for sure that 8 of them would die in the attempt of saving that one life, none would dare go - unless he would value his own life below that of private Ryan.

I would be justified to send 8 christian soldiers into certain death, to bring back one live snail though.

Answer 9

You're wrong about the last thing you said.

Let's rewind to a pack of wolves. You've got 10 individuals, three of them puppies. Since they're a pack, they all share a LOT of genetics in common, even beyond just those required to be wolves. A grizzly stumbles upon the pups and decides they'd make a tasty meal. One of the adults leaps to the cubs defense and dies, but the bear is satisfied with its kill. Three survive even though one dies. And the one's genes continue because the puppies are closely related to the one who sacrificed itself.

It's called altruism. It's the basis of human morality. It's an instinct in animals that form social structures. It's our conscious mind that complicates it.

Answer 10

Morality came from...not what is best for the human species, but what is best for that particular tribe to survive and prosper. That is why morality changes with geography. As to your soldier...sacrificing 8 for 1 doesn't make sense, but you would get far fewer volunteers for your army if you didn't do it.