Sam Harris on Good and Evil

One of my favorite authors, Sam Harris.

A very compelling argument on the grounds of what is good and evil, and whether or not those determinations can be drawn from religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qZ-hkpqVlYw

 

Morality makes absolutely no sense when seen through the evolutionary lens.

 

This is a good debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq1QjXe3IYQ"]Morality--Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or Supernatural? William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris - YouTube[/ame]

 

I actually started listing to that about ten minutes ago, found it after listening to Harris's thesis The Illusion of Free Will.

 

How so?

Doesn't it make sense that a species who's members kill each other or act in other ways that are considered immoral is more likely to survive?

Or doesn't it make sense that our brain, looking for patterns, draws the conclusion that those behaviours come from a coherent concept such as "morality"?

 

exactly, why be moral? by evolutionary standards, I should just procreate with anyone for fun, and kill whatever gets in the way of my pursuit of life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

 

That would be detrimental to the species and local communities.

Its a non-issue and easily explained without invoking an imaginary god.

 

But why would I care about local communities or the species? When did we start caring?

 

Why do wolves refrain from killing other members of the pack?

The same goes for people. Morals and ethics offer a benefit for yourself and for others.

 

So when did the wolves get a set of morals?

 

I am not going to pin a time frame on the issue because it is completely irrelevant. My point stands, morals and ethics benefit you and those around you. That is why most people are predisposed to adopting certain basic behaviors.

 

Could you pin-point a time? So do Black widows have less morals than wolves?

 

The time frame is irrelevant.

Black windows have a lower cognitive ability than wolves, and are an entirely different animal.

 

What about the species that eat their young?

 

Which one? Be specific.

 

It doesn't matter,would they be less moral?

 

As I have said, it depends on the animals cognitive ability. A spider that eats its young or its mate has very little cognitive ability. They do not appear to have the ability to "think" but rather act on instincts. We do not see spiders critiquing Lateralus we see them following a very predictable behavior that is based on instincts.

So yes, the animal does matter. Be more specific and use more than one sentence to describe your argument.

 

I can't believe we're actually attaching morals to animals, although it would explain abortion.

 

Be more specific.

Use more than one sentence.

 

You're just going to attach some lack of cognitive ability to the species, while ignoring the stupidity of attaching a sense of morality to an animal.

 

You asked where morality came from.

I say it comes from the benefit of the species.

What "morals" are demonstrated by animals is largely dependent on the animals cognitive ability. A spider is unable to realize that eating its young is morally wrong by our standards, the wolf less so, humans, its obvious.

Morals come from the ability to benefit from such behavior. As you described, going around killing and raping anyone would not benefit anyone but yourself (hypothetically), and likely result in your own demise.

 

So you believe that killing your young is wrong?

 

That is obvious.

 

Let's say I'm in a tribe. Human, uncivilized tribe (to get the social works without the knowledge of philosophy). Let's then say I adopt this behaviour you talk about. I steal food, I rape women and I lie and cheat.

The other humans would shun me, stop giving me food, protect their own food and not help me get more food. Thus, I would not survive, the brutish gene is killed.

Note how evolution does not benefit survival of the fittest individual, it benefits survival of the fittest gene. If a person with a selfless gene dies defending others with similar genes (family), that gene will still have acted to make sure that his selfless gene survives, thus naturally selecting that gene for procreation.

The thing is that we do not live in a non-reactive environment. Stealing food does not equate having more food, it equates having more food, being hit on the head by the person you took it from and your way of getting food (stealing) will be harder since others will now protect their food from you.

Your logic would only work if you would instinctually like people who steal from you.

 

Thats because we live in a moral society. But when did that society develop? If you follow the "GOO TO YOU VIA THE ZOO", when did this all develop?