No nature is not immoral, its amoral Morality (ethics etc) is a human construct.
As for whether morality and ethics in people can be explained by evolution, I'd say yes. Its moral not to kill your neighbour etc. Groups with these moral prohibitions tend to survive longer and pass their genes on. Similarly protecting the weaker members and sharing efforts in survival typically mean that those groups practicing those moral and ethical prescriptions tend to be healthier, live longer and have more children, than those that do not. Its been years but in an Anthropology course I took as an undergraduate, we studied one group that suffered a catastrophic disaster. Their adaptation was to toss out most of their moral and ethical rules. Parents would eat food in front of starving children. Children would be kicked out of the home around age 3 etc. Killing other members of the community/tribe, rap etc was considered no big deal. After this change the tribe lasted 3 or 4 generations. Its been years so I'll have to dig up the information again. But the point is that I think it can be shown that morality is strongly related to group survival. Everything else involved with it is window dressing intended to explain to the members of the group why you don't eat shellfish in a desert environment or screw your sister. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[email protected]> wrote: > >>I think you're discounting nature's morality by boiling it down to >>kill or be killed. There are plenty of pack animals that protect each >>other. Mother animals care for their young. Gorilla's care for their >>"tribe". Dogs will face down someone who attacks their owner. Etc. > > Of course, doing so is self-serving in the end, because by being part of the > pack, the animal increases its own chance of survival. But nature is in > essence, immoral. There is constantly competition in nature to come out on > top at the expense of others, be it those not in the pack, or one male over > another, etc. Can human morality be totally explained on the basis of > evolution and overall survival of the species? Perhaps. But it's a very > strong contrast to what we typically see in nature. > > --- Mary Jo > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:306289 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
