Evolution Destroys Morality and Society
well i think at its basis we are debating about human morality and social interaction here. Being that liberty and rights would fall under morality. Morality was not instilled in us by a God. Morality, as well as the concept of rights and liberty, are social tools created by humans in order for us to function together as groups. In tribes, if we did not treat each other with morals or treat others how we wished to be treated we would most likely be alienated by the group and forced to survive on our own. So humanity developed a sense of morals based upon the need to work together. Morality is subjective there are no real "rules" just what is acceptable if you want to function normally in society.
You've missed my whole argument. I've made the case that evolution, as a system of understanding living things in the universe based on natural processes, cannot adequately nor logically account for rights, liberty, nor morality whatsoever. For you to suggest that morality does not come from God really misses the point of the challenge to your evolution worldview. Morality, by nature, imposes a standard of behavior upon all men based on a supreme authority. Natural things cannot impose such a standard, for it is logically impossible for matter to do any such thing. Matter is silent. The only way to appeal to morality in the first place is to believe in its transcendence, and the only way morality makes sense as a transcendent entity is by its reflection of a transcendent Being, namely, God. Otherwise, morality cannot exist, especially in a purely empirical way. At best, it would only be subjective, as you've alluded to.
That presents another problem, though. If morality is subjective, being only relative to a given society (as you've postulated), then morality loses its necessity of being obligatory upon all people in a general sense. In one society, it might morally okay to murder Jews. In another society, it would just as moral to rape women. Neither society could judge the other as immoral, given the moral standards chosen by both societies. However, that is not in any way how morality is assumed nor utilized in our world today. We rightly condemn such acts as slavery, socialism, and genocide in other countries as if those acts are objectively immoral. This whole forum is based on the fact that certain acts are immoral, no matter what society they occur in. That is why we all value such things as free markets, non-interventionism, and protection of private property as moral conditions which are true and objective for any individual and free society. No one here argues, "Well, those international bankers have a moral right to impose fake money on all financial institutions and economic systems around the world because, according to them, it's moral to do so." We condemn such acts as being intrinsically immoral. However, you want to suggest that by morality being subjective, that means any society can do what they want based on their own conception of morals. That is just intellectually dishonest.
Also, you want to say that society has a right to impose morality on others as a whole. However, I ask you from where does society itself get the moral obligation to impose a system of morality upon other people? You're appealing to majority when you make such an assertion. If a society decided that it is morally okay to kill babies in the womb, does that mean killing babies in the womb is itself moral? Absolutely not. Society is not and can not be the arbiter of what morality is. Rather, morality has to be established, first, in order for a society to exist. From that comes rights, liberty, property, etc. You're putting the cart before the horse. To say that morality is subjective is to say you don't have an answer for why morality should be the basis for any society.
Evolution cannot cogently answer the question of why rights exist nor can it account for liberty, equality, and morality in all the ways which we as humans take for granted in our human experience. Evolution, by its eradication of any immaterial or spiritual entities to explain the universe, totally dismisses concepts such as rights, liberty, equality, and morality in its system for gathering knowledge about the universe. You've alluded to humanity developing a sense of morals to work together in society, but that undermines evolution altogether. Molecules in motion do not work together to form morals. Period. Yet, that is what we're left with if evolution is true. Humans are just molecules in motion, subject to chemistry and physics. There is no morality in that.
)
/leaving thread now.
