Do morals even matter anymore?

[Darkwing Duck]

Only if you ignore everything else I said. I gave what I consider a useful definition of morality. The common view of morality as a personal feeling for what's right is useless and must be discarded. If we view morality as the set of rules for acceptable human behavior, then it is best to establish these rules based on rational and objective processes.

Either way, I want to wash the dishes and tidy up the place before the game begin. If someone posts a worthwhile challenge, I'll respond tomorrow.

It's a code generally instilled from parents from a set morality and it's up to that individual to accept or deny specifics in that code. "Personal feeling" don't really enter the equation. Morality exists to keep the social structure intact. Sounds like it's rational to me, no matter what constructs are used. A lot of the moral code from Christianity is a remnant of living conditions when the moral code of the Hebrews. Those descending from that code have kept a lot of that overseeing code in place and has become more of a traditional thing. George Carlin in his famous 10 commandments bit deconstructed this code quite well.

 

[MVP]

Morally wrong, morally right mean nothing. Should we all drop our morals (some have more then others) and become Neanderthals again.

hm.. We were never Neanderthals... There was a theory that Homo sapiens were mating on occasions with Neanderthals but as it stands it was a different species.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

hm.. We were never Neanderthals... There was a theory that Homo sapiens were mating on occasions with Neanderthals but as it stands it was a different species.

Well, one of the definitions of species is that members of that species can create viable offspring that can procreate. When I was in school, there was still debate on whether neandertalensis was a separate species or a sub-species of sapiens. I do think that the common thought now is that it is indeed its own species, but I haven't looked at it in awhile.

 

[b_line]

hm.. We were never Neanderthals... There was a theory that Homo sapiens were mating on occasions with Neanderthals but as it stands it was a different species.

Actually, most Europeans, and especially Northern Europeans are about 5% or so Neanderthal. So, the mating theory is probable. Like you said, they were a separate evolutionary track from Homo sapiens.

 

[♪alt13]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

The more I've looked into the abstracts of more recent scholarly articles (Oxford and the like), I see a clear referral of neandertalensis as a species and not a subspecies. I can't read any of the articles I looked at because of paywalls, but anything on Neanderthals were using them as a different species. I'm not sure of the exact reasons behind it.

 

[♪alt13]

The more I've looked into the abstracts of more recent scholarly articles (Oxford and the like), I see a clear referral of neandertalensis as a species and not a subspecies. I can't read any of the articles I looked at because of paywalls, but anything on Neanderthals were using them as a different species. I'm not sure of the exact reasons behind it.

Yeah I know that they do. Many scholarly types for whatever reason seem to shy away from the subspecies label all too often imo. They do this with the Bornean and Sumatran Orangutans as well when I would like to see them classified as a single species with 2 subspecies.

 

[Harambe]

Morally wrong, morally right mean nothing. Should we all drop our morals (some have more then others) and become Neanderthals again.

You have to think on a different plane of existence to be able to say yes to that. But all the giants out there did... Hawkins, Newton, the Wright brothers, Einstein. They all embraced three words that form a great truth.

Wrong is subjective.

 

[Siro]

You have to think on a different plane of existence to be able to say yes to that. But all the giants out there did... Hawkins, Newton, the Wright brothers, Einstein. They all embraced three words that form a great truth.

Wrong is subjective.

Why put words in other people's mouths? Einstein's relativity relates to frames of reference. Newton was a hardcore Christian, and would never have said that morality is relative. Defend your own opinion using your own logic. No need to appeal to authority.

It's a code generally instilled from parents from a set morality and it's up to that individual to accept or deny specifics in that code. "Personal feeling" don't really enter the equation. Morality exists to keep the social structure intact. Sounds like it's rational to me, no matter what constructs are used. A lot of the moral code from Christianity is a remnant of living conditions when the moral code of the Hebrews. Those descending from that code have kept a lot of that overseeing code in place and has become more of a traditional thing. George Carlin in his famous 10 commandments bit deconstructed this code quite well.

This is all good. But if something is "rational" then it isn't subjective or culturally bound. The laws of motion are the laws of motion. A culture that creates its own laws of motion will never get rockets into space, regardless of how many objections they have to Newtonian mechanics (unless they create a more explanatory theory, aka Einstein). Similarly, if morals are objective, then it isn't up to the individual to accept or reject them according to his or her whims. If our objective is the well-being of all people (or whatever), then a moral standard either advances that goal or it doesn't. Cultural sentiment notwithstanding.

 

[Zulu]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

Sooooo what about asexual organisms??????

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't believe that we should any longer think of Neanderthal as a separate species. I think they can be refered to as a distinct race of human, but speciation should be reserved for organisms that are unable to mate and create fertile offspring.

This definition also isnt satisfactory-- think of plants, and the possibility of plants to hybridize, and mate with eachother-- and have those offspring able to reproduce as well. Would their hybridized offpsring be considered a new species? Are they themselves the same species seeing as they can mate with eachother? From face value they can't be, because their chromosome numbers are all unique; it's just that plants possess a unique ability to tolerate added chromosomes after hybridization, whereas animals like mules cannot.

So your definition (like many other definitions that try to pin down 'species') lacks widespread accuracy.

 

[♪alt13]

This definition also isnt satisfactory-- think of plants, and the possibility of plants to hybridize, and mate with eachother-- and have those offspring able to reproduce as well. Would their hybridized offpsring be considered a new species? Are they themselves the same species seeing as they can mate with eachother? From face value they can't be, because their chromosome numbers are all unique; it's just that plants possess a unique ability to tolerate added chromosomes after hybridization, whereas animals like mules cannot.

So your definition (like many other definitions that try to pin down 'species') lacks widespread accuracy.

I totally see your point but nonetheless we need definitions in order to catalog things. I am %100 fine with separate definitions for plants animals fungi they are sufficiently different(Kingdoms) that it makes sense to catalog them differently.