On 25/01/2018 at 12:06 AM, Bender said:

"Evil" is a self-eliminating evolutionary feat for social organisms.

Doubly so for evil acts against in-group individuals. The in-group category seems to be growing. Possibly because people live closer together, possibly because tribes who prefer peace with other tribes are more successful on the long run.

Evil individuals can only thrive if they are a minority.  If the evil group becomes too large, the group dies out.

(Why did God had to creat evil or see it and let it be?)-Evolution is so silly that it allowed evil to evolve through jeolousy and dictatorship since antiquity; though skepticism can also make some one loose some relevant morality

On 1/24/2018 at 4:16 PM, Bender said:

What do I call the carrot I ate today? Do you tell your children eat the carrot on their plate because "she" tasts great?

What do you call with animals of which the sex can only be determined with surgery or a DNA test?

(In Dutch calling something "he" or "she" depends on the gender of the word, not the animal, so the argument doesn't really apply. Some animals, such as a horse, pig, sheep or kitten are "it" because the word is genderless.)

 

 

On 1/24/2018 at 3:17 PM, John Cuthber said:

Redefining words isn't generally helpful.

People refer to their boats, ongoing projects, and cars as he/she. I'm not sure that trying to get everyone to use gender pronouns the exact same way is going to be a successful endeavor.

23 hours ago, universaltheory said:

(Why did God had to creat evil or see it and let it be?)-Evolution is so silly that it allowed evil to evolve through jeolousy and dictatorship since antiquity; though skepticism can also make some one loose some relevant morality

Evolution isn't silly. It is indifferent. Concepts of good and evil are irrelevant to evolution  (and nature in general).

Could you give an example of how skepticism makes one loose morality?

23 minutes ago, Bender said:

Evolution isn't silly. It is indifferent. Concepts of good and evil are irrelevant to evolution  (and nature in general).

Could you give an example of how skepticism makes one loose morality?

All you said about evolution is what makes it silly! Its indifference as you say led to the evolution of reasonable agents who are reasonable enough to judge between good and evil

Secondly; if evolution allows morality to evolve through social expectancy, then if some one starts to expect more through inquisitivity and curiosity (skepticism); then i don't know why in the above perspective skepticism doesnt appears to be immoral

!

Moderator Note

Evolution is not the topic of discussion here

 

11 minutes ago, universaltheory said:

All you said about evolution is what makes it silly! Its indifference as you say led to the evolution of reasonable agents who are reasonable enough to judge between good and evil

Why do you think that is silly?

11 minutes ago, universaltheory said:

Secondly; if evolution allows morality to evolve through social expectancy, then if some one starts to expect more through inquisitivity and curiosity (skepticism); then i don't know why in the above perspective skepticism doesnt appears to be immoral

Morality does not (necessarily or exclusively) evolve through social expectancy. It evolves because groups with "fitter" morality are more successful. 

I can't follow the reasoning that follows. You claim that expectancy leads to morality; how then do you get to more expectancy leading to immorality? 

16 minutes ago, Bender said:

Why do you think that is silly?

Morality does not (necessarily or exclusively) evolve through social expectancy. It evolves because groups with "fitter" morality are more successful. 

I can't follow the reasoning that follows. You claim that expectancy leads to morality; how then do you get to more expectancy leading to immorality? 

Fitting is justified through social differentiation and expectancy is justified through social integration