I agree that there is an important distinction between explaining the origins of morality, and deciding what is moral. Evolutionary theory can help us address the first question, but we must turn elsewhere for guidance on the second. I briefly lay out the basis for my own moral system above.

The origin of morality is explicitly and perfectly connected to deciding what is moral. If morality is a product of a purposeless, natural process which describes that which is useful for survival and reproductive benefit, then morality is not an objective law of "good" vs. "bad."

Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage"

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?

Mesk:

Read him in context: he isn't saying we need to overthrow every part of our evolutionary past, but rather that there are aspects of our evolutionary heritage that can and should be discarded. I think pretty much everyone would agree that altruism is one trait that would be useful to keep around.

So, then morality is judged by that which is useful?

Mesk, when selfishness (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) was useful for survival and reproductive success was it either "good" or "bad"

Is altruism (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) only "good" because it is now useful for survival and reproductive success?

And where did this notion of morality come from anyway?

Mesk:

And one final post for today: how does the quote from Jesus explain what the Christian position is with respect to gay marriage? Embryonic stem cell therapy? Organ donation? In vitro fertilisation? Environmental destruction? And so on"¦

It's a neat little quote, but it doesn't really capture Christian morality in practice, or the complexities of moral reasoning in general.

If moral reasoning is a complex issue, it is only so because it is an objective standard (with its foundation in ultimate reality) that humanity is attmepting to understand and attain. In order for it to be this objective standard of "good" vs. "bad", it can not arise out of that purposeless process which supposedly causes electro-chemical impulses within our brain for the purpose of our evolutionary survival and reproductive success. As already shown, that which arises out of a purposeless process is netiher "good" nor "bad." What could be less complex than "everyone gets to make their own moral rules?"

If the above is understood, then we can actually attempt to discover what the objective moral code is. If it is grounded in loving the Ultimate Reality and the Ultimate Reality tells us to love others as ourselves, then we at least have a starting point when discussing morality. Our start point would then be "which actions show true love?" Of course, love would need to be defined, but at least we are getting somewhere in understanding an actually objective morality.

I need to track this down in the primary literature, but according to this site:

The generally accepted wisdom, according to a number of fairly well-done studies, is that the average (nonincarcerated) criminal IQ is 90 (92 or 93, depending upon who's study you use), but conventional wisdom holds that there is usually a ten point gap (90 v. 100) between criminals and the average for the rest of the population. The incarcerated criminals who have gotten caught tend to have much lower IQs, often around 85 or so, which triggers status as a mentally "disabled" inmate or one with a "learning disability."

Of course I'd like to get some actual data (as well as the definition of "criminal" in the first sentence), but this will have to do for the moment. So yes, it seems that the criminals in jail are the daftest ones, but even the ones that don't get caught are on the slower side of average.

I agree that this is a plausible confounding factor, but I'm sceptical that it entirely explains the association (which is remarkably strong - incarcerated individuals have an average IQ 10 to 15 points lower than the population mean).

Maybe the smarter ones simply don't get caught as often.

As for me personally, I generally adopt a fairly utilitarian approach to morality - I try to act in such a way as to minimise suffering and maximise happiness. I see this system as being similar to religious moral guidance in that it is simply a formalisation of near-universal human moral rules, but I believe it to be less arbitrary than any religious system I know of (in that it is largely unfettered by the illogical taboos that have accreted around the moral rules of all major religions).

How can it be less arbitrary? You say "as for me". You arbitrarily decide what your approach to "morality" is then claim it is less arbitrary. In what ways is your standard less arbitrary?

As to being a "moral" standard what makes your standard any more right than one who wishes to adopt a different standard other than yours? Is it because in your opinion it is more utilitarian? Is this the difference between what is right and what is wrong?

Vivid

It's a neat little quote, but it doesn't really capture Christian morality in practice, or the complexities of moral reasoning in general.

I agree that there is an important distinction between explaining the origins of morality, and deciding what is moral. Evolutionary theory can help us address the first question, but we must turn elsewhere for guidance on the second. I briefly lay out the basis for my own moral system above.

Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage"

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?

Read him in context: he isn't saying we need to overthrow every part of our evolutionary past, but rather that there are aspects of our evolutionary heritage that can and should be discarded. I think pretty much everyone would agree that altruism is one trait that would be useful to keep around.

Can someone please let me know what the algorithm uses when deciding whether or not a post goes into the moderation queue?

Don't ask me; I just work here. But they should be up now.

Furthermore, it seems that this paper only tells us that altruism does indeed benefit survival and that people were indeed altruistic in the past.

What does this tell us about what we "ought" to do?

Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage"

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?