Unfortunately, this speech is not about evolution of morality. Just chunks of definitions related to morality. This lecture/speech had no consistency and neither a deep of analysis of morality evolution.
This was an amazing talk. People need to update their "conventional knowledge" every once in a while. I've learned so many new things AND I'm left with a few concepts to think about.
Not if somebody harms others and then "exits earth through their own hands". Law enforcement can't get you after you "expire". I'm using alternative words because google is against free speech and censors incoherently.
Isn't morality really just a technology that rewards and encourages symbiotic reciprocal relationships while punishing and discouraging predatory and parasitic relationships? We need more of it
Morality is a standard of what's right and what's wrong for human beings aka what human beings "ought to do" or "ought not to do." Oughts are defined by goals. If I want to have the most expensive ice cream more than anything in my life, then I ought to do everything that I need to do in order to achieve it. From an evolutionary pov, this would ironically justify everything that so-called secular humanists claim to stand against.
@@tasinal-hassan8268 Well most people share a line of reasoning around morality, regardless of religion that says this: We prefer not to be preyed upon or host to a parasite so we discourage this activity so that we can benefit from a symbiotic relationship through division of labor. There's a reason that viking style raids aren't really a thing anymore, and that is because it's just stupid to kill all of the smart and productive people when you could benefit from their production instead. The more moral we are, the wealthier we become.
@@terrythompson7535 This would perfectly justify psychopathy, rape, murder, etc. and many other things in some societies since they evolved that way. Like I said before, evolutionary ethics would ironically stand against secular humanism, since evolution itself is indifferent what traits humans act on.
@@tasinal-hassan8268 What exactly would "perfectly justify psychopathy, rape, murder, etc"? I am not understanding your perspective. Can you be more specific and less vague please?
@@terrythompson7535 Psychopathy is evolutionary adopted. It's a trait provided by evolution. If we're gonna trust evolution as standbearer of objective morality or the tool for what's right and wrong, then every trait is moral and we are obligated to act on them for our survival. Psychopaths feel compelled to act on their urges because of the traits they evolved, so they can never be immoral unless they share the same goals as non-psychopaths.
I was an atheist for about the first 39 years of my life until i realised how smug, authoritarian and self righteous my fellow atheists were and it disgusted me.
@davy boy because I don't want to be associated with hateful people. Atheists aren't just people with no religious belief anymore, they just bash people for their beliefs.
@@MFAutoloader Maybe you need beliefs that don't claim that all but 144,000 people will be sent to a lake of fire for eternity, then. That might help you to become more likable.
Interesting lecture. Especially highlighting the social areas where certain behaviour that's typically judged as "immoral" , yet when asked " what harm is such behaviour actually doing ?" can't be answered logically.I.e. Such moral judgements are driven by a reactionary ( instinctive) emotive process rather than a well considered thought out morality .
German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy Born - 22 April 1724, Died - 12 February 1804 (aged 79) Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (a form of "do onto others.."): Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) - “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” Violation of Kant's categorical imperative is hypocrisy of the worse kind.
It's disturbing how many people do not value the well being of their fellow human and the environment we live in. I do not want a child to have to endure suffering caused by socio/psychopaths.
mother theresa is a good case in point of how misguided religion is on morality, it's generally accepted that she thought the way into heaven was for the people in her care to suffer as much as possible. i urge you to look her up, i am biased.
The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract that includes the writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson. Prominent modern names attached to it are John Harsanyi and John Rawls.
humanists are ignorant too. morality is subjective, thus anybody's opinion. Truth has to be objective to be valid. human wellbeing, through humanist logic, has no objective validity.
No, I do not think we should prioritize potential future people. Non-existence is morally neutral. We should prioritize people who will exist, but not people who could exist. People who,. in the end, never exist, do not suffer at all.
This is not true. For morality, social thinking, social behavior and mutual solidarity in humans have deep-seated evolutionary and biological origins based on natural selection dating back tens of thousands to even hundreds of thousands of years and are thus essentially an intrinsic part of our humanity. The international and ratified human rights treaties are a personification and representative extension of that scientific reality. It is a way of translating that evolutionary basis into normative practice. Without morality and human solidarity we could not have manipulated the planet as we have done and we wouldn't be walking around with so many on this planet right now. It is exactly the reason why we have come so far and not other species. Namely through mutual solidarity and not mutual struggle. You should ask yourself the question why we as a species started working together in the first place and started living together in groups. Solidarity forms the very basis and essence of this. For example: research shows that we humans exhibit social behavior that is not found in chimpanzees at all, despite the fact that we share 98.5% of our DNA with them. Why? Because we were naturally much more social in the beginning 120,000 years ago, which forced us to develop language in order to adapt to our environment. Adapting to the environment allowed us to take better care of each other as we grew bigger in numbers. After all, language leads to more concrete, explicit communication, which allows for better cooperation. Other species have never felt the same need to develop language as we do because they were less sociable to begin with and thus felt no external pressure to adapt to maintain the ability to care for their most vulnerable. In other species, being weak and vulnerable often means death from infighting. The unfit are killed off by natural selection, while we humans on the other hand try to get everyone on board. Researchers have found a skeleton of one of our ancestors that dates back to about 100,000 years ago. Based on analysis of this skeleton, they were able to determine that this person was unable to eat by himself due to some physical condition. But the same analysis showed that the person to whom the skeleton belonged has grown old and thus also died of old age. How is this possible if the person in question could not eat independently? The answer is simple: someone has helped him to eat throughout his entire life. Does it remind you a bit of how we help and support our elderly and disabled today?
This is a very poor representation of Christianity. I’m not sure which denomination thinks that Mary was impregnated through her ears, but it’s not any of mainstream denominations. Fundamentalist, maybe?
@DakkogiRauru23 I know but it was a common belief in some sectors of the early church as it would preserve virginity as opposed to the holy spirit entering through the vigina.
8:50 I don’t like how that slide is implying that evolution has consciously only wanted to produce modern humans. 31:10 Kill five people or one person on a train track, well I’d choose the five people, because five people who’re stupid enough to be on a train track, far less stupid people in the world than just the one. 50:38 empathy and kindness: she arbitrarily assumes that people don’t want more empathy or kindness. If I’ve just eaten a tub of my favourite ice cream, then was asked if I want another tub, I’d say “no, I don’t need any more ice cream” lol. Maybe people didn’t choose empathy and kindness, because they believe they already have enough of it.
@James R you’re saying that if my autistic child would wonder off ended up on a train track you would be fine with him being killed by the train because he is too stupid in your opinion 😳
@@veralucky6157 No, that is not what I’m saying. Your example obviously has additional factors and would be an unfortunate accident, but if anyone’s to blame, it would be whoever is neglectfully caring for him, if he requires that level of care. As you’re probably aware, someone with a learning condition might not have the same awareness of danger like most other people.
QUR'ANIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION VS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION (1) The theory of evolution asserts that living things are not part of creation or intelligent design, but a coincidental causes and natural process. However, this " theory of Evolution by natural selection " gave rise to doubts from the very beginning. 1- What were the " natural and coincidental variations " referred to by Darwin ? How could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species ? 2- Darwin asserted that " living beings evolved gradually". In this çase, there should have lived millions of " transitional forms". Yet there was no trace of these theoretical creatures in fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought this problem, and eventually arrived at this conclusion that " further research would provide these fossils." 3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes , ears or wings? How can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing. H.S.Lipson, a British physicist makes the following comments about these " difficulties " of Darwin's: " On reading ' The Origin of Species ' I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be ; the chapter entitled " Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (1) However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties. The Problem of Origin of Life : The theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organism, had been widely accepted. Even in the period of Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread. A corner stone of the Theory of Evolution was disapproved by Louis Pasture. In his lecture at the Sorbbone in 1864. He said: " Never will be the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow srtuck by this simple experiment." (2) However, as scientific progress revealed the complex structure of the cell, the idea that life could come into being coincidently faced an even greater impasse. The problem of Genetic : Another subject that posed a quandary for Darwin's theory was inheritance.Vague beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to base his theory on completely false ground.Darwin assumed that : Naturaĺ selection was the " mechanism of Evolution." He was unable to explain how would " useful traits" be selected and transmitted to the next geneation? At this point, he embraced the Lamarckan theory, that is " the inheritance of acquired traits". However, Lamarck's thesis was disapproved by the laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel. The concept of "useful traits" was therefore left unsupported. Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place, no transformation of species occurs. This was a serious deadend for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of " useful traits " on Lamarck. Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. Mendel was in favour of the orthodox doctrine of special creation. (1) H.S. Lipson, " A Physicit's view of Darwin's theory", Evolutio Trends in Plants, vol.2, No, 1988, p.6 (2) Sidney Fox, Klause Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. W.H.Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972, p.4. Continue:--
Wow you wrote a lot. Most of it centred on Darwin’s views, however as the MOST researched scientific field our understanding has evolved quite a bit. Although the overarching theory has been proven, many of the mechanisms Darwin suggested have been discarded as we have done more investigation and experiments.
This is out of date. Reading modern books on the natural world will be of use to you. I found them very useful. It's the same sort of learning and way of thinking that leads to technology for computers, internet, Tv, mobile phones. Scientific knowledge based on billions of hours of critical human observation and learning.
it's a mostly forgotten tradition from the 4th & 5th centuries AD. it was "a commonplace belief among the Syriac writers of the Church." also depicted in Medieval & Renaissance Art. "Conception through Mary's ear not only safeguards the physical nature of her virginity, but models a profound spiritual Christian truth. 'Faith comes through hearing' (Rom 10:17)."
30:50 Common sense tells us that two people witnessing an event will describe that event identically regardless of how they are moving relative to each other. Nope, turns out, that is wrong. Common sense tells us we can know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. Nope, sorry, wrong again Common sense tells us that a particle like an electron has a specific location, even if we don't know it exactly. Yep, this one is wrong as well. Perhaps common sense is not as reliable as we think.
@@AidenP361 It's rather complicated, and the explanation to explain exactly how each of these are wrong would take several college level classes, but the first one comes from the theories of Relativity and the others come from Quantum Mechanics. Frankly, I don't know exactly my self, I just know that these "common sense" ideas are wrong. ruclips.net/video/tzQC3uYL67U/видео.html ruclips.net/video/VH-_EsAbpG0/видео.html
the trolley problem is a misrepresentation of morality - it concludes you either push or dont push the man. But the reason why pushing is immoral isnt because he would die, it is because you take away his freewill to choose jumping on his own volition in order to stop the trolley. as soon as you create a moral framework that justifies removing people's freewill, you will corrupt all consequential moral judgments.
@@justaway6901 freewill in an atheistic context is similar to accountability. we are accountable for our actions and we choose to do that which is in alignment with or contrary to what ought to be done. this presupposes the propensity for moral decision making. which is a usual argument for theistic morality and freewill. that we as humanity have such propensity through divine creation. then the argument for freewill is we have the choice to abide by God's will or act in opposition to it. both scenarios are grounded in accountability and attribution of a moral propensity.
Outstanding speaker who rarely asserts without references to sources, except one. I'm not saying she's wrong but on what basis does she believe people are smarter now than ever before?
There is evidence that we (in the west) lost up to 15 genetic IQ points over the last 150 years due to differential fertility. This is partly countered by the non-genetic Flynn effect and probably things such as health like the speaker mentioned.
@@prins424 Well, *that* is a reasonable argument, Bert, as opposed to the more lifecycle anecdotal belief that, as we get older, people around us seem dumber 😂
Human morality is rooted in the human unconscious. There can be no understanding of the evolution of the former without an understanding of the nature and evolution of the latter. Freud's trepidation about incorporating Darwin's theories into his own was a major ommission,
It starts off boring and gets better. It is interesting how most of us would not want to increase our empathy. I know that I myself have done research into empathy because I wanted to know if empathy was a motivator. For example, I found that my son was not interested in learning Chinese even though we were living in Taiwan and I associated his lack of motivation with a lack of empathy for others. He seemed to think everyone should speak English so he was not interested in learning Chinese. I wondered if I could apply this epithany to getting local students motivated to learn English. I realized that if English learners could feel empathy for people who did not know their language then they would be more motivated to learn English. Alas there is no quick fix for a lack of empathy. But it does help explain why generally badly behaved students almost always do not pick up a foreign language.
So, a train is coming. I could ; 1. Flip a switch and the train kills one person . 2. Leave the switch and the train kills five people. I think , on average , every morally well adjusted person would choose to save the five people. It's not that you'd " choose" to kill the one person , it's simply a matter of saving as many lives in that moment as is possible. But, the pushing an innocent onto the track in order to stop the train adds another moral depth to the thought experiment. As that would change the whole moral dynamic from saving as many as possible , to killing one human intentionally in order to save many. E.g. that depends on the scenario. A innocent ? No. I wouldn't intervene. Though if it was some psychopathic weirdo with a bomb, I'd have no moral dilemmas taking the terrorist out to save the lives of the many innocents. Though again , I'd prefer a star trek like stun gun , so the terrorist can at least be treated for their psychopathy.I.e. lack of empathy and severe indoctrination in that they believe there is some self value ( jihad) to their own death only possibly because of a social experience in which they have learnt to devalue being alive. Thus seek false hope in the " after life " .
@@yahyamohammed637 You can personally demonstrate this to yourself. If your morally well adjusted, you will defend your right to not be physically abused by others. If your not, your most probably the abuser.
The myth of the virgin who gives birth to a SON, obviously not a daughter, is very ancient and predates the Christian myth. It's been around the Mediterranean cultures and in India and Persia (Iran) thousands of years BC The funny thing is that Jehovah /Yahweh impregnated the fiancee of Joseph, a grave sin for Jews, to be born as his child, but Christians believe that Jehovah /Yahweh and Jesus Christ are the same. So, God committed suicide, another grave sin. It would be laughable if those dogmas hadn't caused innumerable deaths and torturing. Excellent lecture. A scientific proof that morality has nothing to do with religions. Unfortunately there are some groups of people whose ideas are from the Middle Ages.
Yup! Believers fully ignore inconsistencies and contradictions and actually suffocate their minds' thoughts. Afraid of punishment by their immaginary deity?
I think it is wise to beware of being too altruistic. You and people like you will likely lose the evolutionary game by being too giving to those that will not return the favor. Maybe I am woring, but there is an evolutionary reason we are limited in our altruism. It should be taken into account at least that "humanism" may be unsustainable.
A collection of examples of our psychological and moral attributes without scientifically linking them with genetic adaptations through natural selection Linking EP to Darwin would very likely disappoint him
Basically Athiesm adopting/ adapting religious virtue to Secular life. Eliminate the middleman or idol or ideal for a purely intellectual and human experience. The supernatural aspect that we ascribe as justification for passion,pride,and prejudice is removed .
Religious or secular our " divergent " nature will at some point need to resort to violence to uphold moral superiority. Its at this point we as humans become all to human. All the idealism gets put into perspective. Our need to slaughter food ,be aggressive, maintain disgust, and pursue greatness, ' superiority ' are ingrained in us to essentially maintain diversity. So if you're intellectually superior and peaceful ,the complete opposite of those values will inevitably surface to " Keep it real ". Survival instincts insists you better be capable.
Just a feedback about the presenting of speech and not about the content: making a teeth sucking noise while you are giving an academic lecture is really annoying and distracting.
'We are smarter than our predecessors'. You have got to be kidding me. How arrogant and misinformed. Dr. Fleischman's desire to play 'God' is truly horrifying, not to mention irrational. Literally unbelievable nonsense.
My fundamental problem with the trolley problem is how unrealistic it is. I just can't imagine actually being in that situation. However, recent events give us a much more realistic version. Should we stop vaccinating people against deadly disease C with vaccine X once we learn that this might actually kill one person per _large number?_ There's an important difference here, though - _all_ the victims are anonymous when you have to decide. There's a reason some people like the torture (and it is torture) to make a parent decide which of their children will live and which will die. That's what the trolley problem feels at least somewhat like, whereas the vaccine problem mostly doesn't.
Isn't Darwin day lecture stretching things little too far? How did Darwin explain evolution of animal morality, like a tiger or lion protecting a helpless baby Onix or deer, for days?
@boson96 H.H.Wilson translated Vishnu Purana, in which the philosopher Krishna (11,000 bp) preached that Vishnu is the cause of the evolution of the world. Krishna's Sanatan (eternal) religion set out the rules governing the evolution of every thing, man, animals, even plants. Even Lee Smolin couldn't catch up with his evolution theory of the universe by natural selection. Sanatan claims man evolved from fish (Matsa avatar, of Vishnu-believe it or not)
It is not the morality of lion or tiger protecting a baby onyx at work but it's instinct to care for a neotonous animal. Your question would be like asking, "why do some humans like to keep piglets as pets?".
@@quantumaxe6468 To properly show our respect to Darwin, my question should have been an extension of his theory to other realms where his theory is central (I doubt if your forum ever explored these realms, like Lee Smolin's theory of 'small changes' or role played by natural selection in the evolution of the universe, or evolution of life out of non-life matter). However, evolution of intelligence, consciousness, meme etc., are interesting. But finding out how they got simulated is another topic. Darwin was not the first to formulate a scientific theory of evolution. A far more relevant topic would be that of a philosopher, 11000 years ago, who preached that God Vishnu was the cause of the evolution of the world.[H.H.Wilson, in Vishnu Purana]. And how his theory led to 'matsya avatar' of Vishnu, theorizing, 'man evolved from fish', a most tantalizing chapter of human evolution. Yes, I am talking of Krishna, who preached the Sanatan (eternal) religion
@@naimulhaq9626 you will need to prove Krishna or Vishnu first. Moreover, making claims is not proof of knowledge, so simply stating that someone in the past said something which is similar to what we understand now is mere speculation.
@@quantumaxe6468 See, how difficult it is to sing the song of celebrating humanity and respecting Darwin. You have to have a heart as big as Darwin or Krishna.
isn't it more the case that evolution kills off the less appropriate rather than "favouring" the fit? the emphasis always seems to be on the survival part, when the survival part is purely chance and the survivor is only partly "perfect for it's environment", it's actullay the weeding out of inapropriate mutations that does the selection, no?
If future people are no less important than existing people - isn't the logical conclusion that abortion is a murder, even from a utilitarian perspective? (because the argument here is that we should focus our morality on the potential and not on the current status of the embryo). Its astonishing that the speaker ignore this question altogether
She says humans often use moral frameworks to try and coerce others into believing a certain way. And then it looks like she asked scores of people to come in here and demonstrate that. Good work, team! 😎😇🥳🤣
Imagine you are at one of the Normandy graveyards where Americans killed in the war are buried. You see a Frenchman peeing on one of the American graves, but it turns out that particular solder had raped the man's grandmother and was killed by her husband. To avoid murder charges or retaliation they conspired to make the rapist look like a war casualty and told the story of the rape only in the family. Would it change how you feel about this person disrespecting that grave if you knew the person buried there doesn't even belong with the other heroes. That he was killed violating some young woman?
She speaks way too quickly and I struggled to keep with her. If you watch Richard Dawkins, his delivery is a good deal slower. Maybe she will slow down a tad as she goes on, hopefully. But I enjoyed her intelligence, so cheers to the Dr.
Welcome, please help me explain the origins of life .I will talk about the emergence of single cell objects . Please explain the phases of the (first cell) .These are compounds in the same cell 1-amino acids 2-peptides 3 - chains of nucleic acids 4-nucleotides .Question Who is the former? Is it amino acids or nucleotides? .The second question is who is the former Are they nucleic acids or peptides? .There are contradictions in the stages of the components of life .We ask you to develop explanations for the origin of life .We ask you to develop explanations free of contradictions .Please send me my letter to biologists and chemistry .
Eusociality does not explain human morality. This lecture is using basic biological principles to explain some valid examples in nature, but the way she attempts to stretch these thin aspects of biology to assume concepts of human morality is very unscientific indeed.
The constant potshots at religion are annoying and point to a pathological state. I am here for the speaker’s content but it is challenging to hear the comments and laughter about the religious community with a sign behind the speaker that says “Hatred is foolish”.
I heard the whole talk but I have not heard an explanation on how morality “evolved.” The assertion is made at the beginning and throughout but she is only describing things we already know. 🤷🏽♂️ association and patterns doesn’t mean they are the cause of it. If we are using the scientific method, let use it properly. You are right about people not wanting their morality “enhanced” - that aligns exactly with their desire to reject God too and just live the same way they are, like I once did, until my eyes opened up 😉
31:00 If you really want to stop the train, jump onto the tracks yourself. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own life to save others, why should you sacrifice the life of another? If you are willing to sacrifice your life to save others, then sacrificing the life of another is unnecessary.
@@erictaylor5462 it's a hypothetical construct. it's specifically constructed knowing that people would propose sacrificing themselves as an alternative and preemptively ruling that option out, thus forcing you to choose between the 'fat' guy and the 5 people on the tracks. that's why she made the joke that previously the guy used to be overweight, and now he has a big backpack. the point is to force the participant to face the dilemma, not to find alternative answers. obviously, in real life, this scenario doesn't apply, forget the fact that it is practically impossible to occur
If evolution gave us all of our thoughts then how can we trust any of our thought, including the thought that morality gave us all of our thought? It’s a self-defeating view. You all think we are just moist robots. In that case we aren’t reasoning, but just reacting.
I don’t buy her point that dogs have more facial muscles than wolves..... I’ve encountered wild wolves before, I had a dog and I worked with multiple wolf breeds (half wolf, half something else) A wolves facial expression is far more nuanced and detailed than that of a domesticated dog AND most domesticated dogs have no chance in actually recognizing most of a wolves facial expression and acting accordingly because the amount of body language dogs depict is minimal compared to that of a wolf
@@richardgates7479 The first part; we can't truly embody the sensations (feelings) of another species, and for one "being slaughtered" it'd be way unpleasant if we could. And the second part; as more people sympathise with the plight of animals bread for slaughter there might be less of it. Nothing deep, don't sweat it. Also I might've just tripped off at the modern trend to conflate the meanings of empathy/sympathy. There used to be more of a difference, but you're right, a weak post, my bad.
@John smith No, I'm actually puzzled why anyone thinks that being slaughtered would be unpleasant. I get that death is undesirable, but that's really irrelevant.
@@richardgates7479 OK yeah... the moment of death, when brain function plummets from lack of oxygen, not so bad, a 'giving in' if you will. But leading up to death, the sense of it's likely approach accentuates stress, fear and pain. Two bulls, about to be killed. One, hustled into an arena, faces off with a matador. The bull's tied, irritated but mostly pissed off. It knows it's a fight to the death. This is a contract the animal understands. It's pumped. Adrenalin militates pain from its injuries, and sure, it suffers. It dies fighting, but it 'knows' the stakes, and its foe, and takes it on. The other bull gets prodded and shoved into an alien box and is transported for hours to be jammed up in a queue from which the sounds and stench of a terrifying unknown death raise its cortisol to extreme levels. Now THIS hormone is well understood; cortisol equals "unpleasant". Damn all this writing is making me peckish - think I'll go get a burger.
@@rorytennes8576 not really. it's in our hearts. Evolution doesnt prove anything. It's just a process of change. And even if evolution theory is true, you're still gonna end up with a universe that have a beginning. And this speaker is making fun about the story of she claims to be a myth. You would think out of all why would this speaker target Christianity. Now only Satan would do that. That's my point. For you to have a better understand. This person is demon possessed and it's real.
@@KnowingGod It's one thing to claim they are wrong, but to claim they are demon possessed for not sharing your beliefs- well, that takes a combination of ignorance, irrational thinking and arrogance.
@@ozowen5961 it's not because they're not sharing my beliefs. We all have our own beliefs that everybody else does not want. Just like evolutionists who still insist we came from monkeys and ignore the law of thermodynamics, etc. If you would consider yourself a RATIONAL person who seeks for the truth then you would want to study Jesus Christ because he said I am the way, the truth, and the life.
If you're not going put morality in the perspective of collectivist thinking, ie tribalism, and tribe status, moral peacocking, power dynamics, then you don't have understanding of human behavior.
Wha?! Enhancing empathy and kindness is NOT the same as enhancing morality. They do get us to where we think about morality, sure, and if they're too low, there's a problem. But if they're too high, that's _also_ a problem; we want to make rational ethical decisions, not ones that are purely driven by emotion. There's a balance to find there. Compare to hunger. If you don't get hungry enough, you'll starve. However, modern society has trouble with people getting hungry _too much,_ so there's an "epidemic" of overweight. Similarly, a little greed is necessary to make modern, more-or-less capitalistic society work; similarly, too much greed is working hard to destroy it. Anything emotion is a delicate balance, and what the best balance is shifts over time.
![VICTOR Denmark Open 2024 | An Se Young (KOR) [1] vs. Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] | SF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y3QEyCih85s/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
Unfortunately, this speech is not about evolution of morality. Just chunks of definitions related to morality. This lecture/speech had no consistency and neither a deep of analysis of morality evolution.
This was an amazing talk. People need to update their "conventional knowledge" every once in a while. I've learned so many new things AND I'm left with a few concepts to think about.
More interesting than I thought it would be.
I clicked it as it was a Darwin Day thing, but I am very glad that I did.
Thanks.
A truly great and fascinating talk! Many thanks! :)
This is the most insightful and thought-provoking lecture on morality that I have ever heard.
this is your first one, huh? you should check out some others...
Love is wise,Hate is foolish. We are all responsible one way or the other.
Not if somebody harms others and then "exits earth through their own hands". Law enforcement can't get you after you "expire". I'm using alternative words because google is against free speech and censors incoherently.
Great lecture! Amazing how some people here still argue against rationality.
@Brian Fike still, its more plausible and rational than fairytale and magic.
@Brian Yep, you have no idea.
@masa musa so what? no one's saying humans are 100% rational creatures.
Thank you for posting. Most informative. Great learning....
Great, informative lecture. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Diana Fleischman is gorgeous. :)
how dare you?! the sexual objectification and exploitation of women is disgusting. you disgust me.
I like the guy introducing this. Making philosophy and science not mundane. good for you.
Why do the smartest talks have the dumbest comments?
A prime example.
Isn't morality really just a technology that rewards and encourages symbiotic reciprocal relationships while punishing and discouraging predatory and parasitic relationships? We need more of it
Morality is a standard of what's right and what's wrong for human beings aka what human beings "ought to do" or "ought not to do."
Oughts are defined by goals. If I want to have the most expensive ice cream more than anything in my life, then I ought to do everything that I need to do in order to achieve it.
From an evolutionary pov, this would ironically justify everything that so-called secular humanists claim to stand against.
@@tasinal-hassan8268 Well most people share a line of reasoning around morality, regardless of religion that says this: We prefer not to be preyed upon or host to a parasite so we discourage this activity so that we can benefit from a symbiotic relationship through division of labor. There's a reason that viking style raids aren't really a thing anymore, and that is because it's just stupid to kill all of the smart and productive people when you could benefit from their production instead. The more moral we are, the wealthier we become.
@@terrythompson7535 This would perfectly justify psychopathy, rape, murder, etc. and many other things in some societies since they evolved that way. Like I said before, evolutionary ethics would ironically stand against secular humanism, since evolution itself is indifferent what traits humans act on.
@@tasinal-hassan8268 What exactly would "perfectly justify psychopathy, rape, murder, etc"? I am not understanding your perspective. Can you be more specific and less vague please?
@@terrythompson7535 Psychopathy is evolutionary adopted. It's a trait provided by evolution. If we're gonna trust evolution as standbearer of objective morality or the tool for what's right and wrong, then every trait is moral and we are obligated to act on them for our survival. Psychopaths feel compelled to act on their urges because of the traits they evolved, so they can never be immoral unless they share the same goals as non-psychopaths.
I was an atheist for about the first 39 years of my life until i realised how smug, authoritarian and self righteous my fellow atheists were and it disgusted me.
@davy boy because I don't want to be associated with hateful people. Atheists aren't just people with no religious belief anymore, they just bash people for their beliefs.
I find myself often repelled by fundamentalists of all sorts. Christian or atheist (or whatever) just bother me.
@@MFAutoloader Maybe you need beliefs that don't claim that all but 144,000 people will be sent to a lake of fire for eternity, then. That might help you to become more likable.
@@schmetterling4477 I'm agnostic.
@@MFAutoloader Are you also agnostic on the question of Santa Claus?
Interesting lecture. Especially highlighting the social areas where certain behaviour that's typically judged as "immoral" , yet when asked " what harm is such behaviour actually doing ?" can't be answered logically.I.e. Such moral judgements are driven by a reactionary ( instinctive) emotive process rather than a well considered thought out morality .
German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy
Born - 22 April 1724, Died - 12 February 1804 (aged 79)
Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (a form of "do onto others.."):
Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785) - “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Violation of Kant's categorical imperative is hypocrisy of the worse kind.
When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he said it sounded like a good idea. That’s exactly what I think about human morality.
Well, the East has yet to be an exemplar of civilisation. Even Buddhist monks are a dodgy lot.
Gandhi was a rapist tho.
Thanks for the under - understand subject of psychology evolution. So enlightening. Thanks again and keep up with the good work. From HK
wish you all the happy darwin day from Tanzania..........Thanx for the good lecture
Very weak and confusing talk. She is not in firm grip of the conceps she discusses. Don’t waste your time watching this.
these “introductions” are so cringe. Weak displays of ego and virtue. So cringe. Nobody tunes in to hear the multiple introductions, nope.
Moral dumbfounding is guilt by association driven by fear of being rejected by the tribe.
Great speech. Beautiful ideas. Ultra wise. Thank you.
Thanks! I learnt a lot
Me did to. I learnt that my blood flow left my brane and went south. She's perty
I am disgusted by her condescending talk.
And what is your view of the evolutionary debunking of morality argument(s) from Joyce, Steele, etc.?
It's disturbing how many people do not value the well being of their fellow human and the environment we live in. I do not want a child to have to endure suffering caused by socio/psychopaths.
mother theresa is a good case in point of how misguided religion is on morality, it's generally accepted that she thought the way into heaven was for the people in her care to suffer as much as possible. i urge you to look her up, i am biased.
A very lovable presentation🙏
The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract that includes the writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson. Prominent modern names attached to it are John Harsanyi and John Rawls.
humanists are ignorant too. morality is subjective, thus anybody's opinion. Truth has to be objective to be valid. human wellbeing, through humanist logic, has no objective validity.
Good that the Darwin Day lecture came out just in time for St Skeletor's Day this year.
She's not my cousin and i want to make an exchange ... beautiful inside and out. Smokin'
Teach me wise one.
I don't understand what is their goal here? They seem to contradict themselves here. Just bable, blah blah buy my book, basically.
Darwin is great man iam an a Indian iam believed Darwin theory and evelution...
Portsmouth has a Waitrose? Wow. You learn something every day
No, I do not think we should prioritize potential future people. Non-existence is morally neutral. We should prioritize people who will exist, but not people who could exist. People who,. in the end, never exist, do not suffer at all.
there is no morality outside of our emotions and intuitions- it's anthropogenic
Yes, that's the whole idea... Queen bees have the moral obligation to kill their unborn sisters (as Matt Ridley says).
@@JavierBonillaC And if we evolved differently, we would all be here defending some other type of moral code.
@@yahyamohammed637 Absolutely.
This is not true. For morality, social thinking, social behavior and mutual solidarity in humans have deep-seated evolutionary and biological origins based on natural selection dating back tens of thousands to even hundreds of thousands of years and are thus essentially an intrinsic part of our humanity. The international and ratified human rights treaties are a personification and representative extension of that scientific reality. It is a way of translating that evolutionary basis into normative practice. Without morality and human solidarity we could not have manipulated the planet as we have done and we wouldn't be walking around with so many on this planet right now. It is exactly the reason why we have come so far and not other species. Namely through mutual solidarity and not mutual struggle. You should ask yourself the question why we as a species started working together in the first place and started living together in groups. Solidarity forms the very basis and essence of this. For example: research shows that we humans exhibit social behavior that is not found in chimpanzees at all, despite the fact that we share 98.5% of our DNA with them. Why? Because we were naturally much more social in the beginning 120,000 years ago, which forced us to develop language in order to adapt to our environment. Adapting to the environment allowed us to take better care of each other as we grew bigger in numbers. After all, language leads to more concrete, explicit communication, which allows for better cooperation. Other species have never felt the same need to develop language as we do because they were less sociable to begin with and thus felt no external pressure to adapt to maintain the ability to care for their most vulnerable. In other species, being weak and vulnerable often means death from infighting. The unfit are killed off by natural selection, while we humans on the other hand try to get everyone on board. Researchers have found a skeleton of one of our ancestors that dates back to about 100,000 years ago. Based on analysis of this skeleton, they were able to determine that this person was unable to eat by himself due to some physical condition. But the same analysis showed that the person to whom the skeleton belonged has grown old and thus also died of old age. How is this possible if the person in question could not eat independently? The answer is simple: someone has helped him to eat throughout his entire life. Does it remind you a bit of how we help and support our elderly and disabled today?
@@Fureviusx1x you just gave me a long justification of why it’s anthropogenic
Too bad she goes off the rails in the last five minutes but that's Evolutionary Psychology for ya.
This is a very poor representation of Christianity. I’m not sure which denomination thinks that Mary was impregnated through her ears, but it’s not any of mainstream denominations. Fundamentalist, maybe?
It's been conveyed in historical artwork depicting Mary's impregnation, conceptio per aurem, the holy spirit entered through her ear.
@@CesarClouds See, artwork isn’t used as a record of official doctrine. It would come from Scripture, Consular documents or magisterial documents.
@DakkogiRauru23 I know but it was a common belief in some sectors of the early church as it would preserve virginity as opposed to the holy spirit entering through the vigina.
@DakkogiRauru23 I know, but that's how it was depicted in art to preserve virginity instead of having the holy spirit enter through the vigina.
Go to 5:38 to skip all the ego boosting of the nobodies.
8:50 I don’t like how that slide is implying that evolution has consciously only wanted to produce modern humans.
31:10 Kill five people or one person on a train track, well I’d choose the five people, because five people who’re stupid enough to be on a train track, far less stupid people in the world than just the one.
50:38 empathy and kindness: she arbitrarily assumes that people don’t want more empathy or kindness. If I’ve just eaten a tub of my favourite ice cream, then was asked if I want another tub, I’d say “no, I don’t need any more ice cream” lol. Maybe people didn’t choose empathy and kindness, because they believe they already have enough of it.
in the original of the train track situation the people on the track are railroad workers unable to hear the train coming.
bcshu2 I know, but this video didn’t have that version of the story, so I still stand by my conclusion
@@james-r Thats just horrible
@James R you’re saying that if my autistic child would wonder off ended up on a train track you would be fine with him being killed by the train because he is too stupid in your opinion 😳
@@veralucky6157 No, that is not what I’m saying. Your example obviously has additional factors and would be an unfortunate accident, but if anyone’s to blame, it would be whoever is neglectfully caring for him, if he requires that level of care. As you’re probably aware, someone with a learning condition might not have the same awareness of danger like most other people.
QUR'ANIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION
VS
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
(1)
The theory of evolution asserts that living things are not part of creation or intelligent design, but a coincidental causes and natural process.
However, this " theory of Evolution by natural selection " gave rise to doubts from the very beginning.
1- What were the " natural and coincidental variations " referred to by Darwin ?
How could these variations provide an explanation for the diversity in animal and plant species ?
2- Darwin asserted that " living beings evolved gradually". In this çase, there
should have lived millions of " transitional forms". Yet there was no trace of these
theoretical creatures in fossil record. Darwin gave considerable thought this problem, and eventually arrived at this conclusion that
" further research would provide these fossils."
3- How could natural selection explain complex organs, such as eyes , ears or wings?
How
can it be advocated that these organs evolved gradually, bearing in mind
that they would fail to function if they had even a single part missing.
H.S.Lipson, a British physicist makes the following comments about these
" difficulties " of Darwin's:
" On reading ' The Origin of Species ' I
found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be ; the chapter entitled " Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable
self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen. (1)
However, contrary to his expectations, more recent scientific findings have merely increased these difficulties.
The Problem of Origin of Life :
The theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organism, had been widely accepted. Even in the period of Darwin's ' Origin of Species ' was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.
A corner stone of the Theory of Evolution
was disapproved by Louis Pasture. In his lecture at the Sorbbone in 1864. He said:
" Never will be the doctrine of spontaneous
generation recover from the mortal blow
srtuck by this simple experiment." (2)
However, as scientific progress revealed
the complex structure of the cell, the
idea that life could come into being
coincidently faced an even greater
impasse.
The problem of Genetic :
Another subject that posed a quandary
for Darwin's theory was inheritance.Vague
beliefs about inheritance led Darwin to
base his theory on completely false
ground.Darwin assumed that : Naturaĺ
selection was the " mechanism of
Evolution."
He was unable to explain how would
" useful traits" be selected and transmitted
to the next geneation? At this point, he
embraced the Lamarckan theory, that is
" the inheritance of acquired traits".
However, Lamarck's thesis was
disapproved by the laws of genetic
inheritance discovered by Gregor
Mendel. The concept of "useful traits"
was therefore left unsupported.
Genetic laws showed that acquired traits
are not passed on, since no alteration in
their genetic data takes place, no
transformation of species occurs. This
was a serious deadend for Darwin's
theory, which tried to base the concept
of " useful traits " on Lamarck.
Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's
model of evolution, but also Darwin's.
Mendel was in favour of the orthodox
doctrine of special creation.
(1) H.S. Lipson, " A Physicit's view of
Darwin's theory", Evolutio Trends in
Plants, vol.2, No, 1988, p.6
(2) Sidney Fox, Klause Dose, Molecular
Evolution and The Origin of Life.
W.H.Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1972, p.4.
Continue:--
Wow you wrote a lot.
Most of it centred on Darwin’s views, however as the MOST researched scientific field our understanding has evolved quite a bit. Although the overarching theory has been proven, many of the mechanisms Darwin suggested have been discarded as we have done more investigation and experiments.
This is out of date. Reading modern books on the natural world will be of use to you. I found them very useful. It's the same sort of learning and way of thinking that leads to technology for computers, internet, Tv, mobile phones. Scientific knowledge based on billions of hours of critical human observation and learning.
At 10:26 Haldane would jump in the lake to save two brothers or *Six* cousins. Six???
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Eight.
lololol
Is evolution amoral?? I disagree. Can someone expand on this point?
Literally no one ever has said this in any church I have been to or studied with regards to impregnating through the ear canal.
I was asking myself where in the world did she get that from?
it's a mostly forgotten tradition from the 4th & 5th centuries AD. it was "a commonplace belief among the Syriac writers of the Church." also depicted in Medieval & Renaissance Art.
"Conception through Mary's ear not only safeguards the physical nature of her virginity, but models a profound spiritual Christian truth. 'Faith comes through hearing' (Rom 10:17)."
30:50 Common sense tells us that two people witnessing an event will describe that event identically regardless of how they are moving relative to each other.
Nope, turns out, that is wrong.
Common sense tells us we can know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time.
Nope, sorry, wrong again
Common sense tells us that a particle like an electron has a specific location, even if we don't know it exactly.
Yep, this one is wrong as well.
Perhaps common sense is not as reliable as we think.
Eric Taylor .....exception, rule?
Can you explain how exactly they are wrong?
@@AidenP361 It's rather complicated, and the explanation to explain exactly how each of these are wrong would take several college level classes, but the first one comes from the theories of Relativity and the others come from Quantum Mechanics.
Frankly, I don't know exactly my self, I just know that these "common sense" ideas are wrong.
ruclips.net/video/tzQC3uYL67U/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/VH-_EsAbpG0/видео.html
Smart and pretty! This professor is in the genetic Hierarchy of the human species!
and she's into Polyamory! so have at it. we've all got a chance...
the trolley problem is a misrepresentation of morality - it concludes you either push or dont push the man. But the reason why pushing is immoral isnt because he would die, it is because you take away his freewill to choose jumping on his own volition in order to stop the trolley.
as soon as you create a moral framework that justifies removing people's freewill, you will corrupt all consequential moral judgments.
Assuming there is free will
@@justaway6901 freewill in an atheistic context is similar to accountability. we are accountable for our actions and we choose to do that which is in alignment with or contrary to what ought to be done.
this presupposes the propensity for moral decision making.
which is a usual argument for theistic morality and freewill. that we as humanity have such propensity through divine creation. then the argument for freewill is we have the choice to abide by God's will or act in opposition to it.
both scenarios are grounded in accountability and attribution of a moral propensity.
Outstanding speaker who rarely asserts without references to sources, except one. I'm not saying she's wrong but on what basis does she believe people are smarter now than ever before?
There is evidence that we (in the west) lost up to 15 genetic IQ points over the last 150 years due to differential fertility. This is partly countered by the non-genetic Flynn effect and probably things such as health like the speaker mentioned.
@@prins424 Well, *that* is a reasonable argument, Bert, as opposed to the more lifecycle anecdotal belief that, as we get older, people around us seem dumber 😂
Human morality is rooted in the human unconscious. There can be no understanding of the evolution of the former without an understanding of the nature and evolution of the latter. Freud's trepidation about incorporating Darwin's theories into his own was a major ommission,
It starts off boring and gets better.
It is interesting how most of us would not want to increase our empathy.
I know that I myself have done research into empathy because I wanted to know if empathy was a motivator. For example, I found that my son was not interested in learning Chinese even though we were living in Taiwan and I associated his lack of motivation with a lack of empathy for others. He seemed to think everyone should speak English so he was not interested in learning Chinese. I wondered if I could apply this epithany to getting local students motivated to learn English. I realized that if English learners could feel empathy for people who did not know their language then they would be more motivated to learn English. Alas there is no quick fix for a lack of empathy. But it does help explain why generally badly behaved students almost always do not pick up a foreign language.
she's pretty
Watching
So, a train is coming. I could ;
1. Flip a switch and the train kills one person .
2. Leave the switch and the train kills five people.
I think , on average , every morally well adjusted person would choose to save the five people. It's not that you'd " choose" to kill the one person , it's simply a matter of saving as many lives in that moment as is possible.
But, the pushing an innocent onto the track in order to stop the train adds another moral depth to the thought experiment. As that would change the whole moral dynamic from saving as many as possible , to killing one human intentionally in order to save many.
E.g. that depends on the scenario. A innocent ? No. I wouldn't intervene. Though if it was some psychopathic weirdo with a bomb, I'd have no moral dilemmas taking the terrorist out to save the lives of the many innocents. Though again , I'd prefer a star trek like stun gun , so the terrorist can at least be treated for their psychopathy.I.e. lack of empathy and severe indoctrination in that they believe there is some self value ( jihad) to their own death only possibly because of a social experience in which they have learnt to devalue being alive. Thus seek false hope in the " after life " .
" morally well adjusted person " - how can this be demonstrated who is 'morally well adjusted' without it being a circular argument?
@@yahyamohammed637 You can personally demonstrate this to yourself. If your morally well adjusted, you will defend your right to not be physically abused by others.
If your not, your most probably the abuser.
The myth of the virgin who gives birth to a SON, obviously not a daughter, is very ancient and predates the Christian myth.
It's been around the Mediterranean cultures and in India and Persia (Iran) thousands of years BC
The funny thing is that Jehovah /Yahweh impregnated the fiancee of Joseph, a grave sin for Jews, to be born as his child, but Christians believe that Jehovah /Yahweh and Jesus Christ are the same. So, God committed suicide, another grave sin.
It would be laughable if those dogmas hadn't caused innumerable deaths and torturing.
Excellent lecture. A scientific proof that morality has nothing to do with religions.
Unfortunately there are some groups of people whose ideas are from the Middle Ages.
Yup! Believers fully ignore inconsistencies and contradictions and actually suffocate their minds' thoughts. Afraid of punishment by their immaginary deity?
The mental gymnastics you use attempting to attack Christianity are the only thing that are laughable here.
RisingDawn haha do I have your permission to quote you?🤣
I think it is wise to beware of being too altruistic. You and people like you will likely lose the evolutionary game by being too giving to those that will not return the favor.
Maybe I am woring, but there is an evolutionary reason we are limited in our altruism. It should be taken into account at least that "humanism" may be unsustainable.
totally agree
A collection of examples of our psychological and moral attributes without scientifically linking them with genetic adaptations through natural selection
Linking EP to Darwin would very likely disappoint him
The future people part is crucial. Get more children, Diana!
Basically Athiesm adopting/ adapting religious virtue to Secular life. Eliminate the middleman or idol or ideal for a purely intellectual and human experience. The supernatural aspect that we ascribe as justification for passion,pride,and prejudice is removed .
Religious or secular our " divergent " nature will at some point need to resort to violence to uphold moral superiority. Its at this point we as humans become all to human. All the idealism gets put into perspective. Our need to slaughter food ,be aggressive, maintain disgust, and pursue greatness, ' superiority ' are ingrained in us to essentially maintain diversity. So if you're intellectually superior and peaceful ,the complete opposite of those values will inevitably surface to " Keep it real ". Survival instincts insists you better be capable.
Just a feedback about the presenting of speech and not about the content: making a teeth sucking noise while you are giving an academic lecture is really annoying and distracting.
'We are smarter than our predecessors'. You have got to be kidding me. How arrogant and misinformed. Dr. Fleischman's desire to play 'God' is truly horrifying, not to mention irrational. Literally unbelievable nonsense.
How is being intellectually honest in saying we know more about the universe than our predecessors somehow playing god?
Starts @5:45
The giraffe evolved from an animal with a much shorter neck.
I thought they had evolved from an animal with a much longer neck.
elfootman Thanks for the reply.
Lol! Whatever.
@Bob Mama The same as in yours. They are just elongated.
@Bob Mama Adapted fish gills. Next. This is fun lol
@Bob Mama Yeah pretty sure, that's what I've read anyway.
My fundamental problem with the trolley problem is how unrealistic it is. I just can't imagine actually being in that situation.
However, recent events give us a much more realistic version.
Should we stop vaccinating people against deadly disease C with vaccine X once we learn that this might actually kill one person per _large number?_
There's an important difference here, though - _all_ the victims are anonymous when you have to decide. There's a reason some people like the torture (and it is torture) to make a parent decide which of their children will live and which will die. That's what the trolley problem feels at least somewhat like, whereas the vaccine problem mostly doesn't.
Moral ending 52mins in. Some fish ie:- Tuna(huge) can feed many people and could even make an adequate snack for a Texan!!
Isn't Darwin day lecture stretching things little too far? How did Darwin explain evolution of animal morality, like a tiger or lion protecting a helpless baby Onix or deer, for days?
@boson96 H.H.Wilson translated Vishnu Purana, in which the philosopher Krishna (11,000 bp) preached that Vishnu is the cause of the evolution of the world. Krishna's Sanatan (eternal) religion set out the rules governing the evolution of every thing, man, animals, even plants. Even Lee Smolin couldn't catch up with his evolution theory of the universe by natural selection.
Sanatan claims man evolved from fish (Matsa avatar, of Vishnu-believe it or not)
It is not the morality of lion or tiger protecting a baby onyx at work but it's instinct to care for a neotonous animal. Your question would be like asking, "why do some humans like to keep piglets as pets?".
@@quantumaxe6468 To properly show our respect to Darwin, my question should have been an extension of his theory to other realms where his theory is central (I doubt if your forum ever explored these realms, like Lee Smolin's theory of 'small changes' or role played by natural selection in the evolution of the universe, or evolution of life out of non-life matter). However, evolution of intelligence, consciousness, meme etc., are interesting. But finding out how they got simulated is another topic.
Darwin was not the first to formulate a scientific theory of evolution. A far more relevant topic would be that of a philosopher, 11000 years ago, who preached that God Vishnu was the cause of the evolution of the world.[H.H.Wilson, in Vishnu Purana]. And how his theory led to 'matsya avatar' of Vishnu, theorizing, 'man evolved from fish', a most tantalizing chapter of human evolution. Yes, I am talking of Krishna, who preached the Sanatan (eternal) religion
@@naimulhaq9626 you will need to prove Krishna or Vishnu first. Moreover, making claims is not proof of knowledge, so simply stating that someone in the past said something which is similar to what we understand now is mere speculation.
@@quantumaxe6468 See, how difficult it is to sing the song of celebrating humanity and respecting Darwin. You have to have a heart as big as Darwin or Krishna.
isn't it more the case that evolution kills off the less appropriate rather than "favouring" the fit? the emphasis always seems to be on the survival part, when the survival part is purely chance and the survivor is only partly "perfect for it's environment", it's actullay the weeding out of inapropriate mutations that does the selection, no?
If future people are no less important than existing people - isn't the logical conclusion that abortion is a murder, even from a utilitarian perspective? (because the argument here is that we should focus our morality on the potential and not on the current status of the embryo). Its astonishing that the speaker ignore this question altogether
She says humans often use moral frameworks to try and coerce others into believing a certain way. And then it looks like she asked scores of people to come in here and demonstrate that.
Good work, team! 😎😇🥳🤣
Yes
Imagine you are at one of the Normandy graveyards where Americans killed in the war are buried. You see a Frenchman peeing on one of the American graves, but it turns out that particular solder had raped the man's grandmother and was killed by her husband.
To avoid murder charges or retaliation they conspired to make the rapist look like a war casualty and told the story of the rape only in the family.
Would it change how you feel about this person disrespecting that grave if you knew the person buried there doesn't even belong with the other heroes. That he was killed violating some young woman?
She speaks way too quickly and I struggled to keep with her. If you watch Richard Dawkins, his delivery is a good deal slower. Maybe she will slow down a tad as she goes on, hopefully. But I enjoyed her intelligence, so cheers to the Dr.
Watching this post COVID has a very different feel..the assumption man is smarter than ever before? Man is more moral than ever before?
Great talk but she underestimates sick skateboarding tricks
Nice video
I didn't watch the video but I'm guessing that the entire lecture was about how our morals have become better.
Welcome, please help me explain the origins of life .I will talk about the emergence of single cell objects . Please explain the phases of the (first cell) .These are compounds in the same cell
1-amino acids
2-peptides
3 - chains of nucleic acids
4-nucleotides
.Question Who is the former? Is it amino acids or nucleotides? .The second question is who is the former Are they nucleic acids or peptides? .There are contradictions in the stages of the components of life .We ask you to develop explanations for the origin of life .We ask you to develop explanations free of contradictions .Please send me my letter to biologists and chemistry
.
Pretty smart cookie. And (intending this respectfully) not a bad looker either.
Eusociality does not explain human morality. This lecture is using basic biological principles to explain some valid examples in nature, but the way she attempts to stretch these thin aspects of biology to assume concepts of human morality is very unscientific indeed.
One can't scientifically prove morality to be true or objective.
I wonder what Darwin would think of this talk?
What has to be true? For there to be such major variations, in a single species, with regard to that species capacity to feel empathy?
Give the robots the Three Rules
The constant potshots at religion are annoying and point to a pathological state. I am here for the speaker’s content but it is challenging to hear the comments and laughter about the religious community with a sign behind the speaker that says “Hatred is foolish”.
I heard the whole talk but I have not heard an explanation on how morality “evolved.” The assertion is made at the beginning and throughout but she is only describing things we already know. 🤷🏽♂️ association and patterns doesn’t mean they are the cause of it. If we are using the scientific method, let use it properly. You are right about people not wanting their morality “enhanced” - that aligns exactly with their desire to reject God too and just live the same way they are, like I once did, until my eyes opened up 😉
Glad to have someone really know science here.
if you want to know how moon worship evolved into Christian morals, watch ruclips.net/video/5lsQUq9EjLA/видео.html&ab_channel=djhbrown
They will never explain people just come here to to assert their beliefs by looking at comments.
Diana is alright lookin =)
Why believe in anything if all you feel and believe are all results of random particle interaction?
31:00 If you really want to stop the train, jump onto the tracks yourself. If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own life to save others, why should you sacrifice the life of another? If you are willing to sacrifice your life to save others, then sacrificing the life of another is unnecessary.
the caveat is the man is fat enough to stop the train, where as the "pusher" is not.
@@61akra12 Trains are not stopped by trucks that weigh 10 of thousands of ponds. No matter how fat he is, he's not stopping the train.
@@erictaylor5462 it's a hypothetical construct.
it's specifically constructed knowing that people would propose sacrificing themselves as an alternative and preemptively ruling that option out, thus forcing you to choose between the 'fat' guy and the 5 people on the tracks.
that's why she made the joke that previously the guy used to be overweight, and now he has a big backpack.
the point is to force the participant to face the dilemma, not to find alternative answers. obviously, in real life, this scenario doesn't apply, forget the fact that it is practically impossible to occur
If evolution gave us all of our thoughts then how can we trust any of our thought, including the thought that morality gave us all of our thought? It’s a self-defeating view. You all think we are just moist robots. In that case we aren’t reasoning, but just reacting.
The train was too fast to change the track, and he killed 201 instead of 5...!
Thinking about potential humans, I wonder what she makes of the Anti-natalist viewpoint. See David Benatar’s book.
I don’t buy her point that dogs have more facial muscles than wolves.....
I’ve encountered wild wolves before, I had a dog and I worked with multiple wolf breeds (half wolf, half something else)
A wolves facial expression is far more nuanced and detailed than that of a domesticated dog
AND most domesticated dogs have no chance in actually recognizing most of a wolves facial expression and acting accordingly because the amount of body language dogs depict is minimal compared to that of a wolf
Impregnated through ears...scriptural reference ?? Why do we fight wars...or have moral emotions..notions of good and bad? What is a moral rule?
I wonder how a person can empathize with the suffering of an animal being slaughtered?
Thankfully all but impossible, but hopefully an increasing number will sympathise.
But why do you think that?
@@richardgates7479 The first part; we can't truly embody the sensations (feelings) of another species, and for one "being slaughtered" it'd be way unpleasant if we could. And the second part; as more people sympathise with the plight of animals bread for slaughter there might be less of it. Nothing deep, don't sweat it. Also I might've just tripped off at the modern trend to conflate the meanings of empathy/sympathy. There used to be more of a difference, but you're right, a weak post, my bad.
@John smith
No, I'm actually puzzled why anyone thinks that being slaughtered would be unpleasant. I get that death is undesirable, but that's really irrelevant.
@@richardgates7479 OK yeah... the moment of death, when brain function plummets from lack of oxygen, not so bad, a 'giving in' if you will. But leading up to death, the sense of it's likely approach accentuates stress, fear and pain. Two bulls, about to be killed. One, hustled into an arena, faces off with a matador. The bull's tied, irritated but mostly pissed off. It knows it's a fight to the death. This is a contract the animal understands. It's pumped. Adrenalin militates pain from its injuries, and sure, it suffers. It dies fighting, but it 'knows' the stakes, and its foe, and takes it on. The other bull gets prodded and shoved into an alien box and is transported for hours to be jammed up in a queue from which the sounds and stench of a terrifying unknown death raise its cortisol to extreme levels. Now THIS hormone is well understood; cortisol equals "unpleasant". Damn all this writing is making me peckish - think I'll go get a burger.
this is a straight up devil speaker..
Lol. So did your magic imaginary friend in the sky tell you that?
@@rorytennes8576 not really. it's in our hearts. Evolution doesnt prove anything. It's just a process of change. And even if evolution theory is true, you're still gonna end up with a universe that have a beginning. And this speaker is making fun about the story of she claims to be a myth. You would think out of all why would this speaker target Christianity. Now only Satan would do that. That's my point. For you to have a better understand. This person is demon possessed and it's real.
@@KnowingGod lol. Yeah. Walk it back.
No. Your magic imaginary freind is just that. Imaginary. Explains nothing.
@@KnowingGod
It's one thing to claim they are wrong, but to claim they are demon possessed for not sharing your beliefs- well, that takes a combination of ignorance, irrational thinking and arrogance.
@@ozowen5961 it's not because they're not sharing my beliefs. We all have our own beliefs that everybody else does not want.
Just like evolutionists who still insist we came from monkeys and ignore the law of thermodynamics, etc.
If you would consider yourself a RATIONAL person who seeks for the truth then you would want to study Jesus Christ because he said I am the way, the truth, and the life.
If you're not going put morality in the perspective of collectivist thinking, ie tribalism, and tribe status, moral peacocking, power dynamics, then you don't have understanding of human behavior.
Great stuff, but it would be brilliant if you pronounce in British accent
80k watched in 2017 for Dawkins and Krauss.
This was not one of the better Darwin Day Lectures. Oh well, still interesting.
Great lecture.
Yeah I'm lookin' and listening 🤣
😇
Wha?! Enhancing empathy and kindness is NOT the same as enhancing morality. They do get us to where we think about morality, sure, and if they're too low, there's a problem. But if they're too high, that's _also_ a problem; we want to make rational ethical decisions, not ones that are purely driven by emotion. There's a balance to find there. Compare to hunger. If you don't get hungry enough, you'll starve. However, modern society has trouble with people getting hungry _too much,_ so there's an "epidemic" of overweight. Similarly, a little greed is necessary to make modern, more-or-less capitalistic society work; similarly, too much greed is working hard to destroy it. Anything emotion is a delicate balance, and what the best balance is shifts over time.
Morality can also be too low or too high.