Christianity (or religions in general) have claimed a monopoly on the concept of 'morality.'
What is morality?:
Source: http://www.dictionary.com:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Christianity (for one) claims that 'morality' comes from a divine source. Evolutionism does not support concepts like 'altruism' (according to creationists) and is something given to us by god. Helping starving people in third world nations is another example of 'non-survival-orientated' behaviour, which seems to be an opposite of the Theory of Evolution (which promotes selfishness and egocentrism; survival of the fittest)
How can evolutionism and our behaviour be combined into a solid theory?
I have started this topic because I am reading Robert Wright's The Moral animal. In Dutch it is called (and I translate 'Darwin's conscience; evolutionary psychology in daily life.'
It is a book about the behaviour of the animal known as 'human'. We can observe and describe the behaviour of lions, elephants, monkeys etc., and we can also describe the behaviour of humans in the same way we describe other animals. Our behaviour is actually very predictable in evolutionary terms. Our behaviour can be explained in evolutionary terms, without a god.
Any form of observed altruism (in all animals, including humans) can be redirected to a selfish agenda; an agenda that promotes its survival. Give me any example, and I think I can explain it in an 'evolutionary' way. (Like South-American bats that share blood with unsuccessful fellow vampire-bats. Or people that go to dangerous countries to heal the sick and wounded.)
Other 'moral values' include not to kill other people (or others of the same species); a trait not unique to christianity, but displayed throughout the entire animal kingdom.
One problem: We DO however kill out own species, but this too is observed in animals. (Both 'sides' of the question have their own sets of explanations. We'll probably discuss this further in the thread.)
My point is that none of the 'characteristics' of humans are truly human. Both selfishness and group labour (like that of ants) are present in nature. Not even 'love' (which is often stated as THE thing that sets humans apart from the animals) is something truly human.
Our concept of 'morality' is nothing more than an amalgam of values that is being uphold throughout the animal kingdom. Some values fit into the human variation of 'morality', other DO NOT fit is, and are exclusive to other types of animals.
ALL form of moral (or immoral) behaviour benefit the survival of the species. This is the main theme, that can be applied to all form of behaviour we see in animals (including humans).
Replies to this are very welcome, and I would enjoy it if OTHER people than Tuppence would also risk posting a reply. Please think about it and see if what I wrote makes sense. If you feel it didn't, don't hesitate to respond with questions, suggestions, corrections etc.