Evolution and Morality

[SLD]

Did evolution create our morals? Or should we accept what one wag said: "If morals were related to evolution, then it would be the height of morality to make a deposit in the local sperm bank every day."

Personally I found that quote (from Sam Harris) to be a sophomoric view of evolution and morality.

SLD

 

[Tigers!]

Evolution doesn't care about your morals or lack thereof.

 

[Kharakov]

If we define natural selection and moral like this, maybe:

Moral: a behavior that is socially fit (rape and murder are selected against).

Natural selection: the process by which organisms (which are basically collections of physical behaviors, so we'll extend it to social organisms as well) that are more fit survive and pass on their genetic and memetic information


I'd say that morality might arise from a fundamental emotional intelligence, that might not be entirely rational.

 

[PyramidHead]

Evolution may have created our morals, but it created a lot of our other values as well, and we don't base any of those on evolutionary concerns. Maybe our love of music originated from singing in groups, because it helped early humans memorize important things by codifying them in songs. That shouldn't have any bearing on what we consider good music today. To conclude from the evolutionary origin of morality that morality should align with the 'interests' of our genes is, fittingly, an example of the genetic fallacy.

 

[untermensche]

Behaviors that grant a survival advantage, like the members of a group caring for one another and having a willingness to fight and die for one another enables a group to survive. It is also very advantageous to not care at all about other groups and be willing to kill them.

Our attachments to some other humans is a product of evolution.

From these emotional attachments we derive an arbitrary morality.

But the morality also gets tested by being able to provide a survival advantage.

So an arbitrary morality that provides the best survival advantage will eventually become universalized to an extent.

 

[Bronzeage]

Morality and a moral code was developed to allow humans to live in cooperative groups, which greatly increases the chances of survival. After that, it's a simple argument over the definitions.

 

[Bomb#20]

Did evolution create our morals?

Obviously. Denying it is just the last refuge of people who can't quite make their peace with evolution, a phenomenon tracing all the way back to Alfred Russel Wallace, who co-invented the idea of natural selection along with Darwin, but credited it with creating only our bodies, not our minds.

Or should we accept what one wag said: "If morals were related to evolution, then it would be the height of morality to make a deposit in the local sperm bank every day."

Personally I found that quote (from Sam Harris) to be a sophomoric view of evolution and morality.

SLD

Bingo. He might as well claim if noses were related to evolution then we'd sneeze sperm.

 

[sharon45]

Did evolution create our morals? Or should we accept what one wag said: "If morals were related to evolution, then it would be the height of morality to make a deposit in the local sperm bank every day."

Personally I found that quote (from Sam Harris) to be a sophomoric view of evolution and morality.

Hard to tell when much of our so-called morality is mainly given lip service.

 

[Bronzeage]

Did evolution create our morals? Or should we accept what one wag said: "If morals were related to evolution, then it would be the height of morality to make a deposit in the local sperm bank every day."

Personally I found that quote (from Sam Harris) to be a sophomoric view of evolution and morality.

Hard to tell when much of our so-called morality is mainly given lip service.

In the history if humanity, morality has never been given more than lip service. Unlike a legal code, moral codes can be vague and easily manipulated to meet the current dilemma.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't think it's even possible to live morally, strictly speaking. There just isn't enough space, time, or energy to accommodate everybody's plans. Everything I do has the potential to violate somebody else's autonomy in some way; it's just a fact of us all being thrown into the same place to squabble over resources. And when push comes to shove, morality isn't even expected in extreme circumstances. Nobody suffering torture or wasting away from a horrible disease is capable of thinking in moral terms. Pain seems to have a disqualifying effect on morality, and inasmuch as pain is an inevitable part of existence, we are all at least partly stunted morally, by no choice of our own.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Morality and a moral code was developed to allow humans to live in cooperative groups, which greatly increases the chances of survival. After that, it's a simple argument over the definitions.

This.

We do better in groups than we do alone and there needs to be sets of rules for the groups in order for them to exist. If people are free to just slice the throat of anyone who cuts infront of them at Starbucks without consequence, the cleanup efforts are going to delay those in line behind them and one of them will inevitably end up being late in attaching the new cover page to their TPS report and the whole system of society will just collapse.

 

[PyramidHead]

That still says little about what we should value now, when we are no longer mindlessly obeying our genetic impulses, and realize that the concerns of gene survival need not correlate with what we consider morally right. The most moral acts are often self-sacrificing in a way that provides no benefit to society or to the gene pool. If anything, doing something compassionate that nonetheless violates social cohesion is often thought to be truly moral, as opposed to tempering one's conscience with what is best for society. The things we value today may overlap with what natural selection has programmed us to value, but even then we probably value them for other reasons, probably cultural ones, rather than for the reproductive advantage they may have given our ancestors. Quite a few people still think we should look to our biological past to find something like a naturalized, 'objective' morality, and I reject that wholeheartedly. The era of having a gene for a certain belief and succeeding or failing to pass it on due to that belief has ended; it's not as hard to find a mate, and ideas are easier to spread horizontally than through inheritance anyway. Without those constraints, adopting a certain moral perspective because it's 'good for the species' is backwards-looking and potentially harmful. And it's not logically justifiable either: if we found out everything we thought about morality and evolution was wrong, and the actual origin of morality was an alien species controlling our brains, or God giving us some tablets, that wouldn't really change our view of what's right and wrong, would it?

 

[Kharakov]

Do social groups which do not form moral codes cohere or does the formation of social groups cause the formation of moral codes?

If it's the latter, it seems likely that bad moral codes being formed would result in dissolution of the social groups. It's almost like social groups might naturally form among conscious beings, and then just ass naturally be destroyed by the formation of faulty moral codes, with long lived social groups being prone to forming some form of stable moral codes that preserve themselves and pass on their moral codes....

but I'm just a memepeter.

 

[Bronzeage]

Do social groups which do not form moral codes cohere or does the formation of social groups cause the formation of moral codes?

If it's the latter, it seems likely that bad moral codes being formed would result in dissolution of the social groups. It's almost like social groups might naturally form among conscious beings, and then just ass naturally be destroyed by the formation of faulty moral codes, with long lived social groups being prone to forming some form of stable moral codes that preserve themselves and pass on their moral codes....

but I'm just a memepeter.

There always seems to be a confusion between a moral code and personal ethos. A moral code, or common morality, is a group concept, and as such will be strict in some areas, vague in others, and silent in quite a few areas.


The reason for this is simple. Moral codes are created so people can cooperate to live in groups, and are tempered by the harshness of the environment.

Every moral code, whatever the culture or society is based on two basic rules. Do not kill your friends and do not steal your friend's stuff. That's it. After that, we argue about who is our friend and what is his stuff. In a place where life is harsh and resources are scarce, a moral code defines relationships and alliances, which allow cooperation for resources, instead of competition. This tells us who we can kill and from whom we can steal, and those we can't.

The great problem arises when life gets just a little easier than when we were fighting over who got to pick the apples. A moral code which made it perfectly acceptable to kill someone who stole from you, is good when the population is only couple of hundred people, will not work in a city of 50,000. At some point, personal moral judgments become a problem for the general order, and a new method, usually called "justice" is created to deal with dispute and offenses.

There is no such thing as a "faulty moral code". Every moral code which ever existed, dealt with the problems of the day. As the groups begin to mix, moral codes will conflict. What is permissible, or even mandatory, in one group, is forbidden in another. This is a conflict only the justice system can resolve.

Unlike the justice code, the moral code is always voluntary. It's more a set of expectations, than of rules. If someone steals from you, you may expect your neighbors to help you recover your property. They might not, but the moral code says they will approve, if you go and seize your property from the thief. You won't be a thief for doing so. The concept of ownership is the core of every moral code. What can and can't be owned is always well defined. In some cultures one can own other people, and these people have no property of their own. In some cultures, this is forbidden. It all comes down to who is in your group, and thus subject to the code.

 

[sharon45]

Hard to tell when much of our so-called morality is mainly given lip service.

In the history if humanity, morality has never been given more than lip service.

Sorry, but I don't understand this.

Unlike a legal code, moral codes can be vague and easily manipulated to meet the current dilemma.

Although I do know and agree with this.

 

[sharon45]

I don't think it's even possible to live morally, strictly speaking. There just isn't enough space, time, or energy to accommodate everybody's plans. Everything I do has the potential to violate somebody else's autonomy in some way; it's just a fact of us all being thrown into the same place to squabble over resources. And when push comes to shove, morality isn't even expected in extreme circumstances. Nobody suffering torture or wasting away from a horrible disease is capable of thinking in moral terms. Pain seems to have a disqualifying effect on morality, and inasmuch as pain is an inevitable part of existence, we are all at least partly stunted morally, by no choice of our own.

Yes, nobody is going to be perfect, especially when many of our morals can come from only after personally commiting the very acts. An example is Jesus saying not to pretend to be a follower of His, just as He is greatly ignoring His own teachings.

 

[sdelsolray]

Did evolution create our morals? Or should we accept what one wag said: "If morals were related to evolution, then it would be the height of morality to make a deposit in the local sperm bank every day."

Personally I found that quote (from Sam Harris) to be a sophomoric view of evolution and morality.

SLD

I suspect both (i) genetic evolution and (ii) memetic evolution are strong influences on the moral, immoral and/or amoral behaviors of members of any given human population.

 

[fromderinside]

Memetics!? The chickens have flown the coop.

 

[SLD]

Do social groups which do not form moral codes cohere or does the formation of social groups cause the formation of moral codes?

If it's the latter, it seems likely that bad moral codes being formed would result in dissolution of the social groups. It's almost like social groups might naturally form among conscious beings, and then just ass naturally be destroyed by the formation of faulty moral codes, with long lived social groups being prone to forming some form of stable moral codes that preserve themselves and pass on their moral codes....

but I'm just a memepeter.

There always seems to be a confusion between a moral code and personal ethos. A moral code, or common morality, is a group concept, and as such will be strict in some areas, vague in others, and silent in quite a few areas.


The reason for this is simple. Moral codes are created so people can cooperate to live in groups, and are tempered by the harshness of the environment.

Every moral code, whatever the culture or society is based on two basic rules. Do not kill your friends and do not steal your friend's stuff. That's it. After that, we argue about who is our friend and what is his stuff. In a place where life is harsh and resources are scarce, a moral code defines relationships and alliances, which allow cooperation for resources, instead of competition. This tells us who we can kill and from whom we can steal, and those we can't.

The great problem arises when life gets just a little easier than when we were fighting over who got to pick the apples. A moral code which made it perfectly acceptable to kill someone who stole from you, is good when the population is only couple of hundred people, will not work in a city of 50,000. At some point, personal moral judgments become a problem for the general order, and a new method, usually called "justice" is created to deal with dispute and offenses.

There is no such thing as a "faulty moral code". Every moral code which ever existed, dealt with the problems of the day. As the groups begin to mix, moral codes will conflict. What is permissible, or even mandatory, in one group, is forbidden in another. This is a conflict only the justice system can resolve.

Unlike the justice code, the moral code is always voluntary. It's more a set of expectations, than of rules. If someone steals from you, you may expect your neighbors to help you recover your property. They might not, but the moral code says they will approve, if you go and seize your property from the thief. You won't be a thief for doing so. The concept of ownership is the core of every moral code. What can and can't be owned is always well defined. In some cultures one can own other people, and these people have no property of their own. In some cultures, this is forbidden. It all comes down to who is in your group, and thus subject to the code.

Well theft and violence are core moral codes that all groups seem to follow, and i Agee that they apply generally within the group and not outside of it so much. But what about sex? Virtually all societies have sexual moral codes, and adultery is generally frowned upon.

SLD

 

[Bronzeage]

There always seems to be a confusion between a moral code and personal ethos. A moral code, or common morality, is a group concept, and as such will be strict in some areas, vague in others, and silent in quite a few areas.


The reason for this is simple. Moral codes are created so people can cooperate to live in groups, and are tempered by the harshness of the environment.

Every moral code, whatever the culture or society is based on two basic rules. Do not kill your friends and do not steal your friend's stuff. That's it. After that, we argue about who is our friend and what is his stuff. In a place where life is harsh and resources are scarce, a moral code defines relationships and alliances, which allow cooperation for resources, instead of competition. This tells us who we can kill and from whom we can steal, and those we can't.

The great problem arises when life gets just a little easier than when we were fighting over who got to pick the apples. A moral code which made it perfectly acceptable to kill someone who stole from you, is good when the population is only couple of hundred people, will not work in a city of 50,000. At some point, personal moral judgments become a problem for the general order, and a new method, usually called "justice" is created to deal with dispute and offenses.

There is no such thing as a "faulty moral code". Every moral code which ever existed, dealt with the problems of the day. As the groups begin to mix, moral codes will conflict. What is permissible, or even mandatory, in one group, is forbidden in another. This is a conflict only the justice system can resolve.

Unlike the justice code, the moral code is always voluntary. It's more a set of expectations, than of rules. If someone steals from you, you may expect your neighbors to help you recover your property. They might not, but the moral code says they will approve, if you go and seize your property from the thief. You won't be a thief for doing so. The concept of ownership is the core of every moral code. What can and can't be owned is always well defined. In some cultures one can own other people, and these people have no property of their own. In some cultures, this is forbidden. It all comes down to who is in your group, and thus subject to the code.

Well theft and violence are core moral codes that all groups seem to follow, and i Agee that they apply generally within the group and not outside of it so much. But what about sex? Virtually all societies have sexual moral codes, and adultery is generally frowned upon.

SLD

What about sex?

In a society which considers certain people to be the property of certain other people, things like rape and adultery are crimes against property, not against a person. Rape and consensual sex with another man's wife are a form of theft.