What if racism is an evolutionary response?

[Aussie Pete]

Evolution is just about how life changed to fit the world around it. If you want to go around looking for morality from evolution, then you might as well ask a rock for a lecture on astrology or a puddle of water on a lesson about metallurgy.

Evolution did not happen, but let's humour you and say that it did. Why is a person deemed a criminal if he adapts to his environment by stealing? Or by killing an annoying neighbour? I can't use adapting to my environment as a defence in court. And there is an evolutionary school of thought that does believer that society's morals are evolving because physical changes are no longer happening. It is straw clutching in the extreme, but that's evolutionists for you.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why is this such a puzzle? Moral standards help us function as a society by encouraging standards of behavior and cooperation.

I also asked earlier why evolution would necessarily prohibit morality, but I don't believe you answered that.

I must have missed your post. Evolution does not prohibit morality. However, if survival is the name of the game, how come those who struggle are not permitted to do what ever it takes to survive? It will not impress a court if I say that I robbed someone because I could not make ends meet any other way. Why not? Surely stealing for some is an appropriate response in their circumstances? Of course, the victims may not agree. How evolutionary selfish of them.

 

[dlamberth]

If so there is little we can do about it. Evolutionary change cannot be legislated just because we don't like something about ourselves. Thoughts?

Racism is taught.

 

[dlamberth]

I must have missed your post. Evolution does not prohibit morality. However, if survival is the name of the game, how come those who struggle are not permitted to do what ever it takes to survive? It will not impress a court if I say that I robbed someone because I could not make ends meet any other way. Why not? Surely stealing for some is an appropriate response in their circumstances? Of course, the victims may not agree. How evolutionary selfish of them.

Human beings evolved as a social animal. We rely on each other to survive and be healthy. I'd say it's in our genes as an evolutionary trait. On the other hand, stealing is a survival technique. It's a job one learns. The robber may change professions, but even as a robber, that person will still rely on other human being to survive and be healthy. And then there's the robbers victim, who will no doubt feel all sorts of emotions. It's the consciousness of those emotions that evolved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Evolution did not happen, but let's humour you and say that it did.

Evolution is a fact because God's creation shows it to be true, but go off, I guess...

Why is a person deemed a criminal if he adapts to his environment by stealing? Or by killing an annoying neighbour? I can't use adapting to my environment as a defence in court. And there is an evolutionary school of thought that does believer that society's morals are evolving because physical changes are no longer happening. It is straw clutching in the extreme, but that's evolutionists for you.

Both stealing and murdering in a social group are detrimental to the group as a whole, so therefore they are looked upon negatively because they harm the group. To try and say "Oh, I did it because of evolution" would probably be seen as either a response that's in contempt of court, or a complete admission of guilt. Morals arise from what is known to be good for the collective group, rather than the individual, and yes, morals do also evolve as societies evolve. It used to be moral that anyone convicted of a horrible crime would be publicly killed in a horrible and gruesome fashion, but that's no longer seen as moral.

You are quite ignorant, aren't you?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Human beings evolved as a social animal. We rely on each other to survive and be healthy. I'd say it's in our genes as an evolutionary trait. On the other hand, stealing is a survival technique. It's a job one learns. The robber may change professions, but even as a robber, that person will still rely on other human being to survive and be healthy. And then there's the robbers victim, who will no doubt feel all sorts of emotions. It's the consciousness of those emotions that evolved.

If it was in our genes as an evolutionary trait, how did it get there? And why? There are plenty of non-social predators. If a human happens to have evolved to be that, who can condemn him or her? Yet prisons are full of such people. And they are all innocent. Just ask them, they'll tell you.



Both stealing and murdering in a social group are detrimental to the group as a whole, so therefore they are looked upon negatively because they harm the group. To try and say "Oh, I did it because of evolution" would probably be seen as either a response that's in contempt of court, or a complete admission of guilt. Morals arise from what is known to be good for the collective group, rather than the individual, and yes, morals do also evolve as societies evolve. It used to be moral that anyone convicted of a horrible crime would be publicly killed in a horrible and gruesome fashion, but that's no longer seen as moral.

You are quite ignorant, aren't you?[/QUOTE]
I'm 69, I've seen a great deal of real life, not some head in the sand academia theorising about human nature. Morals evolving? Backwards, maybe. Perhaps all the grossly obese people are fed up with life on land and are evolving back to be whales. "Collective good"? What planet are you from? The body count from the continual warfare in much of the world would tend to contradict your argument.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Racism is taught.

Yes and no. My dad was an atheist and proudly non-racist. Until he moved to live in a society that included a lot of non-whites. He began to change his attitude dramatically. No one taught him to become racist. He managed all by himself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm 69, I've seen a great deal of real life, not some head in the sand academia theorising about human nature. Morals evolving? Backwards, maybe. Perhaps all the grossly obese people are fed up with life on land and are evolving back to be whales. "Collective good"? What planet are you from? The body count from the continual warfare in much of the world would tend to contradict your argument.

Yeah, I can tell that you're not someone who I can have an actual discussion with. I'm putting you onto my ignore list.

 

[Speedwell]

To try and say "Oh, I did it because of evolution" would probably be seen as either a response that's in contempt of court, or a complete admission of guilt.

About as much use as saying "The Devil made me do it."

 

[pitabread]

I must have missed your post. Evolution does not prohibit morality.

Then what did you mean by this:

Exactly. If evolution is true, there is NO basis for morality.

The above statement implies that one cannot be moral if they accept evolution as being factually true.

However, if survival is the name of the game, how come those who struggle are not permitted to do what ever it takes to survive?

For starters, science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Since you're probably looking at science and evolution through the same lens as you would look at the Bible, you're expecting science to dictate behavior. That isn't what science is for; it's simply meant to describe things as they are, not prescribe behaviors.

Second, people are often put in situations where they do whatever it takes to survive regardless of moral compass. Put a person in a desperate situation and you'll see how quickly they adhere to their prescribed morals. This is the basis of many moral dilemmas.

Finally, humans are social creatures. We benefit from cooperation. Engaging in behaviors that foster cooperation can result in beneficial outcomes that are greater than engaging in strictly selfish behavior. But as per above, it can come down to individual circumstances.

On that note, I'll leave you with the Heinz dilemma:

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the ingredients and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, could only had $1,000. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.
​

Was Heinz in the wrong to steal the drug to save his wife? What would you do in this situation?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If so there is little we can do about it. Evolutionary change cannot be legislated just because we don't like something about ourselves. Thoughts?

I believe that racism is a response to ignorance, not evolution.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

On that note, I'll leave you with the Heinz dilemma:

A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the ingredients and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, could only had $1,000. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and wrote his congressmen who quickly passed the ACA before reading it. Now the man only has to pay a $200 copay with insurance that is $2000 per month. So the druggist doubled the price of the medication because Uncle Sam is willing to pay for it and the insurance companies will increase their premiums to compensate. And they all lived happily ever after.
​

​

Changes in bold.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Racism is taught.

More like learned.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes and no. My dad was an atheist and proudly non-racist. Until he moved to live in a society that included a lot of non-whites. He began to change his attitude dramatically. No one taught him to become racist. He managed all by himself.

Zackly. Racism is learned, not taught.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it was in our genes as an evolutionary trait, how did it get there? And why? There are plenty of non-social predators. If a human happens to have evolved to be that, who can condemn him or her? Yet prisons are full of such people. And they are all innocent. Just ask them, they'll tell you.



Both stealing and murdering in a social group are detrimental to the group as a whole, so therefore they are looked upon negatively because they harm the group. To try and say "Oh, I did it because of evolution" would probably be seen as either a response that's in contempt of court, or a complete admission of guilt. Morals arise from what is known to be good for the collective group, rather than the individual, and yes, morals do also evolve as societies evolve. It used to be moral that anyone convicted of a horrible crime would be publicly killed in a horrible and gruesome fashion, but that's no longer seen as moral.

You are quite ignorant, aren't you?

Actually if the death of lots of people relieves overpopulation it is good for those who remain.

 

[pitabread]

Zackly. Racism is learned, not taught.

It can be both. It's not an either/or.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe that racism is a response to ignorance, not evolution.

I think racism is mostly a byproduct of bad experiences, or profound differences, in this day and age.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It can be both. It's not an either/or.

How is racism taught, except by experience?

 

[pitabread]

How is racism taught, except by experience?

One could have a racist family that actively teach their children to hate other races.

For example:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One could have racist parents that actively teach their children to hate other races, for example.

True. Parents could tell their kids to not mix with other ethnicities. They would then get the message that something is wrong with or undesirable about them. Of course the parents attitude would have to stand the test of time and experience.