Evolution and Morality

[Morraw]

I largely believe in theistic-driven evolution; and in such a case, wouldn't it be the Lord (through the guise of evolution) that decides what our morality is?

 

[Inkfingers]

The question is quite clumsily phrased.

God is not the "author" of morality because there was never a time when God was not, so there was never a time when good was not......and thus morality was never 'authored'.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evolution produced our moral sense. But it does not (and should not) determine our moral positions.

I third this.

Moral positions require judgment and understanding. We can have knee-jerk moral positions that will feel moral to us, but a wiser person will understand to be false.

There is no good substitute for rational judgment. We can't just rely on our feelings, although we should pay attention to them in case our unconscious minds happen to be taking something into account that we've forgotten consciously.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am trying to figure out a Muslim perspective. It seems like I ought to believe in theistic evolution of kinds, and even theistic 'propriationist' guidance over cultural goods. So "Allah" has tamed the cattle for our use (see first quote), and this must for me if true be logically consistent with the idea that pastoralists bred cattle from wild to more tame over the years.

Likewise within the goods of culrure "Allah" is appropriative of the production or gifting of both clothing and even armour (see second quote).

We are even told all good comes from "Allah" - which reminds me of the quote in the Catholic mass relating to God "...from whom all good things come".

So maybe morality, or moralistic activity, insofar as it is used to good ends, (eg in the taming of cattle, the production of clothing etc) must have "come from Allah". But there is also the hint that there is some form of process over which "Allah" is guide (hadi - guide, musawir - fashioner of shapes, al khaliku - the producer etc).

The only way I can reconcile the idea is through the concept of individual "wahy" or revelation through conscience or light of reason. Like in christianity where conscience is the "voice of God", there can be "individual revelation" of sorts to souls to help them on the good path. Maybe this evolved or developed in the context of a "pregiven" or "created" phenomenology of conscience, just like the material of our bodies forms the substantial or material cause for natural selection to act on. We did not create either, they are both "God gifted" if that makes sense, just as is the whole of material creation...


I also get a sense of Last Thursdayism (mabe?), of God "gave us" cattle, mail and clothing etc, it kind of dissociates from the secular narrative of human history where we are the major or even sole agents.

Do they not see that We have created for them from what Our hands have made, grazing livestock, and [then] they are their owners. And We have tamed them for them, so some of them they ride, and some of them they eat.

And Allah hath given you, of that which He hath created, shelter from the sun; and hath given you places of refuge in the mountains, and hath given you coats to ward off the heat from you, and coats (of armour) to save you from your own foolhardiness. Thus doth He perfect His favour unto you, in order that ye may surrender (unto Him).

Whatever of good reaches you, is from Allah, but whatever of evil befalls you, is from yourself.

 

[Gottservant]

I third this.

You third that, but what does it actually mean?

There is no procedural evidence that Evolution produces a conscience.

There is no social commitment to extending the benefit of that conscience to the community, whether on the basis of Evolution or otherwise.

And there is no reason to think that even if an argument could be made that such a social commitment should exist, that Evolution is the best model by which to deliver it, uphold it and maintain it.

There is no good substitute for rational judgment. We can't just rely on our feelings, although we should pay attention to them in case our unconscious minds happen to be taking something into account that we've forgotten consciously.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then you espouse random moralizing, that has no connection with a trusted, truth-established authority figure that can maintain said morality.

You have an enemy, the Devil, who does not regard empty words as anything more than a reason to violate (and I am supposed to pretend that you have "addressed" the issue?)

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is no procedural evidence that Evolution produces a conscience.

Procedural evidence is a legal term, not a scientific one.

There is no social commitment to extending the benefit of that conscience to the community, whether on the basis of Evolution or otherwise.

And there is no reason to think that even if an argument could be made that such a social commitment should exist, that Evolution is the best model by which to deliver it, uphold it and maintain it.

I did not imply any of that.

Then you espouse random moralizing, that has no connection with a trusted, truth-established authority figure that can maintain said morality.

No, I espouse rational and wise moralizing that has no connection with a falsely-established authority figure that would only "establish" morality on the dubious basis of "might makes right".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, I espouse rational and wise moralizing that has no connection with a falsely-established authority figure that would only "establish" morality on the dubious basis of "might makes right".


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you keep reading you'll come to the new testament.

 

[Davian]

This idea is based on the premise that morality tends to favor survival, but have either of you ever seen a fish wearing a robe? That's because fish don't have priests, kings or judges. No religion, government or law; none of the implements of morality. Yet they've been around longer than we have.

If Nazi Germany had conquered the world as they wanted, or if ISIS or Mexican drug cartels came to rule the world, it would not affect survival of the species.

Those were not selection pressures that affected us as a species.

Now, if you were to go back 70,000 years or so, where the estimated population of humans may have been around 10,000, in the harsh conditions following the eruption of the Toba super-volcano, then you might see those social behaviours that made the difference between success (and eventually us) and extinction. We are the descendants of those that learned to get along.

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chesterton]

Those were not selection pressures that affected us as a species.

Now, if you were to go back 70,000 years or so, where the estimated population of humans may have been around 10,000, in the harsh conditions following the eruption of the Toba super-volcano, then you might see those social behaviours that made the difference between success (and eventually us) and extinction. We are the descendants of those that learned to get along.

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not getting what you're saying.

 

[Davian]

I'm not getting what you're saying.

No problem.

 

[Chesterton]

No problem.

I guess you're saying that hard times make people behave more morally? Evidence would seem to suggest the opposite. At least the more liberal types among us are always saying that poverty causes crime, and poverty causes terrorism, and hoarding, price gouging, civil unrest and stuff like that.

 

[Davian]

I guess you're saying that hard times make people behave more morally?

Unless you have a way of quantifying "morally", I only see "morally" as "how we get along". There is no "more" or "less".

I would say that hard times do make for evolutionary pressures; in times of plenty, extinction is less of an occurrence.

Evidence would seem to suggest the opposite. At least the more liberal types among us are always saying that poverty causes crime, and poverty causes terrorism, and hoarding, price gouging, civil unrest and stuff like that.

My point was that I would not apply evolutionary theory or thinking to our current times (and back 30,000 years or so), any more than I would place a large number of rats in a cage to observe how they 'evolve'.

 

[Chesterton]

Unless you have a way of quantifying "morally", I only see "morally" as "how we get along". There is no "more" or "less".

I would say that hard times do make for evolutionary pressures; in times of plenty, extinction is less of an occurrence.

We don't define morality as just "whatever happens".

My point was that I would not apply evolutionary theory or thinking to our current times (and back 30,000 years or so), any more than I would place a large number of rats in a cage to observe how they 'evolve'.

Then why apply it to any time?

 

[Davian]

We don't define morality as just "whatever happens".

Neither did I.

Then why apply it to any time?

Because evolutionary theory has explanatory power in regards to how humans came to be, as a social species.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This idea is based on the premise that morality tends to favor survival, but have either of you ever seen a fish wearing a robe? That's because fish don't have priests, kings or judges. No religion, government or law; none of the implements of morality. Yet they've been around longer than we have.

If Nazi Germany had conquered the world as they wanted, or if ISIS or Mexican drug cartels came to rule the world, it would not affect survival of the species.

The concept of morality is rooted in human social behavior. And moralities change depending on time and place. To that end it is beneficial for the survival of a social organism, such as ourselves, to have a system of what is acceptable and unacceptable in order to foster cooperation among individuals.

In other very intelligent species that exist in complex social groups we see similar things, that of a sort of social contract, where there are--in a sense--rules to be followed to keep things from degenerating into a poo-flinging fit. In our species there is a much deeper level of social complexity and thus the demands of far more complex moralities.

As such morality as an abstract concept is very much rooted in our biological and social evolution as a species. It is that sense of the moral that allows us to build cities, civilizations, and have extremely complex societies.

That isn't the same thing as right and wrong. I would regard plenty of moralities--systems of morality--to be fundamentally errant and in the wrong; namely unjust systems of morality are still a systems of morality, but remaining unjust, errant, and in violation of what as Christians we'd regard the higher law of God which commands justice, mercy, and compassionate benevolence toward our neighbor.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ebia]

That's just tax on income though. I've heard those kind of places make up for it with extra high sales taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, fees and licences for blowing your nose, etc.

Not necessarily; a small country can try to raise its money by ripping off people elsewhere. Or they might have enough resources to sell - oil, phosphate, whatever - now or in the past.

 

[Ella Gray]

Thanks for this thread it was really a very interesting topic for discussing. through this thread I had learn a lot about evolution and morality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Muy take is that mental causaiton is essential to morality. Consciousness has interests, and it is fresh as a daisy ontologically speaking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So morality could have turned out different than it is? On another planet maybe it's virtuous to betray a friend?

You don't need to go to other planets to find different perspectives on morality.

There are lots of cultural differences when it comes to morality.

Sure "murder" is immoral everywhere - but only because it is defined as such. Murdere literally is a killing which is regarded as not justified.

What constitutes murder is pretty culturally determined.
Lots of regions in the world consider honor killings quite okay for example.

You can debate about such things till you are blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that, clearly, within human kind there are big differences when it comes to moral values between different cultures.

Clearly, there is no "single standard" that everyone agrees on.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see how morality is complex or that it requires a society.

That's probably because you haven't given it much thought.

Consider wolves vs any other non-social species.

Wolves have, within the pack, clear "rules of conduct". Those that go astray, or that work against the pack, will suffer the consequences.
There's a hierarchy to uphold. The pack only succesfully survives if those rules are more or less followed.

The non-social species... different story. There are no rules of conduct here, there are no responsabilities towards peers. There is only your own survival and your own successes in finding food and spreading your genes.

This animal has no need for morals. In fact, being mister nice-guy probably will come back to bite you in the behind. It literally is a world of "every man for himself".

Not so much in social settings, where every individual has responsabilities towards his peers. Your conduct affects the whole group.
Now, your behaviour becomes important not only to your own survival, but also the survival of the entire group you belong to.

The bigger and more divers this group, the more complex the "rules of conduct" become.

Hence why humans have the most complex system of social contracts. We are the most social species on the planet.