Evolution and Morality

[DogmaHunter]

It's important because I contend that morality is very fundamental like math, so we can't imagine different basic morality any more than we can imagine 2+2=5. It's relatively easy to imagine other things evolving differently, like say, dogs that are ten feet tall.

It's only fundamental in such a way that there are a few things that are "the best way" to accomplish a certain goal.

For example, when living in a group where everyone depends on eachother and where cooperation is important, it will objectively work better if people from that group didn't go around killing eachother for no reason.

Yes I would. In real world application, things can get tricky, but the Golden Rule is basically very simple.

The gold rule is indeed very simple. And unsurprisingly very old. Plenty of cultures around the world independently came up with this rule or at least a variation thereof.

However, how it is applied and how it is meant heavily changed through the generations.

There was a time (and in some cultures today, it is still the case) where it only really applies to your own people.

In ancient cultures for example, slaves were oftenly not seen as "people". They were not necessarily to be treated "as you wish to be treated", because they were slaves and you weren't.

So even these "fundamental" ideas, as you call them, have had very different applications through the ages.

It really isn't as white and black as you tend to imply here.

The concept of "murder" is very old and is defined as being bad. But what constitutes murder has changed a lot over the years, and still differs today from culture to culture. Even within single cultures there oftenly is a difference of opinion due to different perspectives (and in some cases, a priori religious beliefs).

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

That's not really correct.

Such states are dictatorial in nature with oppressed populations. If history has shown us anything, it's that such societies don't last. Sooner or later, uprising happens and people grab power.

Off course it wouldn't mean the end of mankind. After all, we survived till now and just about any society/form of rule that came before what we do today, has obviously survived since we are here.

During ancient Roman times for example... we would consider that nothing short of barabaric - no matter which culture or sub-culture you would look at, I'm positive you could spot dozen of things that are totally unacceptable ethically, to us.

But what we also see is that as time goes on, we make moral progress. We understand more about the world and about our own nature. It has become easier to realise what has good and bad effects on society as whole.

Our moral values are changed accordingly.
So it's not surprising to me that as time moves on, we get along better and this results in more success for the society. It becomes bigger, more stable and more prosperous with overall better living conditions accross the board and less crime.

This is an undeniable trend of human history.
We still have the remnants of tribal thinking and blind hatred for "the other" in our midst, but as times moves on, such things vanish by themselves.

 

[Chesterton]

Neither did I.

Yeah you sorta did.

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

But it has explanatory power in some time periods and not in others?

 

[Chesterton]

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

I agree that morality fosters cooperation, and cooperation is nice, and may also foster complex civilization, which may or may not be nice (I’m doing my taxes now). I disagree that it’s necessary for survival.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

First, when you mention the fact that there appear to exist both social and non-social species you make my point. Second, (for the sake of argument) I deny that I or the wolf have responsibilities towards our peers. And the science is not so clear-cut: there are such things as "lone wolves". You also didn’t explain how morality is complex.

It's only fundamental in such a way that there are a few things that are "the best way" to accomplish a certain goal.

For example, when living in a group where everyone depends on eachother and where cooperation is important, it will objectively work better if people from that group didn't go around killing eachother for no reason.

So if there’s no particular goal needing accomplishing, it wouldn’t be wrong to go around killing?

The gold rule is indeed very simple. And unsurprisingly very old. Plenty of cultures around the world independently came up with this rule or at least a variation thereof.

However, how it is applied and how it is meant heavily changed through the generations.

There was a time (and in some cultures today, it is still the case) where it only really applies to your own people.

In ancient cultures for example, slaves were oftenly not seen as "people". They were not necessarily to be treated "as you wish to be treated", because they were slaves and you weren't.

So even these "fundamental" ideas, as you call them, have had very different applications through the ages.

It really isn't as white and black as you tend to imply here.

The concept of "murder" is very old and is defined as being bad. But what constitutes murder has changed a lot over the years, and still differs today from culture to culture. Even within single cultures there oftenly is a difference of opinion due to different perspectives (and in some cases, a priori religious beliefs).

I agree that the Golden Rule applies to those we perceive as people. I also agree that people in the past have broken the rule, people today break the rule, and people in the future will break the rule. Yet we perceive the validity of it similarly as we perceive a mathematical axiom.

That's not really correct.

Such states are dictatorial in nature with oppressed populations. If history has shown us anything, it's that such societies don't last. Sooner or later, uprising happens and people grab power.

Off course it wouldn't mean the end of mankind. After all, we survived till now and just about any society/form of rule that came before what we do today, has obviously survived since we are here.

During ancient Roman times for example... we would consider that nothing short of barabaric - no matter which culture or sub-culture you would look at, I'm positive you could spot dozen of things that are totally unacceptable ethically, to us.

But what we also see is that as time goes on, we make moral progress. We understand more about the world and about our own nature. It has become easier to realise what has good and bad effects on society as whole.

Our moral values are changed accordingly.
So it's not surprising to me that as time moves on, we get along better and this results in more success for the society. It becomes bigger, more stable and more prosperous with overall better living conditions accross the board and less crime.

This is an undeniable trend of human history.
We still have the remnants of tribal thinking and blind hatred for "the other" in our midst, but as times moves on, such things vanish by themselves.

It wouldn’t mean the end of mankind. I agree.

 

[Davian]

Yeah you sorta did.

Where?

But it has explanatory power in some time periods and not in others?

When humans became sophisticated enough to alter the the environment around them, we messed with our own evolution (subject to genetic drift and global catastrophes etc).

 

[Chesterton]

Where?

You said "Unless you have a way of quantifying "morally", I only see "morally" as "how we get along". There is no "more" or "less"." which sounds like nothing is better or worse, just whatever we've done is what we've done and what we've done is what you call moral.

When humans became sophisticated enough to alter the the environment around them, we messed with our own evolution (subject to genetic drift and global catastrophes etc).

Are you saying humans have power to alter nature's physical laws?

 

[Davian]

You said "Unless you have a way of quantifying "morally", I only see "morally" as "how we get along". There is no "more" or "less"." which sounds like nothing is better or worse, just whatever we've done is what we've done and what we've done is what you call moral.

How would you quantify it? What units would you use?

Are you saying humans have power to alter nature's physical laws?

No.

 

[Chesterton]

How would you quantify it? What units would you use?

Shut up, Davian.

No.

When humans became sophisticated enough to alter the the environment around them, we messed with our own evolution (subject to genetic drift and global catastrophes etc).

 

[Davian]

Shut up, Davian.

Socrates would not be impressed.

Do you live in a house? Does it have water piped to it? Do you use modern medicines? Hospitals? Eat food brought from hundreds to thousands of miles away?

Does any of that violate the physical laws of the universe as you understand them?

 

[Chesterton]

Socrates would not be impressed.

Do you live in a house? Does it have water piped to it? Do you use modern medicines? Hospitals? Eat food brought from hundreds to thousands of miles away?

Does any of that violate the physical laws of the universe as you understand them?

No, none of those violate laws. What's your point?

 

[Davian]

No, none of those violate laws. What's your point?

Altering our environment allows us to (somewhat) avoid the typical result when a population is face with environmental pressures. The fishes that got repeatedly stuck in the brackish pond learned to gulp air, or die. Their descendants, if any, may get better at it. They don't get in a car and drive to another pond, or divert a river, to refresh the pond.

 

[Chesterton]

Yes but we humans have always done that, and probably always will.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, when you mention the fact that there appear to exist both social and non-social species you make my point.

Then I think that I don't really get what your point is.

Second, (for the sake of argument) I deny that I or the wolf have responsibilities towards our peers.

Then the conversation about morality and its origins is kind of over....

And the science is not so clear-cut: there are such things as "lone wolves".

As I said... packs of social wolves...
I'm not talking about lone wolves.
But good job dodging the point made.

You also didn’t explain how morality is complex.

If human morality was simple, there wouldn't be a forum filled with threads talking about moral dilemma's.

It's like you refuse to honestly think about this stuff...
You don't understand that "rules of conduct" become more complex as the group expands and becomes more divers?

So if there’s no particular goal needing accomplishing, it wouldn’t be wrong to go around killing?

Nore would it be right to not do it.
Morality wouldn't exist. Life wouldn't exist.

The ultimate goal of living things is to not die.

I'ld also like to point out that you are talking about "what if's" here...
"What if life didn't care about staying alive?"
That's essentially what you are asking. But that isn't reality. In reality, life does try to stay alive.

So yes, if things would be different, then things would be different. Big whoop.

I agree that the Golden Rule applies to those we perceive as people.

Why only people?
Don't you apply the golden rule, at least till some point, to certain animals?

I most certainly do.

It wouldn’t mean the end of mankind. I agree.

This time around, I wouldn't be too sure though.
Since we are in the lands of "what if's", let's say a christian version of ISIS grabs power in the US and installs a strict medieval theocracy.

Here, we'ld have the equivalent of ISIS guys with the access codes to 11.000 nuclear bombs. I'm not so sure mankind (and 90% of life on this planet) would survive that.

 

[Chesterton]

As I said... packs of social wolves...
I'm not talking about lone wolves.
But good job dodging the point made.

Your point was that social animals behave certain ways, my point was that behavior is not always so neatly packaged. As you said there are animals we label “non-social”, and even among the social ones behavior can be erratic. To take an extreme example, among lower animals and humans, parents have even been known to kill their own children and vice versa, which would seem to put the lie to the idea that survival of our genes is the all-controlling factor in determining moral behavior.

If human morality was simple, there wouldn't be a forum filled with threads talking about moral dilemma's.

It's like you refuse to honestly think about this stuff...
You don't understand that "rules of conduct" become more complex as the group expands and becomes more divers?

No, I don’t. Help me out.

Nore would it be right to not do it.
Morality wouldn't exist. Life wouldn't exist.

The ultimate goal of living things is to not die.

I'ld also like to point out that you are talking about "what if's" here...
"What if life didn't care about staying alive?"
That's essentially what you are asking. But that isn't reality. In reality, life does try to stay alive.

So yes, if things would be different, then things would be different. Big whoop.

Most atheists I’ve talked with say there is no goal to evolution.

Why only people?
Don't you apply the golden rule, at least till some point, to certain animals?

I most certainly do.

My good sir, I’ll have you know I apply the Golden Rule to all animals, except ones that taste really good.

This time around, I wouldn't be too sure though.
Since we are in the lands of "what if's", let's say a christian version of ISIS grabs power in the US and installs a strict medieval theocracy.

Here, we'ld have the equivalent of ISIS guys with the access codes to 11.000 nuclear bombs. I'm not so sure mankind (and 90% of life on this planet) would survive that.

You could have just said Iran, but you had to invent “a Christian version of ISIS”. How about an atheist version of ISIS, now that would be really dangerous. At least the Christians might want themselves to survive, so mankind would then survive, but you get some radical, existentially nihilistic atheists with bombs, then the show’s as good as over.