Evolution and Morality

[SpyderByte]

This was posted elsewhere and I thought would be a good starter.

Evolution gives me my basic morality, just like it gives you yours. No one has to tell a human being not to murder another human being in it's tribe. If they did, humans would been extinct a long time ago.

Proof of this would be greatly accepted, because as far as evolution is concerned, the only driving force behind life, is passing your genome on to the next generation. Where is there morality in that? In the wild, animals often fight to the death over the chance to mate, is that moral? If I kill a man who is also attempting to mate with the same woman I am attempting to mate with, is that moral? If the answer to the latter is no, then evolution has zippity-do-da to do with morals. Morality is a hindrance to procreation and the advancement of one's genes into the next generation. The same goes for monogamous relationships. The best chance for ones genes to move to the next generation is to have multiple mates. Again, looking to the animal world, we see very little in the way of monogamy. Though we do see our society heading in this direction. Men and women having anonymous sexual relations with many multiple partners (though the children created in these sexual acts are often simply disposed of in abortion, but that's a separate topic). As we see, our society’s moral standard is eroding based on the unquestioned embrace of evolution, certainly morality isn't being furthered by it.

 

[Gottservant]

I get the feeling you are going to receive a certain amount of opposition to this thread, but on the other hand, I think you are right to suggest that there needs to be a foundation to morality.

Sadly, I think that the debate misaligns morality with image, since the dispute becomes over whether Man sees himself as Man or animal, which is a distraction that only the world really wants to entertain.

But to the contrast, by asserting that even when Man's image is denigrated to the level of animal, there is still a foundation of morality, you have done a great thing.

So what it comes down to then, is whether you can get a foundation for morality out of the good or evil nature of the beast, this is difficult - ultimately a good nature wins, but this takes time and neither is it likely that the evil nature will come to recognize its own limits, in time to save itself.

God in this picture is the animal kingdom maintainer, the park ranger who culls when species are out of control and heals when animals are needlessly wounded - there is an impartiality there, that all can cohabit with because the more good if possible is yielded from circumstances that are otherwise almost completely unpredictable.

By extending the authority to be kingdom maintainer's to us, Man's place above the animal kingdom is restored and the rightful order of administered justice is able to function freely according to the principles set out in God's law as exemplary ordinances unto God's grace, which abounds mercifully to animal and Man alike... even under the burden of adaptation and mutation and natural selection and the like.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

None of the available answers to the poll sound correct to me.

Humans are the authors of their morality.
Evolution theory explains why we have such a thing as morality being a social species.
Or why we have a "moral sense" as essentialsaltes puts it.

So you ask a perfectly decent question. But the answer isn't included in the poll.

 

[BL2KTN]

That is a stupid poll. Neither God nor evolution determine morality. Logic and reason does.

 

[bhsmte]

How we evolved, allowed morality to evolve from a psychological standpoint.

 

[Chesterton]

How we evolved, allowed morality to evolve from a psychological standpoint.

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

 

[bhsmte]

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

I can't comment on the assumptions regarding life on another planet.

We evolved as social creatures and getting along socially, became important to survival of the species - on earth.

 

[jayem]

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

Morality would be different if we evolved differently. If we lived mostly solitary lives, like giant pandas, or orangutans, complex morality wouldn't really exist. Standards for how to treat others have little function for a non-social species whose members have minimal day-to-day contact with each other. But of course, if we were a non-social species, we would never have created a civilization.

 

[Chesterton]

I can't comment on the assumptions regarding life on another planet.

We evolved as social creatures and getting along socially, became important to survival of the species - on earth.

Right, you can't comment on it because you can't even imagine it, can you?

Morality would be different if we evolved differently. If we lived mostly solitary lives, like giant pandas, or orangutans, complex morality wouldn't really exist. Standards for how to treat others have little function for a non-social species whose members have minimal day-to-day contact with each other. But of course, if we were a non-social species, we would never have created a civilization.

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

 

[bhsmte]

Right, you can't comment on it because you can't even imagine it, can you?

Why is that important?

We can comment on how morality likely developed on earth and was aided by evolution.

 

[jayem]

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

If you ever studied ethics as an academic subject, like as a college course, you wouldn't say that.

 

[Chesterton]

Why is that important?

We can comment on how morality likely developed on earth and was aided by evolution.

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.

If you ever studied ethics as an academic subject, like as a college course, you wouldn't say that.

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

 

[Davian]

Right, you can't comment on it because you can't even imagine it, can you?


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

Of what use is morality to a man alone on an island?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of what use is morality to a man alone on an island?

If he was a moral person before it would help to "maintain the integrity of his own mind" (observed by Frank Lloyd Wright, who believed this was very important).

 

[Davian]

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

My preference would be for the Silver Rule.

 

[Davian]

If he was a moral person before it would help to "maintain the integrity of his own mind" (observed by Frank Lloyd Wright, who believed this was very important).

So he would be nice to everyone around him?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is a stupid poll. Neither God nor evolution determine morality. Logic and reason does.

Morality, as it is generally understood, is determined by each individual according to his rationale. Society-at-large may frown on certain anti-social behaviors, but in the hands individuals anything goes. It's called situation ethics.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So he would be nice to everyone around him?

He would care for himself, as the only one there. Part of it would be to keep a sound mind by controlling immoral thoughts.

 

[essentialsaltes]

we can't imagine different basic morality

Why not? I can not only imagine that some people could think that slavery is okay, I know that people actually felt that way for most of history.