If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success...

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection. They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

Basically, it means, like I believe Alex Rosenberg says, that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, etc., there is only advantageous or non-advantageous.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

 

[Chany]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection. They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

Basically, it means, like I believe Alex Rosenberg says, that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, etc., there is only advantageous or non-advantageous.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

There are normative statements and descriptive statements. It's important to understand the distinction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Short answer, no.

Long answer, only if we defined morality to be that which increases reproductive success. I don't think anybody believes that's the right idea.

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection.

The moral sense developed through evolution, much as the sense of taste or vision did.

There can be scientific explanations for why we do act as we do, but that does not provide a justification that we should act as we do.

When lions take over a pride, they may kill cubs so they can mate with the lionesses and produce more of their own offspring. Presumably this leads to greater reproductive success. This explains why lions do this. But this is hardly a reason to suggest that humans ought to kill their stepchildren.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

I hope not.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

There can be scientific explanations for why we do act as we do, but that does not provide a justification that we should act as we do...

The issue is not why people behave in ways, A, that we call murder, rape, etc.

The issue is why people behave in ways, B, that prohibit the behavior we call murder, rape, etc.

The thinking that it seems is becoming increasingly popular is this: In the past people thought that B came from a source such as divine revelation, but B is really the result of evolution through natural selection due to B being advantageous and increasing reproductive success.

The question is this: if non-B was advantageous under certain conditions, would people accept non-B under those conditions like they accept B under conditions in which they say B is advantageous?

 

[Cute Tink]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection. They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

Basically, it means, like I believe Alex Rosenberg says, that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, etc., there is only advantageous or non-advantageous.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

Evolution does not make moral declarations. Further, reproductive success or lack there of has no moral bearing. All reproductive success means to evolution is your DNA is passed on to another generation.

Advantageous != moral.

Stating that morality is something that evolved over time does not mean that something involving reproductive success is automatically moral.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The issue is not why people behave in ways, A, that we call murder, rape, etc.

The issue is why people behave in ways, B, that prohibit the behavior we call murder, rape, etc.

People behave in both ways A and B.

 

[quatona]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

No.

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection.

Got examples and stats for your claim? (Well, ok, if it used to be one guy, and now it´s two, it´s a dramatic increase, but still insignificant.)

They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

I´d love to see names and quotes.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

You better ask those guys whom you have made out to hold these opinions. At this point, I am not even convinced that they exist in significant amounts.

 

[quatona]

People behave in both ways A and B.

...and both behaviours are the result of evolution.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

People behave in both ways A and B.

But B is what people are saying is advantageous.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But B is what people are saying is advantageous.

Are people saying that? Many animal species will steal food caches, engage in 'sneaky copulating', or forced copulation. Presumably those are advantageous for them.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Evolution does not make moral declarations...

But people are saying that we make the moral declarations that we make because it would be a huge evolutionary disadvantage not to do so.

We abhor the behavior that we call murder, make laws prohibiting that behavior, etc. because it is advantageous to do so, the thinking goes.

In other words, it all hinges on advantageous and non-advantageous.

But something tells me that if there was evidence of, or if they actually found themselves in, conditions where the opposite moral declarations--those saying that the behavior we call murder is morally good--were advantageous those aforementioned people would not suddenly be supportive of those moral declarations. Why not?

Stating that morality is something that evolved over time does not mean that something involving reproductive success is automatically moral.

But even if there are people who are saying that "morality" is a product of evolution, that is not the issue here.

There are people--increasingly, it seems--saying that certain behaviors, institutions, etc., such as making laws against the behavior we call murder--exist because they are advantageous in a Darwinian evolutionary sense. They didn't come from a deity or any other source people associated them with in the past, they are the result of their being advantageous over the process of evolution, the thinking goes. But that means that if there were conditions where it was, on the contrary, advantageous to encourage the behavior we call murder then encouraging that behavior would dominate our moral life.

 

[Cute Tink]

But people are saying that we make the moral declarations that we make because it would be a huge evolutionary disadvantage not to do so.

We abhor the behavior that we call murder, make laws prohibiting that behavior, etc. because it is advantageous to do so, the thinking goes.

In other words, it all hinges on advantageous and non-advantageous.

But something tells me that if there was evidence of, or if they actually found themselves in, conditions where the opposite moral declarations--those saying that the behavior we call murder is morally good--were advantageous those aforementioned people would not suddenly be supportive of those moral declarations. Why not?

But even if there are people who are saying that "morality" is a product of evolution, that is not the issue here.

There are people--increasingly, it seems--saying that certain behaviors, institutions, etc., such as making laws against the behavior we call murder--exist because they are advantageous in a Darwinian evolutionary sense. They didn't come from a deity or any other source people associated them with in the past, they are the result of their being advantageous over the process of evolution, the thinking goes. But that means that if there were conditions where it was, on the contrary, advantageous to encourage the behavior we call murder then encouraging that behavior would dominate our moral life.

As far as it being advantageous - yes, discouraging things which would destabilize society can be viewed as advantageous for both the survivability of that society as well as the individuals. That is one way, outside of declarations of a deity, that a group could come to the conclusion that things like murder should be prohibited. Viewed entirely in a vacuum, that would be logically sufficient to conclude that outlawing murder is better for society and the individuals involved.

I don't see how simply reversing the one part causes the same conclusion. Encouraging murder doesn't create an environment that promotes the survivability of a society or an individual.

 

[durangodawood]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection. They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

Basically, it means, like I believe Alex Rosenberg says, that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, etc., there is only advantageous or non-advantageous.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

Wow. What bundle of mis-information. Where to begin?

 

[Strivax]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?...

...Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection...

Hmmm. I think morality is what happens when we start to consciously override the evolved predispositions that might lead us to harm others. Whether behaviours are advantageous or expedient does not seem to me as relevant here as whether they are good, and right, and just.

And all goodness, righteousness and justice proceeds from God, as His shadow on the world, and who is ultimately and objectively Good, Right, and Just. And so these qualitative considerations transcend ourselves, and are aspects of fundamental reality, not mere human convenience, and not a simple quantitative matter of how much progeny results and survives to produce progeny of their own.

Cheers, Strivax.

 

[Inkfingers]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

By the standards you describe (moral=reproductive advantage), yes those things could be considered moral, so long as they were shown to be advantageous in the long-term rather than making an unstable society which is actually disadvantageous to procreation of the species.

For a morality to go beyond mere self-interest, or even species self-interest, requires a sense of duty owed to something above ourselves irrespective of whether its results are beneficial.

 

[durangodawood]

....For a morality to go beyond mere self-interest, or even species self-interest, requires a sense of duty owed to something above ourselves irrespective of whether its results are beneficial.

Sometimes I think that is correct, regardless of whether the something-above actually exists!

Thats why I sometimes think the idea of gods are a beneficial cultural adaptation.

 

[Inkfingers]

Sometimes I think that is correct, regardless of whether the something-above actually exists!

Thats why I sometimes think the idea of gods are a beneficial cultural adaptation.

The "Noble Lie"?

 

[durangodawood]

The "Noble Lie"?

"Lie" is a bit rough for describing mythology (if thats indeed what it is).

 

[joshua 1 9]

If rape, murder, stealing, etc. can be shown to increase reproductive success under certain conditions, would they be morally right under those conditions?

Increasingly people are asserting that morality is the result of evolution through natural selection. They say things like the prohibition of murder is a product of evolution through natural selection because killing members of the group would severely decrease your chances of survival (your opportunities for reproductive success).

Basically, it means, like I believe Alex Rosenberg says, that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, etc., there is only advantageous or non-advantageous.

Does this mean that under conditions where the behavior we call murder, rape, stealing, etc. is advantageous--increases reproductive success--these proponents of evolutionary psychology would accept those behaviors?

All of Creation waits redemption. Not only man is in a fallen condition. We are told that all of creation will be set free from the bondage of decay. So we need to take this into consideration.

Romans 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.…

 

[Inkfingers]

"Lie" is a bit rough for describing mythology (if thats indeed what it is).

The Noble Lie is a concept from Plato's Republic in which people are taught to believe in a God in order to promote social order (irrespective of whether such a God exists). Hence "Noble Lie" - its a lie for a good cause.

It's why I have no time for atheism, because either God exists (and we should worship Him) or God does not exist (and we should invent him as a necessary noble lie to promote social order).

Obviously I believe that God exists, this isn't an argument that God does actually need inventing, but simply one showing the reckless social abandonment of atheism because they wont even manufacture God as a noble lie!