Morality Via Evolution?

[ChristianT]

How is this really possible?
What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality? (none?) How then can it be an evolutionary method of survival then?

There's countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" of years perfectly fine without morality. Why, then, do humans need it to survive? What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

Obviously I'm asking for answers from those who don't believe in God, but I'd also like to hear from anyone who may have a "theistic evolution" stance. I personally have a Creationist stance.

 

[Incariol]

How is this really possible?
What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality? (none?)

Altruism, social structures, role specialization in hunting are a few that comes to mind.

How then can it be an evolutionary method of survival then?

Because basic moral guidelines facilitate stable social structures that improve survival and reproductive rates in populations.

There's countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" of years perfectly fine without morality. Why, then, do humans need it to survive?

Because humans, unlike platyhelminthes, are large, social animals with high energy requirements, relatively low reproductive rates, and advanced encephalization and neural processing capacity. In those circumstances organizing into social groups, as opposed to trying to survive alone, is highly advantageous.

What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

They couldn't form stable social structures.

Obviously I'm asking for answers from those who don't believe in God, but I'd also like to hear from anyone who may have a "theistic evolution" stance. I personally have a Creationist stance.

 

[Davian]

I was just reading this in today's paper (there is a major science conference going on locally):

"Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, a leading specialist in primate behaviour told a major science conference Monday.

"Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies," Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver.

New research on higher animals, from primates and elephants to mice, shows there is a biological basis for behaviour such as cooperation, said de Waal, author of The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society.

Until just 12 years ago, the common view among scientists was that humans were "nasty" at the core but had developed a veneer of morality - albeit a thin one, de Waal told scientists and journalists from some 50 countries.

But human children - and most higher animals - are "moral" in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said.

Research has disproven the view, dominant since the 19th century, typical of biologist Thomas Henry Huxley's argument that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans, said de Waal.

And common assumptions that the harsh view was promoted by Charles Darwin, the so-called father of evolution, are also wrong, he said.

"Darwin was much smarter than most of his followers," said de Waal, quoting from Darwin's The Descent of Man that animals that developed "well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience."

De Waal showed the audience videos from laboratories revealing the dramatic emotional distress of a monkey denied a treat that another monkey received; and of a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap.

Such research shows that animals naturally have pro-social tendencies for "reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation," said de Waal, a Dutch biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia."

Read more: New research uncovers pro-social tendencies among early humans

 

[Cute Tink]

What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality?

Depends on how strictly you define morality. There are social insects and animals that have cooperative social structures and have a variety of rules that define mating rights, territory, pecking order, protection of group members, etc. Some of this is more evident among animals generally considered more intelligent.

Why, then, do humans need it to survive? What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

Larger social organizations, property issues, territorial divisions, etc. There are a number of reasons why, as the populations increased and social interactions became more complex that issues of morality would become more and more important to establish for the purpose of maintaining a survivable social environment.

 

[ChristianT]

Depends on how strictly you define morality. There are social insects and animals that have cooperative social structures and have a variety of rules that define mating rights, territory, pecking order, protection of group members, etc. Some of this is more evident among animals generally considered more intelligent.

morality |məˈralətē, mô-|
noun ( pl. moralities )
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

That's how I define it in this thread.
It sounds like those insects/animals have their own religion. Animalism

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How is this really possible?
What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality? (none?) How then can it be an evolutionary method of survival then?

There's countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" of years perfectly fine without morality. Why, then, do humans need it to survive? What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

Obviously I'm asking for answers from those who don't believe in God, but I'd also like to hear from anyone who may have a "theistic evolution" stance. I personally have a Creationist stance.

Animals, to varying degrees, do have a sense of morality - inasmuch as they have evolved instincts that urge them towards or away from certain behaviour. Some species have no qualms about eating their own young, while some species have evolved to take the utmost care in their offspring.

Whether this constitutes genuine morality or not is somewhat irrelevant; at the end of the day, there are species whose evolved instincts lead them to exhibit altruistic behaviour. There are monkeys who emit the 'BIGSCARYCAT' cry - this alerts and saves its troops, but puts it in more danger. What is that, if not moral?

morality |məˈralətē, mô-|
noun ( pl. moralities )
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

That's how I define it in this thread.
It sounds like those insects/animals have their own religion. Animalism

Ironically, 'animalism' is the belief that humans fall within the category of 'animal' .

You want to be careful you don't conflate two separate meanings of the word: there's the behaviour exhibited by these animals, and there's philosophical principles. There are animals that do behave altruistically, etc, so whether you put that down to evolved instinct or a divine law-giver, these animals are moral.

Whose to say that our morals, with all their philosophical abstraction, don't ultimately boil down to evolved instincts - don't kill your babies, etc.

 

[Davian]

morality |məˈralətē, mô-|
noun ( pl. moralities )
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

That's how I define it in this thread.
It sounds like those insects/animals have their own religion. Animalism

In what way are humans not animals?

 

[ChristianT]

In what way are humans not animals?

It depends on how you define animal. If its a kingdom of multicellular or unicellular organisms, then nothing. If they're nonrational creatures, then obviously everything.

 

[Incariol]

It depends on how you define animal. If its a kingdom of multicellular or unicellular organisms, then nothing. If they're nonrational creatures, then obviously everything.

I don't see how. Humans certainly aren't the only rational creature.

 

[Cute Tink]

Animals, to varying degrees, do have a sense of morality - inasmuch as they have evolved instincts that urge them towards or away from certain behaviour. Some species have no qualms about eating their own young, while some species have evolved to take the utmost care in their offspring.

Whether this constitutes genuine morality or not is somewhat irrelevant; at the end of the day, there are species whose evolved instincts lead them to exhibit altruistic behaviour. There are monkeys who emit the 'BIGSCARYCAT' cry - this alerts and saves its troops, but puts it in more danger. What is that, if not moral?

This is exactly what I was getting at. Some animals put themselves in danger to protect others, protect weaker members of their group, etc. Some creatures have rigidly defined social structures and (I think) will excommunicate members who don't fall in line.

While some behaviors may not fall strictly within the realm of how we define morality, the effect is generally the same.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It depends on how you define animal. If its a kingdom of multicellular or unicellular organisms, then nothing. If they're nonrational creatures, then obviously everything.

Humans aren't the only rational creatures.

 

[ChristianT]

cool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Welcome to CF, ChristianT --

I love your signature!

 

[Naraoia]

How is this really possible?
What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality? (none?)

The big problem with this question is that you can't measure an animal's thoughts. If the animal is a human (or a non-human with enough language capability), you can ask them, but it's very difficult to know what goes on inside a non-human's mind. Therefore, if you define morality in terms of how we think about certain actions, it'll be incredibly hard if not impossible to study in non-humans.

Now, there are certainly moral-like behaviours in non-human animals. Punishment of those that violate social rules, altruistic acts like the predator calls Wiccan mentioned, negative reactions to perceived unfairness, for example. (This article about non-human primates seems like an interesting read.)

There's countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" of years perfectly fine without morality. Why, then, do humans need it to survive? What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

I wouldn't say we "need" it so much as it's proven useful. In evolution, there is often more than one way to skin a cat. Ecosystems are complex, and animals can find many different ways to make a living in them. Leopards and crocodiles are strong and stealthy, cheetahs are crazy fast, hyenas and humans work in teams. All catch an antelope every now and then.

I was just reading this in today's paper (there is a major science conference going on locally):

"Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, a leading specialist in primate behaviour told a major science conference Monday.

[...]

Until just 12 years ago, the common view among scientists was that humans were "nasty" at the core but had developed a veneer of morality - albeit a thin one, de Waal told scientists and journalists from some 50 countries.

But human children - and most higher animals - are "moral" in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said.

I dunno if they just muddled what de Waal said, but I don't like how this almost seems to paint nastiness and morality as mutually exclusive. Yes, kids can cooperate. And they are also cruel little bastards, as anyone who has ever been one can confirm.

I don't see how. Humans certainly aren't the only rational creature.

I had the impression we weren't all that rational.

 

[Split Rock]

Welcome to CF, ChristianT --

I love your signature!

Can you translate it for us? I don't speak Latin.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you translate it for us? I don't speak Latin.

I said his signature, not his user title --

Specifically: "Formed by God, Deformed by Satan, Transformed by Jesus" - Hog Red

I think his user title is a translation of:

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

 

[Davian]

...
I dunno if they just muddled what de Waal said, but I don't like how this almost seems to paint nastiness and morality as mutually exclusive. Yes, kids can cooperate. And they are also cruel little bastards, as anyone who has ever been one can confirm.

Agreed, but from an evolutionary standpoint, all that really matters is that some of them survive to maturity and make more babies.

 

[acropolis]

How is this really possible?
What evidence is there that animals besides humans have anything like a sense of morality? (none?) How then can it be an evolutionary method of survival then?

There's countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" of years perfectly fine without morality. Why, then, do humans need it to survive? What purpose does it play for humans that they couldn't do on their own in a world initiated by evolution, or at least with evolution present?

Obviously I'm asking for answers from those who don't believe in God, but I'd also like to hear from anyone who may have a "theistic evolution" stance. I personally have a Creationist stance.

All social animals have moral codes that members must follow or else they couldn't maintain an organized group. A pack of dogs is one example. If a member breaks a rule, they get punished by the group. Anyone who has owned a dog knows they also exhibit behavior similar to guilt if they are caught doing something they know is wrong. The better social animals are at following the rules the better they tend to perform and survive, so selection pressures tend to favor well-behaving social animals. It's not surprising that the worlds most successful social animal, the human, would internalize those useful social rules in the form of morality.

 

[Naraoia]

All social animals have moral codes that members must follow or else they couldn't maintain an organized group. A pack of dogs is one example. If a member breaks a rule, they get punished by the group. Anyone who has owned a dog knows they also exhibit behavior similar to guilt if they are caught doing something they know is wrong. The better social animals are at following the rules the better they tend to perform and survive, so selection pressures tend to favor well-behaving social animals. It's not surprising that the worlds most successful social animal, the human, would internalize those useful social rules in the form of morality.

I've heard that domestic dogs are more human-like in some respects than non-human apes (and much more than wolves). E.g. I seem to recall that they understand pointing better than chimps do. My impression is that dogs have been selected/conditioned by humans to function in human society.

However, the guilty look may have little to do with guilt and everything to do with punishment.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Well, for animals; good behavior keeps you alive to pass on your genes, bad behavior gets you killed.