Morality Via Evolution?

[GrowingSmaller]

How is this really possible?

Well its not impossible, so it's possible.

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

I think that animals experience situations and states of mind in which they find varying degrees of value or "disvalue" (positive or negative). Morality is about a response to that aspect of the world of experience.

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

I think that finding value in for example eating when hungry has obvious evolutionary benefits. On a deeper level there must be a causal mechanism where by experiencing positive or negative values causally influences behavior, and therefore has an effect on survival and fitness.

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

In my opinion, animals (probably) experience and respond to value, e.g. the disvalue of pain, or the "aesthetic" value of an attractive mate. So they are morally affected beings, because of value experience, even if they do not actually articulate theories of right and wrong like we humans do. In a similar way an animal might see stars in the sky, or trees in a jungle, even if it is not an astronomer or botanist with deeper insights into their nature.

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 think if you take away the sense of value out of cognition, perception and resultant planning, there would be nothing to attract or repel the organism, and then for example perception would be causally inert or useless. What good would that be? I would see but not be "bothered" or "affected" by what I see.

With value it seems that things percieved matter to us, and from that point of departure perception can affect our behavior and fitness. If for example I did not value eating food, what good would perceiving eating food do? Rather food is percieved as having value (if I am hungry that is), and from there perception has a positive causal role because for the experiencing subject food matters.

What is important for survival becomes important to the subject through an evolved conscious experience of things as having various values. And for me experience of value - things mattering - is the foundation of morality. You should note that there is a philosophy called nihilism which on one interpretation says there are no morals, nothing matters! I think this is wrong. Even if it is as basic as food mattering to a frog, there is the phenomenon of value present and therefore space for moral interpretation of the situation.

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.

I believe in God and have no problems with evolutionary theory. BTW my specific theory of morals and their evolution is not widely held, as far as I know.

 

[ChristianT]

I believe in God and have no problems with evolutionary theory. BTW my specific theory of morals and their evolution is not widely held, as far as I know.

I have no problem with evolution as a process either. As for the All-Encompassing Theory where it explains everything, that's where I can't stay on board, since I'm not a philosophical naturalist.

 

[Naraoia]

I think that animals experience situations and states of mind in which they find varying degrees of value or "disvalue" (positive or negative). Morality is about a response to that aspect of the world of experience.

In my opinion, animals (probably) experience and respond to value, e.g. the disvalue of pain, or the "aesthetic" value of an attractive mate. So they are morally affected beings, because of value experience, even if they do not actually articulate theories of right and wrong like we humans do. In a similar way an animal might see stars in the sky, or trees in a jungle, even if it is not an astronomer or botanist with deeper insights into their nature.

I've had similar thoughts before, although I articulated them in terms of my own mental processes. The way I see it, the sense of right and wrong is essentially an internal reward/punishment system. Doing something you consider good carries an emotional reward, whereas "bad" actions make you feel bad. (Well, they make me feel bad anyway ) This doesn't even require external observers, you can be completely alone with little chance of being judged on something and still get the emotional consequence.

I'm sure a large part of this is learned, especially the particular acts that trigger the system, but there is clearly some mental circuitry in place that acts as a very... visceral driver of moral behaviour. It doesn't seem like a big leap that a similar system related to social behaviours exists in a broad range of species. They may not be able to write philosophical treatises about it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

I have no problem with evolution as a process either. As for the All-Encompassing Theory where it explains everything, that's where I can't stay on board, since I'm not a philosophical naturalist.

Well, it never was supposed to explain everything

I often find it a fun exercise to take a phenomenon that boggles the mind at first glance, and try to find ways it could have evolved. I think it's much more enjoyable and productive than pulling a Behe and declaring it's too amazing for evolution.

 

[acropolis]

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.

Dogs are one of the only animals, perhaps the only one (I forget exactly), that will look in the direction of a pointed finger instead of looking at the finger.

I definitely agree that the 'guilty look' is all about punishment, but I don't think that makes it fundamentally different from humans. Although humans have probably internalized their punishment more than most animals, I think we function in basically the same way as other social animals. Emotions like guilt/shame/embarrassment are tied closely to our fear of reprisal from our social group. We have complicated stories to explain why it's actually some other force at work in us, god-related or spiritual or just a fundamental truth, but I believe that's the essence of it.

 

[Naraoia]

Dogs are one of the only animals, perhaps the only one (I forget exactly), that will look in the direction of a pointed finger instead of looking at the finger.

I definitely agree that the 'guilty look' is all about punishment, but I don't think that makes it fundamentally different from humans. Although humans have probably internalized their punishment more than most animals, I think we function in basically the same way as other social animals. Emotions like guilt/shame/embarrassment are tied closely to our fear of reprisal from our social group. We have complicated stories to explain why it's actually some other force at work in us, god-related or spiritual or just a fundamental truth, but I believe that's the essence of it.

I basically agree. However, I think the point the guilty look paper was making is that there is no evidence dogs are actually aware of wrongdoing. If they knew they'd done something wrong, they would look guilty in anticipation of punishment, and they would only anticipate punishment when they'd really transgressed. Instead, they look guilty as an effect of punishment, regardless of what they'd actually done.

However, I just noticed this little bit from the abstract of that study: "The effect of scolding was more pronounced when the dogs were obedient, not disobedient."

I wonder if that suggests that dogs did have a right/wrong view of their own actions, and the "guilty" look is in fact a "why are you mad at me I've done nothing wrong" look

... I'll just stop thinking before I start a journal club about this paper

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ChristianT 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.

Or the only irrational ones

http://www.christianforums.com/t7572380-2/#post57935224
Is evolution a salvific issue?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Or the only irrational ones

http://www.christianforums.com/t7572380-2/#post57935224
Is evolution a salvific issue?

One of my cats continues to jump in the bath despite the fact that I spray him with water when he does so - if insanity is repeating one's actions and hoping for a different result, I wonder if that's more telling of me, or my cat

 

[quatona]

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

There´s countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" confused of years perfectly without wings or lungs or legs or hair or....

 

[ChristianT]

There´s countless animals nowadays that have survived "millions" confused of years perfectly without wings or lungs or legs or hair or....

Ok. What makes morality an evolutionary device humans needed when "we evolved?" We need lungs to survive off of oxygen in the atmosphere, legs to walk/run from danger or for food, etc. Morality really serves no purpose in the evolutionary cycle...

 

[quatona]

Ok. What makes morality an evolutionary device humans needed when "we evolved?" We need lungs to survive off of oxygen in the atmosphere, legs to walk/run from danger or for food, etc. Morality really serves no purpose in the evolutionary cycle...

To tell from the result, it does. Humanity has been with all its unique traits - in terms of survival of the species - quite successful, so far.
I´m not sure I can give you a conclusive explanation why a sense of morality is helping survival of the species, just guesses. E.g. it could be that the consideration of the well-being of other individuals of your species (i.e. cooperation instead of competition) is a superiour evolutionary strategy.

 

[CabVet]

Ok. What makes morality an evolutionary device humans needed when "we evolved?" We need lungs to survive off of oxygen in the atmosphere, legs to walk/run from danger or for food, etc. Morality really serves no purpose in the evolutionary cycle...

There are no "needs" in evolution. We have lungs because our ancestors had them and we never lost them. Lungs appeared because they appeared and remained because they were useful. There are no "needs" in evolution.

Morality (altruism, sociality) remained as traits in human populations because they were (and still are) useful for the species to continue evolving. I will say it again, there are no "needs" in evolution.

 

[ChristianT]

There are no "needs" in evolution. We have lungs because our ancestors had them and we never lost them. Lungs appeared because they appeared and remained because they were useful. There are no "needs" in evolution.

usefulness isn't a need? Doesn't life "need" to survive...nope, well...ok.

Morality (altruism, sociality) remained as traits in human populations because they were (and still are) useful for the species to continue evolving. I will say it again, there are no "needs" in evolution.

But why did these "traits" occur? Is it possible for a person to be born without the genetics required for morality?

 

[CabVet]

usefulness isn't a need? Doesn't life "need" to survive...nope, well...ok.

But why did these "traits" occur? Is it possible for a person to be born without the genetics required for morality?

No, usefulness is usefulness (not "need") and under certain conditions only. Lungs are not useful (or needed) underwater, neither are legs, or arms, or the type of eyes that we have. They are adaptations to our environment.

Yes, it is possible for people to be born with behavioral traits that would make them "immoral". These traits occur because of genetic variation, which is the raw material of natural selection. Just as there are tall people and short people, there are "moral" people and "immoral" people. The ones that are moral have a selective advantage, and are more numerous, but "immorality" was not filtered out yet and might never be.

 

[quatona]

Is it possible for a person to be born without the genetics required for morality?

Not sure I understand this question.
Is it possible for a person to be born without the genetics required for eye-sight?

 

[ChristianT]

Yes, it is possible for people to be born with behavioral traits that would make them "immoral".

Are there any documented cases?

 

[quatona]

Are there any documented cases?

What, in your opinion, is meant by "sociopathy"?

 

[CabVet]

Are there any documented cases?

Complete documentation would required genetic experimentation with humans, and that is considered immoral by many, so it will never happen. But there are plenty of indications:

A Moral Gene? | Science Sushi, Scientific American Blog Network

 

[ChristianT]

What, in your opinion, is meant by "sociopathy"?

a personality disorder rooted in genes, but triggered by environmental factors

 

[quatona]

a personality disorder rooted in genes, but triggered by environmental factors

Does that answer your question? Or, if not, what would?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

a personality disorder rooted in genes, but triggered by environmental factors

You may have to elaborate on what the disorder actually does - clearly sociopathy isn't any personality disorder, it's a quite specific disorder, which is the point.