The Evolution of Morality

[juvenissun]

How did this work in, say, the Inca civilization which had features like human sacrifice and institutionalized incestuous marriages in the royal family, and regarded such practices as moral?

It was moral to them. They must have a good reason. Otherwise, they won't do it.

 

[biggles53]

There is a difference between empathy and sympathy, but that aside, let me ask you a question:

Should empathy/sympathy be forced on someone against their will?

Suppose someone doesn't have either one and they commit an act that is perfectly consistent with their "jungle mentality" -- like, say, they columbine a school?

Should people stand around wondering why? or do they have to blame it on Doom, and "poor parenting" (whatever that is), and so on and so forth?

No.


Thank you for posing completely irrelevant questions...

 

[biggles53]

Please give me an example of anyone that God told Israel to kill that were innocent and had done nothing to be punished for?

The Amelikites.......who were slaughtered down to the last woman, child and ox (!) for something that had supposedly been done 400 YEARS BEFORE...!!

 

[SkyWriting]

It seems to me that the theory of evolution adequately provides an explanation for the development of morality, or a moral code, within human beings (and, to a limited extent, among other species as well).

Yet fails to adequately explain the value of individuals who lack morality and the ability of everyone to have such failings.
Jesus had a story to tell that fits the facts better.

 

[biggles53]

Yet fails to adequately explain the value of individuals who lack morality and the ability of everyone to have such failings.
Jesus had a story to tell that fits the facts better.

If I understand your sentences correctly, I would have to disagree. Whether their behaviour was genetically determined, or was learned, those who displayed anti-social traits were ostracised from the tribe. These people would then be less likely to pass on their traits (if genetic), as they would have a reduced chance of finding a mate.

The only story that Jesus told about anti-social behaviour was that we should kill unruly children..........great advice yes...?

 

[Herman Hedning]

The Amelikites.......who were slaughtered down to the last woman, child and ox (!) for something that had supposedly been done 400 YEARS BEFORE...!!

But 400 years is just a few hours for god, so he was still upset with them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But 400 years is just a few hours for god, so he was still upset with them.

They didn't just stop and live peacefully with Israel for those 400 years. They had a bitter hatred for Israel and were (if records are correct) a evil people. One must look at the actual good and evil pattern that is set up in the beginning of time. Evil exists and the devil exists. The devil was working in OT times as well. The Amelikites were working to eliminate the Jewish people so that Jesus would not be born.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Amelikites.......who were slaughtered down to the last woman, child and ox (!) for something that had supposedly been done 400 YEARS BEFORE...!!

As I said to Herman:


They didn't just stop and live peacefully with Israel for those 400 years. They had a bitter hatred for Israel and were (if records are correct) a evil people. One must look at the actual good and evil pattern that is set up in the beginning of time. Evil exists and the devil exists. The devil was working in OT times as well. The Amelikites were working to eliminate the Jewish people so that Jesus would not be born.

 

[juvenissun]

If I understand your sentences correctly, I would have to disagree. Whether their behaviour was genetically determined, or was learned, those who displayed anti-social traits were ostracised from the tribe. These people would then be less likely to pass on their traits (if genetic), as they would have a reduced chance of finding a mate.

The only story that Jesus told about anti-social behaviour was that we should kill unruly children..........great advice yes...?

Are you making this one up? It is not fun.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Recent discussions with stevevw prompted me to start a separate thread to deal with some of the issues raised there...

It seems to me that the theory of evolution adequately provides an explanation for the development of morality, or a moral code, within human beings (and, to a limited extent, among other species as well).

Given the traits which humans developed in their evolutionary development, the development of a larger, more complex brain and the tendency towards forming social groups would have endowed a 'fitter' outcome.

Our physical make-up is such that we would not fare very well, if we were limited to speed and strength for our survival...banding together in tribes and utilising our intellect have acted to ensure that we didn't become 'lion lunch'...

So, is it not reasonable to expect that a desire for the tribe to survive and prosper would be likewise a guarantee that the individual would have a better chance? And would it not also be reasonable to assert that the ability to empathise with the plight of others in the tribe would also serve these ends?

Because, at its basis, this is what I suggest morality is....the extent to which each of us can recognise the joy/suffering of others (and relate it to our own) and the desire to contribute to the health of our 'tribe'....

This basis for morality has some problems. If a group of individuals were banded together for survival to insure their genes were to be passed on it would seem that if push came to shove, they would not give their own personal life if it meant their genes would not carry forward. What would come of this mindset would be that children would be sacrificed to the lions if need be to insure that the strongest males were to survive to keep providing food for the whole group. The strongest and most likely the males would have been the ones most valued and preserved when faced with death. The health of the tribe would be better off if these were the ones that lived and the older and less fit would be less valued. We don't see this with morality. We see the sacrifice of one, even the fittest among us willing to die for another. We see the sacrifice of the strongest of us to defend and protect the weakest of us.

 

[Golden Yak]

This basis for morality has some problems. If a group of individuals were banded together for survival to insure their genes were to be passed on it would seem that if push came to shove, they would not give their own personal life if it meant their genes would not carry forward. What would come of this mindset would be that children would be sacrificed to the lions if need be to insure that the strongest males were to survive to keep providing food for the whole group. The strongest and most likely the males would have been the ones most valued and preserved when faced with death. The health of the tribe would be better off if these were the ones that lived and the older and less fit would be less valued. We don't see this with morality. We see the sacrifice of one, even the fittest among us willing to die for another. We see the sacrifice of the strongest of us to defend and protect the weakest of us.

If a group of organisms consistently sacrificed their offspring to preserve only the strongest amongst them, inevitably they will become a group of elders with no children to replace them when they die. At which point the group will be extinct.

Not an effective survival strategy.

Organisms don't exist in a vacuum with only themselves. Sacrificing yourself may limit your reproductive success yes - but if someone else sacrifices for you, it can be immensely beneficial. It's also good if someone sacrifices themselves to save your children, since they are the future of your genetic lineage.

Therefore it is beneficial if over-all a species has members who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for others, so such behavior can become widespread. It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If a group of organisms consistently sacrificed their offspring to preserve only the strongest amongst them, inevitably they will become a group of elders with no children to replace them when they die. At which point the group will be extinct.

Not an effective survival strategy.

Organisms don't exist in a vacuum with only themselves. Sacrificing yourself may limit your reproductive success yes - but if someone else sacrifices for you, it can be immensely beneficial. It's also good if someone sacrifices themselves to save your children, since they are the future of your genetic lineage.

Therefore it is beneficial if over-all a species has members who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for others, so such behavior can become widespread. It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either.

You are looking at it like all the children would be sacrificed for the better good. That is not necessarily correct in your survival/morality hypothesis. If a few are sacrificed then others can be born to take their place. If the strong are sacrificed for the young and weak, the young and weak are left to die due to not being able to fend for themselves. More children can be born but the strong are a necessity for all to survive. We are not talking about easy survival here either.

I think that another element in the morality issue being naturalistic in nature is that if it were a man made construct there would not be an objective sense of morality. Naturalism doesn't provide an explanation that there really is good and evil.

 

[biggles53]

Are you making this one up? It is not fun.

No, it would not be fun.....read Matthew 15.....

 

[Golden Yak]

You are looking at it like all the children would be sacrificed for the better good. That is not necessarily correct in your survival/morality hypothesis. If a few are sacrificed then others can be born to take their place. If the strong are sacrificed for the young and weak, the young and weak are left to die due to not being able to fend for themselves. More children can be born but the strong are a necessity for all to survive. We are not talking about easy survival here either.

I'm looking at what you wrote. Now I'm sure if we get creative we can imagine specific scenarios where hypothetical groups of humans can benefit from sacrificing children left, right and center, but keep in mind this - even very simple animal groups have figured out a lot of behavioral interactions that could be seen as a crude form of morality. So when you get as far as humans, you're talking about creatures who have been hammering out this simple morality for millions of years. You will not often be coming across some situation at the dawn of mankind where a guy's thinking "Hey, I can maximize my genetic potential by sacrificing Child A thru Q." Human (and similar) offspring need a huge amount of effort invested in their protection to survive, so the species wouldn't survive unless adults were pre-disposed to spend a huge amount of effort protecting them.

Like I said, some general behavioral traits like 'prioritize rescuing women and children' or 'I alone toss myself upon this angry grizzly sloth so my tribe shall escape, ensuring the survival of my friends, brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews, though sadly I never sired any children myself ARRGH' will still, if spread amongst all individuals of a group, result in overall benefits to the species as a whole, if not the unfortunate soul who makes the sacrifice.

I also realize that there are some species who will sacrifice offspring to ensure their own survival or maximize survivability of others - if it works for them then it works for them. But its not necessary for every species, and I don't think it would work as well for humans.

I think that another element in the morality issue being naturalistic in nature is that if it were a man made construct there would not be an objective sense of morality.

I don't know, I think you can find a solution to a problem that is objectively optimal. I like the chess game analogy for this - at any given time on the board there may be one absolute best possible move you can make if your goal is victory.

Naturalism doesn't provide an explanation that there really is good and evil.

I'm with you on that one, as I think those are ideas rather than substances or energies or whatever.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it would not be fun.....read Matthew 15.....

OK, thanks.
But I think what Jesus reminds them is absolutely proper and correct. Yes, good advices.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

They didn't just stop and live peacefully with Israel for those 400 years. They had a bitter hatred for Israel and were (if records are correct) a evil people. One must look at the actual good and evil pattern that is set up in the beginning of time. Evil exists and the devil exists. The devil was working in OT times as well. The Amelikites were working to eliminate the Jewish people so that Jesus would not be born.

Hmmmm, it seems you have defended the Saudi's who flew the planes into the twin towers. I believe they would make the same claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hmmmm, it seems you have defended the Saudi's who flew the planes into the twin towers. I believe they would make the same claims.

How can you come to that conclusion? The US did not try to destroy Saudi Arabia, they have been comrades. Explain?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that another element in the morality issue being naturalistic in nature is that if it were a man made construct there would not be an
objective sense of morality.

I completely disagree. The only hope of ever finding an objective standard in morality is through naturalism because the only place we find objectivity is in naturalism. In religion, all we have is relativistic morality where preference for one religion over another is the only criteria for what is and is not moral.

The only way I can see for ever arriving at an objective morality is through reason and logic as it applies to the natural world. You can not arrive at an objective morality simply by saying, "Well, I prefer this religion, so that must be true."

Naturalism doesn't provide an explanation that there really is good and evil.

Why not? Good and evil is related to the sense of empathy, reason, and logic that evolved in our species. How is that not naturalistic?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I completely disagree. The only hope of ever finding an objective standard in morality is through naturalism because the only place we find objectivity is in naturalism. In religion, all we have is relativistic morality where preference for one religion over another is the only criteria for what is and is not moral.

The only way I can see for ever arriving at an objective morality is through reason and logic as it applies to the natural world. You can not arrive at an objective morality simply by saying, "Well, I prefer this religion, so that must be true."



Why not? Good and evil is related to the sense of empathy, reason, and logic that evolved in our species. How is that not naturalistic?

If morality is a man made construct and is only subjective. In our experience morality transcends opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

If morality is a man made construct and is only subjective. In our experience morality transcends opinion.

Why can't a naturally derived morality be objective? Care to explain?