The Evolution of Morality

[Sophrosyne]

"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better designed for an immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]"

Let me know if you have any other questions. I'm happy to help.

Yes I know he related it to natural selection but evolution itself goes farther in natural selection equating that attributes of an organism that give it an advantage over another organism allowing it to survive where the other organism would not survive are essentially carried on genetically. One could equate that if a group were able to wipe out another group they must possess something genetically that favors them over the other allowing them to survive. I carry this onwards to two competing groups of predators with the stronger group wiping out the weaker group. If both groups are the same species then one can assert the idea that the group that was wiped out was weaker genetically and the more "fit" of the species survived

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes I know he related it to natural selection but evolution itself goes farther in natural selection equating that attributes of an organism that give it an advantage over another organism allowing it to survive where the other organism would not survive are essentially carried on genetically. One could equate that if a group were able to wipe out another group they must possess something genetically that favors them over the other allowing them to survive. I carry this onwards to two competing groups of predators with the stronger group wiping out the weaker group. If both groups are the same species then one can assert the idea that the group that was wiped out was weaker genetically and the more "fit" of the species survived

Ok.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think you're confusing 'evolution producing behavior and concepts of morality' with 'evolutionary mechanisms as morality.'

No.... I'm saying that evolution isn't about morality, it has no mechanism in it that encourages it. When a stronger of a species kills a weaker one there is no morality involved in it all. To equate evolution has to go against itself and stifle natural selection in favor or morality is the issue here. In natural selection the weaker of the species typically fall prey to the stronger which morality opposes for the most part.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.... I'm saying that evolution isn't about morality, it has no mechanism in it that encourages it. When a stronger of a species kills a weaker one there is no morality involved in it all. To equate evolution has to go against itself and stifle natural selection in favor or morality is the issue here. In natural selection the weaker of the species typically fall prey to the stronger which morality opposes for the most part.

Let me know when you're willing to talk about morality again.

 

[Golden Yak]

No.... I'm saying that evolution isn't about morality, it has no mechanism in it that encourages it.

Natural selection encourages species to adopt survival strategies. If members of a species value each other, they will develop behavior that allows them to work together and increase survivability.

When a stronger of a species kills a weaker one there is no morality involved in it all.

Well, I don't have a window into the minds of animals when they fight and kill each other, so I really can't comment on how they might feel about it. And its not like there are lion police or anything to respond when a male kills a rival male's offspring.

But there are lots of species that will take steps to protect others from even from their own kind, so its not as if they cannot value one-another.

To equate evolution has to go against itself and stifle natural selection in favor or morality is the issue here. In natural selection the weaker of the species typically fall prey to the stronger which morality opposes for the most part.

Like I said, natural selection pressures/encourages species to adopt survival strategies. I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other.

It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either. Evolution could (and I believe has) refine it, like it has other traits.

 

[biggles53]

I have a hard time getting a grasp about evolution giving up survival of the fittest for morality. A system that is from the start taking advantage of culling the weak by killing them off sometimes outright murdering them if you want to equate such. It mainly seems to be only in humans that we see murdering or culling the weak as wrong in lower species it is not only accepted but embraced as a method to propel evolution forward.
I fail to see why the survival of the fittest has to be suspended at some point and fail to see that morality has a place inside of evolution. In evolution if the leader of a group of apes decided to go to war with another group of apes to wipe them out with no justification other than to murder their males and steal their females scientists think this is moral. When a human does this or even God commands a competing or warring faction to be wiped out suddenly it becomes immoral. Is evolution such that certain species are given a free pass to be "immoral" compared to other species?
I don't buy it myself. Scientists make a rule and then change it when it makes evolution look evil. At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?

The answer to your objections is quite straightforward.......you grossly misunderstand evolutionary theory and the concept of 'survival of the fittest'......

 

[Oncedeceived]

Natural selection encourages species to adopt survival strategies. If members of a species value each other, they will develop behavior that allows them to work together and increase survivability.

Natural selection doesn't encourage or discourage species in any way. It is a mindless process with no guidelines to follow. Natural selection is something that occurs when something makes a organism reproduce better offspring, more offspring or allows an adaptation to better fit within an environment. There is no guiding light to let a species know that if they value each other they will develop behavior that allows them to work together and increase survivability. They may know that working together gets them something that they need to survive but that in no way creates value for another in the way morality does. The value in a survival issue within species is just that, that species survival and that is selfishness not selflessness. It comes down to motive. If it is just a survival mechanism there is no moral motive. It is simply a way to the means. It is behavior meant to increase the likelihood of survival of their own genes, not those of the other tribe. Evolution doesn't have a explanation for motive to do good when no one is watching and when it has no gain in propagating the gene pool.

Well, I don't have a window into the minds of animals when they fight and kill each other, so I really can't comment on how they might feel about it. And its not like there are lion police or anything to respond when a male kills a rival male's offspring.

No, but you do know that it helps further the genes of the attacking males, which goes counter to promoting morality. Survival is not considered, it is all about what gets me the lady lions and to produce my own cubs.

But there are lots of species that will take steps to protect others from even from their own kind, so its not as if they cannot value one-another.

Here you are again, because you don't know motive of why they might take those steps to protect others. It may not have value in the equation. In this situation ( and since you didn't give one I'll improvise) it could be just family members protecting their own.

Like I said, natural selection pressures/encourages species to adopt survival strategies. I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other.

Natural selection is not an active ingredient in the process. It has no pressure to bear. It occurs due to the outcome of the behavior or adaptation to an environment. It occurs naturally, without purpose. It is the outcome that makes the selection happen.

It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either. Evolution could (and I believe has) refine it, like it has other traits.

Selfishness does not bring about selflessness IMHO.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Natural selection encourages species to adopt survival strategies. If members of a species value each other, they will develop behavior that allows them to work together and increase survivability.



Well, I don't have a window into the minds of animals when they fight and kill each other, so I really can't comment on how they might feel about it. And its not like there are lion police or anything to respond when a male kills a rival male's offspring.

But there are lots of species that will take steps to protect others from even from their own kind, so its not as if they cannot value one-another.



Like I said, natural selection pressures/encourages species to adopt survival strategies. I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other.

It's not the only survival strategy, but its not a bad one either. Evolution could (and I believe has) refine it, like it has other traits.

None of these answers help morality whatsoever, the fact is that species kill other species and even sometimes kill their own species and at times it is for the purpose of the group sometimes it is just for the individual. You can come up with some instances that seem to point to increased morality but at the same time you end up ignoring traits in species that goes counter to morality. I think the fact that mankind itself seems to be at top of the evolutionary tree yet seem to be neither the least or most moral of the species. One could contend that a hive of bees is more moral than man is because they all work together seemingly selflessly only killing to protect the group there doesn't seem to be any senseless murders in normal bees unlike mankind.
In other words evolution doesn't address morality it doesn't help morality because morality in naturalism is all over the place.
One who loves animals would conclude that man is the MOST immoral of species out there.... yet most evolved.

 

[Golden Yak]

Natural selection doesn't encourage or discourage species in any way. It is a mindless process with no guidelines to follow.

I know. I was using Sophrosyne's term to get the idea across.

Natural selection is something that occurs when something makes a organism reproduce better offspring, more offspring or allows an adaptation to better fit within an environment.

Natural Selection puts pressure on a species to survive. Species that are better equipped to survive will do so and others that are not will die out. There are many factors that contribute to survival, not just an individual's physical attributes. A species may take advantage of a more advanced intellect to develop behaviors and relationships that contribute to their survival.

There is no guiding light to let a species know that if they value each other they will develop behavior that allows them to work together and increase survivability.

There doesn't need to be. If such behavior helps them survive, it will be passed on. Behavior that doesn't aid survival will die out.

And I would say that valuing each other would come first - even very simple animals often have behavior that will curb their instincts when it comes to their young. even if it's just momma holding off on eating the day her eggs hatch so she doesn't eat one of her own. Even that's slightly better than nothing.

They may know that working together gets them something that they need to survive but that in no way creates value for another in the way morality does. The value in a survival issue within species is just that, that species survival and that is selfishness not selflessness. It comes down to motive. If it is just a survival mechanism there is no moral motive. It is simply a way to the means.

I see evolution providing the basics and humans coming along later with more complicated ideas about it.

It is behavior meant to increase the likelihood of survival of their own genes, not those of the other tribe. Evolution doesn't have a explanation for motive to do good when no one is watching and when it has no gain in propagating the gene pool.

*shrug* I did get in to this with my earlier comments. Evolution would be hard pressed to program in specific instructions to only help each other out when it'll directly benefit your immediate genetic lineage.

Easier and more efficient to develop some generalized inclination about helping each other out - if that propagates throughout the entire species, you'll have an entire species who'll be inclined instinctively on some level to help each other out.

Wouldn't you agree that something like that will contribute more to survival of the species as a whole rather than limited groups only looking out for each other and competing ruthelessly with all others?

No, but you do know that it helps further the genes of the attacking males, which goes counter to promoting morality.

Counter to the general ideas of morality that humans have, certainly. But that'd only be an argument against if you assume evolution is trying specifically to generate the morality that humans have. It isn't doing that any more than it's specifically trying to generate humans.

Here you are again, because you don't know motive of why they might take those steps to protect others. It may not have value in the equation. In this situation ( and since you didn't give one I'll improvise) it could be just family members protecting their own.

As I've been saying - behavior that makes an individual inclined to help those even not of his family can still be beneficial to survival if the entire species adopts it to some extent. Because then every family is being helped out.

And if you want a specific scenario:

Battle at Kruger - YouTube

It's a bit lengthy, but the real action starts at around 4:10. The calf can only have two parents, but on some level the herd all feel like pitching in.

Natural selection is not an active ingredient in the process. It has no pressure to bear. It occurs due to the outcome of the behavior or adaptation to an environment. It occurs naturally, without purpose. It is the outcome that makes the selection happen.

If the outcome is behavior that increases survivability, it'll spread and become refined like any trait. I agree that it occurs naturally and without specific purpose.

Again, I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other. Do you disagree?

Selfishness does not bring about selflessness IMHO.

*shrug* I don't know that I'd equate species-wide survival behavior with individual selfishness.

I'm not saying humans cannot add valid ideas and concepts on top of basic evolved behavior to get something really nifty and transcendent, I just don't think the supernatural is required for any of that.

 

[Golden Yak]

@ Sophrosyne - I went over some of this in my response to Oncedeceived, but I'll reiterate somewhat

None of these answers help morality whatsoever, the fact is that species kill other species and even sometimes kill their own species and at times it is for the purpose of the group sometimes it is just for the individual. You can come up with some instances that seem to point to increased morality but at the same time you end up ignoring traits in species that goes counter to morality.

As I said to Once, this assumes evolution is trying specifically to generate the morality that humans have. It isn't doing that any more than it's specifically trying to generate humans.

I think the fact that mankind itself seems to be at top of the evolutionary tree yet seem to be neither the least or most moral of the species. One could contend that a hive of bees is more moral than man is because they all work together seemingly selflessly only killing to protect the group there doesn't seem to be any senseless murders in normal bees unlike mankind.

Well, bees hives sometimes toss drones out of the hive to die en masse during times when they're going to be a burden on the hive. And then there's queen fights - messy, matricidal business. But like I said - evolution isn't specifically trying to generate behavior that we humans would see as in-line with our long developed ideas of morality.

Again, I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other. It's not the only survival strategy (and so evolution won't produce solely that behavior), but its not a bad strategy either. Do you disagree?

In other words evolution doesn't address morality it doesn't help morality because morality in naturalism is all over the place.

Not sure what you mean by 'address' or 'help' morality - I'm arguing that evolution can give rise to species who develop behavior that can form the basis for morality, and that's how humans developed their notions of morality, in all its various flavors.

I'm not saying evolution is shooting for anything specific with every single species.

I agree there are lots of different behaviors out there - that's why I often mention that ours isn't the only survival strategy. Obviously humans like ours - well, we would, wouldn't we?

One who loves animals would conclude that man is the MOST immoral of species out there... yet most evolved.

Dun dun dunnn!

 

[biggles53]

The fact we have people on the planet that are not civilized and that do tremendously immoral things amongst themselves and others yet if you took a child from one of these tribes and raised it in a moral civilized society it would function about the same. This in itself says that morality is not necessarily evolved but taught to those who don't know it.

What....!?

 

[biggles53]

I don't need to google anything, My point is still valid trying and framework of a moral code is nonsense because we still have tribes out there that kill each other (murder) and that framework does nothing to stop it just as it does nothing to stop dogs from killing other dogs and other animals and even humans.

So....that would be similar to the behaviour of the tribe that your god commanded to wipe out those who occupied their 'promised land' I guess....?

ALL must be "taught" to not do things but they can still be taught to do immoral things so the framework does NOTHING either way.

Before anything can be "taught" we first have to decide what "immoral" means......and we do...!

I don't need to be insulted to know that the "field" of science that is dealing with evolution is always going to try and prove evolution

.

Grossly incorrect......as is the case with all the sciences, the aim is to try to disprove the existing theory....

evolution trying to equate morality flies in contrast to the Biblical stories of evil that men do without a moral guide OTHER than men.

So what...? Who says the biblical stories convey a moral code which should be upheld...?

Noah is a classic example of immorality that evolution failed to inspire with its so called framework.

Last time I checked, the theory of evolution had nothing to say about ANY mythical story...

I take it pretty much literally as far as all but a very few were so evil God wanted to wipe them out (and did).

Excuse me...? This is an example of a MORAL being in action...!?

Evolution would have us believe that the Noah tale was 100% false including the absolute LACK of morality amongst all but Noah and his family.

Again, evolutionary theory would have NOTHING to say about the Noah myth......

 

[biggles53]

Yes I know he related it to natural selection but evolution itself goes farther in natural selection equating that attributes of an organism that give it an advantage over another organism allowing it to survive where the other organism would not survive are essentially carried on genetically. One could equate that if a group were able to wipe out another group they must possess something genetically that favors them over the other allowing them to survive. I carry this onwards to two competing groups of predators with the stronger group wiping out the weaker group. If both groups are the same species then one can assert the idea that the group that was wiped out was weaker genetically and the more "fit" of the species survived

Wrong. Wrong.....WRONG...!

"Fittest" simply means being having those characteristics which result in a reproductive advantage.....ie, more of the 'fitter' individuals survive long enough to produce more offspring...

This could mean better able to find or process food, better able to run away from predators, better camouflage, better able to attract mates, better able to resist disease, etc, etc, etc....

That's it.......

 

[Loudmouth]

The justification is subjective, however, the principle of
unjustifiable killing is the objective morality.

The principle is based on subjectivity, as you clearly state.

That is why we can call Hitler evil, that his acts were evil.

Others thought he was good, and that his actions were justified.

If the rest of the world agreed with Hitler would that make it moral?

Why don't you show us the objectivity morality that allows us to determine that.

 

[Loudmouth]

None of these answers help morality whatsoever, the fact is that species kill other species and even sometimes kill their own species and at times it is for the purpose of the group sometimes it is just for the individual.

It is also a fact that there is interspecies cooperation that results in commensal and beneficial relationships that increase the fitness of the organisms that participate. It is also a fact that social species work together to increase the chances of survival compared to an individual acting alone. What you seem to miss is that "survival" is not a synonym for "kill everyone else". Keeping other individuals alive may actually INCREASE your chances of survival, and increase the fitness of the species in general.

I think the fact that mankind itself seems to be at top of the evolutionary tree . . .

By what measure are we at the top of the tree?

In other words evolution doesn't address morality it doesn't help morality because morality in naturalism is all over the place.

Of course it addresses morality. Morality is a product of our brains, and our brains are the product of evolution. The emotions that we feel and the bonds we form with other humans is a direct product of our evolutionary history. The reason that humans have an instinctual response to fairness and morality is due to our evolutionary heritage.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
That is why we can call Hitler evil, that his acts were evil. ...

Hitler was Catholic, so he is almost certainly going to heaven.

Surely the Christian God doesn't allow evil people in heaven?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitler was Catholic, so he is almost certainly going to heaven.

Surely the Christian God doesn't allow evil people in heaven?

Not just Catholic, but a creationist who despised Darwin's theory, had "Gott mit uns" on uniform belt buckles, and even proscribed officers from being atheist.

 

[EternalDragon]

Hitler was Catholic, so he is almost certainly going to heaven.

Surely the Christian God doesn't allow evil people in heaven?

What does membership in a particular church have to do with going to heaven?

 

[HitchSlap]

What does membership in a particular church have to do with going to heaven?

I don't know, what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know. I was using Sophrosyne's term to get the idea across.

If you feel that something is not correct in someone's argument, why would you use it in yours? I guess that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Natural Selection puts pressure on a species to survive.

Again, natural selection does nothing. It is a term used to convey the process of an outcome resulting from an organism's adaptation to their environment surviving and transmitting their genetic characteristics in more numbers than those less adapted which in turn eliminates those less adapted. Thus, the selection occurs without any guidance and only happens when a trait (outcome) makes it more suitable to its environment.

Species that are better equipped to survive will do so and others that are not will die out. There are many factors that contribute to survival, not just an individual's physical attributes. A species may take advantage of a more advanced intellect to develop behaviors and relationships that contribute to their survival.

Lets take this a step back. Where did the intellect evolve? One must show that intelligence is a evolutionary outcome but how did this occur? IF we are to use intelligence as a direct link to morality, which it must, then we must first explain intelligence and its evolution.

There doesn't need to be. If such behavior helps them survive, it will be passed on. Behavior that doesn't aid survival will die out.

So a simple answer to morality as we view it today is a result of survival behavior of long past generations. We know that in many cases that aggressive behavior can have great advantage in survival rates. We know that in many cases choosing self centered behavior has great advantage to survival. We know that in some cases eliminating others has great advantage to survival. We know that in some cases male promiscuity can have great advantage to survival. So why do we see the counter cases as the ones that give rise to morality which if evolution alone and survival alone would instill in the genes of the surviving populations? It seems to me an argument that is constructed to show two different behaviors, two different outcomes from the same process using one motivation. Survival. So evolution says that our behavior good or bad is a result of our genes being passed on from past generations because that behavior resulted in survival. So regardless of what we find in our behaviors of today can be explained by evolution. Which begs the question. It also brings to light that all behavior is a result of our genes which in turn, makes morality nothing more than what we can do or be, or on the other hand something we can not do or be. So a right or wrong, good or evil has no real meaning.

And I would say that valuing each other would come first - even very simple animals often have behavior that will curb their instincts when it comes to their young. even if it's just momma holding off on eating the day her eggs hatch so she doesn't eat one of her own. Even that's slightly better than nothing.

This is very true and an example of how instincts are not the reason for morality. We experience that today as well. Morality flies in the face of instincts to preserve self.

I see evolution providing the basics and humans coming along later with more complicated ideas about it.

You can see this but is there empirical evidence for morality being a product of evolution?

*shrug* I did get in to this with my earlier comments. Evolution would be hard pressed to program in specific instructions to only help each other out when it'll directly benefit your immediate genetic lineage.

How does it program instructions to help at all? How does it program specific instructions of what is right and wrong or good or evil? Good is only what helps survival and evil is only that which promotes survival too, due to the fact that evil is just a behavior that has been passed on from previous generations.

Easier and more efficient to develop some generalized inclination about helping each other out - if that propagates throughout the entire species, you'll have an entire species who'll be inclined instinctively on some level to help each other out.

And those that are not instinctively not to? If it is easier and more efficient to develop some generalized inclinations to helping others why is it that the opposite is found in culture today?

Wouldn't you agree that something like that will contribute more to survival of the species as a whole rather than limited groups only looking out for each other and competing ruthelessly with all others?

I agree but that is looking at what we have now and has nothing to do with how it was in long lost civilizations. We know we have great atrocities in history that would point to behavior counter to this. So if our morality is a product of past helpful survival behavior, so are the great atrocities that counter that.

Counter to the general ideas of morality that humans have, certainly. But that'd only be an argument against if you assume evolution is trying specifically to generate the morality that humans have. It isn't doing that any more than it's specifically trying to generate humans.

How is it counter to morality of humans when it is instinctual in nature and passed on from past generations?

As I've been saying - behavior that makes an individual inclined to help those even not of his family can still be beneficial to survival if the entire species adopts it to some extent. Because then every family is being helped out.

This can be countered by entire societies that go against helping others. If you explain morality you have to explain immorality. I don't think you have.

And if you want a specific scenario:

Battle at Kruger - YouTube

It's a bit lengthy, but the real action starts at around 4:10. The calf can only have two parents, but on some level the herd all feel like pitching in.

Now this to me makes a marked difference in the theological worldview compared to the naturalistic. I see intelligence and morality in all life forms as instilled by the Creator. This type of thing to me inspired more confidence in the design of life by God. I would like you to consider that out of all the animal world exists a common thread of intelligence and characteristic that go against the premise of survival. I think that real good and real evil exist and it explains the experiences we have in life more fully than mindless naturalistic ones.

If the outcome is behavior that increases survivability, it'll spread and become refined like any trait. I agree that it occurs naturally and without specific purpose.

If that were the case we would see see the world's organisms and most certainly humans getting better and better and more moral. We do not see this in our world today.

Again, I would argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other. Do you disagree?

I do agree, however I don't think that natural selection can account for it.

*shrug* I don't know that I'd equate species-wide survival behavior with individual selfishness.

How could you not?

I'm not saying humans cannot add valid ideas and concepts on top of basic evolved behavior to get something really nifty and transcendent, I just don't think the supernatural is required for any of that.

However you base this on your view of the world and it has no more truth than what my view is of the world. I think your view of the world requires my view of the world to explain morality.

I also want to thank you for your serious discussion. I respect someone who can articulate their view honestly.