Once wrote:
I did totally miss this post! Sorry.
No problem. From that post, it looks like we have exhausted some topics, agreed on others (from the end of that post -#270), and the main topic we'll get back to is about how morality can develop (below).
I am going to go back and look for the link that you gave me. I thought it was just to the book.
I don't remember how many were direct links, and how many were links to pages that had more links. However, I did notice that the bibliography to the Moral Animal is available online, and that has pages and pages of references. Of course, many of those are not what you are looking for, but many are. If you really want to look into the extensive work that has been done, that's a list that will take you years to investigate.
To access that list, go to the link below, click on "index", then page up above the index, and you'll be in the bibliography.
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology: Robert Wright: 9780679763994: Amazon.com: Books
So we are disagreeing on one issue and that is whether or not evolution by naturalistic processes gave rise to morality. I say that these processes are not adequate to explain them on their own.
Sigh. Yes. So I tried to summarize a 500 page book which itself was a summary of decades of research before, and that didn't work. Against my better judgement, I'll try again:
OK, first, imagine that intelligence evovles (I'll cover that more below). Now, in a species of intelligent creatures, I think we agree that hierarchies are expected to evolve (if you don't agree, we can cover that too, but I'm trying to save time). For instance, wolves, monkeys, lions, deer, and many other animals have a hierarchical structure - so I'm guessing you'll agree that's a likely situation.
Add to that the ability of the creatures to remember past interactions with each other. This is also common among many animals, including vampire bats, gazelles, dogs, and so on. It's a requirement to have a hierarchy, because otherwise it would not be remembered who was the alpha male, etc.
Now, as you know from daily life, situations arise often where helping someone helps them much more than it hurts you. For instance, giving some extra food to a starving person saves their life, yet cost you little (because you have a surplus), or releasing them from a trap/entanglement takes only a minute of your time, and saves their life, etc. So a brain structure that causes generosity will benefit yourself, because now and then the tables will be turned, and you'll receive a great benefit from someone you helped before. However, if someone always helps everyone, then they are taken advantage of even by those who themselves never help anyone.
This is structurally the same as the classic "prisoner's dilemma", and a lot of research has been done using computer programs to simulate societies of hundreds of individuals, and a mix of very different brain structures (responses) including those who always take advantage of others (while never helping), those who help everyone, those who only help those who have helped them (tit-for-tat), and a whole mix of other strategies (such as "random"). Then, the simulations allow the next generation based on those who have benefited the most (natural selection).
These simulations have shown repeatedly that tit-for-tat is a winning algorithm. Tit-for-tat is what one gets if mutations have structured the brain to respond according to a moral code, including a sense of fairness. It's the moral code we share with many other primates, including monkeys, as seen here:
Fairness Experiment: Moral behaviour in Monkeys - YouTube
This is but one of many parts of the growing body of research on the evolution of morality, and that's about what I have time for now.
yak wrote:
The same way any other trait arises - by being refined through selection pressure. Just like speed, physical prowess, potent venom, etc. Having some smarts is useful for survival - having lots of smarts is very useful for survival.
Sorry this doesn't cut it. You can't have smarts until something gives rise to it. You can't refine something that doesn't exist. You can't get intelligence from speed, physical prowess or potent venom. Survival does not create intelligence.
OK, trying to see what your objection here is....
Maybe it is that you don't see it possible for intelligence to delope gradually - "you either have it or you don't".
If so, then consider this. Intelligence, like so many other traits, is a gradual scale. A newborn is obviously doesn't have intelligence. It can't reason, think, consider, or anything. As time goes by, the intelligence develops gradually, and a 12 year old is obviously intelligent. (or, if you are going to claim a newborn is intelligent, then simply go back to a zygote, and that's clearly not intelligent.
Or maybe your objection is that intelligence is not an advantage for survival. However, a more intelligent creature is better at getting food and avoiding being food. You can see this in the advantage of a greater degree of intelligence in most given situations, such as, say, stalking a prey animal.
In either case, our earlier agreement - that God created mt. Vesuvius - even though we also agree that Mt. Vesuvius was made by natural geologic forces, gradually, often under the observation of people - may help here. In some ways, that is like the evolution of intelligence from a mammal like Eomaia to a dog, or from an animal like hylonomus to a parrot. In those cases, intelligence has clearly increased over time. Morality could be the same way - selected for due to it's demonstrated advantages for natural selection, and developing gradually - a naturalistic process that God is using to create.
Papias
