Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?

This is something I have discussed in relation to morality. It has been said that morality is the same Freudian concept of passing on genes and surviving.What I see as critically absent, is the mention of 'choice'If all of human activity can be defaulted as a survival aid, it is hard to draw lines between appropriate and inappropriate behaviours.All of the catgories which you have mentioned: golfers; musicians; murderers; rapists; are people who have chosen to be what they are in some capacity. The only exception is homosexuals, and they still have a choice about whether or not to practice homosexuality.I think that the whole topic is based on straws. Not every homosexual has extended family to care for; many times they are ousted from the family. Not all golfers make money, many hobby golfers make their wives mad, many musicians don't make money, and everyone has a choice to be more or less sexually active regardless if they play music.There are too many fallacies to make this any kind of argument IMO. For a society to truly be productive for the most amount of people, there is no end which justifies the means. Raping and murdering certainly are not justified by any benefits, especially if the beneifts are not proven. A woman who has been raped once may have an abortion, thus nullifying the idea that a rapist serves any purpose in society. A woman who has been raped may also be wary of men to the extreme that she will not be as likely to bear off-spring of her via concensual sex.Nothing to see here if you ask me. It is a back-wards step. Whether or not we were ever evolved to have a purpose is entirely irrelevent, as we were also evolved to have a choice and to be able to defy our purpose.Some will believe that nothing is chosen, that we can not will what we will, etc, but this is a very dangerous way to think, and can not possibly be acted on.

We don't know necessarily...we seem to find genetic predispositions to many behaviours, such as alcoholism, addictions, etc.A strictly religious/christian view is that we are all born 'sinners', or that natural man has tendencies and capabilities that are not in his best interest.What is happening here is that folks are attempting to make these tendencies into things which are good in themselves because they might benefit survival in some way.It is good to rape, it is good not to rape. Either has 'benefits'. So, no matter what we choose, we are 'right'.This is simply not the case. We know what is imperative; food, clothing, shelter, water, procreation, care of offspring, etc. We have the intelligence to know this, and the instinct is so strong that it is hardly anyone who needs coaxing or knowledge to perform these things. In all other matters, choice is far more personal. The implication of your topic is that our choices in other matters are just as surely driven by instinct, and infallible.Even if you believe that all choices are evolved forms of survival, there is nothing to do with that thought. It is impossible for society to accept all choices as equal, as to leave the murderer and rapist unpunished. You have no choice BUT to believe that all choices are not productive, and maybe if the focus is shifted from defining 'productive' as 'survival', to 'productive' as in 'caring for the needs of the individual to ensure survival' there will be no issue.Thus, a rapist is by all means inhibiting survival of the society, by causing fear and anguish, wasted time and resources. The only possible 'benefit' would be in a society where rape is tolerated as a good means of pro-creation. That is just silly and impossible. Whatever our natural inclinations may be, they have no bearing on the fact that we have choice, and that 'natural' can not ever be so clearly defined, that all men 'know' what men are supposed to do.This is way too close to forcing science to give meaning to life, it is looking to science for a justification of all behaviours. Science can give an explanation, maybe even prove that we have tendencies, but purpose lies entirely in our choices. Everything depends on what purpose YOU ascribe to your life. Or, even if it doesn't, say, God or nature have a purpose for your life, it is so clearly obvious that we do not know this purpose by default.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Not to mention that homosexuality is not an inability to procreate at all, and that homosexuals have the intelligence to procreate if the situaion need be, while heterosexuals have the ability to abstain from such. I do not know of any reason or evidence that homosexuals do not desire to pass on their genes, or that they could not and can not do that via in vitro, etc. There is also no reason to assume they do not desire to nurture. I know a man who can not stand to be in a house with kids, and another who can not imagine passing through life without them, both homosexual.A better question would be 'why are those who are unable to procreate selected for, if they are'?
Why are single people selected for?I do not see any difference in looking for an evolutionary explanation thru which to content oneself with a situation, or in using the old adage 'it is in god's plan for me'. It is the same thing, and either answer has no bearing on the fact that we have choice, and that our main obsessions as humans seem to be a. giving everyone the same options, and b. judging others based on what option they choose.To speculate that evolution has opted for every trait known to man, and to assume that we have been given that trait to fulfill a distinct niche automatically according to need, is comparable to making evolution 'intelligently' able to predict need and to measure population, etc. I am sure someone will tell me I have this backward

It's the same deal with any type of genetic reproduction. Why would we not have all genetic diseases selected out? What is the 'purpose' of some of the more dreaful diseases which often cause a person not to be capable of, or to reach the age of, reproduction? Many diseases do not even allow a person to care for other family members. Even if we found a purpose for the existance of disease, it would not be ethical to ignore research into cures and treatment just to fulfill the 'plan'. It is not ethical when religious people do it, although it is for some similar reason.It is absolutely essential IMO to look at the implications of discoveries, and to realize that any information about the possible usefulness of a genetic difference which has been selected for does not trump the ability we have to intelligently and ethically find ways to make not only the sick person well, but to benefit society in whatever way the disease would have. It doesn't even sound right to say disease benefits society, but hopefully you get the point.

I don't know what you are talking about. Tell me again, do we know the purpose to our life by default, or are we not even sure that there is one?I find it funny. Some people here understand what I mean, and actually take it further, while others are guaranteed to disagree by default. Again, here is my sentence; Do we? Do we automatically do what is right for us?I request that you substantiate your post. It furthers no thread or no topic to have you say 'how many times have I explained this'. Each topic stands on its own, and if you have a point to make that is different from another person's, by all means, do so. Neutralmind started this thread to look at possibilities, and you are welcome to express your view.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

That is not the point, at all. In case it is my wording that is unclear...There is no difference between 'goddidit' and 'evolutiondidit' when it comes to 'ok, what do WE do next'?

This is not a morality thread, Larni. I can't possibly have refused to accept anything scientific regarding THIS thread, since there has been no scientific conclusion presented. Oh, stop. No one else had an issue with what I wrote. There is nothing here that can be 'rejected', since nothing has been presented as more than a question.Why do you think I could give a darn whether we have evolved tendencies? I only asked what to do with them. Obviously, if a murderer has an evolutionary purpose, we can't let him 'fulfill' it.

I definitely wouldn't say that we should give up on finding the 'why' just because the resulting 'what do we do next' stays the same. In fact, it might not. We may find all sorts of solvable problems in human behaviour.On the other hand, I have a sister who is perpetually searching for a sientific explanation for every idiosyncracy of her behaviour, and this is all well and good, except that she has yet to find a 'solution' even if she has found tentative 'cause'.Imagine that we can research human behaviour to the extent that we find a cause for something undesirable such as murder. Imagine we found a 'murder gene'. What would we do? Medicate? And would we potentially medicate every person into 'normal'? How would we define normal?So, I say, 'evolutiondidit' and 'goddidit' leave us in the same predicament concerning our future actions...although looking for the 'why' could help us solve some things. Weight problems, sure, addictions, sure, murdering? not so sure. And how many of our problems do we want to solve minus will-power? See, finding a 'cause' for an addictive tendency gives some people an 'excuse' in their own minds when they fail. It is the same idea that gets religious people going in the wrong direction...I have no control over this, God wants it this way, etc.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I understand. It could get complicated either way. If we find that something is 'meant' to be that way, evolved for some purpose, it is hard to know when we should interfere, or how. No, I wouldn't stop studying the behaviour, and I can't even say I am afraid of what we would find. I am only afraid of how we could use the findings, as in, the same 'false reassurance' being applied to behaviours that we can and should change.My sister, for example, is searching for meaning so to speak, and 'why I am the way I am' is not the same as 'WHY I am the way I am'. In other words, we can accept who we are, and why we are that way, but we do not have to limit ourselves to that as far as what we can accomplish.

I totally understand, and purely in the narrow religious sense, we are dealing with some sort of dualism, wherein some things which are otherwise completely human and part of our nature, are not desirable in certain context. I can imagine misconceptions, or more so, abuses, surrounding what we do upon finding real causes for behaviours...like I said, I have known addicts to play the blame game upon relapsing. Things like this are definitely true if they are part of a past need that is still with us in a time when we do have means of satiating ourselves in one way or another. It takes trial and error before we can determine what is 'good' for us now. Right, and this is pretty much where it could be contentious. If you only think about homosexuality, claiming 'natural' should not equate to desirable or advantageous right off the bat either. I am not thinking it is clearly undesirable right now, nor clearly advantageous. Somewhat neutral, or in an in-between state like when we excercised or smoked for leisure and were not sure that there were great benefits or risks to either.