|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary Explanation for Morality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bodacity Junior Member (Idle past 5508 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
Hi, I am new here. I am unclear as to exactly how evolution explains morality. My understanding is that if a group of organisms develops a moral trait, they will be more likely to survive than a group of organisms without the trait because of the positive effects it will have on the group. Is this more or less correct? I would appreciate either direct answers, or links pointing me to discussions that answer this question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Yeah, that's basically correct but you need to be thinking in behavioural evolutionary terms: that is to say that a behaviour appeared are increased the survival chance of the group.
Before I go on I will define moral behaviour as socially cohesive behaviour; the xian bible is full of immoral behaviour that was at the time socially cohesive so I want you to know the definitions I will use. You can see this happening in many species where there is a close genetic relationship (such as ants, bees, naked mole rats etc). This sometimes gets called kin selection. As you can imagine, the behaviours in non human animals is prehaps not not moral behaviour as such, but recognition of 'morals' in humans could be argued to be our rationalisation of said drive. But, on the other hand people we are familiar with are more predictable (because we have a greater knowledge of their likely behaviour) and this makes us feel less anxious. less anxiety means more cognitive resources devoted to behaviour geared not simply towards survival but geared towards improving ones lot or the tribe, nation, department, office etc). A recognition of the required behaviour to achieve this state is most likely learnt during childhood and the actions of such hard wired devices such as mirror cells (which are implicated in empathy) practically dictate moral behaviour at a certain cultural level. ABE: Welcome to the fray, I hope you enjoy it here This is a good primer
Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer Take a look here, too. It's a good read and is not too heavey going.
Evolution of Behavior Can anyone tell me how to shorten links? Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Adjust Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
I prefer to use the title instead of just the bare link.
You can use the peek button to see how it was done on your post. Edited by AdminPD, : Change Mode
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bodacity Junior Member (Idle past 5508 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
Thanks for the reply; that mostly makes sense. However, the second link raises a question it does not answer: how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated? Also, it gives reasons for why men rape, but does not address why it is considered immoral to rape. Are there further explanations for these issues?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Firstly evolutioon has equipped us to take notice and reject those who try to freeload. Someone who is unwilling to assist others in the group will be noticed and tend not to receive help themselves.
Secondly, as societies have developed our view of who is in our "group" ("us") has tended to expand, to the point where some people consider all humans (and even hypothetical extra-terrestrial sapients) as part of their "group". On the other hand just because some behaviour confers a selective advantage it does not mean that it is considered moral. Morality is those behaviours which aid the group over any direct benefit to the individual. Rape is not such a behaviour - it is genetically selfish. It is in the female's reproductive interest to choose a mate (and have a mate that will support her and her children - whcih a rapist is unlikely to do). It is in the interests of her relatives - male and female - that she should be able to do so (kin selection), in addiiton to any physical or emotional harm she may suffer as a result of the rape. Rape takes that away so it represents a conflict of interests - just as theft does. Selfish behaviour which hurts the group either directly or by creating conflict within it is contrary to those instincts which we call morality, and that is why we do not consider rape moral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Many thanks!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
bodacity writes: how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated? Another way to look at altruism is to think of the pure survival advantage given to ones genes if you help enough of ones relatives (who share the simliar genes-this is an obvious over simplification) reproduce. The familial genes get propergated through time. Think again of ants. All drones are sisters and share 50% of each others genes. If a soldier ant dies defending 10 grubs she has aided the survival the gene pool. This is called 'inclusive fitness'. Now, we humans are very clever and generalise this to not just our family but to anyone in an 'in group'. This increase the likelyhood of people surviving in our in group. This is where it fits in with Pauls explantion of groups. In a way all altruism is rewarded with a pay off. Behaviour is always driven by aversion or attraction of possible outcomes. So every time you think something is altruistic you should ask yourself: what drives this behaviour? The only truly altruistic behaviour I can come close to imagining is giving money to a charity that you hate. But, even then one would prolly be doing it just to prove you where altruistic. Our evolution to our current state pretty much requires altruism for co operation. Morality can be seen in terms of a particular take on what ones culture conciders altruistic. In WWII for some pilots, flying a plane into a battleship could have been concidered an altruistic act, from a certain point of view. as Paul said rape is genetically selfish, flying a plane into a battleship that could soon be shelling your nation (in group) is pretty damn genetically selfless. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Also, it gives reasons for why men rape, but does not address why it is considered immoral to rape. Actually, I think the opposite. It gives the reason why we consider it immoral to rape, but doesn't give reasons why some men do rape. Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here's an essay I wrote 20 years ago and which, as I recall, was based on an essay I had written 10 years prior:
"An Evolutionary Basis for Morality", No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/morality.html For unreciprocated altruism, there's this response I had to a creationist and a father who had expressed the belief, and insisted on it emphatically, that if the Bible is not completely and absolutely true then it would make no difference how he lived his life:
quote: {When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984) And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bodacity Junior Member (Idle past 5508 days) Posts: 6 Joined: |
Chiroptera, could you explain what you meant?
Chiroptera writes: Actually, I think the opposite. It gives the reason why we consider it immoral to rape, but doesn't give reasons why some men do rape. In the linked article I was referring to, there was a section entitled "Why Men Rape." It mentioned two hypotheses to why men developed the tendency to rape:
1. rape was favoured by natural selection because it increased mens' reproductive success
However, it did not provide an explanation for why it is considered immoral to rape.2. rape is a by-product for obtaining multiple mates without commitment But assuming uncompensated altruism and disdain for rape can be explained by evolutionary motivations, how would they (or any moral traits) be promulgated in practice? As far as I can understand, survival of the fittest only applies to individuals; particular traits would not be selected for unless they provided immediate survival advantages. It seems to me that the benefits of morality would be too long term, and morality traits would never prevail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am unclear as to exactly how evolution explains morality. It explains that any behavior, genetic or learned can be selected for, however only those that can be passed on to following generations can be subject to selection for more than one generation -- IF it is beneficial to individual organisms within a population that shares such traits through mating and child-raising. "Morality" would also be different for different animals, depending on their social structure: tiger morality would be different from horse morality. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In the linked article I was referring to, there was a section entitled "Why Men Rape." It mentioned two hypotheses to why men developed the tendency to rape.... Did it mention the hypothesis that rape is a product of the education and upbringing of the individual and has nothing to do with hereditary factors, and so has nothing to do with natural selection? -
...survival of the fittest only applies to individuals.... Indeed it does, which is why "survival of the fittest" is not the same as "natural selection" -- "survival of the fittest" is one aspect of natural selection where each individual is in competition with others of its species, where "natural selection" takes into account all ways that a hereditary characteristic can expand in a population due to the reproductive success of the individuals carrying it. In the case of altruism (and presumably the ability toward morality and empathy in humans), the individuals in a group that has an innate drive toward cooperation can flourish as compared to a population where each individual acts only in its immediate self-interest. And when cooperation is coupled with an ability to detect "slackers" and "cheaters" and a drive to retaliate against them, egoists would be at a disadvantage in such a group of cooperators. -
particular traits would not be selected for unless they provided immediate survival advantages. It seems to me that the benefits of morality would be too long term, and morality traits would never prevail. A group that cooperates will produce more food and other resources, on average, and offer more protection against predators than a group where each individual acts only for its immediate self-interest. A sick egoist, for example, will produce no food and may starve -- a sick cooperator will recieve extra food gather by other cooperators. A egoist parent has to juggle caring for young while it tries to gather food -- cooperative parents may share the caring of young so that individuals may devote more time to food gathering -- a division of labor that may lead to more efficiency. So, in the end, on average, cooperators may very well have more offspring. Now an individual egoist may have more offspring than a typical cooperator, but over all fewer egoists get the chance to have offspring at all -- on average, more cooperators are born and survive to reproductive age than egoists. By the way, this has been modelled mathematically. It does work. In computer simulations, cooperators have a reproductive advantage over egoists. Your very simple theoretical objections, while intuitive, are too simple -- more complete theoretical arguments show that, in fact, cooperation is a beneficial behavior in terms of survival and propagation of the relevant genes. Edited by Chiroptera, : clarity Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I like the idea of horse and tiger morality.
I like even better the way it clearly highlights that you would only think horse morality was right if you were a horse. Kind of puts the royal screw job on the idea that morality is abosolute; as said morality is derived from the adaptive environment the organism evolved in (and the current cultural trends in the case of humans).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Kind of puts the royal screw job on the idea that morality is abosolute; Yes. What does "thou shalt not kill" mean to a tiger? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024