Morality and Evolution

[Lestat]

There's been a lot of talk on here about morality, what is moral, and so on. I'm curious what role people think morality played in the evolutionary development of human beings?

Let's face it... Nature is cruel and merciless. Witness a pride of lions attacking a single over size prey. Or a black widow spider that eats its mate. How about that insect which paralyzes a catipillar and lays its eggs inside the body so the larvae will eat their way out devouring the catipillar alive for nourishment.

Morality seems to have no place for any other species but man. Why is that?

My personal belief is that man is best suited for survival in large numbers. The most intelligent man will struggle if left alone. So man is a serious pack animal and must have morals so as not to alienate too large a part of the pack at any one time.

Heh... I'm not a scientist, philosopher, or anyone degreed to talk about such things. But I like to ponder them in my own ignorant ways. I'd appreciate if anyone with more knowledge on this could enlighten me. Thanks.

[hmkpoker]

Morality makes sense to me only if it describes a course of actions that, through their benefit to others, benefit the user.

For example, let's say an optimal lifestyle requires tax dollars. The most benefit is reaped for all if all supply their fair share. However, were someone to cheat and not pay, he would reap benefit at other's expense, but overall it would be bad. A system must be instituted to protect what is in the best interest for all (and, indirectly, one), and hence morality.

(I apologize gravely for the weak example, I'm very tired /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

Man seems to me to be a social animal. After all, we are closely related to monkeys.

We can work together to make a better life for a greater number of people. This is done because we realize it's the best thing for ourselves.

Morality is a useful tool for universalizing self-benefit, and this is why it evolved, in my non-expert opinion.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
There's been a lot of talk on here about morality, what is moral, and so on. I'm curious what role people think morality played in the evolutionary development of human beings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I think the interesting question is not whether morality is inconsistent with evolution, but rather whether evolution can explain morality (or rather, our perceptions thereof) as developing naturally and being beneficial to a species.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's face it... Nature is cruel and merciless. Witness a pride of lions attacking a single over size prey. Or a black widow spider that eats its mate. How about that insect which paralyzes a catipillar and lays its eggs inside the body so the larvae will eat their way out devouring the catipillar alive for nourishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans do some pretty cruel and merciless things, too. Consider that millions of cows are held on industrial farms and essentially converted directly into food. Extinctions have gone up exponentially since the speciation of humans. But we don't usually seem to consider these things to be amoral--only when they get to a point where they begin to threaten the ecosystem as a whole or our own survival do we consider something to be wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Morality seems to have no place for any other species but man. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you determined that. Did you interview other species for their thoughts on morality?

[ QUOTE ]
My personal belief is that man is best suited for survival in large numbers. The most intelligent man will struggle if left alone. So man is a serious pack animal and must have morals so as not to alienate too large a part of the pack at any one time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to me the most plausible explanation, but I am not terribly knowledgeable about the subject either. Suppose, though, that we have three people, one strong and two weak, and the weaker two can collectively overtake the stronger, at cost to themselves. It would seem from an evolutionary game-theoretic point of view that the optimal thing to do is for everyone to cooperate, although this would be pretty difficult to show.

[chezlaw]

It seems intuitively obvious that cooperation with those who carry the same genes is to the advantage of the gene and so we have evolved to cooperate. I think its true for other animals as well (plants anyone?) but they may not have awareness like we do and so may not know that they get feelings of pleasure/pain when they do things they feel to be right/wrong to others.

chez

I am not sure about this post. Evolution, afaik, has to do with speciation, not with behavioural patterns. There may be an evolution of behavioural patterns but lets not confuse that with the theory of evolution. Enough garbage has been thrown at it, trying to muddy the waters.

In response to your question, I am not sure, but what I am certain of, is that civilsations have evolved and come and go. It may be more interesting to ask questions in relation to civilisations rather tahn species. Also in this way we are not neccesarily bringing in a teleological perspective (no objective or tendency to perfection or an end), don't perceive evolution as being at it's peak (ie current somehow "better" than the past ones), but as an on-going process where every differentiation that is succesful, in turn is replaced by another (maybe even regressive) that is better adapted to the condition of that particular time.

I am fairly certain that morality has a lot more to do with civilisation than species. It is after all an intellectual justification or code of conduct. A baby or early infant does not display any morality, on the contrary.

I think that morality is something we all aspire to in an attempt to rationalise our more selfless actions, perhaps so that others may act in a similar way when they are engaging with us. In essence, it might be considered a form of preferred actions that we subjectively impose on society/humanity. However, the key words are "we", "subjectively" and "impose" - morality is not constant.

For example, there are psychological papers that relate the narratives of criminals who stole to feed their family, as society had "forced" them to commit crimes in order to survive. In their instances, the commission of crime is "moral". Likewise, soldiers.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that life is intrinsically personal and subjective - it is what we make it. Therefore, our morality is based entirely on what we want it to be. And then I lapse into A.J.Ayer: "Anything interesting about Ethical Philosophy can be written on the back of a postcard"

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Evolution, afaik, has to do with speciation, not with behavioural patterns. </font>

I thought behavioral patterns indeed played a part in our evolutionary process as a whole. But you are saying that behavorial patterns evolve independently of the theory of evolution? You may be right. I honestly don't know. It seems to me that behavior is very much brain related. The brain as an organ is very dependent on Darwin's evolutionary theory.

Your point about civilizations is interesting. I wonder how closely civilization can be equated to race? I can see how we might be genetically disposed to advance one's own race or ethnicity through discrimmination, wars, and religion. In fact, these atrocities may be nothing more than an effort to advance our own race and/or beliefs to the top.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Personally, I subscribe to the view that life is intrinsically personal and subjective - </font>

I followed you up to here. Evolution (or the scheme of life), is anything but personal. To YOU it may be. But evolution couldn't care less about you as an individual.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Morality seems to have no place for any other species but man. Why is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Non-theistic morality will always come down to pragmatism, and that will always result in the reductio that might makes right. This has been discussed several times on the forum and no one has been able to counter this argument. I've often cited one of the more prominent atheists of the day, Michael Martin, who has written at least one book on atheistic morality. In the end, he had to admit he couldn't justify morality.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Non-theistic morality will always come down to pragmatism, and that will always result in the reductio that might makes right. This has been discussed several times on the forum and no one has been able to counter this argument. I've often cited one of the more prominent atheists of the day, Michael Martin, who has written at least one book on atheistic morality. In the end, he had to admit he couldn't justify morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then he needs to read Ayn Rand's development of Objectivist ethics. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As for morals only applying to men... morality is a guide by which we choose between alternatives in order to achieve or maintain our values. The concept of morality, by nature, only applies to sentient creatures who are faced with choosing between alternatives.

[J. Stew]

I think there was evolution in consciousness, and morals evolved with the ability to open into the awareness that is already there. Lions thinks about themselves, how to survive, so they take the appropriate measures to give themselves the best chance for survival. We do the same thing i.e. slaughtering cows to ensure our existence. The difference with us is that we can look outside of ourselves. We can look at our selves as objects and ask, how can I ensure my existence as well as everyone else's existence. This initial, idealistic idea provides the intention from which other ideas about putting the ideal in practice stem. All the ideas about what is best for everyone revolve around what is best for yourself, or how your personal freedom should be enjoyed by all. When there is freedom in mind, there is personal truth. From this personal truth stems ideas about how to show others truth. Morals get muddled because people see personal truth through the lens of their attachments to ideas. It's a communication problem basically. The personal truth is the same in two different people, but the differing attachments in people's minds deludes the clarity of the truth, which leads to different interpretations of what truth is. So as consciousness expands, as people realize their thoughts they hold to as truth are not Ultimate truth, but a manifestation of truth skewed by one's own ideas about what truth is, then the understanding of purpose becomes more directed towards present momentness. As one remains more presently, or just looks at what is in front of one's face instead of conceptualizing everything it encounters, one sees that the truth of reality is just what is, not a conceptual interpretation of it. This leads to more seeing clearly which deepens the understanding of what it is to be present or in the moment. As the ability to balance in the present moment moves from practice to natural skill, the consciousness expands to take in more which leads to a greater understanding of what is moral, what is the correct way to act, what does it mean to be present, where one can live truly and not in delusion of reality. This understanding is still conceptual, but it is a conceptual understanding from a vaster(sp?) awareness or consciousness which leads to a different approach to morale. It is a different understanding, but it is actually the same understanding, just a clearer version of it.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure about this post. Evolution, afaik, has to do with speciation, not with behavioural patterns. There may be an evolution of behavioural patterns but lets not confuse that with the theory of evolution. Enough garbage has been thrown at it, trying to muddy the waters.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat, but not completely, correct. There is extensive work in evolutionary theory (e.g., game-theoretic evolution) about behavioral patterns. However, behavioral evolution is not directly related to speciation based on mutations predicted by the "orthodox" Darwinian theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Morality seems to have no place for any other species but man. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most if not all higher-order mammals have societal/group/pack rules regarding what is and what is not acceptable behavior.

[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat, but not completely, correct. There is extensive work in evolutionary theory (e.g., game-theoretic evolution) about behavioral patterns. However, behavioral evolution is not directly related to speciation based on mutations predicted by the "orthodox" Darwinian theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with you. I was hoping to make it clear with the statement: "There may be an evolution of behavioural patterns but lets not confuse that with the theory of evolution". I think we must assume that the evolutionary debate has to do with the Darwinian theory and does not concerns itself with such things as game-theoretic, exo-evolution or evolution of culture, memes, psychological eveolution, etc.. All those topics are interesting in their own right, in fact even more interesting to me, but that is not what creationists object to.

Just to clarify. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Morality seems to have no place for any other species but man. Why is that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Non-theistic morality will always come down to pragmatism, and that will always result in the reductio that might makes right. This has been discussed several times on the forum and no one has been able to counter this argument. I've often cited one of the more prominent atheists of the day, Michael Martin, who has written at least one book on atheistic morality. In the end, he had to admit he couldn't justify morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your God-centered morality still reduces to "might makes right".

[Lestat]

But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat, but not completely, correct. There is extensive work in evolutionary theory (e.g., game-theoretic evolution) about behavioral patterns. However, behavioral evolution is not directly related to speciation based on mutations predicted by the "orthodox" Darwinian theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with you. I was hoping to make it clear with the statement: "There may be an evolution of behavioural patterns but lets not confuse that with the theory of evolution". I think we must assume that the evolutionary debate has to do with the Darwinian theory and does not concerns itself with such things as game-theoretic, exo-evolution or evolution of culture, memes, psychological eveolution, etc.. All those topics are interesting in their own right, in fact even more interesting to me, but that is not what creationists object to.

Just to clarify. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Midge, not sure where we draw the line on darwinian evolution but I suspect there is a large component of natural selection behind why we are moral creatures.

However the initial seed of cooperative behavior came about, it seems likely that those who chose a cooperative mate would have been more successful at reproduction. Once cooperation becomes a factor in sexual selection you get runaway evolution like with the peacocks tail leading to all these feelings about right and wrong which cause displays of extreme cooperative (moral) behavior and maybe even religon.

This could all happen even if cooperation wasn't advantageous but given we have reason to believe it is a significant advantage it makes this all the more likey.

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, that's why we forget what's simple, what just is. We can't look at something nakedly, without conceptualizing it, and that causes problems in the head.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brain size may also be an example of peacock's tale type runaway evolution.

One idea is that at some point we got hold of the idea that a favoured mate is one who displays creative talents (pictures, stories, etc) which then leads to a better and better ability to make such displays and hence a large brain.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brain size may also be an example of peacock's tale type runaway evolution.

One idea is that at some point we got hold of the idea that a favoured mate is one who displays creative talents (pictures, stories, etc) which then leads to a better and better ability to make such displays and hence a large brain.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, altough it may explain my attraction to members of the opposite sex that have a big head /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Hi Midge, not sure where we draw the line on darwinian evolution but I suspect there is a large component of natural selection behind why we are moral creatures.

However the initial seed of cooperative behavior came about, it seems likely that those who chose a cooperative mate would have been more successful at reproduction. Once cooperation becomes a factor in sexual selection you get runaway evolution like with the peacocks tail leading to all these feelings about right and wrong which cause displays of extreme cooperative (moral) behavior and maybe even religon.

This could all happen even if cooperation wasn't advantageous but given we have reason to believe it is a significant advantage it makes this all the more likey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure either chezlaw. First of all, morality is a word that can be subject to big variations in interpretations. So I find it a bit tricky to define satisfactorily a behaviour in that term. Secondly, it seems to be more an epiphenomena that could be catalogued as "culture" and thus be part of cultural eveolution and associated or similar research. And thirdly, I would say that in evoluttionary terms, human history is still of very small duration. It may be premature to come to the conclusion that we are the epitome of adaptability or the summum of evolution. Considering what I see, I have serious doubts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But, I can't say you are wrong or right. I'll stay agnostic on this one /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But doesn't higher moral standards come from increased intelligence and a bigger brain? Like someone said previously, other pack animals also display some standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

I also have questions about the role of "Intelligence and Evolution". It seems we are WAY over equipped in the intelligence department for what we need for the survival and perpetuation of our species.

[/ QUOTE ]
Brain size may also be an example of peacock's tale type runaway evolution.

One idea is that at some point we got hold of the idea that a favoured mate is one who displays creative talents (pictures, stories, etc) which then leads to a better and better ability to make such displays and hence a large brain.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, altough it may explain my attraction to members of the opposite sex that have a big head /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely an idea so care to explain why its a bad one.

Here's an extract from 'the meme machine' by Susan Blackmore. first chapter here (http://www.memes.org.uk/extracts/SBOct1998Ch1.html)

[ QUOTE ]
My aim in this book is to show that many aspects of human nature are explained far better by a theory of memetics than by any rival theory yet available. The theory starts only with one simple mechanism - the competition between memes to get into human brains and be passed on again. From this it gives rise to explanations for such diverse phenomena as the evolution of the enormous human brain, the origins of language, our tendency to talk and think too much, human altruism, and the evolution of the internet. Looked at through the new lens of the memes, human beings look quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez

[ QUOTE ]
...It's definitely an idea so care to explain why its a bad one.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

By the way, I like Susan Blackmore's work.

I am not saying it is a bad idea. I am saying that is an ideaa and that there are many other ideas on the subject and, afik, no definitive theory yet.

Personally, I try to avoid loading my investigations with anything remotely concerned with "right" and "wrongs" when it comes to evolution. Another idea, maybe not better, but not worse, I think, is that the cooprative aspects of human being are a by-product of that innate ability to love/empathise, which is manifested as parental love. Now, this was definitely an asset as it enabled a much longer dependence, of the young in the species, to the parents (and hence development of a body of knowledge affecting behaviour, outside of the genetic mechanism.. the birth of culture, maybe?). Altough this is useful, like many genetic characteristics, it only has a limited usefulness and may even become a problem when it is applied to the other members of the group. This may be so because, the mechanism to stop the activity of the drive, whilst needed to enable emancipation of the young, may itself be an inperfect or maldajusted drive when projected more broadly. But as I said, I am not sure. I don't know of any definitive research in the matter. Maybe we will know, maybe not. The point to remember is that an evolutionary change has to be contributing to survival in an overall manner, but may have many specific (side) effects that are not desirable.

As I said in another post, I am witholding closure on that one, and stay agnostic, but very interetested in new developments, vis-a-vis morality as an evolutionary mechanism. I worry that it may be a back door entry of meaning (or purpose) and its attendant pseudo-theories, in a scientific field.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying it is a bad idea. I am saying that is an ideaa and that there are many other ideas on the subject and, afik, no definitive theory yet.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, just mentioned it as an idea. Thought Lestat would find it interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I try to avoid loading my investigations with anything remotely concerned with "right" and "wrongs" when it comes to evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again sure, but I'm only talking about feelings of right/wrong not actual right/wrong. I think evolution has to account for why somethings are painful and other things pleasurable.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to find a way to bring up the ashes, in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't but am now by responding in this thread /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Sure, just mentioned it as an idea. Thought Lestat would find it interesting. </font>

I did thanks. And thanks for that link also.

[ctj]

See "The Evolution of Co-operation" by Axelrod (I'm on the road right now and can't provide the full citation, sorry)

He shows how co-operation is +EV and how it can become established in a population -- in an "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" environment it benefits an individual to punish 'cheaters'. Surprisingly, a simple 'tit-for-tat' strategy (punish once, then go back to co-operation until the next instance of cheating) was the most effective in computer simulations.

Note that he shows how co-operation can develop without resorting to 'group selection' (a no-no in evolutionary theory).

Regards,

C.T. Jackson

[atrifix]

Of course, the huge leap from cooperation to full-scale morality does not follow.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the huge leap from cooperation to full-scale morality does not follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is it much of a leap? Realising that cooperation is beneficial is very hard for evolution so the evolved stratagy that results in cooperation is to care about other people.

We get pleasure/pain type stimuli (I think that is morality) from how we treat others so that we will behave in a cooperative manner. In the same way we get pleasure from sex so that we will behave in a reproductive manner.

chez

[atrifix]

It is possible that morality evolves. It may even be the case that morality evolves due to cooperative influences, predicted all the while by game theory. But it certainly does not follow merely from the cooperation outlined in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. There are any number of ways that cooperation can evolve without any reference to morality. That's all I meant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your God-centered morality still reduces to "might makes right".


[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.