Morality and Evolution

[ParanoiA]

I guess I'm in a weird mood this morning. Just wondering if morality is conducive to our evolution as a species.

 

If it took this immoral, brutal process of survival of the fittest to evolve to the point we are now - 5 million years and counting, to have bigger brains, higher thought - then why would we question that same process and, in effect, reject it? Isn't morality a defiance of this system? And are we not arrogant and foolish to assume we can ignore this and create societies that embrace 'survival of everyone' and still think we will evolve positively?

 

So, why do we insist on incorporating morality into our survival, effectively ending the very system that got us here?

[insane_alien]

evolution is amoral. they don't really influence on or the other. morality could actually be a product of evolution.

[MyThai]

Morality is simply a word manufactured through religion, ancient and modern.

[ecoli]

Morality is simply a word manufactured through religion, ancient and modern.

 

I agree with alien's position, but I don't agree that morality is a product of religion. I'd like to thing it's the other way around.

[MyThai]

One must ask themselves, "what makes something good and what makes something bad?"

[insane_alien]

you can't have religion without morality but you can have morality without religion. so i would agree with ecoli here. morality is not a product of religion. it is an aspect of religion though. no aargument there.

[Sisyphus]

Morality and religion evolved independently, but both greatly increased in influence when they began to intermingle with one another.

 

Also, "morality" can mean a lot of different things. The notion of 'survival of everyone' is not at all necessarily part of it. That's just a familiar, you might say "Christian" family of moralities.

 

But that's kind of OT. It's not difficult to understand that sort of morality from an evolutionary perspective. Those groups of humans with stable codes of behavior who work together to help each other survive would have a major evolutionary advantage over those that did not, even if an amoral individual within that group would have an advantage of his own. Therefore you would expect to see both tendencies - selfishness and a sense of group obligation - in a kind of perpetual tension and equilibrium, which is in fact what we do see.

[ecoli]

Morality and religion evolved independently, but both greatly increased in influence when they began to intermingle with one another.

 

I'm not 100% sure I agree with you. I think morality must have came first. And, then religion came as an organized system of somebody's moral code, in order to teach their children or other people what one person thought the "right way" was [/speculation]

[ParanoiA]

It's not difficult to understand that sort of morality from an evolutionary perspective. Those groups of humans with stable codes of behavior who work together to help each other survive would have a major evolutionary advantage over those that did not, even if an amoral individual within that group would have an advantage of his own. Therefore you would expect to see both tendencies - selfishness and a sense of group obligation - in a kind of perpetual tension and equilibrium, which is in fact what we do see.

 

Nicely put. I hadn't considered the fact that grouping up is just as competitive a behavior as selfishness. I don't know why, it seems so obvious now. And grouping up would require codes of behavior - perhaps the codes being where morality is born?

[MyThai]

you can't have religion without morality but you can have morality without religion.

 

That is the case, however, the morals one holds in the abscence of religion are morals that are derived from religion.

 

Morality is conditioned, much like aesthetics.

[Pangloss]

The ancient Romans, which were a lot like modern western civ nations, were familiar with our modern moral concepts, but saw religion in a very different way. For them religion was about fear and superstition, rather than hope and faith. Do the right thing or deal with the consequences; that sort of thing. But they knew full well that taking a bribe wasn't just against the law, it was bad for society. They understood the concept of precedence (the "golden rule") and knew full well why, for example, the Republic was failing at the time of Caesar.

 

A useful example can be seen in the story of Quintus Servilius Caepio, whom Caesar no doubt grew up hearing about from grown men who spat in the streets at the sound of the name.

 

Christianity's historical impact on morality is that it changed the way people interoperate with specific moral concepts. But it didn't change our definitions of the morals themselves.

[swansont]

That is the case, however, the morals one holds in the abscence of religion are morals that are derived from religion.

 

Morality is conditioned, much like aesthetics.

 

 

They may be the same, but that does not mean they are derived.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Please see the book The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer.

 

In essence, morality is likely a direct result of evolution.

[Sisyphus]

I'm not 100% sure I agree with you. I think morality must have came first. And, then religion came as an organized system of somebody's moral code, in order to teach their children or other people what one person thought the "right way" was [/speculation]

 

My take is that morality is only a part of what is called "religion," and it seems like it isn't even a necessary part. I would think the more essential aspect of religion would be the beliefs about what is, of gods and mysterious forces, how the world began and where the rain comes from, etc. It seems like you could have that without any sense of morality, and it would still be "religion." A moral code of behavior without those kinds of beliefs, however, would not be "religion."

 

I suspect the intermingling began with animism, ancestors, and personified natural forces, and, evolved as extensions of them, "gods," all of whom need to be appeased. Thus religion contained notions of prudent behavior, to stay on these beings' good side. One also "ought" to do these things as well, as an extension of preexisting codes of respect for elders. As religions evolved, and gods became more and more powerful and distant and, more importantly, wise and/or loving, it would be inevitable that, since God is infinitely wise, what He asks of you is necessarily the ultimate expression of what you "ought" to do, and supercedes all other moralities. [/speculation]

[ydoaPs]

One must ask themselves, "what makes something good and what makes something bad?"

suffering

 

Actions which cause more suffering than they relieve are bad; Actions which relieve more suffering than they cause are good. Actions which neither cause nor relieve suffering are neutral.

 

That is the case, however, the morals one holds in the abscence of religion are morals that are derived from religion.

 

Morality is conditioned, much like aesthetics.

 

From which religion are they derived?

[Rocket Man]

in a particular language, the term commonly translated to "ghost" refers to people who have little or no direct affiliation with you. basically, someone is a ghost until they become an aquaintence. what is morally right is different between ghosts and friends.

 

so the definition of morality by suffering is in one sense flawed. we see from a very narrow feild of veiw. different people answer differently to moral dillemas.

 

in my opinion, morality is defined person by person as a mix between the learned "how things normally are" and their own empathic sense of pain.

[FreeThinker]

Homo sapiens are social animals. To fit into a group, and benefit, would require social skills. Favours would be remembered and repaid, and cheaters would be punished as they wouldn’t benefit from interaction with other members of the group. The next questions is; what would make individuals more likely to be cheaters or to follow certain rules (eg. Being good towards others)? The answer is genetic algorithms. Some individuals are genetically more likely to be good (think of it as a strategy) while others are programmed to break the rules. This is a very large simplification. In reality there would probably be multiple genetic algorithms ( eg. Be good to those who are good to you but punish the ones who cheat you, Cheat if you assume the other individual is good and cheat when facing a cheaters...) The Evolutionary Stable strategy would prevail ( I believe it is something in between; we are good when we want to be).

 

Religiously speaking, morality isn’t as simple as it seams. If our sense of right or wrong is set in stone than what is the answer to this questions : Was dropping a bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good or a bad thing? The answer would depend on the person answering the question. Therefore, what is good or bad is relative, not absolute.

[Sisyphus]

Oh, sure. Any attempt to strictly and simply define morality quickly becomes absurd if you take that definition to its logical extreme. But that makes perfect sense if you explain it in terms of instinct, as such a phenomenon would not follow simple logical rules, and would even contradict itself quite often. That's why trying to find the "true" moralility and act by it in a conscious and rational way inevitably makes one look ridiculous.

[john5746]

I guess I'm in a weird mood this morning. Just wondering if morality is conducive to our evolution as a species.

 

If it took this immoral, brutal process of survival of the fittest to evolve to the point we are now - 5 million years and counting, to have bigger brains, higher thought - then why would we question that same process and, in effect, reject it? Isn't morality a defiance of this system? And are we not arrogant and foolish to assume we can ignore this and create societies that embrace 'survival of everyone' and still think we will evolve positively?

 

So, why do we insist on incorporating morality into our survival, effectively ending the very system that got us here?

 

I think the hole point to humanity is fighting evolution. If we consider 95% of species are extinct, we don't want to rely on evolution for our survival. We want to use our brains. Brains will move that asteroid, not evolution. The downside might be that we ruin the planet so that all life is extinguished.

 

We may have to change our 'programming' before we can live in an ideal society, whatever that may be. Instead of waiting millions of years for random mutations and selections, we might be able to change humanity itself to a higher ideal. Or we may just screw ourselves in the end.

[JHAQ]

Read up on the JBS Haldane hypothesis . If by ( moralistic ) sacrifice of ones own life one can perpetuate the lives of 2 parents or siblings , 4 & reproducing ) grand parents , 8 uncles or aunts 16 cousins , one has assisted in the transfer of his genomic complement into the next generation & is thus a biological success . ( I may have the numbers off a bit but the principle stands )

[MyThai]

suffering

 

Actions which cause more suffering than they relieve are bad; Actions which relieve more suffering than they cause are good. Actions which neither cause nor relieve suffering are neutral.

 

One would also have to define suffering. And I must point out that every deed (good or evil) can result in suffering of a party, whether directly or indirectly.

 

 

From which religion are they derived?

 

Any and all religions. Of course the most predominant religion will see the influence of "their" morality, in the case of the United States... Christianity.

[ecoli]

I think the hole point to humanity is fighting evolution. If we consider 95% of species are extinct, we don't want to rely on evolution for our survival. We want to use our brains. Brains will move that asteroid, not evolution. The downside might be that we ruin the planet so that all life is extinguished.

 

We may have to change our 'programming' before we can live in an ideal society, whatever that may be. Instead of waiting millions of years for random mutations and selections, we might be able to change humanity itself to a higher ideal. Or we may just screw ourselves in the end.

 

I don't think it's possible to 'change' our programming. We're born with a capacity to act 'morally' or 'amorally.' I don't think you can separate that from evolution.

 

We do have a choice in how to act, but it's not really a matter of ignoring evolution. I think its more a matter that the normal rules of evolution don't apply to humans, because of the introduction of traits like "morality" into the gene pool.

 

Of course, environment plays a huge part too.

[john5746]

I don't think it's possible to 'change' our programming. We're born with a capacity to act 'morally' or 'amorally.' I don't think you can separate that from evolution.

 

We do have a choice in how to act, but it's not really a matter of ignoring evolution. I think its more a matter that the normal rules of evolution don't apply to humans, because of the introduction of traits like "morality" into the gene pool.

 

Of course, environment plays a huge part too.

 

 

I meant genetic engineering more altruistic behaviour into humans, but we are more likely to engineer a bunch of Barbie's and Ken's instead.

[ydoaPs]

One would also have to define suffering.

You didn't expect me to make an all-enclusive post about moral philosophy, did you?

 

And I must point out that every deed (good or evil) can result in suffering of a party, whether directly or indirectly.

As I said in my post.

 

 

 

 

Any and all religions. Of course the most predominant religion will see the influence of "their" morality, in the case of the United States... Christianity.

Christianity has horrible moral teachings.

[Sisyphus]

yourdadonapogos, you have a very rigid and simple idea about what is moral and what is not. Does that mean you don't think it's a result of evolution, wherein it would inevitably be a much more vague and fluid notion?