Morality and Evolution

[ydoaPs]

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?

I didn't say that at all. Your conclusion is not a necessary one.

[Sisyphus]

You didn't say what?

[MyThai]

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

 

Yes I did, or atleast something purposeful.

[ydoaPs]

You didn't say what?

I did not say that morality does not stem from evolution. Morality is an emergent property of sentience in a pack animal. It started as a social contract, but our intelligence let us expand it.

 

Yes I did, or atleast something purposeful.

It is quite impossible to make it all fit in one posts. It should have been quite clear that my post was intended merely to give one an idea of morality. I answered a simple question as simple as I can. This is not the time(I have exponentially less time as I near the end of "A" school) nor place(try me on our sister site, Theology Forums.) to discuss ethical philosophy. This thread, as I understand from the OP is about how evolution relates to morality and vice versa.

[MyThai]

I agree. This discussion is far more philisophical than scientific.

[1veedo]

The question about morality and evolution is a very silly one.

 

"If someone believes in evolution are they less moral?"

 

Replace evolution in the above sentence with any other natural process and it illustrates how silly it is.

 

"If someone believes in geology are they less moral?"

"If someone believes in electromagnetism are they less moral?"

 

As for evolution causing our morals, this is a very valid question and is actually a very well researched field. I don't know much about it but, obviously, all human morals come from biology (and definitely not religion). Culture effects our values and beliefs but ultimately culture is a product of evolution.

 

I'm not sure about many specifics though. If you've read anything about the selfish gene, or more specifically altruism in relation to the selfish gene, it's clear that altruism can be very beneficial in evolution.

 

Altruism is seen much more when it either involves close kin or reciprocation. Richard Dawkins spends a lot of time talking about what's known as an evolutionary stable strategy (w/ game theory). If a population is 100% altruistic, there's always the chance that one "cheater" will come by and greatly benefit from free help. His cheater genes quickly spread throughout the population. If, however, you have a species where they don't return favors to cheaters, you get a mutually beneficial altruism which helps out either the whole species or close kin. This particular evolutionary stable strategy is known as tit for tat, which is equivalent to reciprocal altruism, and is a part of the genetic code for all humans and most social species throughout the world.

 

The idea of reciprocal altruism is so engraved in human behavior, throughout all cultures, that we can be tricked by marketing tactics. One of Robert Cialdini's "weapons of influence" for marketing is reciprocation; giving out free samples goes much further then allowing people to try out a product. It greatly increases sales because of the tendency for people to return favors.

 

I think what we're talking about is very elementary. The answers are very obvious. Everything about humans is a construct of evolution. Including morality and the tendencies for people to follow these morals.

 

If you look at rape for instance, and the tendency for men to report that it's actually "enjoyable" (I believe we had a thread about this recently), from an evolutionary point of view, it makes a lot of sense. So does premature ejaculation (I'll let you use your imagination).

 

Some people you have to admit follow morals for no better reason then to get along with society. In this sense morals can be thought of as arising from culture -- some morals benefit society to a much larger extent then they benefit individuals. It only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that we would find such morals -- cultures compete with others and generally benefit everyone as a whole. It then follows that on an individual level you'd want to get along with society because of your own selfish desires to survive.

 

Lawrence Kohlberg has an entire model for moral development within a culture. As children, people generally view morals based on what is pleasurable and painful (sensorimotor). The next stage, corresponding w/ the final operational stage in Piaget's developmental model, is where individuals start to understand society and they base morals on what society sees as correct. The final stage is supposedly when people think "outside" the culture, but its actually disputed as to how many people really make it to this stage. I see a lot of people in the politics forums basing right and wrong completely on American social principles and never thinking in a larger context

 

People are rich because they deserve it, they're somehow smarter -- it has absolutely nothing to do with who they were born to. People are poor because they chose to be poor and are somehow dumber. Again, this has nothing to do with who they were born to, but was because they didn't try hard enough. The stereotype is that people who live on welfare are lazy and don't want to work yet this cant be further from the truth.

 

There are a couple reasons that people believe this. The main one is that we believe in equal opportunity. Everyone has the same opportunity but that doesn't guarantee that you'll be successful. We generally encourage doing more then we do dreaming and then success comes from personal merit -- the people who actually work and "do" things get the most money and the pleasures that it provides (they worked for it so they deserve it).

 

There's nothing wrong with any of this though. Capitalism is inherently unfair and there's really very little we can do about it. This is just reality and is on a purely objective level. I'm not the kind of person to pass moral judgment. The way things are today is largely an accident and any sort of blame amounts to nothing more than hindsight bias. Things just are and that's the context that you have to look at it in. Then you can ask questions such as why and if it bothers you, how we can change it.