Moral Dilemma Explained By Evolutionary Biology. Do You Agree ?

[blue_cristal]

I don’t remember the exact details of the “YouTube” story, but someone proposed this dilemma:

 

You are in the side of a road and suddenly you see a old woman, age 50, and two children, age 5 and 10, caught in the middle of the road of intensive traffic and you realize that they are about to be killed. You have time to save just one of them. Who would you choose and why ?

 

A lot of people answered that they would choose to save one of the children but they were incapable to explain why.

 

Then a poster called “MysteriousMaskMan” posted a video explaining why most people would choose to save one of the children instead the old woman. He based his explanation on EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

 

Watch his video and tell us if you agree with his explanation or not. You can also register in the YouTube and answer there as well.

 

Here is the video:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DIh2-qmiYJE

[gcol]

I see no dilemma at all. The questioner has invented one. I shan't watch the video, I need no jokey anonymous masked idiot to provide me with moral guidance or support the numbskull youtube money spinning franchise.

 

"Women and children first" Says it all. Ever since man picked up a stick and wrote something on a piece of clay stories of self-sacrifice are legion. The instinct for the old to depart the scene in favour of the young seems to be an ingrained genetic trait.

 

I need no halfbaked excuse for a useless doctoral thesis to tell me what most people know and do by instinct. Perhaps I am intended to get a big dose of feelgood factor by getting an academic seal of approval?

 

An example of pseudo science if ever there was one.

[insane_alien]

evolutionary biology is amoral. it cannot be used to support or refute any moral argument. it only describes what is.

[YT2095]

I`de take the 5 year old.

 

1, I am capable of lifting and removing him/her.

2, the old one`s already had some life and is incapable of breeding safely.

3, the 10 year old should know better.

4, the 10 year old also stand the best chance of survival of all 3 if impacted.

[lucaspa]

Then a poster called “MysteriousMaskMan” posted a video explaining why most people would choose to save one of the children instead the old woman. He based his explanation on EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

 

Basically, MaskMan is reiterating the work of EO Wilson and others showing that apparently altruistic behavior is, in fact, selfish at the level of evolution.

 

Yes, given the premise that humans lived in small family groups -- and there is a LOT of data to support that -- then saving a family member means saving your own alleles (forms of genes). Even at the risk to your own life. Save 2 siblings and you have saved your own genome.

 

MaskMan is also correct in that evolution is going to select individuals who protect children rather than adults past the age at which they can have kids -- the woman who is 50. First, most predators go after children and for most of our evolutionary history, hominids were prey. So, it is the children that need to be protected, not the adult. Second, in terms of passing on our alleles, the woman cannot have more kids, but the kids can. So, in the long term an allele that instructs you to choose one of the kids (who is a relative that might have that same allele), then that is going to result in more individuals with that allele -- the offspring of the kid -- than saving the woman.

 

And yes, MaskedMan is correct that the allele is not going to know that we now live in a society where people are NOT related. So in this different environment, risking your life for a stranger is not preferred in the direct evolutionary sense MaskedMan is talking about. It would still be beneficial in terms of reciprocal altruism -- where you do good things for others in anticipation that they will do good things for you.

 

Now, MaskedMan is going too far when he says ALL morals are genetically and evolution based. Humans do have thinking skills to override our evolutionary history. But it is important to understand that SOME of our moral choices are rooted in evolutionary biology.

[lucaspa]

evolutionary biology is amoral. it cannot be used to support or refute any moral argument. it only describes what is.

 

 

But in this case evolutionary biology provides an explanation -- in evolutionary terms -- for the "what is" of human behavior.

[blue_cristal]

Hi lucaspa,

 

Congratulations. Your analysis was almost perfect. The only little mistake is that you misunderstood “MysteryousMaskMan” ( MMM ) in one little point.

 

He did not say that “ALL morals are genetically and evolution based”.

 

What he really said is that “This is a good example that shows that PART of our moral decisions is dictated by genes.”

 

Therefore he knows that the other part that influences our moral decisions is based on culture ( and also self-created moral rules ).

[YT2095]

so how would "he/it" explain My answer, as that would take Nano second for me to work out were I to see this in real-time.

 

(and have been in a similar situ before too, so I know it takes little to no thought).

[blue_cristal]

Hi YT2095

 

 

so how would "he/it" explain My answer, as that would take Nano second for me to work out were I to see this in real-time.

 

Usually, you take no time to sort out who would you save ( at least no more time than the necessary for the sensorial input of the situation reaching the relevant parts of your brain and being processed by unconscious processes). The prompt reaction to the situation is already pre-programmed in your brain. This ( and others ) instructions were built by your genes during your brain development.

 

These moral decisions based on our genes instructions were build gradually during thousands or even millions of years of evolution ( though sometimes “Punctuated equilibrium “ abrupt changes also participate ).

[foodchain]

This experiment is a paradox in philosophy and why philosophy falls short. Many people can explain what will occur, but when the individual is presented such in real life, they explanation plus that reality don’t tend to match up always or that well for that matter. I tend to shy away from evolutionary biology in a psychological sense really because so much is still unknown and thanks to extinction of species might stay that way.

[blue_cristal]

This experiment is a paradox in philosophy and why philosophy falls short.

 

Pure philosophy falls short precisely because it usually departs from wrong imaginary assumptions.

 

That is why philosophy divorced from science is almost useless. It ends up being almost just inconsequent mental masturbation.

 

Science is successful because its methodology uses a philosophy that reasons and departs from solid facts and reliable evidence.

 

I tend to shy away from evolutionary biology in a psychological sense really because so much is still unknown and thanks to extinction of species might stay that way.

 

This is a pointless strategy.

 

Do you need to know the entire detailed set of mechanisms of a car in order to successfully make use of it ?

 

You just need to know its basic mechanisms ( in order to maintain it ) and mainly how to drive it.

 

The same applies to human behaviour determined partially by genes. You don’t need to know everything in order to make use of this knowledge.

 

Science is a continuously evolving body of knowledge because it continuously grows and corrects itself.

 

Despite its permanent incompleteness it produced “miracles” in medicine, biology, construction, communications, etc.

 

We even send man to the moon despite the incompleteness of science.

 

Actually, I am glad that the universe is so marvellously complex ( yet simple in some ways ) that there will be always exciting new scientific discoveries to be made which triggers our enthusiasm and our imagination.

[foodchain]

Pure philosophy falls short precisely because it usually departs from imaginary wrong assumptions.

 

That is why philosophy divorced from science is almost useless. It ends up being almost just inconsequent mental masturbation.

 

Science is successful because its methodology uses a philosophy that reasons and departs from solid facts and reliable evidence.

 

 

 

This is a pointless strategy.

 

Do you need to know the entire detailed set of mechanisms of a car in order to successfully make use of it ?

 

You just need to know its basic mechanisms ( in order to maintain it ) and mainly how to drive it.

 

The same applies to human behaviour determined partially by genes. You don’t need to know everything in order to make use of this knowledge.

 

Science is a continuously evolving body of knowledge because it continuously grows and corrects itself.

 

Despite its permanent incompleteness it produced “miracles” in medicine, biology, construction, communications, etc.

 

We even send man to the moon despite the incompleteness of science.

 

Actually, I am glad that the universe is so marvellously complex ( yet simple in some ways ) that there will be always exciting new scientific discoveries to be made which triggers our enthusiasm and our imagination.

 

No, but use of a car is a bit different from understanding the car I would say.

[blue_cristal]

No, but use of a car is a bit different from understanding the car I would say.

 

Yes. But you are missing the point of my constructive criticism.

 

You seemed to imply that unless we have TOTAL knowledge of the mechanisms of our behaviour ( innate + cultural ) we cannot take advantage on what we already know about it to understand better ourselves and improve our philosophy of life and our moral behaviour.

 

And I demonstrated that this attitude is defeatist and pointless.

[foodchain]

Yes. But you are missing the point of my constructive criticism.

 

You seemed to imply that unless we have TOTAL knowledge of the mechanisms of our behaviour ( innate + cultural ) we cannot take advantage on what we already know about it to understand better ourselves and improve our philosophy of life and our moral behaviour.

 

And I demonstrated that this attitude is defeatist and pointless.

 

 

Well, in my opinion it somewhat reminds me of what it might be like to be blind. You could only understand so much of something that’s in action, and unlike a blind person who might be cautious what’s to save us from peril really?

 

I mean psychology in a Victorian sense allowed people like a teenage girl that would have a child out of wedlock to be imprisoned for life in a metal ward type place, of course this could be constructed to be similar to what you are saying.

 

I am not saying that you would agree with such, but on that notion its unfortunate to have to make decisions while ignorance still persists, I guess its a part of learning, but that will ultimately have a product also, like space shuttles exploding.

 

Yes, I do tend to gravitate towards supporting a possible reality of absolute understanding in a factual sense of everything, I think only then could humans for instance actually "know" about something. I mean who could truly explain my word selection for this paragraph?

 

I don’t view it as defeatist, but really the ends to the means I hope. In the meantime, if ignorance exists, then we really need to be aware of that when making a choice, or deciding something I would think. Like in many physics threads, people can with comfort simply claim its all ok, even while a great deal of mystery exists, I am sure they come from some point that allows this, I simply don’t understand it myself. Thus is my support for science, it seems to be thanks to our acceptance as a specie of being social really, the best most positive tool to derive truth, and objective understanding. I absolutely hate ignorance and such is why I have such a hard time deciding a major overall save for the sake of the reality that probably so much exists its impossible for a single person to really make any progression without specialization, I still hope to work interdisciplinary though.

[blue_cristal]

Hi foodchain

 

Well, in my opinion it somewhat reminds me of what it might be like to be blind. You could only understand so much of something that’s in action, and unlike a blind person who might be cautious what’s to save us from peril really?

 

I mean psychology in a Victorian sense allowed people like a teenage girl that would have a child out of wedlock to be imprisoned for life in a metal ward type place, of course this could be constructed to be similar to what you are saying.

 

I am not saying that you would agree with such, but on that notion its unfortunate to have to make decisions while ignorance still persists, I guess its a part of learning, but that will ultimately have a product also, like space shuttles exploding.

 

This reasoning is quite illogical and a bit out of place.

 

First of all, when I said that we could use the available knowledge of evolutionary biology to understand our behaviour and hopefully improve it, I mean it in individual terms ( therefore not necessarily as way to formulate new social moral rules though I don’t dismiss this possibility).

 

Secondly, the situation you are talking about is precisely what already exists now. Humans created moral codes based mostly on total ignorance about human nature and also on the capricious whims and assumptions of leaders who enforced them either by force or indoctrination.

 

Therefore, how can our current moral code ( already based mostly on ignorance ) become worst if some ammount of reliable scientific knowledge is added to it ?

 

This does not make sense.

 

 

Yes, I do tend to gravitate towards supporting a possible reality of absolute understanding in a factual sense of everything, I think only then could humans for instance actually "know" about something. I mean who could truly explain my word selection for this paragraph?

 

Sorry this is preposterously unrealistic. And actually you do not even follow this utopic principle in your daily life.

 

Do buses, cars, trains, airplanes, home devices, etc are based on omniscient and perfect science ? Obviously not.

 

Yet I bet that you use most of them in a daily basis.

 

There is not and probably there will be never an “omniscient” science.

 

The number of possible structural and functional combinations of matter and energy is virtually infinite therefore we would never be capable to know everything.

 

I think that you are confusing science with religion ( which actually only has the pretence of “absolute” knowledge but it amounts to an incredible folly ).

 

I don’t view it as defeatist, but really the ends to the means I hope. In the meantime, if ignorance exists, then we really need to be aware of that when making a choice, or deciding something I would think.

 

You are posing this matter in a wrong basis.

 

Ignorance will always exist no matter how advanced science can be. You only can reasonably measure concrete knowledge or relative ignorance ( meaning the measurement of what some does not know in comparison with what he could know if he absorbed the current scientific knowledge ).

 

We have no way of knowing, in absolute terms, all what we don’t know.

[foodchain]

Hi foodchain

 

 

 

This reasoning is quite illogical and a bit out of place.

 

First of all, when I said that we could use the available knowledge of evolutionary biology to understand our behaviour and hopefully improve it, I mean it in individual terms ( therefore not necessarily as way to formulate new social moral rules though I don’t dismiss this possibility).

 

Secondly, the situation you are talking about is precisely what already exists now. Humans created moral codes based mostly on total ignorance about human nature and also on the capricious whims and assumptions of leaders who enforced them either by force or indoctrination.

 

Therefore, how can our current moral code ( already based mostly on ignorance ) become worst if some ammount of reliable scientific knowledge is added to it ?

 

This does not make sense.

 

 

 

 

Sorry this is preposterously unrealistic. And actually you do not even follow this utopic principle in your daily life.

 

Do buses, cars, trains, airplanes, home devices, etc are based on omniscient and perfect science ? Obviously not.

 

Yet I bet that you use most of them in a daily basis.

 

There is not and probably there will be never an “omniscient” science.

 

The number of possible structural and functional combinations of matter and energy is virtually infinite therefore we would never be capable to know everything.

 

I think that you are confusing science with religion ( which actually only has the pretence of “absolute” knowledge but it amounts to an incredible folly ).

 

 

 

You are posing this matter in a wrong basis.

 

Ignorance will always exist no matter how advanced science can be. You only can reasonably measure concrete knowledge or relative ignorance ( meaning the measurement of what some does not know in comparison with what he could know if he absorbed the current scientific knowledge ).

 

We have no way of knowing, in absolute terms, all what we don’t know.

 

Religion and science differ in that science will say that we don’t know, or attempt to discover the why, while religion will simply say something and the claim it as the why. Such as before science or simply going on a religion that did go such a route the earth was only a few thousand years old for instance. I also will simply disagree that we cant eve reach a total understanding of everything, can one person ever hold all of that knowledge is doubtful, but as a specie I don’t see why we could not? I mean I may not understand every scientific or technical manual at a local library but that does not remove the factual understanding those books which we produced by people offer.

 

In time, save for extinction or some other variable which seriously changes humanity, what we will know in a billion years or even a thousand years from now will be basically a quantum leap from what we know now, and I don’t see why this would ever stop really, so unless you are correct and that knowledge is infinite, at some point humanity collectively as a specie will probably posses absolute understanding of everything really.

 

In the mean time we learn, and with learning we experiment for lack of better words. Its in this that I would state that if you don’t have absolute understanding, well then you should simply respect that fact. You are correct though that I don’t understand everything about everything that I use, but that does not mean I simply have to negate the fact of my ignorance and claim that its all ok, simply put its that age old question of " is ignorance bliss" in which I will promptly say no.

[immortal]

So in this different environment, risking your life for a stranger is not preferred in the direct evolutionary sense MaskedMan is talking about. It would still be beneficial in terms of reciprocal altruism -- where you do good things for others in anticipation that they will do good things for you.

 

 

Adding to that it will be beneficial in an another way if he saves the child he will be a hero and opposite sexes will be attracted towards him and this will increase his reproductive success. During courtship the females select the strong male because he can maintain a large territory so lots of food for the females to hunt. It can get complicated in humans.

[JHAQ]

I basic evolutionary biological terms ( purpose of a living organism is to perpetuate its genome ( & establish it into the next generation ) , the answer is obvious -- save the kids . But is this still true in an era of exlosive uncontrolled relentless population growth ?

[John Cuthber]

In the heat of the moment I'd probably try to save the 5 year old. The idea that this is much to do with evolution intrigues me. I'm no bible scholar but I bet that somewhere it would offer advice that would agree with my decision. So maybe I'm not acting on the advice of my genes, but on that from a book I have heard bits of but don't believe in. On the other hand perhaps I would just be acting on the traditional idea of "Women and children first". After the fact I'd probaly justify it in much the same terms as YT2095 but, at the time I'd not really have had time to think that through.

Since I don't know exactly how I came to this decision I think it's pretty conceited of anyone to tell me how I did so. Ascribing my behaviour in a complex problem to a single molecule seems odd to say the least.

 

Of course, whether this reactions is instinctive, religious or cultural in its origin doesn't matter. The young child is almost always the logically correct choice (anyone want to argue that I should save the Granny?) and any instinct, society or religion that decreed against it would suffer in the long term.

[lucaspa]

Hi lucaspa,

 

Congratulations. Your analysis was almost perfect. The only little mistake is that you misunderstood “MysteryousMaskMan” ( MMM ) in one little point.

 

He did not say that “ALL morals are genetically and evolution based”.

 

What he really said is that This is a good example that shows that PART of our moral decisions is dictated by genes.”

 

My apologies, but I had just listened to the video when I wrote that and could swear that MMM made the generalization I said.

 

I think you and I may have different parts of the talk. I said "morals" and you say "moral decisions". Those are very similar but not quite the same thing.

 

After all, the "moral" can be one thing but our "decision" can be something else -- something that even goes against the moral.

 

As I said, our cognitive abilities can override the predisposition of our genes.

[lucaspa]

In the heat of the moment I'd probably try to save the 5 year old. The idea that this is much to do with evolution intrigues me. I'm no bible scholar but I bet that somewhere it would offer advice that would agree with my decision. So maybe I'm not acting on the advice of my genes, but on that from a book

 

Have you considered that the book simply had people write down the morality that is encoded in our genes? That the reason the authors wrote what they did is because they were verbally expressing the evolutionary imperative?

 

at the time I'd not really have had time to think that through.

 

Which is where evolution comes in. Evolution is responsible for the brain module that caused you to act before you "had time to think that through".

 

Since I don't know exactly how I came to this decision I think it's pretty conceited of anyone to tell me how I did so. Ascribing my behaviour in a complex problem to a single molecule seems odd to say the least.

 

No one is saying "single molecule". MMM tried to simplify the situation by using a single allele as an analogy, but behavior is much more complex and any behavior is the product of multiple genes. But the point is that the decision pathway is genetically controlled, which is why you act before you think it through.

 

The young child is almost always the logically correct choice (anyone want to argue that I should save the Granny?) and any instinct, society or religion that decreed against it would suffer in the long term.

 

Assertion without reason. WHY is the young child the "logically correct choice"? Without evolution, why save the child? In terms of knowledge and life experience and immediate contribution to society, the woman is the logical choice! After all, children are easy to replace. But the knowledge and skills the woman possesses took 50 years to obtain; the child has none of those. So you don't lose a skill set when the kid dies and you get a new kid by procreation and it will eventually acquire the skill set. In the meantime, you have that skill set continuing with the woman.

 

So yes, I can argue, on economic grounds, that you should save the woman! So why don't we go with the logical, economic argument? As you said, we act before we think it thru. The evolutionary biology argument explains that.

[lucaspa]

so how would "he/it" explain My answer, as that would take Nano second for me to work out were I to see this in real-time.

 

Let's look at your answer:

 

"1, I am capable of lifting and removing him/her.

2, the old one`s already had some life and is incapable of breeding safely.

3, the 10 year old should know better.

4, the 10 year old also stand the best chance of survival of all 3 if impacted."

 

2, 3, and 4 are all part of the evolutionary answer! No wonder you can "work out" that answer, when it is encoded in your genes!

[lucaspa]

Hi YT2095

 

These moral decisions based on our genes instructions were build gradually during thousands or even millions of years of evolution ( though sometimes “Punctuated equilibrium “ abrupt changes also participate ).

 

As an aside, you have Punctuated Equilibrium wrong here. What is "abrupt" in PE is abrupt in geological terms. It is still gradual and involves thousands of generations. But an average bedding plane in geology is 60,000 years. At 20 years per generation in humans, this still works out to 3,000 generations.

[lucaspa]

I tend to shy away from evolutionary biology in a psychological sense really because so much is still unknown and thanks to extinction of species might stay that way.

 

I would agree that we need caution when looking at evolutionary psychology. However, that is caution, not dismissal.

 

Extinction of species is not germane here. We can do in evolutionary psychology what is done in evolutionary morphology and molecular biology: look at living related species. Thus we can see what behaviors are present in increasingly distant evolutionary cousins (ever more distant common ancestors) to see the roots of our own behavior/psychology.

 

Some papers doing this approach are:

 

1. N Williams, Evolutionary psychologists look for roots of cognition. Science 275 (3 Jan): 29-30, 1997.

2. R Plomin and JC DeFries, The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities. Scientific American, 278: 62-69, May 1998.

8. MD Hauser, Games primates play. Discover 19: 48-57, Sept. 1998.

11. CD Frith and U Frith, Interacting minds -- a biological basis, Science 286:1692-1695, Nov. 26, 1999.

12. DS Woodruff and NG Jablonski and G Chaplin, Chimp cultural diversity. Science 285: 836-837, Aug. 6, 1999. Social tolerance evolved among hominids.

12a. A Whiten C Boesch, The cultures of chimpanzees. Scientific American 284: 60-67, Jan. 2001.

[lucaspa]

Pure philosophy falls short precisely because it usually departs from wrong imaginary assumptions.

 

That is why philosophy divorced from science is almost useless. It ends up being almost just inconsequent mental masturbation.

 

Science is successful because its methodology uses a philosophy that reasons and departs from solid facts and reliable evidence.

 

Philosophy and science are different disciplines and usually look at different aspects of human existence. I would disagree that philosophy ends up "being almost just inconsequent mental masturbation". It can do that, and some of philosophy is that way. However, the same charge can be leveled at parts of science. In any scientific sense, No Boundary and quantum splitting are useless. They start from imaginary assumptions.

 

In fact, ALL of science starts from "imaginary assumptions" in that hypotheses are statements derived from human imagination. Science then tests those hypotheses to see if they are right or wrong. But then, philosophers check their hypotheses, too.

 

Science is successful because it is very limited and because it uses only a subset of evidence: intersubjective. It is the intersubjectivity that causes you to say "reliable evidence". What you state as "solid facts" is another limitation of science: it deals only with the physical universe. Philosophy deals with abstract ideas.

 

The same applies to human behaviour determined partially by genes. You don’t need to know everything in order to make use of this knowledge.

 

True. But if you don't have the entire picture, you must take lots of care in how you "make use of this knowledge". You have 2 different things here:

1. The knowledge itself.

2. Making use of the knowledge.

 

Let's take one example of incomplete knowledge bringing human tragedy. Science knew how to make atom bombs. It did NOT know about the residual effects of radiation released from those bombs. Therefore tens of thousands of US military personnel were exposed to atomic bomb blasts as part of their training in the late 1940s and early 1950s. As a result, these people had very high rates of cancer later in life.

 

So, I would urge lots of caution in "making use of the knowlege" of evolution in terms of human behavior.