Morality and Darwinism

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Lincoln, if rape is a natural consequence of evolution, wouldn't the concept of morality also be a natural consequence of evolution? The author seems to argue that morality has no place under Darwinianism when it actually does just as any other behavior providing (arguably of course) an evolutionary advantage.

There is a downside to humans developing morality though, with the intelligence required for such a concept comes the intelligence to kill other humans for all sorts of reasons - we don't see mass murder within animal species except for rare cases involving certain primates involved in tribal warfare.

But let's be fair, Lincoln, religious folk who never believed in evolution have done their share of killing, so why is religion a moral concept? Is it because the positive side of religion is something worth striving for while the negative side should not be used to indict the positive? Then by that same token, wouldn't it be unfair to indict the positive side of evolution - the "evolved" concept of morality - by pointing to the negative aspects like rape?

Yes, morality would be a natural consequence of evolution. And I agree that morality does have a place in evolution I am just trying to figure out what kind of morality it is. Your comments on murder (which is certainly "moral" in the animal kingdom) is interesting and I agree that our intelligence only compounds the problem ebcause we can think of more ways to murder more people faster.

[Japher]

Yes, morality would be a natural consequence of evolution. And I agree that morality does have a place in evolution I am just trying to figure out what kind of morality it is.

m'kay, now I'm really confussed. What does morality have to do with evolution?

Morality is a subset of mentality and thought, something which is not passed from generation to generation through subtle genetic changes, rather it is taught/brainwashed/imparted onto subsiquent spawn.

Evolution is physical changes in accoradance with environmental conditions that are reflected in genic make-up.

Are you trying to say that morals are genetic? That's absurd!

Materialism can produce morals just as much as anything else, and who is to say that religion is not materialistic?

Even Confusous ideals can be confused with religion.

[Lincoln]

Re: Re: Morality and Darwinism

Originally posted by BeBro



I´m an atheist, but don´t care about materialism, and I base my moral views on reason

That is nice but what does society as a whole base morality on? If it rests on a material foundation what law of nature undergirds it? You, no doubt, have reasonable moral standard for your own life but how can that standard endure for others who must formulate some type of guidlines for society? Reason means different things to different people. Some people reason that they should be in charge and everyone else should serve them. How do you prevent such abuses. Do you just say; "now let's just be reasonable"?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Japher


m'kay, now I'm really confussed. What does morality have to do with evolution?

Morality is a subset of mentality and thought, something which is not passed from generation to generation through subtle genetic changes, rather it is taught/brainwashed/imparted onto subsiquent spawn.

Evolution is physical changes in accoradance with environmental conditions that are reflected in genic make-up.

Are you trying to say that morals are genetic? That's absurd!

Materialism can produce morals just as much as anything else, and who is to say that religion is not materialistic?

Even Confusous ideals can be confused with religion.

Morality has to do with what is good and what is evil. It is true that animals probably do not think much about these things but some (like a dog I had once) certainly know when they have done wrong. The point though is that if we evolved from animals has that quality passed down to us? Elephants mourn their dead and some animals show contrition. So I guess I agree that materialism can produce morals if it is true that there is no God (which I am assuming for the sake of argument).

[Agathon]

Isn't this debate a load of bunk?

Science may explain why people behave morally, but it doesn't justify why they should. To assume that it can is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

Every sound chain of ethical reasoning requires a premise that expresses a value judgement.

For example: Killing is morally wrong (insert additional empirically factual premises) therefore Abortion is morally wrong.

What you can't do is say, "Rape is a viable evolutionary strategy, therefore rape is morally justifiable."

To make that work you need the additional moral claim "Viable evolutionary strategies are morally justifiable" and that is an open question rather than a physical fact, since goodness does not appear to be a natural property of things.

This is basically what the authors of the rape book said, and what none of their critics could grasp.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Agathon

What you can't do is say, "Rape is a viable evolutionary strategy, therefore rape is morally justifiable."

To make that work you need the additional moral claim "Viable evolutionary strategies are morally justifiable" and that is an open question rather than a physical fact, since goodness does not appear to be a natural property of things.

This is basically what the authors of the rape book said, and what none of their critics could grasp.

People say it anyway. Which is my point. What does one resort to as a foundational argument when someone justifies their actions because of evolution? If someone does not believe in a supreme moral being of some sort then what factual basis is there for refuting their claims?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lincoln

People say it anyway. Which is my point. What does one resort to as a foundational argument when someone justifies their actions because of evolution? If someone does not believe in a supreme moral being of some sort then what factual basis is there for refuting their claims?

The difference is presumably that a Divine Being is the sort of thing that can create value. Just how this happens is opaque because it isn't clear whether bad things are bad because God says so, or God says so because they are bad.

Most divine command theorists choose the first, but it has its problems. Why, for example, couldn't God have chosen something else to be bad, which makes his decisions somehow arbitrary. Or if he couldn't help but choose the things he chose, doesn't that mean he is not omnipotent. After that it gets worse.

There doesn't have to be a factual basis for refuting someone else's moral claims. All you need to do is show that a person's principles are in conflict. Since human beings overwhelmingly have the same ultra-basic moral principles it's a surprisingly effective method. That is why secular moralists and theologians can have such fruitful debates about ethics.

Here's another way of putting the logical problem.

If I say that I ought to do something (and I am using ought in its moral sense) then I have to support that claim with at least another claim that contains an "ought".

Why?

Because you can't derive an ought claim from a statement of natural fact. E.g.

Free beer makes people happier,
Therefore, we ought to dispense free beer.

I need the moral premise "We ought to do what makes people happier" to make the inference valid.

I could say that "good" statements always imply "ought statements" but then I am stuck with the initial problem - it is an open question as to whether what accords with an evolutionary strategy is good.

One way of getting around this is to just define "good" as "what accords with evolutionary strategy", but then you can't argue with anyone who doesn't accept the definition, since you are essentially meaning different things when you use the word "good", so it isn't a real dispute.

The fact that people don't accept the definition shows that you need to provide some evidence that goodness is a natural property, but if it is a natural property it should be detectable by scientific means. But it isn't, so the claim is unsupported.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Lincoln


People say it anyway. Which is my point. What does one resort to as a foundational argument when someone justifies their actions because of evolution? If someone does not believe in a supreme moral being of some sort then what factual basis is there for refuting their claims?

The common morality accepted by most people everywhere on this planet. The kind of morality summed up in the ten commandments. Thou shalt not kill, etc. Even though many people do not follow the simple moral rules, we can nearly all agre that they are good solid morality.

Why? Because they are what allows us to live together, in relative peace and order. Which is basiccally why there is such a thing as morality. IMHO, morality were the first laws of human kind.

Asmodean

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by flipside
I found this too difficult for me.

Are we saying that Darwinism is that which is best for us and that we naturally follow it.

Or are we saying that Judeo-Christian morality is best and that which is best for our social group is the best course of action.

Can someone a LOT,LOT smarter than me explain the arguements as it sounds very interesting.

I am not smarter than you but I think that many do agree with your first sentence. My question is should we? And if not, what is the basis for another morality if there is no God?

[Lincoln]

Thanks Agathon and Asmodean. I'll say one thing that seems to be self evident from the discussions on this forum and that is this statement seems to be true:

"All you need to do is show that a person's principles are in conflict. Since human beings overwhelmingly have the same ultra-basic moral principles it's a surprisingly effective method."

[Asmodean]

First of all, Lincoln, I think you are right in saying that the best morality is that which works best for whatever social group it would be imposed upon.

I have a hard time agreeing that Darwinism is the source of any morality. I understand your arguments why it is so, but I don't agree. I am a Darwinist. Not because I "like" Darwinism or dislike Creation. But simply because it seems to me to be the best documented theory on the subject. But that it should have anything to do with morality....no.

My take on this is, that morality has evolved thorugh thousands of years as a means for people to interact without to many problems. Today's moral's in the Western world, are almost always Christian morals. Why? Well that's a culture thing. That they exist even today, means that they are well tried and work. It does not mean that they are divine.

Asmodean

[Dr Strangelove]

Morality could be a factor detemining which genes survive. The early hominids seem to have had a social structure similar to chimps, i.e., their social groups consisted of an alpha male attempting to monopolize a harum of several adult females. The rest of the group would consist of a few other adult male hangers on, and then the kids. This is inferred by the ratio of adult female to male bones found in diggings, there are usually a few more female then male skeletons. At some point during the existence of Homo ergaster though, the ratio shifts to a near equality of numbers between male and females. It is thought that this may represent a shift towards monogamous sexual relations. In these groups male and females paired off and if a dominant individual was present he/she probably did not attempt to monopolize the ladies. The result was a social group that allowed more adult males and which was able to shove aside the old harum style groups because the new style group had more fighters. Eventually the harum style disappeared. Certainly there probably were groups tha saw the light and converted, but then there may have been other harum groups which disintegrated when forced onto marginal land.

[Mercator]

Pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said already.

There is no objective moral code. And morals certainly aren't genetic. As Asmodean said, they're rather a tested set of rules under which a society can work.

To join that up with Darwinism, I'd say it's a part of "societal evolution".

[Lincoln]

Yes, the morality has evolved and it is still mostly based on Christian morals. The problem is, as more people become atheists (and that seems to be the trend) what will replace that and what will be the basis? Richard Dawkins talks about "selfish genes." Will that idea take hold? Some governments have totally eliminated God and certainly did not improve morality much. Germany not too many years ago justified (at least the leadership) their morality partly because of evolution so it is not that far fetched of an idea that society in the future will take a form based in part on evolution without the Christian influence.

[Mercator]

Just because less people will believe in God doesn't mean that we suddenly forget our entire cultural and societal history.

Pretty much the same morality will apply I'm sure, just not because "He" says so.

And... Does that mean you think we atheists are immoral?

As others have said, I really don't see how evolution can have any influence on morality. At best, it explains why we do what we do, not whether that is morally good or not. That's part of societal evolution.