Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Hi Cedre,First, I have to ask; have you read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? It gets right to the heart of what you are talking about. If you want an evolutionary perspective on morality and unselfish behaviour, it is the place to start.You should at least familiarise yourself with the general concept of the selfish gene. This wiki article is a start.Selfish gene - WikipediaThe basic idea is that a behaviour will be selected for when it benefits a particular genotype, even though it may be detrimental to an individual organism. An example; a rabbit that spots a predator will, instead of simply running for cover, take the time to warn its fellows, by beating out a warning with its feet. This increases the risk of predation for the individual rabbit, but it is beneficial to the rabbit population as a whole, thus promoting the genes associated with the behaviour.Morality may cost the individual, but it is of benefit to the population as a whole, so natural selection can favour it. I believe that human morality is a little way beyond such simplistic mechanisms, but I also think that our unselfish behaviours have their root in this kind of instinctive altruism.Does that help?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Cedre. You didn't say whether you had read The Selfish Gene or not. Given what you have written though, I'm assuming not. If you genuinely want to understand this issue I strongly recommend picking up that book. Communicating over the internet will only get you so far.

quote:

---

Firstly I'm not completely at ease with the argument from inclusive altruism or survival of the genes model.

---

I hope you realise that the measure of a successful theory is not whether you are at ease with it or not.

quote:

---

We are aware that in normal circumstances that it is the individuals of a population that harbor the fitter that is the more suited genes to that given setting that are responsible for protecting the population

---

No we don't. That is simply not true. Take my rabbit example. Will the rabbit with the best genes always be the one who spots the predator? Clearly not. The rabbit with the lousiest genes in the group might be the one who spots it. Any rabbit that spots a predator will drum out a warning, not just those with the "best genes".

quote:

---

Let us assume that a strange disease is sweeping a squirrel population everyone's affected save one squirrel that is somehow immune to it.

---

Let's not assume that. It's a terrible example and it is extremely unrealistic. My rabbit example happens every day. In your example, all but one squirrel is doomed, so the whole group is doomed anyway.

quote:

---

Hardly, the stronger fitter members always risk their lives to protect the weaker members at their own expenses thereby risking the passing on of fitter genes.

---

Just to reiterate, this is not the case. Also, "fitter" in an evolutionary sense need not mean "stronger". I think you are already aware of this, but none the less.

quote:

---

Furthermore why should individual be willing to keep its competition alive? When resources get so limited and survival is the rule of the day, it makes more sense for individuals to be selfish and fight for resources.

---

Remember, the animal (in most cases except man) is not fully concious of why it does the things it does. A rabbit drums out a warning by instinct, it doesn't decide to do it. This is important, because it is the gene that matters here.Why should a rabbit risk itself? Because in doing so, it can help preserve its fellows and thus preserve its genes. The kind of behaviours that we are talking about take place in social animals, so there is a group of genetically related animals. The rabbit may be risking itself, but it is protecting its close relations, siblings, offspring and so on. Even the less more distantly related members of the group will share a high percentage of genes. The only genetic information that will be lost (in my rabbit example again) would be any de novo mutations in the animal that is killed.I would also like you to think for a moment about how predation works in practise. In giving the warning is the rabbit increasing its risk? Yes, but only marginally. Is the rabbit that gives the warning necessarily the one that the predator was targeting? Absolutely not. Is the rabbit that spots the predator likely to be the one who spots it first? Maybe, maybe not. What I am trying to say here is that whilst the rabbit that gives the warning is making some sacrifice, it is hardly imposing a death sentence on itself. The risk is real, but acceptable.

quote:

---

We see this kind of behavior often in social cats and even primates they will fight for the resources

---

They will also share resources. Lions share their kills with the pride, with some preference given to pecking order, but no consideration given to who actually made the kill. Chimps have a highly developed sense of social altruism and very often co-operate with each other. The reality on the ground does not fit the picture you are painting.

quote:

---

they will fight for the resources because at the end of the day this is the best way to survive in a world with limited resources

---

Really? How did you determine that? How do you know that this is the best way? How do you know that altruistic co-operation isn't more effective? Did you study the literature? Conduct a series of detailed experiments? Or did you just decide that that was the was it was?The very fact that many creatures display co-operative behaviour is enough to prove that selfish individualism is not always the best way; sometimes it is simply more effective to co-operate.Example; African hunting dogs. Theses are social animals. they live in family groups/packs. They live socially and hunt co-operatively. Indeed, they could hardly do otherwise, since a lone dog makes a poor hunter. They depend upon each other to survive. Exiles from the pack would be doomed.So what happens when a dog suffers an injury, such as a broken leg? It can't hunt effectively, it can't fight effectively, it is, in short, dead wood, a liability. So do the other dogs act selfishly and drive it out? No. They still share food with the wounded dog, even though it had no part in catching the prey. In other words, they are altruistic. The pack-bonding instinct is so strong, that it induces the pack to look after their comrade. In doing so, the wounded dog clearly benefits and may even recover sufficiently to breed at a later date. The pack also benefit. If they are attacked by predators or rival packs, the (expendable) wounded dog will take the flak, whilst the rest of the pack make a getaway. Note that this last example is less altruistic, but it does work. This is not an idle notion by the way; I use this example because I have seen footage of exactly this situation played out in a nature documentary.

quote:

---

This is what is also happening inside the business world, generally selfishness and greed is what keeps many companies to stay on top of their game

---

Have you read the news lately? Selfishness and greed are what has caused a global frickin' recession! Ask Bernie Madoff's investors if they are pleased about how greedy he was.The business world is a poor metaphor for natural selection in my opinion.

quote:

---

Another vital point worthy of mention is that looking at our own species; the stronger tougher folks are those ones who have had it tough, who have received the least care an affection from others they become the gritty business man/women and they know how to survive, on the other hand those who have had it easy will be less likely to make a success in the world.

---

I'm sorry, but, with due respect, you are talking crap. There is no justification for such an idea. If this were true, poverty stricken Africa should be world leader, whereas the easy-living USA should be the worst performing nation. then of course, as the roles are reversed, the situation should swing back around. This does not happen You are making this up I think.

quote:

---

Here’s the mechanism for natural selection, you need a dodgy environment to develop new structures to counter the new dangers and limitations that face you, this will pressure you body to cope in new ways.

---

Absolutely not. This is completely wrong. All you need for natural selection to take place is a genetically varied population and an environment that has changing requirements. The environment need not be especially harsh. Indeed, if the environment is outstandingly cushy and provides an easy life, natural selection will favour genes which are suited to that life.

quote:

---

But when you always feel secure as everyone around you is feeling sorry for you and always helping you, your body will have no need to develop ways to better survive. This counters the true spirit of natural selection.

---

No it doesn't, it only counters the mistaken view of evolution that you have come up with. No matter how much an organism co-operates with weaker members of its species, it cannot make them immune to the effects of the environment. Disease, famine, predation, overpopulation and other threats will always exist at some level. This is more than enough for the differing reproductive success rates, upon which natural selection depends, to take hold.If by aiding those individuals who share some of my genes helps to protect them, it is also helping protect those genes which we share. The gene triumphs, even if it is occasionally at the expense of the individual. Remember, it is the gene that is being replicated, not the individual. Individuals die and disappear, but genes live on.Please read The Selfish Gene. It really will help you understand this topic.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

In the statement this reply is directed at I wasn’t necessarily making reference to alarming the population of imminent danger, I was rather referring to those instances characterized by a physical confrontation with the intruder or aggressor where lives are on the line, such as in pride takeover attempts.

---

And yet later in your message, you characterise lion and hyena behaviour as essentially selfish. Is defence of the social group altruistic in your view? If not, is there any animal behaviour that you do agree is altruistic? What about the rabbit example, is that altruistic? It seems that way to me.

quote:

---

It would only seem extremely unrealistic if viewed with a closed mind

---

Oh, I see, it's my fault that you chose an example with no basis in reality. How closed minded of me. I am not the only person to describe your squirrel anecdote as inappropriate. It's a bad example. Deal with it.

quote:

---

And in other words the stronger members should then be defined as the fittest because they draw the least predation and are most likely to survive in terms of predation.

---

But you were originally talking about an individual with immunity to a specific disease. That has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to avoid predators.Remember, in rabbits, all individuals display the warning behaviour, not just the stronger ones. In this scenario (which is after all, a real process which occurs every day) the weaker individuals will protect the stronger and the stronger protect the weaker. The individual giving the warning places itself at slightly higher risk, in order to protect the group. That is altruism in action.

quote:

---

How does showing that animals can co-operate demonstrate that they are somehow being moral or unselfish?

---

Are you kidding me? In what way is looking after a wounded pack member not altruistic? Think about it. The selfish thing to do would be to abandon the wounded dog. The altruistic course of action is to help stay in the pack and share food with it. How is that not an example of altruism?

quote:

---

members don’t use co-operations to help others but use others in co-operations to help themselves. This is still selfishness and by no means altruism.

---

The thing is that in the real world, motivations are rarely simple. Most actions are motivated by a mixture of altruism and selfishness. If I donate money to charity, that is altruistic. But I still gain by it. I get to feel an emotional reward for my actions. I get thanked by the charity. I may be better thought of by those around me. It might be tax deductible.You are never going to find an altruistic act, in humans or animals, that cannot have a selfish motive attached to it. This is, in fact, a prime reason why altruism does not violate evolutionary principles.

quote:

---

This is in fact survival of fittest in full swing, mother business is reading the world of business for its next evolutionary leap, who will survive by adapting and who will fade away. Let the best man survive.

---

Nonsense. If survival of the fittest were applied to the financial sector, the governments of the world would not be propping up failed banks.

quote:

---

But know the questioned is begged is natural selection the best explanation yet for the existence of morality or altruism.

---

With the wide range of altruistic behaviours observed in the animal kingdom the answer would appear to be yes. No other explanation comes close to providing a serious model for the development of altruism.

quote:

---

Hardly biblical creationism can also give a good answer to this question, morality exist in humans and both in nature if it did because a good moral God wouldn’t create an amoral world but a moral one.

---

Well then, that must prove creationism false, since the world we live in is full of amorality and even immorality.PS - Have you read The Selfish Gene yet? There's no point talking to me about it. If you are really interested in the evolution of morality, read a book on the subject.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

I have shown that these creatures are in fact selfish at heart.

---

How can they be selfish? If you define altruism as requiring concious choice, of a kind that is clearly restricted to humanity, how can lions and hyenas be considered guilty of the reverse?

quote:

---

You'll have to present me with counter examples wherein a hyena or a lion is observed giving away an entire carcass to a weaker or less significant member of the group out of compassion or love.

---

No. part of my position is that altruism can be found in the animal kingdom. I need only provide one example of this to demonstrate that it is correct. I have done this with both the rabbit and the hunting dog examples. You seem to accept that the hunting dogs are behaving altruistically. Is this correct? Are the hunting dogs being altruistic?

quote:

---

This {African hunting dogs} was not a part of the behaviors that I concluded is not altruistic if you read me carefully I made sure I didn't include this in my argument.

---

I am reading you carefully. Given that you referred to the argument for which I used the hunting dog example as "not a true one for the most part", you can see why I am somewhat confused as to what you mean.Do the dogs behave altruistically or not?

quote:

---

But as for the rabbit scenerio, I wouldn't let it easily slight as an example of altruism. As altruism has to be a conscious choice by the doer, it is not something that should be automated by instinct, which is what the rabbit behavior seems like an instinct that all rabbits will respond by in times of danger. It's almost as if the rabbit has no control over its altruism this is better described an in born behavior.

---

Paulk is quite right. You cannot say that true altruism requires concious decision making and then ask how it evolved. If it purely a concious decision, it did not evolve directly; you should rather be asking the ability to make concious, instinct-defying decisions evolved, since morality would be an emergent effect of this ability.I am trying to explain to you how other animals display altruistic behaviours akin to our own morality. No-one is saying that the altruism of a rabbit is identical to the altruism of a person. They are comparable though. Altruistic behaviour in animals provides us with a window to explore the evolution of our own morality. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying that anything below that line is not altruism is missing the point. True human altruism is a more complex form of animal altruism. There exists a clear continuum. That we can make more complex and conscious moral choices than a dog or rabbit is a function of our more advanced intelligence and its interaction with our ancient moral instincts. So you are arguing that if any self-serving urge is present, an action cannot be considered altruistic?

quote:

---

Genuine morality is a choice because it is a choice we have moral people and immoral/amoral people existing at the same time, proving that our altruism isn't instinct based like is the case with the rabbits in your example.

---

Not true. Just because a behaviour can be consciously modified, does not mean that it is not instinctive. Instinct can be very difficult to overcome, but it is still possible to do so.Instinct is the foundation stone of human morality. It is not the last word, but it is the starting point.

quote:

---

Remember God...

---

Allow me to stop you there. Forget God. This is a science thread and he doesn't belong here. You said you wanted to talk about evolution, not mythology.

quote:

---

I'll just take it that you didn't think ahead before making this grand pretentious claim.

---

Think whatever you like my dear.

quote:

---

Imagine a mother and her three children not babies, living on a farm, this mother isn't really in the spotlight perse and by taking care of her children will not really be rewarded for being good to her children she could just as well be an evil mom.

---

False. When the mother treats her children well, she is rewarded, whether anyone else knows of her actions or not. First there is the fact that the children may one day grow to thank her, a clear self-serving motive. Then there is the matter of conscience.The mother will be rewarded for altruistic actions toward her offspring by an inner feeling of pleasure at having done the right thing. This inner reward is ever present. What's more, if she had treated her children badly, she would have been punished, again by an inner mechanism. her conscience. With the exception of psychopaths, all of us have this inner reward/punishment mechanism. You can't escape it. By this means we are rewarded or punished for our moral choices whether others know of them or not. Thus, any moral choice will, by necessity, contain an element of selfishness; we are after the feel-good reward that our conscience provides.Is this a conscious decision? No. It is an instinct. It is innate and cannot easily be consciously overcome. This is a clear indication that, whilst it is in some ways more complex than in animals, human morality is still founded in instinct. In this, we are just like the rabbit, just like the hunting dog.

quote:

---

In normal human situations people don't usually get rewarded for tossing a dollar in someone's hat or basket

---

False again and for the same reason. The act of giving to the needy will cause a feeling of pleasure at one's actions, the internal reward that mentioned above. This is, again, a self-serving motivation for doing good. It is an admixture of altruism and selfishness, just as is every human moral choice.

quote:

---

And in fact when somebody that you've helped returns the favor we usually decline with the excuse that they need it more, thus denying our would have been reward, adding to our list of charitable acts.

---

And gain a double reward. We get to feel pride at our act of charity and then again at our generosity in refusing recompense.Please understand, that I am not saying that this selfish motivation for altruism negates the goodness of the act or that this feeling of pride in one's actions is anything to be ashamed of. I simply think that it is an inevitable part of our psychological make-up and our instinctive sense of morality. It goes hand-in-hand with what SammyJean has been telling you about mirror neurons.

quote:

---

This may well be because humans have some goodness in them being made in God's...

---

Whoops, there's that name again. This is a science thread. We don't do God.

quote:

---

Mention this range {of altruistic behaviour in animals}.

---

Sure. I've already shown you an example of a clearly very instinct based variety of altruism in rabbits. Then I showed you a more ambiguous example in the pack unity of hunting dogs. Let's take a look at another example from a little higher up the evolutionary tree. Chimps and infant humans show similarity in their moral behaviour, indeed chimps are often compared to human infants in terms of their intellectual abilities. Source here.Both the children and the chimps displayed the same instinctive urge to help others. It doesn't matter what motivates this behaviour. The point is that humans and chimps show similarities in their moral behaviour. This is clear evidence that humanity is instinctively moral and that we share some of this moral instinct with chimps. it would have been present in our most recent common ancestor.Note that the chimps did not show identical behaviour to the children; there are still big differences between our moral sensibilities and theirs, but there is a clear link. If you are really interested in learning about the evolutionary origins of morality, this is where you need to look (you did pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene, right?).

quote:

---

What about the explanation given by the bible certainly it shouldn't be ignored as a viable explanation, seeing that the bible on the whole has been successful at satisfying millions already with its answers on not just this issue but many more other issues.

---

I almost stopped at the word "Bible", but your following argument was so ridiculous, that it just has to be answered.It doesn't matter how many people like the Bible. That doesn't make it true. It matters even less how satisfying you find it. You are making an especially poor argument from popularity and following it up with... what would you call it? Appeal to personal satisfaction?Whatever. It's still ridiculous. Reality doesn't care how satisfying you find your Bible nor is it impressed with how many others feel the same way, just as it is not impressed with how many people are satisfied by the Quran.

quote:

---

Does the mention of Satan ring a bell? Knew it would.

---

It does indeed. It rings my Oh-crap-I'm-taking-to-someone-who-lives-in-the-twenty-first-century-and-yet-still-believes-in-bloody-Satan-bell. Get a grip.Oh, and, this is a science thread. No Satan here please. This is a Satan-free-zone.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

You must be content thinking that you have come up with ‘case-closed’ evidence. Well watch as I turn that very evidence back in your face. Let me start by saying that evidence is a like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say anything you‘d like it to say. In the wording of Rev. Dr Francis H. Wade. Now one thing I hate is having to repeat myself after I have been so crystal clear the first time, but let me do it anyway just in case I give you the impression that you are winning.

---

Tell me Cedre, are you by any chance 6 years old? If not, you are doing a fine impersonation of a child.

quote:

---

If I go into an office and mindlessly take something off the desk put it in my pocket and walk out with it. Wouldn’t that still be committing theft?

---

Good. You have conceded my point.If you steal something without making a concious decision to steal it, you still consider it theft. Therefore, you are now arguing that conscious choice is not necessary in moral decisions and that unconscious non-choices can still be moral or immoral.That is what I have been trying to tell you.

quote:

---

So this would mean that an individual can also be altruistic unconsciously like the rabbits thus the rabbits are also being moral in that they are risking their lives for others even if they don’t know about it. No, because unlike the rabbits that have no choice but to exhibit this behavior humans have a choice to act morally or immorally, so morality is a conscious choice and not merely a conscious act it is also a choice. And I exhibit morality by returning the item to the office rather than just nipping it.

---

Nonsense. if you were unaware of your act of theft, you had no choice about it. You can chose to make amends, sure, but you cannot undo the fact that you committed an immoral act without the conscious decision that you claimed was needed for morality. You have undermined your own argument.

quote:

---

There is a TV show... {snip} ...an instinct operates on and by stimuli.

---

If you want to say that instincts respond to stimuli, just say it. I don't need the tedious stage-hypnotism stuff, okay?All life forms respond to stimuli. Conscious decisions are made in response to stimuli. You have misunderstood what an instinct is. It is not simply a response to stimuli.

quote:

---

An example of such instinctive responses to stimuli in nature is the fire ants of America.

---

I know what an instinct is thank you and I do not need another tedious example which demonstrates nothing. Please restrict yourself to relevant examples.

quote:

---

This is a good example of an instinct. To be sure you cannot equate this behavior with morality that exists in human circles.

---

No and I neither wish to nor need to. Not all behaviours are linked to human morality. This one is not. Obviously.

quote:

---

Let us suppose that they are being altruistic, so what God

---

Whoops! There's that name again. Let me remind you one more time. No religion in the science threads! That is how we do things at EvC. Okay?

quote:

---

But before we say that what the dogs were doing is an act of morality we have to ask were they acting out of love or out of instinct

---

The whole point that I am trying to get through to you is that there is no difference. These are dogs that we're talking about here. They don't make conscious choices in the way that we do, yet they display altruistic behaviour. You are attempting to create a wholly arbitrary distinction between instinct and altruism that is not supported by the evidence. You even manage to contradict your own argument here and there.In human society, helping the wounded is seen as altruistic. There is no reason not to consider the same behaviour altruistic when it is displayed in dogs.

quote:

---

How can you compare two things that are not the same

---

WTF?

quote:

---

as I have shown above you cannot compare morality with instinct that the rabbits obviously display.

---

And I have already pointed out the glaring contradictions in this argument.

quote:

---

How is this missing the point if I draw the line to what should be regard as stealing and what shouldn’t am I missing the point. We need boundaries in life otherwise we would end up in a huge mess and we don’t want that.

---

You have missed the point again. you may need boundaries, reality does not, especially when they are arbitrary and artificial ones. You have decided that human-like reasoning is required for morality on the basis of absolutely no evidence and in direct contradiction to the evidence that has been presented. That is poor logic, poor science and it is even poor religion.

quote:

---

Not necessarily because we may be doing something with a good intention and no selfish thought but we may reap by doing that good thing.

---

Good. So when you argue that lion or hunting dogs have ulterior motives for their altruistic actions, it is irrelevant. Altruism mixed with selfishness can still be considered altruism.

quote:

---

However the morality I’m discussing are those in which you wouldn’t necessarily gain, why else would we call them selfless acts.

---

And I have already demonstrated that there is no such thing.

quote:

---

But with the African pack dogs they may be helping the other which is the right thing to do but perhaps their reasons for doing so are selfish and as such are not genuine altruism. People may try to be good for a couple reasons for show, for other selfish reasons or simply out of love.

---

And thus you contradict yourself again. You are willing to accept mixed motives in humans, but not in animals. You are once again, simply drawing your arbitrary line and dismissing anything below it.Further, do you really imagine that love is not an instinct? How quaint!

quote:

---

First prove that we operate on instinct and then provide examples that are already happening in nature.

---

Don't be absurd. The fact that we operate partly on instinct is well known. I see no more need to provide evidence for this than I need provide evidence that the sun rises. Nonetheless, try sticking your hand into a fire. Do you need to make a conscious decision to take it out again? Or do you simply take it out instinctively. Human instinct is a well researched field. I suggest that you do some reading yourself instead of trying to get me to do your homework for you. It is not baseless. if you had been paying attention, you would realise that I have provided several examples of increasingly sophisticated moral systems in animals and man. Do you really believe that the toddlers in the experiments I mentioned are operating through a learned system of behaviour? At eighteen months old?

quote:

---

No ways morality has everything to do with God.

---

Baseless. And off limits in a science thread. Stop dragging your religion into the science threads please. It does not belong here.

quote:

---

No correction science doesn’t belong here.

---

Or punctuation apparently...This is a science thread. Look up at the top of this screen; it says "EvC Forum - All Forums - Science Forums - Biological Evolution - Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?". Get it? Science forum. Not god forum. I'm not. You said, in the OP; At least try and stick to your own topic. If you want to talk about religion and morality, propose a thread in one of the faith forums.

quote:

---

The mother may be old and dying and the kids may still be young. The kids may even be a menace giving her grieve but no worries her goodness hasn’t been dampened by this.

---

Not a single bit of which alters anything that I said. people have an in-built reward/punishment mechanism, namely our conscience. You are clutching at straws.

quote:

---

All of this is useless for evolution; evolution is after survival not feelings

---

The point of these inner rewards is to encourage behaviours (like group co-operation) that promote the survival of the group. That is why they evolved. Think about it; would a species whose mothers who had no instinct to look after her child survive as well as one that did?

quote:

---

The entire research you are citing can be used just as well to supports the bible’s

---

And let me stop you there again. NO BIBLE TALK! I will simply ignore (or possibly ridicule) any religious talk from here on in. It is not appropriate on a damn science thread.I note that you have ignored the study I cited, save to make unfounded claims that it is similar to your holy book. You have not addressed the point of the study; that there are demonstrable similarities between human moral behaviour and chimp moral behaviour. Why do you ignore this? Because it refutes your "argument". Very poor.

quote:

---

You talk of mirror neurons, how does this prove that humans somehow copied being good from other humans? This is a speculation as far as true operational science is concerned. But note something funny as well, the research you have cited completely goes against the neuron idea because it proves that we have altruistic characters from birth and we do copy them as such.

---

For fuck's sake... It doesn't prove that morality is a copied, learned behaviour. That is not my claim and if you were paying even the slightest bit of attention, you would know that. Show me where I claimed that morality is a learned behaviour, copied from others. You can't, because I never made any such claim. Do try to keep up.

quote:

---

About neurons maryjean see this statement Wikipedia makes,

---

SAMMYJean. Not maryjean. Pay attention Cedre! Also, failure to properly capitalise someone else's name is extremely rude.The text you highlight only serves to reinforce my argument; human morality is similar to animal morality, but not identical, which is what I've been trying to tell you from the start.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Cedre,Can I ask you a favour? Could you please choose a different avatar picture?You may think that it is witty, but I can only imagine that is because you have never lost a loved one to heroin. I have. I find it less witty. In fact, I find it disgusting.Your picture is pretty sick. Please find another. There are plenty of people out there who do not need reminders of needles. Why you would want to compare your own faith to an mind-rotting addictive narcotic anyway is beyond me. In fact, I doubt that it was intended as a pro-Christian statement; it seems more like a satire to me.Heroin destroys lives. It is not something that can be considered a positive comparison.Thank you.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Wow. I've never before seen the moral high ground ceded with such lack of grace or purpose. Congratulations Cedre. You have demonstrated quite clearly that the religious have no claim to any superior morality.If you don't want to change your avatar, you are not obliged to do so. However, I find it hard to imagine why you would want to keep it; it is making you look callous and foolish.It's a joke picture Cedre! It is an anti-Christian satire, not a pro-Christian statement. Think about it. The picture is comparing your religion to a narcotic drug that turns people into slaves and dullards and has been responsible for countless deaths and the ruination of millions of lives. I actually think that's a pretty accurate comparison with Christianity, but I can't imagine why you would want to bring it up.

quote:

---

But first I must ask SammyJean to replace her semi-nude picture with something that's a bit more appropriate, I find that semi-nude female especially offensive. And Grany Magda should also change his avatar the inscriptions on it are offensive as well.

---

How many loved ones have you lost when they were killed by semi-naked women Cedre? How about the city of Atlantis? Is that responsible for any traumas in your life?It's not the same and you know it. Your disregard for the feelings of others speaks volumes.Of course, if you want to behave this way, you are free to do so. Just be aware that it fatally undermines your claims to understand morality. This is no way to demonstrate your superior moral code.That is all I have to say on the subject. If you ever find yourself able to address my previous message, or if you should desire to return to the topic of your thread, we can carry on from there. Perhaps you could start by addressing the chimp/toddler study that I cited, since you have failed to meaningfully do this so far.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Morality/altruism has been defined on this thread so far as anything put forward by a group, usually a society, the society provides a guide for the behavior of the people in that group or society. In this sense morality might allow slavery, discrimination, lying and so on.

---

Morality and altruism are not interchangeable terms. But yes, some people consider moral what others consider abhorrent.

quote:

---

Now morality was also defined as actions performed by organisms be it human or other organism that benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself.

---

No, that's altruism. Just to recap my actual argument, altruistic animal behaviours are the seed from which our morality evolved.

quote:

---

This is the proposed definition of morality on this thread, by those who are against a normative view of morality, that is against the view that the knowledge of good and evil are universal and fixed.

---

Don't you think that it is a bit arrogant to assume that your concept of morality is the normative one? I find it rather presumptuous. What data are you basing this on?

quote:

---

If morality is determined by a society or by a majority vote then we may end up having moralities that benefit a few at the expense of many. Take the Nazi Germany as an example,

---

Ah, Godwin's Law Cedre. You lose.

quote:

---

Hitler most likely believed that the existence of the Jews was immoral, that they should be wiped out. And he infected the greater part of Germany with this wicked mindset, until it became moral to annihilate all the Jews.

---

And thus you disprove your claim that morality is fixed and universal.

quote:

---

Now answer me how is killing 6 million Jewish people beneficial towards the survival of our species.

---

It isn't, nor need it be. The ToE does not demand that every single human action ever taken benefit the survival of the species. That is a straw-man that you concocted.

quote:

---

So the conclusion is morality cannot be decided by a society because it may be detrimental to the human race

---

Then how do you account for the undoubted fact that different societies have different moralities?

quote:

---

and if it is decided by a society then it would not have come about by evolution because it has the potential to defy the principles of evolution by endangering the very gene which it is suppose to protect.

---

The ability to defy our evolutionary roots is an emergent property of the complex human brain. This capacity has itself evolved. There is no contradiction here for the ToE. You are clutching at straws.

quote:

---

Morality has also been defined as any action or behavior that will not harm others or produce the best overall results in terms of survival

---

Not by me it hasn't.

quote:

---

How can you resolve this conflicting ideas.

---

There is no conflict. I suggest that you quit trying to pick holes in a subject of which you have no knowledge and instead, go out and read a book on the subject. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you might find these problems resolve themselves. Try reading The Selfish Gene, as I suggested to you a hundred posts ago.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

Now note Sammyjean you want the law without acknowledging the lawmaker or law giver, it’s not going to happen my dear.

---

Cut the patronising crap Cedre.Not believing in objective and immutable "laws" of morality which exist outside of human thought removes the need for your "lawmaker". If you want to talk religion start a faith thread.

quote:

---

Human beings can only be priceless if deemed to be created in the image of a God, as it is only God who can give them worth, otherwise they are but like I have said masses of chemicals whose worth is determined by the society they were born in or currently dwell in, and not by an absolute being who has established from the zero our of life that human life should be priceless.

---

This in no way follows. You say that humans beings have no worth without your god. Then you say that their worth is determined by their society. Worth determined by society is still worth. Does the presence of so glaring a contradiction in your argument not bother you?

quote:

---

However if humans are merely the product of millions of years of evolution and physical and chemical change why should they be regarded as being more special than the other animals that inhabit this earth?

---

Have you read Of Mice and Men? Do you think a mouse wrote it? Or a man? Humans are the only animals who can create such things, just as we are the only animals who can consciously refine and systematise sophisticated ethical systems.If you really think that a few dusty bronze age myths are all that elevate you above a rodent, I feel sorry for you. Even i would not be so harsh on you.

quote:

---

If we are just atoms come together then we really don’t have worth other than the worth that we ascribe to ourselves.

---

Not quite, but close. We have the worth that we ascribe to ourselves and each other. This sense of worth is what has inspired such things as universal declarations of human rights. That these conventions are artificial does not subtract from them at all.

quote:

---

This is what relativists are preaching

---

Except for the fact that you are the only person on this thread to present such an argument. Does this not tip you off that you are constructing a straw-man? Everyone else seems aware of it.

quote:

---

That is why the humanity of fetuses...

---

If you want to talk about abortion, start an abortion thread. Otherwise, quit trying to divert others from the argument by the constant use of distracting examples.

quote:

---

1. Human life has no inherent value or worth other than the value society ascribes it.

---

Absolutely right. Then of course, you seize upon the worst examples of immoral behaviour. You fail to mention that the same societal worth has inspired people to dedicate their lives to helping others, to volunteer their time for charity, to give blood or to create rules and laws that benefit everyone.The alternative is your religious perspective. Unfortunately, that has not done too well either. The countless schisms, pogroms and holy wars attest to that. Any system of ethics will have its flaws and its benefits. Your version has done no better than the humanist ethics you mis-characterise in your attempts to criticise them. In fact, if I am correct, and your god is little more than an ugly myth, your ethical system is just as artificial as anyone else's.

quote:

---

2. It isn’t wrong to hurt other human beings physically or emotionally.

---

Even a chimp can work out that this is nonsense. It's all or nothing with you fundamentalist guys, isn't it? Either your specific version of Christianity is true, or you throw all your toys out of the pram.It is wrong to hurt others because it has been determined that it is wrong, both philosophically and empirically. Hurting others makes for a worse society. It is as simple as that. Do you really imagine that before Judaism/Christianity came along, people thought that hurting each other was a good thing?It is also worth noting that you have shown willingness to hurt the feelings of others for absolutely no reason and with no provocation. You are extremely ill-placed to claim the moral high ground.

quote:

---

3. Human beings have no meaning/purpose in life.

---

No intrinsic purpose, no. You have to find your own purpose. Is that so hard to grasp?

quote:

---

The only time that Humanity can have any worth is when we have been created by God who has endowed us with worth and value.

---

If you want to witness, take it to a faith thread.You have failed to mention your own topic even once. I take it from this, and your failure to reply to my previous messages, that you are unable to present a rebuttal and that you are ceding the debate. Retreating into Christian apologetics instead of debating the subject you brought up, looks like an admission of defeat to me.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

But Morality started out as a concept and is suddenly brought down to the molecular level, while it should have a conceptual ultimate reason.

---

Er... why? If morality is evolved, it would not have a "conceptual ultimate reason". You are putting the cart before the horse and using your preferred answer as proof of itself. This is sloppy logic.

quote:

---

Furthermore if we look at the ultimate reason for being helpful and for caring it is at odds with morality, altruism or morality cannot be reduced to selfishness, because they are averse to selfishness and eggs on selflessness. The ultimate reason as per your reasoning causes us to make this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.

---

Welcome to the world Cedre.There is no moral act which can claim to be uninfluenced by selfishness, as I have already demonstrated up-thread. Morality is commonly mixed with selfishness. That is an everyday reality, so it is no surprise that it should be reflected at the evolutionary level.Pure unselfishness and pure selfishness are, like much of your argument, simply fantasy; they are platonic ideals, not realities.

quote:

---

Selflessness is when we sacrifice our welfare, happiness and interests knowingly to promote another person’s wellbeing, happiness and interests and in extreme cases we might even die as a result. This is against the principles of selfishness which is stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others. The two are mutually exclusive.

---

In other words, you still haven't bothered to pick up a copy of The Selfish Gene, which addresses this precise issue.Why are you so keen to remain ignorant of the subject you claim to desire to understand?

quote:

---

Reasoning that morality is reducible to selfishness completely takes away from what it means to be truly moral, then everyone is inherently selfish no matter how many times you deny yourself you are still being selfish.

---

True morality is the morality that actually exists. Your fantasy version of morality falls down at this fence. It exists only as a self-indulgent pipe-dream. I'll stick with the morality that exits. It may not be perfect, but then, nothing in the real world is.

quote:

---

I mean if the goal is a selfish one, to survive, then why should I put myself through all the self denial that comes with being altruistic.

---

So that others can survive.

quote:

---

It’s like I am in a position to make instant cash, but then I choose to rather undergo a schooling first and only then obtain my cash. Who in their right mind would choose that?

---

You really should stop trying to argue by example; you aren't very good at it.This latest example is as flawed as the rest. If you get schooling, your earning potential increases, thus providing a selfish motivation and a rather obvious one at that. Do you bother to think these things through before you write them?Of course, if you valued knowledge at all, you would realise that the desire to learn would itself provide sufficient motivation for your example. But you aren't actually interested in learning, so you see it as some sort of ordeal. Sad.

quote:

---

Another interesting point worthy of mention is that if morality boils down to the survival of the individual, then it kind of demonstrates further that natural selection and ultimately evolution works on an individual basis and not on a group basis.

---

For God's sake, read The Selfish Gene. Evolution works by favouring different genes within a population. Individuals cannot evolve and nothing that has been said here contradicts that. Morality is all about the survival of the group. That is why self-sacrifice can be a positive thing; it can benefit the group. You seem to be unwilling or unable to engage with what others are actually saying to you, preferring instead to flog the same dead horse that you have been attacking since the start of this thread. You need to pay more attention to what people are saying to you.

quote:

---

Maybe you should get out of your inconsistent reasoning, and try applying logic and common sense in your way of thinking.

---

Cedre, common sense is the opposite of logic. You usually can't have both. Indeed. this may explain why you are having such trouble with these relatively simple concepts. Ditch the common sense. It isn't sensible.

quote:

---

For example many atheist are too scared to even put forward the notion of a creator, they out rightly deny existence of such a being based upon the confines of what they know

---

If you have any interest in understanding the views of others, you are going to have to stop imagining their beliefs for them. It is always going to lead you astray and into the realm of the straw-man argument, as seen here.You could try asking atheists why they believe or disbelieve in the way they do. You are likely to get a different answer.For now, you might like to ponder this; do you reject Shiva because you are too scared to put forward the notion of Saivism?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

We still haven't ascertained that morality has in point of fact evolved, just because something may benefit an organism or a group of organisms at that doesn't mean that it has evolved.

---

Quite right. My purpose here however is not to provide a complete body of evidence for the exact process by which morality evolved. Ideed, such an undertaking would be way beyond my meagre abilities.My argument is that the existence of morality is not a problem for the ToE. To defend this statement, all I need do is present a basis by which natural selection might favour the spread of moral behaviour. In the absence of any evidence from your side which might contradict this model (and you have provided none), there exists no problem for the ToE.

quote:

---

Atheists are so quick to point fingers at theists for drawing on God of the gap arguments, yet amusingly, they are not themselves blameless in this regard, often they will turn to gap arguments of their own when called for. Like this next one which goes: whatever exists exists because it was favored by nature, so morality exists because it was favored, this is not solving the problem, it’s not answering anything... I think that is sloppy reasoning.

---

Don't kid a kidder kiddo. you don't actually object to god-of-the-gaps arguments; you just object when they employed for any "god" other than yours.In truth there is no gap. There exists a continuum, which I have already pointed out to you in several examples, of more progressively more complex social behaviours in animal species, up to and including humanity. This is not a gap, it is evidence, namely, evidence that human morality is not unique. It is a more refined form of the altruism displayed by apes and others.

quote:

---

You have yet to show how morality could evolve where exactly on the chromosome the morality gene is carried. And if it is a genetic in nature than why does it seem to vary greatly from culture to culture?

---

The fact that you seemingly expect a behaviour as complex as morality to be defined by a single gene only serves to illustrate how badly you have grasped the evolutionary position here.Morality is complex. No way will it be controlled by a single gene. Evolution doesn't work that way.Your question about culture has, I think, been answered very well already, by others. Remember the example of language acquisition? We all share a genetic predisposition to learn languages, but which language we learn is down to culture.

quote:

---

This claim is not well grounded; I think whether an individual will be rewarded for his altruism will depend on the place and time, and the overall surrounding circumstances. For example if you die during self-defence how can you be repaid for this act?

---

Bad example. You do not know the outcome before you decide to defend yourself. You might get lucky and win. besides, self-defence is not very altruistic. Better to ask "Why defend an dear old lady against muggers, when you might get hurt or killed yourself?". The answer, from an evolutionary view is simple; by pursuing the altruistic behaviour, you are helping to make your social group/genetic population more productive. This is not to say that the decision is genetically pre-programmed, but merely that the apparently self-sacrificing action is perfectly compatible with natural selection. In defending the old lady, you are preserving a vital resource for your community.

quote:

---

Or if you take care of your pet whose going to reward for taking care of your pet. If you were going to crush a bug underfoot but noticed it just on time who will honor you for that act of mercy.

---

a) Your pet. Companion animals reward their owners with affection when they are fed.b) My brain. If I let the bug live, I feel better about myself and get to enjoy the serotonin that Sammy Jean mentioned. It's called "having a conscience" and it is just one of the many functions of that highly evolved brain you're carrying around. Your brain rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour (well, in theory...). Do you really believe that your brain has not evolved?

quote:

---

Again you’re just blowing hot air; you make claims without providing any confirmation as if these claims were suppose to be axiomatic.

---

I have already backed up this claim. You have pretty much ignored it though.

quote:

---

Let me have it, present me something in your next post from the Selfish Gene.

---

in truth, I already have. the rabbit example I provided before is a classic example of the selfish gene principle at work.As for the book itself, it's been a while and I don't have a copy. I just think that if you want to address this question, you might do well to do a little background reading that's all. I mean, you wouldn't just enter into an argument half-cocked, knowing nothing about the subject which you are addressing would you?
Oh. Apparently, you just did.

quote:

---

One of the reasons why I chose a forum and not a book to discuss this issue is because a forum’s fast-paced and always on the go, and can expend longer hours of your day, and right now I don’t have this vast amount of spare time.

---

WHAT! You are kidding me! You can't possibly have said; Wow. You poor man.Try getting your nose out of that Bible. Not all books are mind numbing.

quote:

---

Why should we care about the survival of others?

---

Because they share our genes. Also because they're people and we might hope that if we treat people well, they will treat us well. That would seem reason enough to me.Also, it just seems like the right thing to do. do you really need more than that? If it weren't for your belief in your particular god, would you really be out there robbing and raping? I'm kind of assuming that you would not.

quote:

---

My example was if you read carefully that why will anyone opt for schooling if he/she can get the same cash now that schooling will get him in the future. If you could get all the cash to lead a decent life without requiring an education then why bother yourself with an education?

---

What a sad and disgraceful attitude. This may come as a shock to you Cedre, but some people actually value knowledge for its own sake. You seem to regard it as a wearisome burden. I find that rather pitiful.

quote:

---

Mutations happen in individuals, selection chooses the fittest individuals, and that it what leads to unequal reproductive success. Natural selection doesn’t have a brain to choose a group it can only work on individuals.

---

I agree with the first sentence. The second is slightly wrong, although you are starting to think along the right lines. There is no need to have a brain to "choose" a group. Mutual reproductive capacity defines a population. That is in turn regulated by the level of genetic divergence in isolated populations.

quote:

---

It’s just a process that occurs because it occurs; you can’t endow it with a purpose. Therefore when you declare that the group should survive so that the genes survive in turn you are suggesting that selection has a purpose namely that genes survive. This is foolishness if you ask me. Selection doesn’t possess any more brain power to be giving such purpose than a wind blowing through the city does. So why should it favor anything, much less the survival of a particular gene?

---

Okay, you are just inches away from grasping this... There is no "purpose" in the sense that you mean. there is no guiding hand and no overall goal. There is merely a series of mechanistic processes. The selection is done, without any need for a guiding intellect, by the demands of the environment. Genes that are well adapted to an environment will thrive. Genes that are poorly adapted will do less well. That is pretty much all that is required for natural selection to function.And you still haven't provided us with any reason why morality should be so disfavoured by evolution that it could not possibly evolve.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Stile,

quote:

---

To me, the core definition of selfishness includes a personal motivation towards self-improvement. If that motivation is not present, then the simple actualisation of a possible future benefit is not justification to call the orignial action selfish.

---

I agree with that but it isn't really contrary to what I've been saying. If there is a noble motivation, then, overall, it is reasonable to call the action unselfish. My point is that even with a basically unselfish act, there is still a level at which the person committing the act is being rewarded for it, even if it is only at the level of a good feeling.It is my opinion that even the most unselfish act can never be considered wholly pure, the way the brain works simply doesn't allow for it.Take your example of opening the car door for your wife. In that example you are quite right to call the action basically unselfish, since it has no selfish motivation of which you would be aware. At the same time, you can't get away from the fact that your brain is going to reward you with a dose of serotonin. That leaves us in a quandary of sorts; was the noble motivation of helping your wife the root cause if the action? Or was it the more mechanistic and subconscious motivation of your selfish genes at work, rewarding you for helping protect your genetic investments?I realise that this way of looking at personal motivation is depressingly deterministic, but I can't help but suspect that these types of subconscious motivations govern our actions far more than we would like to suppose. I also think that it is very difficult to draw the line between where the two motivations meet.

quote:

---

I propose that whether or not a moral action is selfish is determined by the motivation for the action, not the following results.

​

I fully admit that I cannot show you that any specific motivation was actually selfish or not. However, this includes the fact that you cannot show me that any specific motivation was actually selfish, let alone all moral actions.

---

And there's the rub. We can't really know what motivates us to act, not ultimately. I tend to think of such things as being based on multiple motivations, only some of which we are likely to be aware of.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hello Cedre,

quote:

---

The world owes the existence of morality to a moral God.

---

You seem awfully sure of that. To be as certain as that, you must surely have reams of compelling positive evidence.Can we have a look?What is your evidence for this? When did it happen?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hello again Cedre,

quote:

---

Objective morality exist because God exists

---

Again I ask; where is your evidence?Throughout this thread you have challenged others to provide evidence for an evolutionary explanation for morality. Turnabout seems like fair play to me; where is your evidence?What credible positive evidence for God creating morality do you have? If it none, just answer "None". If it is Genesis 2 just answer "Genesis 2" and have done with it.Others have tried to back up their positions with reasonable evidence. What makes you think that you don't have to? We are not just going to take your word for it you know...Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod