Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation

quote:

---

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

---

Richard Dawkins is wrong here. In fact completely backwards! Evolution says that morals have a basis in nature. Christians believe the basis is God.

quote:

---

No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am an passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state.

---

This is based on Darwinian = survival of the fittest, I think, in the crude sense that 'ruthlessness pays'. Dawkins is separating himself from social Darwinism here, ie domination of the weak by the strong, everyone being out for themselves.But actually, is it true that this kind of ruthlessness does pay, in terms of reproductive success in humans? Evidence suggests that it might not - that those who are generous are most respected / accorded high status, and also that there is a survival benefit for groups of humans who are mutually empathetic and supportive. Likewise it's probable that those who are most empathetic and loving to their kids have the greatest chance of bringing them to a successful adulthood.In fact, provided we accept that moral feelings have an inherited basis, or at least a large inherited component, then if evolution is true, universal ruthlessness CANNOT be selected for through Darwinian processes - otherwise we would all actually be like that. Moral behaviour likewise MUST therefore be Darwinian if evolution is true.However, I think it's possible that ruthlessness may pay off sometimes for individuals, provided the whole of society is not ruthless.

quote:

---

Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what are own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever aspired to.(The Selfish Gene. Page 3)

---

This is wrong. Why does the selfishness of genes translate into a selfish nature? It's an unbelievably bad mistake. If being unselfish and generous is what leads to reproductive success, then the selfishness of genes will lead to that.

quote:

---

However, when I mentioned before about Hitler & stalin, they were actually trying to implement social darwinism, and those who supported them wanted to live in a 'facist state'. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing. So the question is, how can one evolutionist who believes what Hitler did, be called morally wrong by another evolutionist who believes otherwise? What is there in Darwinian evolution, that can determine whose morality is right?

---

It's wrong to say 'social darwinism' is evolution - it's an extension of evolution, in fact a misunderstanding of evolution, into a domain it doesn't apply to.You'd be hard pressed to find anyone whose belief in evolution leads them to support what Hitler did.I agree with Jumpy that there is no absolute morality under an evolutionary explanation - there is no objective way to decide who is 'right' or 'wrong' in moral terms.But I would say there is no absolute morality to be found in religion either - it's just that religious people think there is! I believe that morality of religions is derived entirely from human morality. That doesn't make it incorrect. But it doesn't mean it is not absolute.In fact what I see is that the fundamental morality of religious and non-religious people is very similar. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.