Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Welcome to the fray Wyrdly, Fair enough. You are not alone in that. Actually it appears to be more derived from the culture/s, as it changes and becomes modified as the culture changes. While people may profess their morality is due to their religious views, when questioned in detail they will admit to moral beliefs that differ from the religious dogma. To add to what vimesey said, enlightened self-interest: it is moral to treat your neighbor as a friend so that he treats you as a friend rather than an enemy you are always fighting (which is a waste of time and resources) and then you can share tasks and resources.We are a social animal and so our basic (evolved) moral behavior is derived from what benefits the social group you live in. As conscious beings we have expanded our social group from family to larger and larger groups -- cities, nations, species, life ...Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...

We see behavior in studies on monkeys that show a sense\understanding of morality in their behavior ...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html... morality that we recognize because it is similar to the way we would feel (oops there's that empathy thing again). We should expect different moral behavior in non-social animals, yes? Different values for predatory animals vs herbivorous, yes? bold and italic added.Furthermore, you could define enlightened self-interest behavior to be what lessens group tension in social animals, behavior that reduces fights and conflicts.Enlightened self-interest - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.[1][2][3]

​

It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good".[4][5][6]

​

In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest," in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests.

---

Which explains why the behavior of greedy bankers is seen as immoral by the general population.Enjoy

It means it would have to be "good" regardless of whether people were involved or not.Enjoy

Not if you are going to have an objective standard. If it is subjective then it involves the people with the subjective opinions.Now you can look at other species of apes and see some behavior that we recognize as morally based and this would expand the {group subject to our moral view} from tribe to species to genus to family ... but I still would not expect tigers for instance to consider themselves subject to it.If you want to define moral behavior as beneficial to the species then we could consider natural selected behavior - memes - as moral behavior for each species and then compare what is similar and what is not. And I would be astounded to find much in common with all species. But this is still a human perception of the behavior being moral - most animals would not even think about it.Even if you want to define moral behavior as beneficial to life in general it would still be a human perception.Enjoy

Natural selection is 'good' ...?
Selfish greed is 'good' ... ?
Person A stealing from person B means person A is 'good' and person B is 'bad' ... ? A logical structure based on a priori assumptions doesn't make it objective. Our nature is derived from being a social animal. We see behavior we recognize as similar to what we feel is moral behavior in other social animals. I see it as more of a relationship between the individual and the social group. This allows an act to be 'good' even if the particular recipient doesn't like it, when the group approves. The relative 'good' is measured by the relative approval of the group.A kind of "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time" - a mellowing from an absolute standard to a relativistic one: you can try to please most of the people most of the time.You do this because if everybody behaves this way then you benefit.Enjoy

Enlightened self interest. Treating others with respect and being fair-handed in dealings with others means you are more likely to be treated with respect and fair-handedness. IF the person takes from the group or from individuals in the group there may well be a short term benefit to the individual -- better fed for less work, for instance.If instead we measure the behavior by how it benefits the group, then such selfish greed is seen as 'bad' for the (majority of the) group.A man kills another man to mate with his wife and steal his belongings. It benefits the man, but not the group. The group would see this as 'bad' behavior. Someone preventing this would be seen as doing 'good' ... and likely be offered mating opportunities and other rewards. Within the context of being a social animal.Enjoy

If 'good' is measured by survival, prosperity, reproduction, then these can be considered 'good' behavior. I don't think they are. The problem with this is that it is still relativistic -- one person can set up his own personal basis, but to interact with other people they need to agree on them.If I say red is good and green is bad, then we have a problem. Or I can say blue is good and red is bad and we agree on part of the basis. Yet if you are arguing an evolved morality it would be subconscious (conscious would mean learned\chosen). Many generations have been used to "solve" the problem of interpersonal interactions is social group organisms, and thus (not surprisingly) we have evolved the solution that game theory says provides the best benefit to the players in a group.Enjoy

They would evolve. This is well established within biology and by game theory for interactions between animals in a social group. Enough to know that your hypothesis is faulty. Perhaps it is based on a false premise ... Yep that would be a false (incomplete) premise -- that this was the only elements of evolution that should be considered.What evolution requires is that enough individuals survive to reproduce to carry the group through another generation. And "mutually beneficial relationships" would help ensure that happens. Because they evolved ... and because we are a social animal that learned to interact with other groups of humans as a larger social connection.Enjoy

and make a declaration? Something like that?or Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Because we all live in a yellow submarine.