Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Explanation for Morality
bodacity
Junior Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 11-24-2007


Message 1 of 22 (436657)
11-27-2007 12:49 AM


Hi, I am new here. I am unclear as to exactly how evolution explains morality. My understanding is that if a group of organisms develops a moral trait, they will be more likely to survive than a group of organisms without the trait because of the positive effects it will have on the group. Is this more or less correct? I would appreciate either direct answers, or links pointing me to discussions that answer this question.

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2007 10:52 AM bodacity has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2007 12:14 PM bodacity has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 22 (436673)
11-27-2007 3:03 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 3:52 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 3 of 22 (436676)
11-27-2007 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
11-27-2007 3:03 AM


Yeah, that's basically correct but you need to be thinking in behavioural evolutionary terms: that is to say that a behaviour appeared are increased the survival chance of the group.
Before I go on I will define moral behaviour as socially cohesive behaviour; the xian bible is full of immoral behaviour that was at the time socially cohesive so I want you to know the definitions I will use.
You can see this happening in many species where there is a close genetic relationship (such as ants, bees, naked mole rats etc).
This sometimes gets called kin selection. As you can imagine, the behaviours in non human animals is prehaps not not moral behaviour as such, but recognition of 'morals' in humans could be argued to be our rationalisation of said drive.
But, on the other hand people we are familiar with are more predictable (because we have a greater knowledge of their likely behaviour) and this makes us feel less anxious. less anxiety means more cognitive resources devoted to behaviour geared not simply towards survival but geared towards improving ones lot or the tribe, nation, department, office etc).
A recognition of the required behaviour to achieve this state is most likely learnt during childhood and the actions of such hard wired devices such as mirror cells (which are implicated in empathy) practically dictate moral behaviour at a certain cultural level.
ABE: Welcome to the fray, I hope you enjoy it here
This is a good primer
Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer
Take a look here, too. It's a good read and is not too heavey going.
Evolution of Behavior
Can anyone tell me how to shorten links?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Adjust Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-27-2007 3:03 AM AdminPhat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 11-27-2007 6:25 AM Larni has replied
 Message 5 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 7:09 AM Larni has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 4 of 22 (436683)
11-27-2007 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
11-27-2007 3:52 AM


I prefer to use the title instead of just the bare link.
You can use the peek button to see how it was done on your post.
Edited by AdminPD, : Change Mode

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 3:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 8:20 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
bodacity
Junior Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 11-24-2007


Message 5 of 22 (436691)
11-27-2007 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
11-27-2007 3:52 AM


Thanks for the reply; that mostly makes sense. However, the second link raises a question it does not answer: how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated? Also, it gives reasons for why men rape, but does not address why it is considered immoral to rape. Are there further explanations for these issues?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 3:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2007 7:50 AM bodacity has not replied
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 8:48 AM bodacity has not replied
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 AM bodacity has replied
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 11-27-2007 5:14 PM bodacity has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 6 of 22 (436699)
11-27-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by bodacity
11-27-2007 7:09 AM


Firstly evolutioon has equipped us to take notice and reject those who try to freeload. Someone who is unwilling to assist others in the group will be noticed and tend not to receive help themselves.
Secondly, as societies have developed our view of who is in our "group" ("us") has tended to expand, to the point where some people consider all humans (and even hypothetical extra-terrestrial sapients) as part of their "group".
On the other hand just because some behaviour confers a selective advantage it does not mean that it is considered moral. Morality is those behaviours which aid the group over any direct benefit to the individual. Rape is not such a behaviour - it is genetically selfish. It is in the female's reproductive interest to choose a mate (and have a mate that will support her and her children - whcih a rapist is unlikely to do). It is in the interests of her relatives - male and female - that she should be able to do so (kin selection), in addiiton to any physical or emotional harm she may suffer as a result of the rape. Rape takes that away so it represents a conflict of interests - just as theft does. Selfish behaviour which hurts the group either directly or by creating conflict within it is contrary to those instincts which we call morality, and that is why we do not consider rape moral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 7:09 AM bodacity has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 7 of 22 (436705)
11-27-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPD
11-27-2007 6:25 AM


Many thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminPD, posted 11-27-2007 6:25 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 22 (436707)
11-27-2007 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by bodacity
11-27-2007 7:09 AM


bodacity writes:
how does evolution explain altruism that's not reciprocated?
Another way to look at altruism is to think of the pure survival advantage given to ones genes if you help enough of ones relatives (who share the simliar genes-this is an obvious over simplification) reproduce. The familial genes get propergated through time.
Think again of ants. All drones are sisters and share 50% of each others genes. If a soldier ant dies defending 10 grubs she has aided the survival the gene pool. This is called 'inclusive fitness'.
Now, we humans are very clever and generalise this to not just our family but to anyone in an 'in group'. This increase the likelyhood of people surviving in our in group.
This is where it fits in with Pauls explantion of groups.
In a way all altruism is rewarded with a pay off. Behaviour is always driven by aversion or attraction of possible outcomes.
So every time you think something is altruistic you should ask yourself: what drives this behaviour?
The only truly altruistic behaviour I can come close to imagining is giving money to a charity that you hate. But, even then one would prolly be doing it just to prove you where altruistic.
Our evolution to our current state pretty much requires altruism for co operation. Morality can be seen in terms of a particular take on what ones culture conciders altruistic.
In WWII for some pilots, flying a plane into a battleship could have been concidered an altruistic act, from a certain point of view. as Paul said rape is genetically selfish, flying a plane into a battleship that could soon be shelling your nation (in group) is pretty damn genetically selfless.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 7:09 AM bodacity has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (436708)
11-27-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by bodacity
11-27-2007 7:09 AM


Also, it gives reasons for why men rape, but does not address why it is considered immoral to rape.
Actually, I think the opposite. It gives the reason why we consider it immoral to rape, but doesn't give reasons why some men do rape.

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 7:09 AM bodacity has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 11:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 10 of 22 (436719)
11-27-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bodacity
11-27-2007 12:49 AM


Here's an essay I wrote 20 years ago and which, as I recall, was based on an essay I had written 10 years prior:
"An Evolutionary Basis for Morality", No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/morality.html
For unreciprocated altruism, there's this response I had to a creationist and a father who had expressed the belief, and insisted on it emphatically, that if the Bible is not completely and absolutely true then it would make no difference how he lived his life:
quote:
>>The point I was trying to make in my original email is that is if the Bible is NOT (accurate and literal) then I don't see what difference it makes (to me) once I'm dead how I lived life.<<
[mental spray-take]
Completely and utterly and blatantly untrue. I just cannot comprehend how anybody could seriously think such a thing!
First, if there is an after-life but your biblical literalism simply got it wrong, then it would still be highly probable that how you lived your life would have a DIRECT effect on what will happen to you once you're dead. True, you'd be very surprised with it, once the Maya had worn off, but then I truly believe that if an after-life exists then a lot of people are going to be very surprised, especially evangelical Christians.
Second, even if there is no after-life, how you had lived your life would STILL matter, long after you're dead. Why are you thinking only of yourself? You are a FATHER, a parent! Even if there is no heaven nor hell nor next life for you to go to when you die, how you lived would still matter very much. How you raised your children. How you treated others. Whether you helped or hindered them. What you built; what kind of legacy you left behind. All that matters very much!
At my father's memorial service, I mentioned what we had learned of the ancient Germanic beliefs as brought out by the Hildebrandtslied [**] and I pointed out that our county was filled with his legacy (he was a master carpenter) and that his memory would live on through the family that he had raised and through their families and so on, for long after his death. It still matters how he had lived his life!
[** Footnote: The Hildebrandtslied (Song of Hildebrandt) is the oldest piece of Germanic literature known to us It tells the story of an aging warrior, Hildebrandt, about to do battle with a much younger warrior. As was customary, they told each other about themselves, the younger one first. As the younger warrior introduced himself, Hildebrandt realized that he was his own son. This created a dilemma for him, because a Germanic warrior gained immortality in one of two ways: through his reputation and the tales of valor that the other warriors would tell of him and through leaving behind sons to carry on his name. Whichever action he took next, he would lose immortality. We do not know what happened next, since we only have a fragment of the poem.]
But let's go back to the subject line of your email: "RE: If evolution is right... ". If evolution is right and our bodies are little more than a way for our genes to reproduce themselves, then it STILL matters VERY MUCH how we live our lives. Because if we do not produce offspring and provide for them in such a way as to enhance their survival and their ability to produce their own offspring, thus propogating our genes into the future, then we will have failed. That includes ensuring that society and community will be able to enhance their survival, thus benefitting the entire gene pool we are a part of. How we live our lives affects the propogation of our genes, so it still matters. In fact, it matters even more, because it directly affects ALL future generations. It cannot matter much more than that!
But let's return to your selfish perspective, your asking "but what's in it for ME?". Why bother to live a life worth living? Sounds so ridiculous, once you actually ask the question, doesn't it? And the answer sounds so obvious: because living such a life is worth it! How could anybody really think that it doesn't matter?

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

(filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 12:49 AM bodacity has not replied

  
bodacity
Junior Member (Idle past 5478 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 11-24-2007


Message 11 of 22 (436727)
11-27-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
11-27-2007 9:33 AM


Chiroptera, could you explain what you meant?
Chiroptera writes:
Actually, I think the opposite. It gives the reason why we consider it immoral to rape, but doesn't give reasons why some men do rape.
In the linked article I was referring to, there was a section entitled "Why Men Rape." It mentioned two hypotheses to why men developed the tendency to rape:
1. rape was favoured by natural selection because it increased mens' reproductive success
2. rape is a by-product for obtaining multiple mates without commitment
However, it did not provide an explanation for why it is considered immoral to rape.
But assuming uncompensated altruism and disdain for rape can be explained by evolutionary motivations, how would they (or any moral traits) be promulgated in practice? As far as I can understand, survival of the fittest only applies to individuals; particular traits would not be selected for unless they provided immediate survival advantages. It seems to me that the benefits of morality would be too long term, and morality traits would never prevail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-27-2007 12:20 PM bodacity has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 22 (436745)
11-27-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bodacity
11-27-2007 12:49 AM


I am unclear as to exactly how evolution explains morality.
It explains that any behavior, genetic or learned can be selected for, however only those that can be passed on to following generations can be subject to selection for more than one generation -- IF it is beneficial to individual organisms within a population that shares such traits through mating and child-raising.
"Morality" would also be different for different animals, depending on their social structure: tiger morality would be different from horse morality.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 12:49 AM bodacity has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 1:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 22 (436750)
11-27-2007 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bodacity
11-27-2007 11:37 AM


In the linked article I was referring to, there was a section entitled "Why Men Rape." It mentioned two hypotheses to why men developed the tendency to rape....
Did it mention the hypothesis that rape is a product of the education and upbringing of the individual and has nothing to do with hereditary factors, and so has nothing to do with natural selection?
-
...survival of the fittest only applies to individuals....
Indeed it does, which is why "survival of the fittest" is not the same as "natural selection" -- "survival of the fittest" is one aspect of natural selection where each individual is in competition with others of its species, where "natural selection" takes into account all ways that a hereditary characteristic can expand in a population due to the reproductive success of the individuals carrying it.
In the case of altruism (and presumably the ability toward morality and empathy in humans), the individuals in a group that has an innate drive toward cooperation can flourish as compared to a population where each individual acts only in its immediate self-interest. And when cooperation is coupled with an ability to detect "slackers" and "cheaters" and a drive to retaliate against them, egoists would be at a disadvantage in such a group of cooperators.
-
particular traits would not be selected for unless they provided immediate survival advantages. It seems to me that the benefits of morality would be too long term, and morality traits would never prevail.
A group that cooperates will produce more food and other resources, on average, and offer more protection against predators than a group where each individual acts only for its immediate self-interest. A sick egoist, for example, will produce no food and may starve -- a sick cooperator will recieve extra food gather by other cooperators. A egoist parent has to juggle caring for young while it tries to gather food -- cooperative parents may share the caring of young so that individuals may devote more time to food gathering -- a division of labor that may lead to more efficiency. So, in the end, on average, cooperators may very well have more offspring.
Now an individual egoist may have more offspring than a typical cooperator, but over all fewer egoists get the chance to have offspring at all -- on average, more cooperators are born and survive to reproductive age than egoists.
By the way, this has been modelled mathematically. It does work. In computer simulations, cooperators have a reproductive advantage over egoists. Your very simple theoretical objections, while intuitive, are too simple -- more complete theoretical arguments show that, in fact, cooperation is a beneficial behavior in terms of survival and propagation of the relevant genes.
Edited by Chiroptera, : clarity

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bodacity, posted 11-27-2007 11:37 AM bodacity has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 14 of 22 (436771)
11-27-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
11-27-2007 12:14 PM


I like the idea of horse and tiger morality.
I like even better the way it clearly highlights that you would only think horse morality was right if you were a horse.
Kind of puts the royal screw job on the idea that morality is abosolute; as said morality is derived from the adaptive environment the organism evolved in (and the current cultural trends in the case of humans).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2007 12:14 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2007 1:50 PM Larni has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 22 (436772)
11-27-2007 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Larni
11-27-2007 1:46 PM


Kind of puts the royal screw job on the idea that morality is abosolute;
Yes. What does "thou shalt not kill" mean to a tiger?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Larni, posted 11-27-2007 1:46 PM Larni has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024