What morality can be logically derived from Evolution?

I see this as a sort of religion founded by Vito "Godfather" Corleone. Nepotism is recognized in society, I'm not sure exactly what laws are in effect or where, but I would generally see it as being illegal.Once you get a certain number of steps removed from your kin, there is no greater relatedness than the general population. Richard Dawkins goes into great detail of this in his book The Selfish Gene (pp. 92)

quote:

---

For relationships as distant as third cousin (1/128), we are getting down near the baseline probability that a particular gene possessed by A will be shared by any random individual taken from the population. A third cousin is not far from being equivalent to any old Tom, Dick, or Harry as far as an altruistic gene is concerned. A second cousin (relatedness = 1/32) is only a little bit special; a first cousin somewhat more so (1/8). Full brothers and sisters, and parents and children are very special (1/2), and identical twins (relatedness = 1) just as special as oneself. Uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, grandparents and grandchildren, and half brothers and half sisters, are intermediate with a relatedness of 3.

---

Cloning yourself would be then the ultimate expression of morality based upon number four (4) in your list RAZD.{ABE} As long as I have the book out, I might as well restate a small part of what Dawkins (pp. 2-3) has to say about genetic morality in his same book The Selfish Gene.

quote:

---

Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.

​

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. 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 our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to.

---

I agree with Dawkins, we have to go way beyond our genes for a morality. Altruism is widely accepted as moral and has to be taught as it will not come from our genes. So culture plays the significant role in modern society as opposed to genetics.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

Oh, I added by edit some new stuff in my last post.... This assumes that the environment would be radically altered. Not sure a morality based upon genetic self preservation takes any of that into consideration. It assumes the gene set is "ready for anything." I'm assuming that the technology is capable of working without mutations and then without them at any stage down the line. Improvement or changing the genome, I guess would have to be defined (in accordance with number four) as "immoral." Perfect genome preservation generation after generation seems to "fit the bill" according to number four. None of this is my personal opinion, I'm just trying to discuss the issue within the given parameters. Multiple generations, indefinitely I suppose. I get the feeling I may not be on the trail of the discussion you're looking for. My added by edit material in my last post is more where I wanted to go actually, is it anything like you wanted in your OP?{ABE} As far as the memes stuff goes, since it is not genetically related I would have to assume it is irrelevant/amoral, according to number four. What would generally be considered the best possible upbringing would be the goal, I suppose.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.

I was wondering if you could spell it out for me. Among the social insects your claim may not be exactly correct, except in the slave making ants. It's a complicated explanation, but I could fetch some of the material if you are interested.

With some exceptions, most notably the slave making ants, sisters among the hymenoptera are related by 75%. It is thus in their best interests to work to keep a queen producing more sisters than to reproduce themselves like most sexual reproduction does it, where they would get 50% of themselves into the next generation. In this sense they are "farming the queen" and in this way seek the upper hand as opposed to being her slave with no interest in their work.In the slave making ants raids are carried out to collect pupae from another colony. These stolen pupae eventually hatch and perform their normal duties, but for a colony they have absolutely no genetic stake in.Edited by CosmicChimp, : No reason given.