What morality can be logically derived from Evolution?

We see the issue of morality and evolution raised frequently on this forum. Usually it is in relationship to things like abortion and eugenics, most recently at Message 50:

quote:

---

That said (and you have my permission to call me heartless), I don't want them to reproduce.

I'm not going to call you Heartless, for I see it in the exact same way.

Eugenics on the rise at EvC

---

What I want to discuss is how individual behavior can be influenced by the concepts of evolution, in particular:(1) evolution is the change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation.(2) selection means that some individuals are better adapted to survive and breed than other individuals, but this is a relative scale.(3) "success" - in evolutionary terms - is surviving and breeding as an initial condition, thus passing your hereditary traits to the next generation.(4) long term success - in evolutionary terms - is ensuring the continued survival and breeding of your lineage, ensuring that your hereditary traits remain part of the population.Given that an individual that concentrates on (3) and ignores (4) could be less successful in the long run than an individual that gives attention to (4) at the expense of some commitment to (3), it seems to me that certain behaviors that promote the long term survival of offspring (or of other relatives with shared hereditary traits) would be a selective advantage for those individuals, and would form a logical basis for "moral" behavior.{ ... opens floodgates ... }Enjoy.Note: I want to exclude entirely the concept of "survival of the fittest" from this discussion, as it is missing the relevance of the survival of the barely able. Nor do I want to discuss eugenics or abortion, but to concentrate on the effect of (4) on behavior.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, CosmicChimp, So you go for all your eggs in one basket approach rather than diversifying your portfolio.When we look at other organisms, do we see this kind of behavior? Yes, we can see it in the reproduction of asexual organisms, except that mutation "corrupts" the genome: can you guarantee that cloning won't be corrupted by mutations? If we can control against this then one begins to wonder if one wouldn't be tempted to "improve" the basic model - remove a mole here or there ... or would alteration be immoral?Wouldn't you also have the problem/s of matching development of your clone to the way you developed (phenotype preservation) and the education (memes) so that your offspring would appear and act like you?"Ultimate expression" is, perhaps, a trifle bit towards overstatement, imho, as one could also consider pairing your traits with others of apparent "successful" value, so that your traits are kept going by those traits as well.Would you think beyond one generation or not?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : or

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks CosmicChimp, saw the edit. Seeing as morality is about behavior to others, this does seem to be the case. It preserves the genes, but it doesn't say anything about behavior based on that fit. One could conclude that this approach would be very selfish and self centered - would you agree with that?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Deftil, Not really, what I want to explore is how evolutionary processes affect what we see as moral. Yes, we can see this kind of behavior modeled in the reproductive approach of various organisms: the broadcast as many offspring as possible approach and the long term raising of a few offspring approach. One relies more on flooding the system hoping some will survive, and one relies more on providing resources and learned behavior to ensure survival.In the former case it is moral to abandon the children as you proceed to have more.In the later case it is moral to spend time with each offspring to teach them behavior and how to live. A bear cub stays with it's mother for 3 years, iirc.How would these different reproductive strategies then affect behavior towards other individuals?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, PaulK Moral behavior is acceptable behavior, and evolution affects behavior, and it affects what one could consider acceptable.In a predatory species, murder could be acceptable as long as the victim is consumed. The new male lion pride leader kills the children of his predecessor so that he can start spreading his hereditary traits.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks ikabod, Yet what we chose to consider moral behavior is also based on the fact that we are a social species, and a species that requires attention to care for offspring to keep them alive. Having children with as many mates as possible to spread your genes into the population. However this would be at the expense of being able to care for those children to ensure their survival and health.Having many children with one mate would concentrate your ability to care for them. Wholesale murder of other children, would have consequences for the survival of your own. Like a class system?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks PaulK Agreed. There is also the problem of post hoc fallacy to ascribe behavior to moral systems that are actually part of hereditary or derived behavior. But I believe we can see evidence of such thinking in other species, especially in those we can communicate with (Koko etc), and in experiments such as the capuchin monkeys sense of "fairness"

quote:

---

The new finding suggests evolution may have something to do with it. It also highlights questions about the economic and evolutionary nature of cooperation and its relationship to a species' sense of fairness, while adding yet another chapter to our understanding of primates.

​

"It looks like this behavior is evolved . it is not simply a cultural construct. There's some good evolutionary reason why we don't like being treated unfairly," said Sarah Brosnan, lead author of the study to be published in tomorrow's issue of the science journal Nature.

---

A basic sense of "fairness" would logically lead to the common "do unto others" ethic. Would that not then leave such species predisposed to develop a moral system that includes those behaviors as moral?Personally, I think much of what humans consider moral behavior is based on such predisposition due to our being a social animal. For instance, it is interesting to note that variations of the "do unto others" golden rule are found in all human cultures I am aware of, and that it makes a lot of sense in a social animal.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey ikabod, Well that is part of the question. If moral systems are culturally derived systems based on agreements of what constitutes acceptable behavior, then logically there are no moral absolutes.If, however, some of that behavior is driven by evolved hereditary behavior in a species, then it comes into the picture as (at least) a strong predisposition for certain behavior always being considered "moral" for that species. To the victor goes a good idea for a book eh Hugo? Perhaps a screen-play adaptation?Practically any behavior can be lawful or unlawful irrespective of whether it is moral or not, imho. An yet there do seem to be some universal concepts to (human) moral behavior, such as the golden rule. There are other concepts that seem to apply to tribal thinking: behavior relative to in group vs out group. Our intelligence may have shifted some pressures, and added new ones, however we are still a social species, perhaps extending our "tribal behavior" to include more beings in what we call a "tribe" - but still thinking in terms of behavior within the tribe, within the society.Is a moral structure required for a social organism? If a moral structure is a prerequisite for a social organism, then can we deduce any behavior from that fact?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks, PaulK It's also been claimed that we are the only species with religion (although one would have to consider what religion would be for other species, just as we have considered what morality would be like for other species). Brad's point about group behavior affecting selection of the group ties in here, as religion certainly can affect cohesive behaviors, and they also are the ones claiming to have (absolute) moral systems. If group behavior is selected then it is open to evolutionary pressure. Religion then forms an easy excuse for why we think certain behaviors due to evolution are moral and other behaviors are not, and when such precepts are reinforced by natural selection of the group, it can be seen as validation of the religions. We are appalled when a mother drowns her children, not because it is a sin to kill, but because this behavior goes against evolved behavior to care for children, our instincts. Is there a cut and dry line? I would think there is a spectrum of ability in this, as there is between instinctive behavior and chosen behavior. Humans like to think they are above instinctive behaviors.Instinctive behavior, I would think, could not be considered moral or immoral as it is not a choice. We can consider evolved behavior to be instinctive, but that then raises the question whether our sense of fairness is instinctive or learned/chosen. So the foundation is due to evolution, the predispositions and instinctive behaviors, that are taken for granted as "good" ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks ikabod They are all the same behavior, just at different scales. They define in-group as opposed to out-group. Yes, they could contribute to long term trait survival, possibly why such behavior still exists, but I don't see them as critical to long term trait preservation, nor sufficient on their own to accomplish that goal.One also needs to distinguish between "normal male" and "normal female" behavior patterns, if we are talking about behavior patterns that have evolved and that form a foundation, a predisposition, for certain behaviors being classed as acceptable to the group. Competition vs cooperation. Lone male vs family female. Yes. "Stealing" is a relative term. Unless richness is a gift it can be due to stealing from others to accumulate the differential in value: taking more than you give, more than your fair share. This comes back to the sense of fairness within an group: how much is one "entitled" to benefit? Personally I don't think these behaviors are universal, rather they represent one extreme of the spectrum of social interaction found in a social group.Again, you do see peer pressure in social animals to conform to group accepted behavior, rather than exhibit purely selfish behavior. It is interesting to me, that in the Capuchin Monkey study that it is the females that enforce fairness. Outcry against genocide appears only to have existed in recent times.This would of course mean that it is new behavior, rather than behavior predicated on evolved behavior patterns. Religious moral outcry, however, could be directly related to those evolved behavior patterns having been part of the formation of the religion, as a means of conveniently explaining the behavior. But if the behavior was instinctive, an evolved behavior pattern that benefits group survival, then there is no way - without understanding the evolutionary background - of providing a reason for the behavior.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey PaulK, Agreed. It is interesting that Neanders had ceremonial burials, however not much other is known. Some hints of culture, but scarce and questionable. Again, agreed. A predisposition for certain behaviors to be regarded as moral at best.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Otto Tellik, for joining us. I've been waiting for someone to question the premise that preservation of hereditary traits is a desirable goal based on evolution. What we see in evolution is that traits are selected generation to generation, and that the mix of traits is always in flux, even when a species is in temporary "stasis" (with complete stasis being an inevitable result of total preservation). And the question is how does one determine which traits are desirable without assuming they are just because they are yours (and you are, presumably, a successful organism, having survived and being able to breed). No apologies necessary. Sticking with hereditary traits (rather than getting into the mechanics of genetics) we can observe that organisms are composed of many traits, and that some traits are more successful than others in certain environments. This also does not mean that they will be similarly successful in other environments. This then raises the question of what we are trying to preserve, when preserving our lineage. So the first moral precept for behavior that one could derive from evolution would be the preservation of the diversity and inter-relationships of life in general, from bacterium to Nobel Prize winner? A universal "do unto others" code, coupled with the awareness that "we are all in this together" ... But it does give a basis for a rational argument for such behavior, but the application to morality overall is small.Is the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo justified by the long term preservation of life? I think not, however it does not affect the long term preservation of life either. Same with abortion and genocide.Is global warming a threat to the long term preservation of life? Possible, it depends on the rate of change and how much life can survive.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •