Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   What morality can be logically derived from Evolution?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 16 of 32 (491043)
12-11-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by fallacycop
12-11-2008 12:35 AM


Re: opt out option?
That's interesting. Humans are a predatory species. If your logic is correct, murder should be acceptable, as long as it's done for canibalism. Is it?
We are a tribal species, and this appears to take far greater precedent than our predatory nature. So, yes, it is acceptable as long as we are eating members of another tribe. The questions is then - what do you define as our tribe? That is a function of time. You might also debatedly call it a measure of civilisation. At our level of Western civilisation, our tribal boundary actually starts to cross the species boundary (the concept of eating a chimp is fairly abhorent to our culture, and outside rabid creationists, we are happy to describe other memebers of the great apes as our 'cousins')

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by fallacycop, posted 12-11-2008 12:35 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 17 of 32 (491044)
12-11-2008 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
12-10-2008 7:49 AM


Re: nature vs nurture?
Hello RAZD
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
Do we? , I did ask if you looking for moral absolutes , are you?
I think we must be careful not to mix morals and law , we generate a lot of social behaviour laws that aid the running of our social groupings , many based on practicality , but are they moral ?
Example , it is a crime to steal from someone else , BUT what if the robber is starving and he steal bread from a very rich man ?
Which comes back to my question about moral absolutes , now I know these have been debated in many threads , so rather that be specific , I am talking about them as a concept ,can you derive any absolutes from “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “?
I would take the position , that with out a set of absolutes to use as a foundation , the moral code is fatally flawed , as it will be dogged by grey areas .
From our previous posts I think we can agree that what seem like advantageous “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “ are not as clear cut as would first seem , and give that our intelligence has shifted the survival pressures that are upon us , can we target those important behaviours at all?
Your replies to my few example in my earlier post , make my point , that to promote one offspring seem to come at a price the rest of humanity would have to pay .
Simple taking those three examples , one could envision a culture of a breeding elite , with a underclass off sterile servants and workers , who’s sole purpose is to care for the elites offspring and maintain the infrastructure of the society . now where on earth would one find such a system ..?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2008 7:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-11-2008 10:36 AM ikabod has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 9:39 PM ikabod has replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 18 of 32 (491060)
12-11-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ikabod
12-11-2008 3:52 AM


What system are you thinking of then?
Simple taking those three examples , one could envision a culture of a breeding elite , with a underclass off sterile servants and workers , who’s sole purpose is to care for the elites offspring and maintain the infrastructure of the society . now where on earth would one find such a system ..?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ikabod, posted 12-11-2008 3:52 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ikabod, posted 12-12-2008 4:56 AM CosmicChimp has replied

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


Message 19 of 32 (491125)
12-11-2008 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
12-10-2008 2:16 PM


Cappucin Monkeys Do Unto Others
Thanks PaulK
Most important of all there is a big difference between using evolutionary principles to predict or explain elements of morality and actually using evolution to prescribe morality.
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.
More importantly, so far as we know, only humans have full-fledged moral codes and those are largely learned and the details are hugely influenced by culture.
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.
I'll grant that evolution can tell us something about the behaviour an animal species is likely to find acceptable.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2008 2:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2008 1:44 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 20 of 32 (491133)
12-11-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ikabod
12-11-2008 3:52 AM


Any Absolute Predispositions?
Hey ikabod,
I did ask if you looking for moral absolutes , are you?
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.
Example , it is a crime to steal from someone else , BUT what if the robber is starving and he steal bread from a very rich man ?
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.
I would take the position , that with out a set of absolutes to use as a foundation , the moral code is fatally flawed , as it will be dogged by grey areas .
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.
From our previous posts I think we can agree that what seem like advantageous “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “ are not as clear cut as would first seem , and give that our intelligence has shifted the survival pressures that are upon us , can we target those important behaviours at all?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ikabod, posted 12-11-2008 3:52 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ikabod, posted 12-12-2008 5:48 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 21 of 32 (491141)
12-12-2008 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
12-11-2008 9:03 PM


Re: Cappucin Monkeys Do Unto Others
quote:
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"
As I stated at the start of my post::
I'll grant that evolution can tell us something about the behaviour an animal species is likely to find acceptable.
quote:
Would that not then leave such species predisposed to develop a moral system that includes those behaviors as moral?
If they have the capability to generate a fully-fledged moral system. I do not think that any species, other than humans has that ability.
quote:
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.
That basic principles underlying morality probably are largely due to evolution, which is why I stated that it was the details that were strongly affected by culture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 9:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Brad McFall, posted 12-12-2008 9:39 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2008 4:57 PM PaulK has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 22 of 32 (491146)
12-12-2008 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by CosmicChimp
12-11-2008 10:36 AM


Re: What system are you thinking of then?
Yes I was meaning the social insect model , but in a very generalized way . Taking it as a given that we are social creatures and our “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “ has to function with in a social structure , we can look at a the generalized insect model as an extreme example . I was careful to avoid the use of the word slave as that would imply the use of force to maintain the social structure and would not be a stable system .
If the moral system a society uses is based upon preferential promotion of a certain genetic line , within the population , i can not see how such a system would not drift towards a extreme form, in what ever shape or model you choose to consider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-11-2008 10:36 AM CosmicChimp has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by CosmicChimp, posted 12-12-2008 6:04 AM ikabod has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 23 of 32 (491147)
12-12-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
12-11-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Any Absolute Predispositions?
If, however, some of that behaviour is driven by evolved hereditary behaviour in a species, then it comes into the picture as (at least) a strong predisposition for certain behaviour always being considered "moral" for that species.
Do you agree then , taking your above statement as a basis for identifying moral behaviour ,it would be apparent that some parts of the population would have a strong predisposition for immoral behaviour , and thus your logically derived moral code is discriminatory ?
Practically any behaviour can be lawful or unlawful irrespective of whether it is moral or not, imho.
I would totally agree with you here , which is why I believe it is important to try to distinguish between social laws , and social morals . Returning to our Hugo-esque scenario the bread robber is unlawful, while the rich man may be considered immoral for not helping others .
To consider your golden rule of “do unto others” is not the rich man not in breach of that rule .
Social groups , tribal or otherwise , to me , always seem to go against your golden rule and become “do unto outsiders what ever you like , do unto insiders what ever you can get away with ,while making sure you promote yourself within the group “.
Xenophobic trends and personal greed seem to be some of the most universal human behavioural traits, leading to .
Me before you
My family/houshold before your family
My neighbourhood before yours
My town , my district , my nation, my geo-political /my planet . ..
Are these “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “ one could make a case that they are , I am not sure , what do you think ?
In the modern information rich social / tribal context we live in laws, and the penalties they impose when broken, seems to have become more important that morals . When one hears of a moral outcry , and I do not mean in the sense the Media tends to use the phrase , it is in the context of a religious view , or a harkening back to bygone eras ,not some current ,globally relevant ,code. Personally I believe this is , in part , due to the fact that those moral codes have been found wanting , with to many grey areas , and claims of” because” , rather that being able to hold up a absolute reason why some thing is moral or not .
Socialites need its members to conform to the agreed social format , the question seem to be , does the format need to be moral , for it to be a successful social unit .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 9:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2008 6:18 PM ikabod has not replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 24 of 32 (491149)
12-12-2008 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ikabod
12-12-2008 4:56 AM


Ants, bees too I guess. I don't know about isoptera.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ikabod, posted 12-12-2008 4:56 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 25 of 32 (491255)
12-12-2008 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-12-2008 1:44 AM


Re: population, ethics and morality
quote:
PaulK
Most important of all there is a big difference between using evolutionary principles to predict or explain elements of morality and actually using evolution to prescribe morality.
RAZD
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.
I am still going to go with PaulK on this RAZD. It seems you (RAZD) are addressing a meta issue before we know what that is, possible behavior on top of behavior no matter the nature of genic selection etc. Mayr however seems to agree more with you than say PaulK or me.
Mayr said, (Why Biology is Unique page 146)"if, owing to the interaction of the composing individuals or owing to a division of labor or other social actions, the fitness of a group is higher or lower than the arithmetic mean of the fitness values of the composing individuals, then the group as a whole can serve as an object of selection. I call this hard group selection. Interestingly, this was already appreciated by Darwin in a discussion of groups of primative humans (Darwin 1871). Such hard group selection, a prerequisite for the explanantion of human ethics, is still controversial (Sober and Wilson 1998)."
I am somewhat certain however, that Mayr's analysis would have to preclude sense being made of Wright's,1931 -"The less the variation of gene frequency about its mean value, the closer the approach to an adaptive orthogensis" in the same distribtion curve shape underlying the details of any behavior from evolution etc.
It seems to preclude my own idea
http://aexion.org/evopoise.aspx
that Gladyshev's macrothermodynamics can inform the turning curve of Wright's non-Eimerian orthogenesis. Instead we have the notion of facilitated variation. I addrss this outside of the body in space here:
http://axiompanbiog.com/content1.aspx
These details (difference of Eimer's use of morphophysis and organophysis) however could show that no moral beyond ethical system could arise (in the same conversation about evolutionary pricincples vs prescribed morality via ethics(Orthogensis is the domain of internal drives (innate,ethical,moral,etc) to biological change)) except in the human, as per as you say PaulK.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2008 1:44 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 26 of 32 (491285)
12-13-2008 2:07 PM


A little clarification about my position on eugenics
Seeing how what I said ended up as a quote in the OP, I need to clear up a few things.
Yes, I believe in eugenics, but not in the same way that you people are thinking, just like I believe in some shades of socialism but not in full blown dictatorial communism.
Speaking as someone that does fundraisers for the Special Olympics, I've seen what kind of miseries both the parents and the retarded children have gone through, and I'm talking about the most tolerant of tolerant environments. This is common sense. If I know that there is a very good chance, say 75% chance, of my offspring ending up with a genetic disorder that leads to miserable short lives, why on earth would I, a decent human being, go ahead and purposely reproduce?
Some years ago, I met a woman that, at the time, was on her 3rd dying kid. She is a carrier of a genetic disorder (can't remember what it is) that kills a kid by the time he's 4 or 5. Somehow, she ended up marrying a man that also was a carrier. That meant that their offspring would have a very high chance of dying a slow and painful death by the time it's 5. And yet, this couple decided to go ahead and keep having children knowing full well the kind of misery they'd bring onto their own children as well as themselves.
Now, I am not saying that I believe in force sterilization of these people. I don't believe in that. I believe that ultimately it is their decision to make. It doesn't mean I agree with their decision to reproduce solely for the purpose of having dead, dying, or maim kids. The eugenics that I believe in simply is that if you know your kid will have some kind of genetic disorder then you should refrain from having any at all.
The eugenics that I believe in is about educating and encouraging people to be selfless rather than selfish. Reproducing while knowing you are a carrier of a genetic disorder or that your kid has a very high chance of having a genetic disorder is a selfish act. Why? Because you are reproducing for the sole purpose of satisfying your primal instinct to procreate.
PS - I'm also prolife...
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

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


Message 27 of 32 (491293)
12-13-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
12-12-2008 1:44 AM


Re: Cappucin Monkeys Do Unto Others
Thanks, PaulK
If they have the capability to generate a fully-fledged moral system. I do not think that any species, other than humans has that ability.
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.
... I do not think that any species, other than humans has that ability.
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.
That basic principles underlying morality probably are largely due to evolution, which is why I stated that it was the details that were strongly affected by culture.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2008 1:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 12-14-2008 3:48 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 28 of 32 (491299)
12-13-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ikabod
12-12-2008 5:48 AM


Re: Any Absolute Predispositions?
Thanks ikabod
.
Me before you
My family/houshold before your family
My neighbourhood before yours
My town , my district , my nation, my geo-political /my planet . ..
Are these “behaviours that promote the long term survival of offspring “ one could make a case that they are , I am not sure , what do you think ?
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.
To consider your golden rule of “do unto others” is not the rich man not in breach of that rule .
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?
Social groups , tribal or otherwise , to me , always seem to go against your golden rule and become “do unto outsiders what ever you like , do unto insiders what ever you can get away with ,while making sure you promote yourself within the group “.
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.
When one hears of a moral outcry , and I do not mean in the sense the Media tends to use the phrase , it is in the context of a religious view , or a harkening back to bygone eras ,not some current ,globally relevant ,code
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.
Personally I believe this is , in part , due to the fact that those moral codes have been found wanting , with to many grey areas , and claims of” because” , rather that being able to hold up a absolute reason why some thing is moral or not .
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ikabod, posted 12-12-2008 5:48 AM ikabod has not replied

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


Message 29 of 32 (491311)
12-14-2008 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
12-13-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Cappucin Monkeys Do Unto Others
I am not claiming that there is a clear, hard theoretical line which would distinguish a fully developed morality. I AM claiming that there is a major gap between modern humans and all other species currently existing on this planet. Historically, of course, this gap has been bridged but thoss e species are extinct and we have little information on their behaviour.
Evolution is the historical explanation for why we have the basic instincts that morality is built on. But we must be clear that they are part of a package - including other behavioural and even physical aspects - and that that package is just one of the possibilities that evolution allows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2008 4:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2008 11:23 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 30 of 32 (491312)
12-14-2008 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-09-2008 7:32 PM


RAZD writes:
(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.
I sense some problems with this description. To begin with, given that evolution is the interaction between (usually random) mutation and (usually externally driven) selection, how can the individuals of one generation possibly select behaviors that will ensure the indefinite continuation of their particular traits, against the potential challenges of mutations and environmental forces that are as yet unseen and unknowable?
Of course, if it is sufficient that some subset of your (presumably desirable) traits simply remain part of a population, which happens to also include traits (due to mutation and/or mixture) that you never had, then it would be easier to frame a logical basis for moral behavior. But then, where/how does one draw the line for deciding "long term success": How many traits need to survive, and which ones? If all of the "relevant" traits that came directly from you via inheritance were to be replaced by traits from other sources, would you have failed despite continuation of your lineage? Even if the replacement traits turn out to be not that different from your originals? (Apologies if these hypotheticals are nonsensical -- I'm not well educated in the detailed mechanics of genetic inheritance.)
But apart from that, the "definition" provided seems too limited in scope for the notion of "long term success" as I would view that term. Or perhaps it's simply a matter of not following through and presenting the necessary entailments, which might go something like this;
In order to ensure continued survival, all of the following factors come into play:
  • Ability to exert control over the environment, to ensure the continuation of conditions that enhance the likelihood of survival for you and your offspring
  • Ability to comprehend the limitations of your control over the environment, so that you anticipate situations where needs for survival may not be met, and pursue alternate behaviors in preparation for threatening changes -- and also so that you avoid exerting control in ways that lead to irreversible failure
  • Ability to understand how your own lineage is dependent for its survival on other lineages, species, phyla, etc, meaning that your own long-term survival is intrinsically bound to the long-term survival of all others.
I think the last item there is the crucial point -- the irrefutably and inescapably logical basis for moral behavior. There are still more steps to be filled in, to cover questions of the form "Why would I need X in order to assure long-term survival?" (where X could be any other living thing: mold, mosquitos, manatees; scorpions, snakes, seals; cannibals, criminals, cripples; ...)
Regardless of our tendency to view these "others" with either enmity or sympathy, the relevance of their contributions to our survival will seem tenuous, at best, to many people. But I think strong arguments can be made (and have been made) that the growth of morality exists in expanding the scope of "included with the self", to encompass more of what had previously been considered "excluded as other".
We could take the view that the basic premise of current evolutionary theory -- that all life on Earth is descended from a common origin -- should properly be interpreted to mean that our own goal of "long-term success" encompasses all life on the planet, despite the fact that in many cases, certain sub-branches of the whole geneological tree (including various distinct groups of humans) are in direct conflict with other sub-branches, due to competition for common resources, etc. This would lead to one more entailment of long-term success:
  • Ability to understand conflict as a natural component of life within the given environment, to discern as fully as possible and without bias, how the possible outcomes of a given conflict will affect long-term success viewed in the largest possible scope of that term, and to actively support the outcome that maximizes the likelihood of success for all current forms of life (or at least, for all living things directly involved in the conflict).
This sort of perspective does not end debates about the justifiability of killing people (self-defense, death penalty, abortion to save the mother's life, wars for independence / liberation / whatever), though it does place a heavier burden on those who would kill, to establish adequate cause, and prove how the result would be an overall benefit.
We could probably envision a few rare scenarios where that sort of consideration would lead to a conclusion like "all members of X must be killed", (where X may be a viral or bacterial strain, or some insect or animal species ravaging a specific location) but one of the lessons taught to us repeatedly by observing evolution is that increasing diversity is both inevitable and successful, whereas decreasing diversity goes against the general trend and can increase risks to overall success.
With regard to human groups (based on lineage, language, religion or whatever), one need only communicate with two or more individual members of a given group to realize that any assertion about "all members" of that group (whether or not it's intended to justify destruction of the group) will turn out to be untrue for some (or even most) members of the group.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2008 7:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2008 12:35 PM Otto Tellick 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