Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Actually, I believe that you have only demonstrated that there is no moral act which does not result in something that can be considered beneficial for the original actor (possibly only an internal feeling).
And I would agree with such a statement.
However, there is a difference between beneficial results and selfishness.To me, the core definition of selfishness includes a personal motivation towards self-improvement. If that motivation is not present, then the simple actualisation of a possible future benefit is not justification to call the orignial action selfish.Basically, just because good stuff happens doesn't mean the person originally acted in such a manner as to attain those good things. When good stuff happens to a person, it doesn't automatically make that person selfish. Such a thing is too simple and redefines the word "selfish" to no longer include any amount of personal motivation towards self-improvement.And, if the person's motivation is unselfish, then I would say that the moral action is unselfish.Example 1:I open the car door for my wife because I think it would make her happy.
This moral action is unselfish.
Possible result A: My wife thanks me, smiles, and I feel happy too. The action was still unselfish as long as I wasn't hoping for or intending for this result.
Possible result B: My wife slaps me because she wants to do things herself and not be seen as "weak". The action was still unselfish as long as I wasn't hoping for or intending a beneficial result.Example 2:I open the car door for my wife because I hope it will help me feel better in some way.
This moral action is selfish.
Possible result A: My wife thanks me, smiles, and I feel happy too. The action was selfish because I got the selfish result I wanted.
Possible result B: My wife slaps me because she wants to do things herself and not be seen as "weak". The action was still selfish because my motivation for the action was selfishly oriented.I propose that whether or not a moral action is selfish is determined by the motivation for the action, not the following results.I fully admit that I cannot show you that any specific motivation was actually selfish or not. However, this includes the fact that you cannot show me that any specific motivation was actually selfish, let alone all moral actions.I agree with you on the whole that morality is not a problem for evolution. However, I think that this side-point for your arguement is flawed. Morality isn't a problem for evolution for the same reason echo-location is not a problem for evolution. There's nothing to prevent such a trait, there's at least some reasoning as to why it could be useful, and all verifiable information about the trait points to a naturally occuring answer.

Where did it come from? is it genetic in nature? can it be preserved as such? Give me some proofs here, its not enough to say that it arose and natural selection preserved it.

Nobody is claiming there is any such thing as a 'morality gene'. The structure of our brains and the various organs which produce hormones and other mood-altering chemicals is dependent on a whole host of genes. Taken together, they mean that human thought works in certain ways - leading us to feel compassion for and empathy with others; and to develop concepts of fairness. All cultures punish killing, and most endorse it. What changes is the specific circumstances under which killing is acceptable, praiseworthy or abhorrent. The reason for this change is because we don't have a specific set of commandments hardwired into our genes. Rather, our genes determine that we will possess certain traits like compassion, guilt and a sense of fairness. It's from these that people construct moralities, and the specifics are bound to be dependent on the cultural situation. If we're talking about the genetic basis of morality, then it's irrelevant whether an action will actually benefit you (or your genes, to be more precise). What's important is whether, on average over the course of our evolutionary history, the drives which caused you to behave in that way brought about behaviour which was beneficial for your (ABE: ancestor's) genes.That sentence was long and confusing, so I'll try anf elaborate. Imagine a much more simple animal, without conscious thought. It works on a few simple instructions to decide its behaviour, as these generally work out well for it and lead to reproductive success. It lives underwater, and needs to come to the surface to feed in the daytime. The simple instruction that causes it to do so is to react to light by swimming towards it, and this all works well.However, imagine somebody builds an artificial light over the creature's pond. Reacting to the light, it swims to the surface, wasting energy thrashing around for a food source that isn't present and with daytime camouflage causing it to stand out to night time predators. Despite this behaviour being wasteful and dangerous, we wouldn't conclude it was intentionally committed suicide or working to its own detriment. We'd know that it was following rules that are generally beneficial, but in this particular case backfired.In the same way, if someone behaves in a fashion which disadvantages them, and disadvantages their genetic legacy, we can't just conclude there can be no adaptive reason for this behaviour. They'll just be working on cues which have lead to genetic success for its ancestors in the past, but in this particular instance backfired. Throughout most of the history of humanity, we lived in small groups of closely related people. Most people you saw regularly would be close relatives who share similar genes to you. If you have genes which predispose you to help your friends and family, even to your own detriment; they will probably share the same genes. So, anything you do which aids your family's survival and success will lead to the propagation of these 'caring genes' - even if you yourself die or miss out in the process.It's not about consciously caring. It's about being inclined towards behaviours and attitudes that have lead to genetic success for our ancestors.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

The ability and inclination towards moral behavior is genetic; the actual specific rules are social.Your earlier posts indicated that you believe we are saying that the actual specific rules are genetic, but that is not at all the case. The ability to learn social rules and the willingness and eagerness to do so are part of human nature. Human nature is rooted in the brain, whose structure and operation are in turn based on genetics.There are two kinds of evolution at work here. Actual biological evolution of which results in human nature (and canine nature and feline nature, etc). Within a social species, natural selection would tend to favor individuals who are able to function well within the society and to select against anti- or a-social individuals. As a result, the population on a whole would become better able to function within the society.The second is "cultural evolution", an analogy to evolution that applies to societies and their cultures. A society uses its culture in order to function and to survive. That culture includes the society's values and rules of conduct, its morality. Changes to the culture that benefit the society will persist both because the members of society see value in it and because the society itself is able to persist; in effect, they will have been selected for. Changes that endanger the society will not persist, either because the members of society will see that it's causing huge problems or because the society itself collapses (at which point survivors form a new society or societies or are assimilated into another society).What part of that do you not understand?

Hi, Cedre. Why is that not enough?
The preservation of the trait is the only thing the Theory of Evolution really explains.
ToE does not explain the mechanisms that cause mutations. Thus, no matter what mechanism produces the new trait, so long as that trait is genetic in nature, ToE is not in conflict with it. Thus, morality, if it is genetic, is not a thorn in Darwin’s side.But, as to your question, I already provided that answer in my post: It has been shown with undeniable accuracy that the traits of organisms are linked to their genes.
It has been shown with undeniable accuracy that genes can be changed by random mutations.
It has been shown with undeniable accuracy that mutations can result in new traits.And, tt has been shown with undeniable accuracy that behaviors are heavily influenced by genetics.It’s really a simple connection from there.Too many religious people want to cloud the issue with vague probability statements, incredulity, and gap-Gods. But, each step of the process from mutations to genes to traits to behaviors has been documented with multiple sound scientific investigations, such that, although there could be a unique exception to the pattern in the case of morality, there simply is no reason to believe such an exception exists.The burden of proof is on the guy proposing the exception. In this debate, that's you.Edited by Bluejay, : All three of those were supposed to be "undeniable"

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

Hi Cedre, Can we take this to mean that you now agree that morality benefits the individual and the group? Because this seemed to be part of your misunderstanding before or are you just contradicting yourself again? It is unlikely that morality can be found as a single gene, rather it would be linked to the genes that control brain development and partially influenced by social environment. Nature and nurtured. Morality doesn't vary that greatly from culture to culture, sweetheart. You may want to believe this or want us to believe it but it's simply not the truth! All cultures have endorsed killing for one reason or another, such as war or capital punishment, etc. But no culture endorses murder for fun or sport or killing just because you feel like it. Granny's claim is very well grounded. Whether an individual is rewarded for altruism depends on there own brain, not on the place or the time as you think. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain responsible for many behaviors, it gives us the feeling of well being and happiness. Having too little of it in your brain can lead to depression, anxiety and aggression. Research has shown that performing an act of kindness can cause a substantial increase in the level of serotonin in the brain. In other words being kind will make you feel good. For an act of kindness you are rewarded, by you. Your brain rewards your brain with a nice dose of the 'feel good' neurotransmitter.I've gathered, after reading all your post, that you, Cedre, are only ever moral or behave altruistically because your bible tells you you should behave that way. How else could you come to the conclusion that you need an external reward for good behavior. You're really just sucking up to your imaginary god, aren't you? I think the reason you chose this forum is because you are so convince that you are right, that you have this debate in the bag. You really thought that you were going to show us evolutionists how wrong we are. The only person you have convinced is yourself. You certainly didn't come here to learn about the issue. If you were really interested you would be paying attention to what every one has been telling you or at least answering many of the important questions people on this tread have been asking you to answer. Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.

---

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose free will. - Neil Peart"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

{offered as much for Cedre's edification} The nature-vs-nurture question is an old one in psychology, in which the question is how much of the behavior we see is learned and how much is instinctive. Not being a psychologist and only having university classes from a few decades ago to go by, my understanding is that much is learned -- especially detailed behavior -- , but the basis for that type of behavior and our propensity to learn such behavior is most likely "instinctive" (ie, genetically inherited, AKA "nurture").Specific moral rules are learned. A moral sense (ie, an instinct for wanting to seek out and learn and follow the group's code of conduct, it's morality) is inherited and hence has a genetic basis.Yes, I think that it is unlikely to find a single gene for a moral sense, since that appears to me to require a complex of genes. But we will need to see where research in the human genome leads us. Again for Cedre's edification, my rhetorical question is: just why do we find so many similarities between the moral codes of so many different societies? Keep in mind that if Cedre's god is the only source for morality -- if the Bible is the only source for morality -- just the simple fact that morality exists in every single human society that has ever existed -- even in overtly atheistic societies -- then why should morality exist in those non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic societies even exist? Yet it does. Hmm!OK, here's my own understanding. What is the common factor of every single human society that exists and has ever existed? Human nature! (duh?)Why does every moral code deal with killing other humans? Because humans are involved in every single case! Duh?Why does every moral code deal with marriage (the pairing of breeding pairs) and with the status of the children? Because humans are involved in every single case! Duh?Why does every moral code deal with personal property and the security thereof? Because humans are involved in every single case! Duh?What is the common factor here? Human nature and the ways in which humans interact within any society. Duh?My understanding is that because that common factor, human nature, is involved in every single human society, that means that we will see its influence in every single human society. Duh?My understanding of how this plays out is that the moral issues that every single human society needs to address will, because they all have to deal with the same human nature and the same ways that humans inevitably interact with each other, will be the same. The details of how they do so will differ. Identical basic issues, but different detailed solutions to those problems. Duh?So to restate specifically to your statement: The basic principles and isssues indeed do not change. It is only in the details that they differ.Now, the challenge for Cedre is why morality even exists in non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic-and-Atheistic societies. If morality can only come from his own god, then how could it possibly exist in societies that have absolultely nothing to do with his particular god?The true answer is that morality does not come from his god (or at least not from his Bible), but rather from the necessities of human society.At which point I would expect Cedre to object to the supposition that human nature had evolved. Well, that doesn't really matter, does it? Human nature exists! However it had gotten here, human nature does indeed exist. Whatever follows after that point doesn't make any difference, does it? Human nature is human nature, no matter how it had ultimately originated, right? All that follows still follows.Or to quote the Popeye Theorem (AKA the "tubor testimonial"): "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam!"At this point, I must again state my position: I do not remember what atheist author had written this, but (quoting from memory):

quote:

---

If my Christian neighbor truly believes that without his believe in Christ he would be a blood-thirsty mass ax-murderer, then by all means I say let him retain his Christian beliefs.

---

If Cedre's only reason for moral behavior is because he believes that without his Christ he would be required to behave immorally, then by all means allow him to continue to believe in his Christ. His remaining deluded would be the lesser of two evils.Sad that we must continue to have such individuals of such puny morality among us.

There are only about 30,000 functional genes in humans (those that can be transcribed to produce their messengers, the proteins. You say a combination of these genes play a role in how we feel and our overall mood. Fine, but give me the names of these genes that our emotions are dependent on that make us to feel love and joy and hatred. Give me some loci; give me something in preference to just a bunch of hypothesis. Furthermore how exactly do they perform this function? How do they do this? Show this to be so? How does natural selection lacking a brain achieve this feat? Where in the genome are these moral genes preserved? Where exactly do these linkages occur? How do chemicals end up in positive moral choices? for example what would you say happens inside an individual on a chemical level that causes this individual to apologize to another individual? You know and I know that the above quote is extraneous to the discussion we are having, so why make it? Why did you make this claim when you do not know hardly anything about my personality or moral code. I will urge you to please refrain from repeating such quotes in your future posts. Why do you keep on making this sort of comments and statements, charges and attacks I will call them, if they are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stick to the discussion and leave my person alone. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements
Michael Koenigs, Liane Young, Ralph Adolphs, Daniel Tranel, Fiery Cushman, Marc Hauser & Antonio Damasio

quote:

---

The psychological and neurobiological processes underlying moral judgement have been the focus of many recent empirical studies. Of central interest is whether emotions play a causal role in moral judgement, and, in parallel, how emotion-related areas of the brain contribute to moral judgement. Here we show that six patients with focal bilateral damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a brain region necessary for the normal generation of emotions and, in particular, social produce an abnormally 'utilitarian' pattern of judgements on moral dilemmas that pit compelling considerations of aggregate welfare against highly emotionally aversive behaviours (for example, having to sacrifice one person's life to save a number of other lives). In contrast, the VMPC patients' judgements were normal in other classes of moral dilemmas. These findings indicate that, for a selective set of moral dilemmas, the VMPC is critical for normal judgements of right and wrong. The findings support a necessary role for emotion in the generation of those judgements.

---

Just in case you doubted that the brain and morality are linked - this study is not unique. Some genes that are of interest might be BDNF on Chromosome 11 or MAOA on the X Chromosome - variants in the latter have some interesting side effects such as increased propensity to crime. One mutation has led to the very rare Brunner syndrome which leads the handful of (related) sufferers to commit serious crimes such as rape and arson.

Because you always manage to not answer the questions that will open this up to a discussion of your claim that we are moral because we are made in gods image. You demand proof and we give it. We ask you to answer simple questions such as "why are atheist ever moral and sometimes more moral than religious people?" and you never answer.
And where is your evidence, Cedre? and don't quote scripture.
The burden of proof lies with you? You have not even begun to prove to me that we are moral because we are made in god's image as you claim. Edited by SammyJean, : No reason given.

---

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose free will. - Neil Peart"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

Such absurd demands for exhaustively detailed information! Surely you are ready and willing to provide information of the same level and detail that you demand of others!You remind me of the story behind my favorite Pharisee teachings: the Golden Rule and looking to the spirit of the Law rather than the letter of the Law. Yes, that's right: Pharisee teachings. Presented by Rabbi Hillel around 20 BCE, half a century before the purported ministry of Jesus.A gentile went to the leading rabbis demanding that each one recite the whole of the Law while standing on one foot. Now, at the time, the method of study was to memory the entire body of writings so that you can recite any part of it at any time -- Jewish scholars continued that practice for several centuries, and may still do so, by memorizing the Talmud, which is about the size of a large set of encyclopedias. And the Law in question was the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament.Anyway, when he demanded that of the head of the Sadducees, they chased him away and rightfully so. But when he demanded it of the head of the Pharisees, Rabbi Hillel replied:

quote:

---

Do not to others that which is displeasing to yourself. That is the whole of the Law; the rest is just explanation. Now go practice it.

---

You are claiming that it is not so?Are you trying to claim that specific moral rules are acquired genetically? That is certainly what it sounded like you were claiming before. Please explain this amazing scientific discovery of yours that has eluded everybody else! In exacting detail! And do not use any religious references, since this is a scientific issue!Mental ability and inclination are functions of the brain. Are you trying to claim that they are not? Then just exactly what do you say they are a function of? Please explain this amazing scientific discovery of yours that has eluded everybody else! In exacting detail! And do not use any religious references, since this is a scientific issue!After all, you demanded it of us, so you must be ready and willing to provide such explanations to us. Such an absurd question! Why do you rarely reply with anything other than absurd statements or absurd questions?The planets orbit the sun and moons orbit the planets. How do they achieve this feat lacking brains? Those orbits form ellipses, which is a geometric shape. Lacking brains, how are they able to do such geometry?Pick up a stone and release it. It falls straight to the ground. Lacking a brain, how could it achieve that feat?And the real clincher is the thermos bottle! You put hot food into it and it keeps it hot, or you put cold food into it and it keeps it cold. Lacking a brain, how can it tell which to do?Surely even you can see how absurd those questions are. Natural processes happen naturally and do not need intelligent guidance. Unless you wish to claim animism (belief in spirits making everything in nature happen, similar to medieval Christian ideas of angels moving the planets in their orbits and of little demons guiding bullets to their targets), but in that case you would need to provide a scientific explanation of your animistic ideas and in exacting detail.Cedre, do you have an idea at all of what evolutionary theory says? It most definitely appears that you are abjectly ignorant of evolution, considering both the absurd statements you've made in the past and now this latest one about natural selection requiring intelligent guidance. You need to learn something about what you're opposing.Natural selection is our description of the natural consequences on the population level of how individuals within those populations survive and reproduce. Darwin named it after the practice of farmers of selecting for particular characteristics while breeding their livestock or crops. The difference is that instead of an intelligence doing the selecting, it's the consequences of the characteristics of the organism which in effect "choose" which characteristics work better for survival and reproduction.Please do everybody a favor, especially yourself, and learn something. Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on natural selection: Natural selection - Wikipedia. Here are a couple excerpts to start with:

quote:

---

Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

​

The natural variation within a population of animals, plants, bacteria, etc. means that some individuals will survive better than others in their current environment. For example, the peppered moth exists in both light and dark colors in the United Kingdom, but during the industrial revolution many of the trees on which the moths rested became blackened by soot, giving the dark-colored moths an advantage in hiding from predators. This gave dark-colored moths a better chance of surviving to produce dark-colored offspring, and in just a few generations the majority of the moths were dark.

​

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will increase in frequency over the following generations. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

---

quote:

---

There is natural variation among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not matter, such as differences in eye color. However, some differences, or traits, may improve the chances of survival of a particular individual. A rabbit which runs faster than others may be more likely to escape from predators, and an algae which is more efficient at extracting the energy from sunlight will grow faster. Individuals that have better odds for survival also have better odds for reproduction. If the traits which give these individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. This is known as "differential reproduction." Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any heritable advantage will become dominant in the population, due to exponential growth.

​

In this way the natural environment of an organism "selects" for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, causing gradual changes or evolution of life. This effect was first described, and named, by Charles Darwin.

---

Just in case you do not understand the concept, when a word is placed in quotation marks as was done in that last paragraph, it means that the term is being used figuratively, not literally. Just trying to prevent you from making yet another absurd statement.Now please, read and think. Hopefully we can help you to not make such absurd statements.

quote:

---

We still haven't ascertained that morality has in point of fact evolved, just because something may benefit an organism or a group of organisms at that doesn't mean that it has evolved.

---

Quite right. My purpose here however is not to provide a complete body of evidence for the exact process by which morality evolved. Ideed, such an undertaking would be way beyond my meagre abilities.My argument is that the existence of morality is not a problem for the ToE. To defend this statement, all I need do is present a basis by which natural selection might favour the spread of moral behaviour. In the absence of any evidence from your side which might contradict this model (and you have provided none), there exists no problem for the ToE.

quote:

---

Atheists are so quick to point fingers at theists for drawing on God of the gap arguments, yet amusingly, they are not themselves blameless in this regard, often they will turn to gap arguments of their own when called for. Like this next one which goes: whatever exists exists because it was favored by nature, so morality exists because it was favored, this is not solving the problem, it’s not answering anything... I think that is sloppy reasoning.

---

Don't kid a kidder kiddo. you don't actually object to god-of-the-gaps arguments; you just object when they employed for any "god" other than yours.In truth there is no gap. There exists a continuum, which I have already pointed out to you in several examples, of more progressively more complex social behaviours in animal species, up to and including humanity. This is not a gap, it is evidence, namely, evidence that human morality is not unique. It is a more refined form of the altruism displayed by apes and others.

quote:

---

You have yet to show how morality could evolve where exactly on the chromosome the morality gene is carried. And if it is a genetic in nature than why does it seem to vary greatly from culture to culture?

---

The fact that you seemingly expect a behaviour as complex as morality to be defined by a single gene only serves to illustrate how badly you have grasped the evolutionary position here.Morality is complex. No way will it be controlled by a single gene. Evolution doesn't work that way.Your question about culture has, I think, been answered very well already, by others. Remember the example of language acquisition? We all share a genetic predisposition to learn languages, but which language we learn is down to culture.

quote:

---

This claim is not well grounded; I think whether an individual will be rewarded for his altruism will depend on the place and time, and the overall surrounding circumstances. For example if you die during self-defence how can you be repaid for this act?

---

Bad example. You do not know the outcome before you decide to defend yourself. You might get lucky and win. besides, self-defence is not very altruistic. Better to ask "Why defend an dear old lady against muggers, when you might get hurt or killed yourself?". The answer, from an evolutionary view is simple; by pursuing the altruistic behaviour, you are helping to make your social group/genetic population more productive. This is not to say that the decision is genetically pre-programmed, but merely that the apparently self-sacrificing action is perfectly compatible with natural selection. In defending the old lady, you are preserving a vital resource for your community.

quote:

---

Or if you take care of your pet whose going to reward for taking care of your pet. If you were going to crush a bug underfoot but noticed it just on time who will honor you for that act of mercy.

---

a) Your pet. Companion animals reward their owners with affection when they are fed.b) My brain. If I let the bug live, I feel better about myself and get to enjoy the serotonin that Sammy Jean mentioned. It's called "having a conscience" and it is just one of the many functions of that highly evolved brain you're carrying around. Your brain rewards good behaviour and punishes bad behaviour (well, in theory...). Do you really believe that your brain has not evolved?

quote:

---

Again you’re just blowing hot air; you make claims without providing any confirmation as if these claims were suppose to be axiomatic.

---

I have already backed up this claim. You have pretty much ignored it though.

quote:

---

Let me have it, present me something in your next post from the Selfish Gene.

---

in truth, I already have. the rabbit example I provided before is a classic example of the selfish gene principle at work.As for the book itself, it's been a while and I don't have a copy. I just think that if you want to address this question, you might do well to do a little background reading that's all. I mean, you wouldn't just enter into an argument half-cocked, knowing nothing about the subject which you are addressing would you?
Oh. Apparently, you just did.

quote:

---

One of the reasons why I chose a forum and not a book to discuss this issue is because a forum’s fast-paced and always on the go, and can expend longer hours of your day, and right now I don’t have this vast amount of spare time.

---

WHAT! You are kidding me! You can't possibly have said; Wow. You poor man.Try getting your nose out of that Bible. Not all books are mind numbing.

quote:

---

Why should we care about the survival of others?

---

Because they share our genes. Also because they're people and we might hope that if we treat people well, they will treat us well. That would seem reason enough to me.Also, it just seems like the right thing to do. do you really need more than that? If it weren't for your belief in your particular god, would you really be out there robbing and raping? I'm kind of assuming that you would not.

quote:

---

My example was if you read carefully that why will anyone opt for schooling if he/she can get the same cash now that schooling will get him in the future. If you could get all the cash to lead a decent life without requiring an education then why bother yourself with an education?

---

What a sad and disgraceful attitude. This may come as a shock to you Cedre, but some people actually value knowledge for its own sake. You seem to regard it as a wearisome burden. I find that rather pitiful.

quote:

---

Mutations happen in individuals, selection chooses the fittest individuals, and that it what leads to unequal reproductive success. Natural selection doesn’t have a brain to choose a group it can only work on individuals.

---

I agree with the first sentence. The second is slightly wrong, although you are starting to think along the right lines. There is no need to have a brain to "choose" a group. Mutual reproductive capacity defines a population. That is in turn regulated by the level of genetic divergence in isolated populations.

quote:

---

It’s just a process that occurs because it occurs; you can’t endow it with a purpose. Therefore when you declare that the group should survive so that the genes survive in turn you are suggesting that selection has a purpose namely that genes survive. This is foolishness if you ask me. Selection doesn’t possess any more brain power to be giving such purpose than a wind blowing through the city does. So why should it favor anything, much less the survival of a particular gene?

---

Okay, you are just inches away from grasping this... There is no "purpose" in the sense that you mean. there is no guiding hand and no overall goal. There is merely a series of mechanistic processes. The selection is done, without any need for a guiding intellect, by the demands of the environment. Genes that are well adapted to an environment will thrive. Genes that are poorly adapted will do less well. That is pretty much all that is required for natural selection to function.And you still haven't provided us with any reason why morality should be so disfavoured by evolution that it could not possibly evolve.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Genes control the process of neural development, even you can't deny that. Can you?There isn't one gene per every neuron in the brain or even one gene for every type of nerve cell. For neurogenesis, there needs to be the genes that produce the various growth factors and other chemical messengers that signal cells to differentiate, becoming glial progenitor cells and neural progenitor cells, these progenitor cells form the various neurons and glial cells. Glial cells help orchestrate the movement of newly created neurons and their axons by guiding their migration to were they need to be placed in a developing human brain, etc. This is a very simplified explanation of course and just the beginning of brain development. But just a taste of how complex a system we are talking about. I don't claim to understand it fully, but there are many scientist that do understand it and there is a whole plethora of information on the Internet that can explain the neural development process, neurogenesis and embryogenesis in great detail if you're willing to learn. So when I said "linked to genes that control brain development" I was speaking of the this process. Not the "linkages" what ever that was suppose to mean?The human brain has about 10 billion neurons. Each neuron is connected to other neurons by about 10,000 synapses. Before we are born and for a few months afterward we have even more neural connections. As we mature the neuronal connections are pruned back by usage of those neuron. Using them, sending electrical signals through them, reinforces them to make permanent connections. If you were to cover up an infants eye so that they would not be allow to see with it, within the first year or two their brain would reallocate those neurons associated with that eye, so that after you've uncovered the eye and although the eye itself still functions, the child will no longer have site in that eye, because the neurons no longer receive a signal from that eye. The same thing happens to children that are brought up in seriously dysfunctional home environments that are not conductive to well being and never giving them good moral guidance. The neurons that are involved with happiness and well being have been pruned back so far that they often can never achieve happiness or a decent moral sense. Many of these individuals turn to crime. This is the nurture part I was referring to.There can also be mutations in the chemical messengers and other enzymes in the brain, such as the one mentioned by Modulous, Brunner syndrome which is an x-linked genetic disorder with symptoms of mild retardation and impulsive criminal behavior.Chemicals or neurotransmitters end up in positive moral choices because when we do something nice our brains produce serotonin and that makes us feel all warn and fuzzy inside. What prompts us to apologize to someone is simply our fantastic ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes, mirror neurons!Cedre please enlighten me on how you believe the whole 'god in our brain' thing works. I'm eager to hear your scientific explanation of how god magic plays out inside the human brain!

---

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill.
I will choose a path thats clear, I will choose free will. - Neil Peart"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein

Hi Stile,

quote:

---

To me, the core definition of selfishness includes a personal motivation towards self-improvement. If that motivation is not present, then the simple actualisation of a possible future benefit is not justification to call the orignial action selfish.

---

I agree with that but it isn't really contrary to what I've been saying. If there is a noble motivation, then, overall, it is reasonable to call the action unselfish. My point is that even with a basically unselfish act, there is still a level at which the person committing the act is being rewarded for it, even if it is only at the level of a good feeling.It is my opinion that even the most unselfish act can never be considered wholly pure, the way the brain works simply doesn't allow for it.Take your example of opening the car door for your wife. In that example you are quite right to call the action basically unselfish, since it has no selfish motivation of which you would be aware. At the same time, you can't get away from the fact that your brain is going to reward you with a dose of serotonin. That leaves us in a quandary of sorts; was the noble motivation of helping your wife the root cause if the action? Or was it the more mechanistic and subconscious motivation of your selfish genes at work, rewarding you for helping protect your genetic investments?I realise that this way of looking at personal motivation is depressingly deterministic, but I can't help but suspect that these types of subconscious motivations govern our actions far more than we would like to suppose. I also think that it is very difficult to draw the line between where the two motivations meet.

quote:

---

I propose that whether or not a moral action is selfish is determined by the motivation for the action, not the following results.

​

I fully admit that I cannot show you that any specific motivation was actually selfish or not. However, this includes the fact that you cannot show me that any specific motivation was actually selfish, let alone all moral actions.

---

And there's the rub. We can't really know what motivates us to act, not ultimately. I tend to think of such things as being based on multiple motivations, only some of which we are likely to be aware of.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I fully agree that if (when, perhaps?) such a thing is shown to be true for all actions, then you will be correct.But, we're not there yet... That's exactly my point. Because we can't really know, we can't rule out the fact that certain conscious moral decisions very well may be fully determined by our conscious minds. In which case, we can't yet say that it's strictly impossible for a pure, selfless act to exist.I have no problem with you saying it's unlikely. My nitpick was just to add pause when saying it's absolutely impossible. We don't know such a thing yet.