An Evolutionary Basis for Ethics?

Greetings IrishIn response to your post, the consensus agrees that the development of technology allowed humans to have a greater level of control over their environment. While we may to some extent be able to control certain environmental factors it does not bypass evolutionary theory altogether. Things such as disease have been, until recently, almost completely out of our control. In regard to the development of ethics, while technology would have resulted in more access/excess of resources....the sharing of such excesses is not uniquely human. Chimps hunt in packs and routinely share meat amongst each each other, regardless of who actually catches the prey. Males also share meat with females who do not hunt, but are better at termite gathering (which uses tools....technology!). This sharing represents reciprocal altruism....You scratch my back, I scratch yours. Apes keep track of such reciprocation & strengthen bonds among specific individuals in a group. Cheaters who take & not give often lose standing in a group. Not only are chimps & other apes excellent detectors of fairness, they have also been observed caring & providing for others not even related them. In one way ethics can be viewed as a system meant to extend fairness to all individuals, thus strengthening social cohesion. I would recommend looking into a primatologist named Franz DeWaal....he suggests that human morality & ethics has its foundation in our species development long before extensive tool use.

I would say one example of non-humans CHOOSING to act selflessly is in the risk to themselves."However strong our intuitions are to do something, like a mother to answer her child's cry, they can choose whether or not to do so. Humans can decide whether or not to sacrifice their lives for something they deem worthy, animals can not. -Irish post 7"Chimps have drowned in zoo moats after attempting to help others in need. And I am not referring to mothers attempting to save their own infants. This suggests that the individual saw the risk to themselves & chose to act anyway. If they were simply acting on instinct to help another, then they have evolved instincts based on the groups best interest. However chimp mothers do occasionally abandon their offspring, often when they are unable to support them....displaying a clearly selfish behavior. So this counters the idea that they only have group oriented instincts.Apes & wolves are just as social creatures as humans and most often live in social groups. As you said there is more competition for food, however both hunt in groups providing a clearer advantage in obtaining food. Both these species as well as humans survive better when they are cooperative. To say only humans choose to live cooperatively is countered by the way young male chimps will often leave their troupe instead of challenging the leader.....choosing to leave than to submit (cooperate to group norms) To say that human beings simply ignore their own instinctual behavior & therefore choose while other species can not is fallacious. I think you have a strong case to prove that it is more advantageous to act for the good of the group rather than pure self-interest, but to say this is a purely human trait is not supported by what has been observed in other species....especially apes.

This article might interest you.....
Primates and the basis of morality There are other example of apes helping others while risking there own safety that can be found as well.

I couldn't agree more

I assume these are philosophy professors you speak of. Ask a biology or anthropology professor about these things....they may have a different opinion. Like adequate said, we can't question apes for their motives & thought processes. However the only way to even speculate on them is by direct observation of their behavior. Unless you simply dismiss apes as instinctual automated species, which goes completely against all scientific studies of these animals. Such recorded observations & studies will not be found in the philosophy department. An ape may not have the same concept of death as we do, & may have a less "complex" thought process...but it certainly can ascertain a dangerous situation which would be totally avoided under normal circumstances. I think you are spot on here. Evolution has no goals, except survival & reproduction. But even human beings are still a part of it, & no one suggests they have no morality. A sacrifice is a sacrifice even if the ape didn't think about it the exact way a human would. These professors sound like they are making statements & assumptions on things they know nothing about, especially since they can so easily laugh it off. If you want to make an informed decision on this topic, I suggest you find a second opinion to get a bigger picture. If your school lacks an expert in that area, then hit the net & find the real research. Maybe someone in the bio or anthro department can suggest an online database. Regardless, I find philosophy rarely holds up against observed reality & collected data. The natural world doesn't have to follow man made philosophy.

Philosophy certainly has its place & value in itself....but sometimes professors can get big heads & make sweeping statements about topics not in their field. I know this from my own college years, which were not long ago. Lol.....I can't speak for adequate, but I am not an atheist & I see no need to disprove the conceptual abilities of apes. I do however claim no specific religion....so I don't feel the need to prove to myself that human beings are god's special little creatures, made in his image, dominion over all creatures, etc.....I guess here, like you pointed out, lies the motivation of some to prove other species are incapable of the same motivations we are. Let us know how your search develops.

Yea Im gonna have to echo bluescat. While perhaps all atheists accept evolution, not all who believe in evolution are atheists. Aside from myself & a few cousins, My entire family is practicing Catholic....& I can't think of one relative that doesn't accept evolution...except my 90 yr old grandfather. Although, it would be interesting to see the breakdown of religious views & acceptance of evolution. A quick wikipedia search, although hardly reliable, shows several polls that suggest atheists & agnostics are in the minority. Those who believe in evolution, whether guided by a god or not, are not such a small minority.

I bet it's fairly common to find this sort of thing. I haven't polled my family or anything but I think there is a general range between the more deists mentality & those who practice religion more for cultural identity. Both of my parents attend church regularly, but my father has a masters in chemistry & math, while my mother studied biology before medical school. I suppose my mother is more the deist, & my father more the cultural practitioner. But neither of them believe that the bible is literal, & both completely accept evolution. If you take literal bible belief out of the equation, then I thinks its not very hard to accommodate both evolution & religious views in ones mind without any cognitive dissonance. Besides even fundamentalists pick & choose how to interpret the bible, even while believing it is literal

I agree with you on this, but I fit into both these categories.....While I was never taught to question evolution, I also have an anthropology degree, so I have taken courses & have some real knowledge in the area. You could say evolution is just a theory & not fact, but so is gravity. All most all scientific evidence supports evolution as it supports gravity. While philosophy is all well & good....I see people again & again trying to apply it to gathered scientific data. Identifying a fallacy has nothing to do with observed realities. You could maybe apply this to the interpretation of data but the data itself exists without philosophical justification. Different interpretations are often present in scientific data. People who know the science behind evolution want to be approached with science based counters, not philosophy. while you may want to lump these things together.....philosophy & science are like night and day.....that's not me compartmentalizing, that's a fact. Not trying to criticize, just the world as I see it. One more question, how do you know all these science professors are atheists? Have you polled them? Assuming a supporter of evolution is an atheist is a fallacy in itself, right? atheists & agnostics are a smaller minority of the population compared to those who claim a religion.....but, half or more believe in evolution.....so obviously some people dont see a conflict with believing in both. Such as briterican's, bluescats', & my family members.