Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 381 of 438 (743637)
12-02-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by AZPaul3
12-02-2014 7:43 PM


First, of course, creatures have no ability to adapt. They are stuck with what they are. The population, however, can evolve by adapting over time to a changing environment with each new crop of babies taking incremental steps in this adaption process. I will take your "creature" as meaning a population. That is probably what you meant anyway.
No you are missing the point. I understand the mechanism and the level at which it works. My point is that, as an individual, I possess the ability to adapt my behaviour to suit my environment. This is an evolved quality that will help me to make more babies.
There is no higher or lower scale for fitness, just more or less fit. And that is determined by counting the babies.
The ability of individual humans to adapt to changing environments = 7 billion humans. This shows that our qualities are more fit than, say, the carrier pigeon's were. It is not the level of melatonin in our skin that has led to so many humans.
There are and probably will remain many hundreds of environments on this planet where humans cannot adapt to be fit.
The most successful critters on this planet, surviving in just about every environment on the planet, bacteria, only do so by evolving separate species specifically adapted to each different niche.
Wouldn't you agree that being able to survive across a variety of environments makes a species more fit than only being able to survive in one?
edit "It is not the level of melatonin in our skin that has led to so many humans." - About this we can be sure.
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by AZPaul3, posted 12-02-2014 7:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2014 12:41 AM Dogmafood has not replied
 Message 383 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 3:00 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 390 by 1.61803, posted 12-03-2014 6:19 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 384 of 438 (743671)
12-03-2014 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by AZPaul3
12-03-2014 3:00 AM


I don't think most in the discipline would say evolution includes human technology in its definition and processes.
No perhaps not but they would include human intellect which is where the technology comes from. Being able to build a rocket ship is not really that different, in this context, from being able to build a nest. They both stem from the creature's evolved qualities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 3:00 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 3:39 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 391 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2014 11:14 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 392 of 438 (743753)
12-04-2014 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by ringo
12-03-2014 11:36 AM


Morality based on body count? I don't think so. I'd say it's the opposite. Much of our morality is based on doing what's best for an individual, even if it puts larger numbers at risk.
I wouldn't use the term 'body count' as if fails to capture the idea but it is one method of assessing what we are doing. We can review the success of our moral behaviour. Consider the Catholic church's position on the use of condoms. Clearly this an example of a failed moral policy that has caused death and disease for millions. We can know this by looking at the result of the behaviour.
I don't think either gun laws or prohibition have much to do with morality. They're just practical matters, like food and shelter.
Prohibition of alcohol is the quintessential example of a moral policy. It has the intent of reducing the cost of individual behaviour to society. After trying it we can see that it is a bad idea that fails because the cost to the individual is too high.
But what's "good" is highly subjective.
Yes it is but moral consensus finds the common ground.
Should we measure "higher" in terms of more environments or more "survival/extinction incidents"?
I would say that the two are proportional. Being able to survive across a range of environments will, on average, equate to more surviving and less going extinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by ringo, posted 12-03-2014 11:36 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by ringo, posted 12-04-2014 10:43 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 393 of 438 (743758)
12-04-2014 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by AZPaul3
12-03-2014 3:39 PM


The nest builder did not intellectually devise the nest the way humans devise tools.
I don't see any difference between the two apart from capacity. What is the difference between a crow dropping a nut on the rocks and human breaking a nut with a rock? Or a chimp fishing for termites and a human fishing for fish?
Intellect and physiological ability are the only 2 assets that any creature has to resist the universe's attempts to kill it. Maybe luck comes in there somewhere too.
Brace yourself now, I am going to attempt some math. Doesn't the probability of survival increase as the creature's habitable zone increases? Isn't probability of survival an objective yard stick for measuring evolutionary success?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by AZPaul3, posted 12-03-2014 3:39 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:55 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 394 of 438 (743759)
12-04-2014 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by NoNukes
12-03-2014 11:14 PM


No they don't both stem from evolved qualities. I have no shot at building even the simplest house. I believe myself to be as intelligent as people who can, but I don't have the know how to make a house. Technology is something we pass down by writing in parallel with any evolution that might be going on.
Not so different from a squirrel or a bird using last years nest or the learned behaviour of any animal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by NoNukes, posted 12-03-2014 11:14 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2014 1:16 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 398 of 438 (743818)
12-05-2014 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by AZPaul3
12-04-2014 7:55 AM


Remember how evolution works. It works through babies generation by generation. It does not work through longevity.
Still, the only measure of evolutionary success is fitness, not survival.
Yes, I was referring to longevity and survival at the species level and I think that a species that could survive in any environment should rightfully be considered more fit than a species that can only survive under particular conditions. Voila, a scale of evolutionary success.
for most life, modern technological humans being a major exception, a wider range also means more probability of speciation events.
Wouldn't an ability to survive in many different environments reduce the probability of a speciation event?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by AZPaul3, posted 12-04-2014 7:55 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2014 7:41 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 8:50 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 399 of 438 (743819)
12-05-2014 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by ringo
12-04-2014 10:43 AM


Real morality comes from within; it's a willingness to conform to society
I agree that the impetus for morality comes from the individual but I wonder if it is a willingness to conform to society. I would say that it is an attempt to get society to conform to the needs of the individual.
So being more "highly evolved" depends on being average?
You need more antifreeze in your oatmeal. Being more highly evolved depends on the probability that your species will survive. As the range of suitable environments increases so do the odds of survival. I used the qualifier 'on average' because there is always the possibility of an extinction event until the species can survive in any environment.
A moral code that helps your species survive can be considered objectively correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by ringo, posted 12-04-2014 10:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 12-05-2014 11:35 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 400 of 438 (743820)
12-05-2014 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by NoNukes
12-04-2014 1:16 PM


The learned behavior for most animals is the animals they can hang out with.
I agree. My point is that the only difference for humans is the scale at which we interact and our intellectual capacity. Taking the fur from a bear and using it as a coat is not really so different from collecting twigs for a nest. They are both efforts to modify one's immediate environment.
Our evolved qualities that allow us to kill the bear and make the coat have enabled us to survive in a wider range of environments. This increases the probability that we will survive as a species because we can adapt as the environment changes.
Greater adaptability seems a legitimate measure of evolutionary success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2014 1:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2014 10:32 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 406 of 438 (743949)
12-06-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by AZPaul3
12-05-2014 7:41 AM


The discipline determined quite some time ago that the only scale of evolutionary success is fitness and fitness is assessed by counting babies.
I don't think that I have said anything that contradicts that notion. Reproductive success is still the metric. I am saying that being able to make babies under a wider variety of conditions will lead to more babies. This seems very obvious to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2014 7:41 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 407 of 438 (743950)
12-06-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2014 8:50 AM


To me, it would seem that the highly specialized species should be the one that is considered "more evolved". Not the one that has had very little pressure.
I guess that more or less evolved is not the right terminology. A good analogy might be a general education compared to a specialized education. An art history major might be able to find a good job under some economies but a polymath could find a job anywhere at any time. Doesn't the polymath enjoy a definite advantage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 8:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 408 of 438 (743951)
12-06-2014 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by NoNukes
12-05-2014 10:32 AM


Being able to kill a bear with a gun that you are not capable of making does not demonstrate that you have evolved. That killing would instead be evidence of a completely different process.
I get that.
The evolved quality is the intellect that allows us to solve problems. Being able to solve problems without waiting for natural selection to do it must be on the plus side for making babies.
Having a moral code is an attempt to solve problems. Those elements of our moral codes that show themselves to work (that is to help us make more babies) are retained over time. This retention is an objective filtering by means of natural selection.
Arriving at the point where we can appreciate this fact allows us to accelerate the process by actively getting rid of those moral codes that are a hindrance to the robustness of our ability to survive as a species. A good example would be the elimination of moral ideas that promote unchecked breeding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2014 10:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2014 3:48 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 409 of 438 (743953)
12-06-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by ringo
12-05-2014 11:35 AM


Can you elaborate? How would an individual; "get society" to conform to his needs?
Simply by being an individual like John Lennon or Andy Warhol or Richard Feynman or Jesus Christ or Genghis Kahn or anybody else that you might happen to admire. It happens all the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 12-05-2014 11:35 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:11 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 411 of 438 (743999)
12-07-2014 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by ringo
12-06-2014 11:11 AM


You do not see how John Lennon changed the morality of the world? Or Gloria Steinman or Rachel Carson or Rosa Parks? It is not so much about conforming to their needs as it is about agreeing with their ideas. This is no tenuous connection. These are clear examples of individuals changing the morality of their society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:11 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:38 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 420 of 438 (744185)
12-08-2014 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by ringo
12-07-2014 1:38 PM


I had to look back at what point you're trying to make.
Me too There are a couple.
Our moral behaviour is born out of the eons long evolutionary process that selected those behaviours that helped us to survive as a species. I am saying that these selections can be viewed as objectively good.
I was also making the point that some species are more likely to survive by virtue of their ability to survive across a range of environments and that this should put them higher up on a scale of fitness. That is to say that they are more robust. Being able to adapt increases our range. Morality is one of the tools that we use to adapt our behaviour to match the environment.
A third point was that the individual is the discreet source of morality and that some individuals act as a lightning rod or lens for individual beliefs that reach a threshold.
So, armed with an objectively established goal, as individuals we can promote a rational morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2014 5:17 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 423 by ringo, posted 12-09-2014 10:50 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 422 of 438 (744195)
12-08-2014 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by RAZD
12-08-2014 5:17 PM


Yes, very much like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2014 5:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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