Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Evolutionary Basis for Ethics?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 6 of 57 (540117)
12-22-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ATheist
12-20-2009 1:10 PM


Hi FightingIrish
Our ability to make tools allowed us to bypass Darwinian evolutionary theory; instead of our environment changing us, we changed our environment.
I find it hard to agree with this. At the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory is the idea of "survival of the fittest". Even after we developed tools we were still living in an environment, even if it was an environment we had significantly adapted. So individuals that had a natural tendency to do well in this new environment of complex social and economic structures would have been more likely to survive and reproduce.
Also, many other species change their immediate environment or can adapt to live in a variety of environments, and even use tools. We may be much further advanced in that respect, but we are not unique.
I think the interesting thing in relation to ethics is how we evolve in the future. We are now moving into an age where medical advances, genetic engineering, social care, free education, etc may well even out advantages to the extent that all individuals will have a more or less equal chance of surviving and reproducing. In fact, the balance may get tipped the "wrong" way. I heard Richard Dawkins say recently that for humans to become more intelligent it would require that the most intelligent individuals produce the most offspring. But the opposite is true. Those of lower than average intelligence are producing more offspring. This raises all kinds of ethical questions about how we should or can run our societies in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ATheist, posted 12-20-2009 1:10 PM ATheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ATheist, posted 12-22-2009 12:41 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4971 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 23 of 57 (540265)
12-23-2009 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ATheist
12-22-2009 3:37 PM


Astounding!
I never thought of it that way. I'll have to bring up some of these points in my paper, they're very strong arguments to the contrary of what most of the ethicists want to believe.
It's great that you've so quickly had your opinions challenged. I largely agree with MikeDeich's opinion.
I would also make the point that I don't think any choices made by humans are entirely rational in the sense that they are totally removed from instinct. Feelings and emotions are always involved.
Do you put money in a charity box every time you see one? Some days you feel you should, some days you don't. Why?
Do you always choose the healthy menu option? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Why?
Does a dog always let you take his bone? Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Why?
Does a chimp always share his food or tools with other chimps? Again, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Why?
We're a moody bunch!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ATheist, posted 12-22-2009 3:37 PM ATheist 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