Do we want to emulate evolution in our morality? Can we derive what we ought to do, directly from the way the world is? This gets into the
Is-ought problem. Can we show that something is ethical because it is evolutionarily successful? This gets into the
Naturalistic fallacy.
I find that the history of moral philosophy and the different concepts of what is right and wrong in different places in the world reveals that morality doesn't have an objective basis. It is subjective, and it's up to us, based on our feelings and thoughts, to decide what principles to follow in order to create the world we would most like to live in.
Do I value the long-term evolutionary success of my species (or my personal genotype) over the concept of treating all sentient beings as fairly as reasonably possible, so as to generally eliminate or reduce sufffering? No, because I do not see what would be good about our species existing far into the future if all or most of the individuals of our species were miserable in that future. So first and foremost I value the happiness and reduction of suffering of sentient beings over other values. Other values might seem noble, but they are only noble inasmuch as they serve the greater purpose of generating happiness and eliminating suffering. This is essentially a
utilitarian view towards ethics.
With all that being said, I realize that the population in my country, and in the world, is growing. It's been growing for a while, and I don't know if/when it will stop or slow down. It's also true that we basically have limited resources. So it seems to me that at some point (soon, I suspect) we are going to have stop, or at least significantly slow, the current population growth so there will be enough resources available to meet everyone's basic needs. There won't be much happiness, and there will be much suffering, if we end up with a planet crowded full of 12 billion people, and too few resources to reasonably accomodate those people. So one way or another we apparently need to stop at least some people from reproducing freely. How in the hell to do that fairly, eludes me. Ethics is complicated.
RAZD, looking back more closely at your OP, I'm not sure I've responded along the lines you were looking for. Sorry if that's the case. You say you want to focus on the effect a concern for our long-term success will have on individual behavior? I guess that would be to cause us to amass resources and have as many children as we think those resources can provide for. You can't get your hereditary traits into the future population without having kids, and the more you have, the more likely your genes will remain part of the population. Of course, if you just have a bunch of kids without having a way to provide for them, you run into problems with keeping them healthy enough to pass on your genes further into the future, hence the part about amassing resources.
™ Version 4.2
