Rashak Mani:
This is tripe - pure “new age science”. Care to provide some “evidence”?
No, we will not provide “evidence”. If you’re interested in the evidence, or arguments suggesting Raki’s claims are valid, stick around.
I’ll bite. I’ve given this example on the boards before, but it won’t hurt to repeat it. The following is a quote from Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works. (This example is originally from Dawkins).
For further information, check out anything by Robert Trivers on “reciprocal altruism”. Basically, what happens is that tit-for-tat is optimal but some freeloaders will generally slip through the net.
Ok disease carrying birds aside, there is no evidence to suggest that humans at either extreme of moral behaviour were weeded out of the gene pool.
Quite the opposite is the case - there are many people today whose behaviour is either wholly selfish or wholly altruistic.
Really… give me one example of a person who acts wholly altruistically.
mrsam: Interesting thought experiment. I’m a little leery, though, about assuming that such a thought experiment necessarily reflects reality, however.
As for humans at either extreme of moral behaviour being weeded out of the gene pool, keep in mind that this only applies if the person dies before being able to reproduce. I can easily imagine somebody developing into a completely immoral jerk at the age of, say, 21 or so. Also, with the whole “one night stand” phenomemon that became increasingly popular with the advent of the so-called “sexual revolution” it is now even more likely that completely immoral jerks will have a chance to pass on their seed. In fact, sometimes it seems like they are the ONLY ones who get the chance, but I digress…
Barry
The example I provided is wholly relevant to homo sapiens. Robert Trivers has more or less reverse-engineered the emotions showing their function in an arms-race between the freeloaders and the cheater-detection strategies employed by those holding the optimal tit-for-tat strategy. For further information:
Robert Trivers, Social Evolution
Robert Trivers, The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism, Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57
I share TVAA’s skepticism at the existence of entirely altruistic individuals. The idea that “many people” are like that today is tripe; pure “new age science”. Care to present any evidence to back up your entirely anecdotal argument?
Well, game theory predicts that will be the case and evidence from sociobiology/behavioural ecology demonstrates it to be the case. It is an accurate representation of both theory and reality.
This is not the case. Sheer numbers do not ensure evolutionary success. If you breed a huge amount of sociopathic offspring, your success is short-lived as your offspring will eventually be weeded out. As demonstrated in the bird example, tit-for-tat is optimal and will win out over freeloaders and a society consisting entirely of freeloaders is doomed to extinction.
Why would your offspring eventually be weeded out? As long as your offspring survive long enough to breed, why would it matter if they are sociopathic? Again, what if the sociopathic tendencies (a) do not manifest themselves fully until well after puberty and/or (b) do not affect your offsprings’ likelihood to reproduce in the first place?
Of course, this assumes that sociopathic behavior is inheritable in the first place. If it’s not, then there is nothing to be “weeded out” of the gene pool. And then there’s always the pesky atavism problem…
Barry
Of course, in any group individuals with anti-social behaviour may arise.
We are discussing moral from the latin mores = habit.
In order to exist a society, it has to have mores. Anti-social individuals will be expelled from the society (banned, put in jail).
Even if an individual has egotistical tendencies, if he is intelligent he will at least try to hide these tendencies and act as if he followed the mores.
The problem is that your not thinking in the long enough term. Sure, a society of freeloaders might prosper for 1 generation of 10 but evolution works on the scale of millions of generations and such a society is not even going to be a blip on the radar.
Your also ignoring the strong social conditioning that humans go through. Just because in the here and now, you don’t see signs of altruism doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You’ve only got 1 data point and its a pretty poor one since we’re not exactly living in the enviroment we were evolved for.
You have to understand that basic evolutionary deductive logic works like this:
- We have observed X trait in animals
- Based on the fact that Y, Z and W traits present in animals are also present in humans, there seems to be no discernable reason why humans would not also have X trait.
- Therefore, its quite likely that X is an explaination for this phenomena.
And of course sociopathic tendancies are weeded out in humans. We progressed from hunters to gatherers to farmers to villiagers to city states to nations. Each move requires progressively more co-operation and less sociopathy.
Actually, I doubt that. Modern civilization probably makes it possible for much of sociopathic behavior to exist.
I agree with TVAA on this point.
I see people asserting that evolution weeds out sociopathic behavior, but no evidence to that effect. One could posit that evolution could weed out such reprehensible behavior, but that’s a far cry from demonstrating that it does.
Evolution weeds out individuals who cannot adapt to the environment. If the environment supports sociopathic behavior, evolution will not weed them out.
Evolution makes no value judgements beyond “Can you live under these conditions?”
Of course.
Morality has only to do with personal standards.
But you may want to define, further, morality being that it can be within one’s morals to murder and rape if they so assume it.
Evolution can explain our ability to have morals, but not the morals themselves, since our morality has changed far faster than can be explained by biological evolution. Social evolution, or moral memes, might be a much better explanation.
Also, please consider that too fine a filter for sociopaths might be socially disadvantageous, if mild sociopathy is associated with innovation, say. Social and genetic diversity will ensure that we see the extremes of altruism and sociopathy from time to time. I’m sure that every so often lone wolfs are born - they are not evolutionarily successful, though.
Finally, I wonder if religion supports morality or whether “morality” (not ethics) supports religion. Consider an early priest. Certainly if non-religious morals exist, the priest is not likely to go against them, but will say that the gods support them. Then other morals will be added, like giving the best of the harvest to god. When we look at religious morality we can divide it into parts that are ethically justified and parts that are not. The ones that are not are tossed out in later revs of the holy books, though some new ones might be added.
And, of course, we need to distinguish between sociopathy (which technically includes many actors, businesspeople, politicians, etc.) and " failed" sociopaths who are unable to keep their behavior within acceptable bounds.
Sociopathy might be considered to be a selective advantage. Stupidity is a selective disadvantage. Stupid sociopathy is a MAJOR disadvantage… if people can get at the carrier, of course.
Exactly right. Evolution is about survival, which is not the same thing as morality.
Evolution isn’t “about” anything in the sense you mean it (in fact, it is incidental: the only reason survival is important is because we happen to be anthropologically concerned about the persistence of things over time). Survival is one of the elements that drives the process. But it isn’t a limiting factor on what sorts of things that process can acheive. Just because the process itself isn’t “about” anything doesn’t mean it cannot produce beings who have strong senses of what things are all “about.”
Nor is it survival of the individual in the long run, but rather, survival of the genome. Altruism can be a very powerful strategy in the right environment, and in a social environment, it’s definately far more powerful than in a non-social one, which certainly fits well with its increasing appearance in more and more social, and socialized, animals.
While obviously no one can travel back in time to early human history to demonstrate exactly what process and elements was traced out, the various accounts of how mores would have developed in early human societies are very plausible, and fit in with what we know about psychology, human history, and other elements of culture like the development of language and agriculture. I don’t know of any other account other than special creation that can explain how animals could develop a sense of there being a right and a wrong, and special creation doesn’t really explain any sort of procress other than to simply posit.
Explaining why there is a concept of and compelling drive towards morality is not the same thing as explaining why some things are right and others are wrong, but the latter isn’t necessary to explain why there is morality, and why religion isn’t particularly necessary.
mrsam
Entirely altruistic people: try a good Buddhist for one, i’m sure there are completely altruistic Hindus, Christians and Jews as well. Altrusitic in the sense of “putting others needs before your own”. We’re talking about the same thing right?
I’m making no claim to the efficacy of this moral method, simply stating the fact (that has been directly verified by my experience) that people who suscribe to it exist. A personal example would be my mother.
Of course another consideration is whether someone is a good altruist or not - they might try to be totally altruistic but fall short of the mark. So you have to differentiate between intentional altrusim (which does exist in practice) and perfect altruism which I have never seen an example of, but am sure can still exist. An example might be a Christian saint, or Jesus.
Then again there is “socially-conditioned” altruism where people are forced into altrusim by social contract. The extent to which this behaviour coincides with their perceived moral system, may or may not justify calling this altruism.
To say that none of these types of people exist would be just a wee bit silly, don’t you think?