Evolution and Ethics

Great Debates
1

I started this in another thread. The bulk of the original post:
It seems that, under the evolutionary model, ethics or morality (there must be a difference, but I am too lazy to look it up) must be considered one of three ways:

  1. Ethics evolved. The moral standards of humans are another product of evolution, and in some way ensure the prolonged survival of our species.

  2. Ethics are invalid. That is, since each different animal species has its own behavioral standard, there really aren’t any “rights” and “wrongs.” By an evolutionary standard, the “right” ethics are the ones which ensure species survival, so you can go ahead and experiment.

Is that any different than #1? I think it is, slightly.

3.Ethics Arrived. Somewhere along the line of human evolution, the became graced with a higher moral conciousness.

I don’t know who would actually hold to that one, but it is a possibility.
Comments? Did I miss or mis-represent a possibility?

And the first response:

To clarify:

It seems to me that you can only hold two positions: either certain things are always right and other things are always wrong, or that right and wrong depend on influencing factors.

If you believe in absoloute right and wrong, it is a pretty sure bet that you believe morality distinguishes us from other animals. Therefore it seems to me that absoloutists are generally not evolutionists. If somebody does want to discuss the possibility of being both, great; but for this post I will presume that we are only dealing with relativists. (I did not make this presumption in my first post).

2

—Therefore it seems to me that absoloutists are generally not evolutionists. If somebody does want to discuss the possibility of being both, great; but for this post I will presume that we are only dealing with relativists.—

I am an absolutist, and an “evolutionist.” What, in your mind is inconsitent with that? I would actually go with 3, but not in the sense of “granted from on high.” Our moral consciousness developed, and continues to develop, as we search to find ways to abstract our values.

As a reminder to people: to claim that morals are not valid just because they evolved from an originally amoral state is the genetic fallacy.

3

Sorry, left the end of the previous post trailing. Starting over here:

If man is an advanced animal (e.g., not some glorious Human, but Animal),
and If there is such a thing as right and wrong,
Are other animals subject to this morality (whatever the moral standard might be)?

If “No,” why not?

If “Yes,” it seems you have a somewhat unusaual take on morality, or that you think there are an awful lot of bad animals out there.

What occured to me as a possible argument is that our human conception of right and wrong has somehow evolved, like intelligence. If morals are a product of evolution (and not a breif anomaly,) then they somehow help the survival of the species. One might say that moral standards somehow help the long-term prospects of the human race. The only true right and wrong, then is what makes the species survive in the long term. (Short-term survival would encourage genocide, which is generally considered immoral.)

Thus, our human morality is only an advanced form of the same thing that keeps members of a species from killing each other as often as they do comparable members of another species.

That would suggest that we can’t really tell each other what is right and what is wrong. In a couple billion years, something that is considered immoral now might turn out to be a good survival tactic. (Multiple wives?) But we will advise each other to continue living as is deemed proper by the “common” morality, and evolution will determine which of the standards of morality is best suited for each particular environment.

And as somewhat of a digression, this could mean that on some other, overcroweded planet (let’s say sans birth control) it could be right and good to kill others of the same species.

And then again, it suggests that it may possibly be more right on this planet to dispose of birth control, breed like mad, and hope your offspring are better at killing off everyone else’s.

4

Apos,

I didn’t previously finish that line of thought. To continue here:

If there is an absoloute right and wrong, i.e. morality, how could it have “developed?” Only, one presumes, by continously adding new wrongs. Otherwise, morality might contradict itself over the eons. But continously adding new “wrongs” does not seem to be the historical trend.

I am not familiar with the term “genetic fallacy.” Explain, please.

I think you are actually going with #1. Morality evolves. But of course, feel free to clarify.

5

Ben,

I do have the two questions confused/conflated. I am interested in both of them, though, so go ahead with either or both.

The page you referrenced seems to say, ‘Right and Wrong are absoloute, but there is no god.’ So the question is, if Right and Wrong are unchanging, what is the standard? Are we to take your interpretation of the persona-less right and wrong as the correct interpretation? Why not the one I suggested above, out-breeding and out-fighting others? If I decide it is Right to kill you, that it is absoloutely right, who are you to tell me I am wrong?

So, if we are not going to each individually define Right and Wrong (which kind of makes the terms meaningless), what are we to do? Take a poll? The Majority somehow has the correct interpretaion of Right and Wrong? If that is your position, somebody should probably start a thread discussing whether or not the Majority can be relied upon to choose correctly. The first question would be, what majority? Americans? Westerners? Every earthling?

6

Getting excited. Rapid-fire question marks come across as hostile, when really I’m just getting carried away. Just answer the root questions, not every single question mark (as if you need to be told!).

7

kabloomie, the majority does determine morality, at least in human societies. There are no fixed standards by which to determine right and wrong; societies decide for themselves what types of behavior to condone and condemn. Throughout history civilizations have had widely varying ethical codes, and while we may look back on some of these codes more ethical than others, each was considered acceptable during its time. Like other standards determined by people, such as fashion, morality is in a constant state of flux, evolving to encompass the views of those currently in power.

8

I do not think that morality evolved or that it is absolute. What is moral is simply and opinion and like all opinions every person has one and no one’s is more valid than another’s. I view morality the way I view birth control, it is something we have purely because we have enough intelligence to manipulate nature. I see no room for morality in evolution since it frequently results in lower fitness (i.e. overall reproductive output). If you are a little hungry and have a piece of food and you meet a starving person, the ethical thing to do may be to give the food to the person that needs it far more than you, but unless that person ends up doing something to increase your fitness, your moral choice may have lowered your fitness. Kindness only pays off in an evolutionary sense when you receive it in turn.

And certain amoral acts increase fitness directly. If morality was good for the individual in an evolutionary sense, rape would be a moral act for men. I can see why non-rapists would want to stop rapists from raping women because the rapists would have more children and thus higher fitness. Calling rape amoral and having rape laws can lead to an increase in the fitness of non-rapists, but from the rapists’ points of view, rape is a good thing that increases their fitness. So if anything, morality seems to be a way for the majority to overpower the minority that would otherwise beat them at the evolutionary game (e.g. men that murder other men and rape women are committing acts that would greatly benefit their fitness score in the evolutionary game, so we have laws and morals to prevent such actions so that we don’t lose the game). Our intelligence as a species has taught us that, if we organize, the weak can overpower the strong. So while most species have the physically strongest individuals making the rules and ruling their groups, we have managed to ban together and jail or kill those individuals in our society. Morality is a set of rules that keeps the strong from regaining control.

With that in mind, it could be argued that morality is a case of evolution by group selection, but most evolutionists agree that group selection does not really work in the long run. It would be interesting to see if morality has been destined to fail all along (though I doubt I will live long enough to see if that is the case).

9

—If there is an absoloute right and wrong, i.e. morality, how could it have “developed?”—

By the development of beings capable of concieving of certain things as being absolutely “right” or “wrong.” Prior to that, there was no morality: how could moral wrongs possibly be comitted when no one was around to care?

—I am not familiar with the term “genetic fallacy.” Explain, please.—

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/genefall.html

The genetic fallacy comes into this discussion when someone protests that if morality cannot develop from amoral beginings.

—I think you are actually going with #1. Morality evolves. But of course, feel free to clarify.—

No: moral beings evolved. The idea of morality is certainly continually controversial, but it would be highly misleading to say that it has ‘evolved.’

10

Under the evolutionary model, ethics are irrelevant; the two have nothing to do with one another.

11

I tend to subscribe to John Ralston Saul’s view that ethics are innate part of the human psyche, a part of our nature. In his On Equilibrium, he compares ethics to the complex migratory behaviour in birds.

Certainly, it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Human beings managed to reach the top of the food chain without claws, horns, fangs, or a solid shell. We most likely did it through our ability to work in groups – and part of that working in groups required that some of us put aside some personal freedom for the good of the greater whole.

I would argue there are three positions, at least:
[ol]
[li]absolute right and wrong[/li][li]moral relativism – right and wrong are a product of culture only, and so should not be taken too seriously[/li][li]the grey area halfway between these two.[/li][/ol]

I find it relevant to make that distinction, because, in my experience, that grey area is the only one likely to produce ethical action. The “absolute” option leads to all the evils of fanaticism. The “moral relativism” option leads to selfishness and rationalization. The third option is to admit that ethics are real, and important, but are dependent on context.

The trick is to keep focused on the purpose of ethics – to promote compassion and a better society. Both strict adherence to a code and moral relativism fall short of that goal.

12

Well, not entirely. The evolutionary model does help to understand complex social behaviours. Certain species operate better as group than as individuals – ants are the obvious example. This is a response to the challenge of survival. Some creatures develop camouflage, others natural weaponry. Still others learn to work in groups, and so an “ethical instinct” could be seen as part of a species’ evolution.

13

Operating as a group is likewise independent of ethics. Societal organisms do not need philosophy (which is all “ethics” is) to survive.

Philosophical musings are not part of evolution; they have no biological component – a new mutation does not alter one’s perception of what is (or is not) “moral”.

If anything, ethics / morals are comparable to technological advances: they may make our lives easier, but they are not necessary for the survival of the species. But, they are entirely artificial constructs, determined by the majority.

Societies, if anything, are Lamarckian, rather than Darwinian, in nature.

14

In your first scenario, human beings dispense with compassion altogether, and start killing one another for the “good of humanity.” Might this deal with overpopulation? Possibly, but it certainly isn’t ethical.

Your survivors would live in fear of each other. Society would be dead and gone. This would be a world without compassion, and the human race would have exchanged one form of extinction for another. Long after the danger of overpopulation had past, there would be killings of revenge and blood feuds – you have only to look at any of the “ethnic conflicts” around the world to see what happens when killing goes on so long, people have forgotten why they’re doing it. Your scenario makes me thankful we live in a world with birth control.

Needless to say, your second scenario is even less ethical. Ethics is not simply pragmatism. It’s complex and fraught with paradoxes. The first of these is that “the end cannot justify the means.”

15

I believe morals evolved. Morals are a tool-set that allows humans to co-operate with each other. Being nice to other people (which at an extremely simplistic level is all that a moral code is) who are generally nice to you allows complex societies to be created and large numbers of people to live in close proximity and relative harmony. Morals are the underlying basis of criminal justice systems which (again over simplified) are a means of enforcing the premise that people should be nice to each other.

Back in the good old days when Australipithecus was the smartest creature on the planet, co-operation helped a weedy little primate survive among the big boys of the savannah. Co-operation still works - ground living baboon species get by in the same environment.

The non-co-operators were less fit biologically (i.e. didn’t reproduce as successfully), reinforcing the evolutionary trend towards morals and ethics.

Stepen Pinker, in How the Mind Works offers a good argument for evolution of morals and ethics, roughly paraphrased above. Mind you, it’s a while since I read it so I may be misrepresenting him.

You can read any code of laws from any age and there is an underlying fundamental principle of stopping people being nasty to each other. The concept of right and wrong is recognisable from the earliest written records. IMHO, all philosopical arguments (about morals and ethics) are about the definition of the terms “right” and “wrong”, the dichotomy itself is accepted. (A wild sweeping generalisation, true, but what the heck, it’ll spice up the debate. :smiley: )

16

Quite true, but I wasn’t proposing that, say, Socrates was the result of genetic mutation, just as I wouldn’t assert that Cailfornia nouveau cuisine is the result of Nature’s vagaries. Or that a sexual fetish for whipped cream and leather first began with australopithecus. Nevertheless, I do believe our ancestors ate and had sex.

So it is with ethics. Call it a “social instinct” or even a “herd instinct” if you prefer. But many animal species are capable of self-sacrifice – even to the point of sacrificing their lives or their right to breed – for the good of the herd/flock/pack/whatever. I believe humans are in this category.

17

:stuck_out_tongue:

That has to be a first – two posters simulposted the word “australopithecus”

18

Don’t get carried away. Just take a deep breath, and read the FAQ again, and read it with your questions in mind. Then, if it’s still not clear, ask again.

Do you believe in God? Where do you think morality comes from?

19

kabloomie, let me show you what’s wrong with your phrasing of your questions:

“Does counting have any real meaning, or is it just something that evolved because it helps us survive?”

Obviously if it had no connection to external reality and were completely arbitrary, it wouldn’t help us survive, right?

My opinion is that moral absolutes exist, and that we evolved the ability to discern them. Those absolutes, however, rest on the nature of the human experience, rather than being arbitrary dictates of an invisible man in the sky.

Again, what do you think morality rests on?

20

Ben

I don’t know anything about any invisible men in the sky, but how can an analytic like “absolute” exist only locally? Aren’t you really saying that morality is relative to the human experience (whatever that is)?