Should the Possibility that Morality Stems from Evolution Even Be Considered?
I both agree and do not agree with Rosenberg's view on morality and evolution. I feel like it is possible for our core morality to stem from natural selection and adaptive drives. However, if that were really the case, why isn't the dog-eat-dog morality one of our morals? If we are so determined to survive and overpower the strong, why is murder or even just hurting someone not one of our core morals? Why do we feel it is wrong to mess with weaker people? Bullying is exactly that: picking on weaker people, but we, overall as a society, view bullying to be wrong. It feels contradictory that something that would increase our chance for survival would go against our morals—that is if our morality does truly stem from natural selection and adaptive drives. This could, however, prevent us from getting into potentially dangerous situations and prevent us from surviving, so in a way, to survive, we have become more passive over time.
Even looking at it from the perspective that reproduction and passing genes are our main drives in core morality, it still doesn't explain why we see soldiers as "good" and people who kill people in the streets as "bad." If evolution got us to a point where we think that killing should be frowned upon, there shouldn't be a situational deviation; it should be all good or all bad no matter the situation. If morality did really stem from evolutionary changes, there wouldn't be so many morally grey areas in case-by-case situations of crimes, where sometimes it is acceptable and other times it is not. I think it's just interesting to think about. If it is not evolutionary, is it something spiritually-connected that we are born knowing—morality? It is something that it is God given, in the event that there is a God?
Even looking at it from the perspective that reproduction and passing genes are our main drives in core morality, it still doesn't explain why we see soldiers as "good" and people who kill people in the streets as "bad." If evolution got us to a point where we think that killing should be frowned upon, there shouldn't be a situational deviation; it should be all good or all bad no matter the situation. If morality did really stem from evolutionary changes, there wouldn't be so many morally grey areas in case-by-case situations of crimes, where sometimes it is acceptable and other times it is not. I think it's just interesting to think about. If it is not evolutionary, is it something spiritually-connected that we are born knowing—morality? It is something that it is God given, in the event that there is a God?
Comments (59)
I believe morality is rooted in empathy. Dog-eat-dog is egocentric - the exact opposite of empathy. Actions that are driven by empathy make us feel good - they are also helpful to the proliferation of our species.
Dog-eat-dog behavior is the opposite of empathy; it doesn't make us feel good, it makes us feel powerful and dominant. It doesn't help the species proliferate; instead, it strengthens the species by culling out the weak.
Morality pertains specifically to the things that make us feel good or bad about behavior.
1. If our core morality stems from natural selection and adaptive drives, then the basis for morality is equivalent to the proliferation of humankind
2. If people are more empathetic, is helpful to the proliferation of our species
3. Therefore, empathy a basis for morality
My argument is against premise 2. It would seem like there could be an argument that there are much better ways to increase the number of humans than direct empathy. It seems that rape and adultery could increase the number of mankind at a faster rate. However, it certainly seems that rape and adultery are not considered morally correct.
From an evolutionary perspective, groups of humans that cooperated were more likely to survive than groups that competed, and so cooperative social behaviors were passed on more often. I believe this answers most of the questions you pose in your first paragraph.
The soldier question is slightly more complex, but still explainable. Humans have developed a myriad of instincts through evolution that promote social bonds on various levels, such as family, city, and country. Each of these serves a purpose in promoting the survival of the individual. The soldier functions as a defense mechanism of one of those social circles (the country), but the average person that kills in the street does not.
Quoting Play-doh
I don't really understand the inference you make here - why wouldn't evolution allow for deviation in morality? It allows for deviation in other traits, like amount of fur or beak size. Morality doesn't seem to function like those simple examples, but we can find situational deviation in other instincts as well. We could consider that evolution has equipped us with adrenaline that typically engages a fight-or-flight response when we are frightened. However, I've experienced many potentially frightening situations, like scary movies or sudden noises, that did not engage that response, usually due to mitigating circumstances. Perhaps I was alone in my room and felt very safe. Regardless, the point is that there's lots of room for situational deviance in evolutionary traits, including morality.
I haven't necessarily proved that morality completely stems from evolution here, but I hope I've defended the theory from some of your objections. So to respond to your title-question, "Should the Possibility that Morality Stems from Evolution Even Be Considered?", I'd say yes, we should continue to consider that possibility.
As you start with this sentence, it would be useful to say who 'Rosenberg' is, and what his or her views are on the matter.
In any case, I am dubious of the application of evolutionary theory to ethics. My doubts have been exacerbated by the casual way in which many people simply assume that there is an obvious relationship between evolutionary biology and ethics, as if there must simply be an obvious connection, now that evolution has replaced religion as the normative description of the origin of human nature.
That said, there has been considerable work done by evolutionary biologists on the evolution of altruism. It is not hard to demonstrate that altruism does indeed support successful propagation. I suppose then the question arises as to whether altruistic behaviours provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for ethical behaviour, generally. Instinctively, I feel that there is much more to it but I suppose arguing the case would take some digging.
But in any case, the point about the application of evolutionary principles to ethics, is that the theory is ultimately always about 'what survives'. So it must amount to a kind of utilitarian ethics, a 'what works' attitude. Not that there's anything drastically the matter with it, but ethical theorists might find it lacking.
RIchard Polt, Anything but Human
I have allways wondered whether evolution might be a good explanation as to why, (some) humans are endowed with a conscience.
For example: humans who felt an instincual revulsion to murder, lived in more stable tribes, this in turn resulted in propagation of DNA. Conversely humans who lacked this revulsion to murder, lived in unstable tribes ultimately resulting such that DNA would not get passed along. (I have no evidence for this, its just a hypothesis).
What i cannot explain is why a trait for 'not stealing' would have evolutionary advantage. That said I'm not so sure our conscience endows us with a revulsion to theft. Perhaps aversion to theft is learned rather that acquired, so a sociologucal factor rather than a biological factor.
@Brillig explained (quite well) why we evolutionarily evolved to kill humans outside our group (soilders for instance) but why we dont kill within the group (a random on the street for instance). He states
Quoting Brillig
Where i would disagree with this explanation is that cities and countries are very recent phenomenon (on an evolutionary timescale). While we are constantly evolving, an insufficient length of time has passed, during which to evolve in respect to these new sociological inventions. For the sake of enhancing your argument, when one tribe (or family) encountered another tribe (or family), their were many risks, diesease transmition or insufficient food/water for both tribes to coexist. Thus the tribe that could kill the other had an evolutionary advantage. When more tribes start killing each other it adds an additional risk factor when tribes encounter each other. The ability to kill outside of your tribe/family became a necessity for surrvival, while within the tribe/family there remain all the evolutionary factors for why not to kill. In essence within groups killing reduces surrvival, but between multiple groups killing increases chance of survival.
This is however a side note your question, my real problem with an evolutionary explanation would be that it describes how humans act and have acted. What an evolutionary explanation cannot tell us, is why we aught to act a certain way (note Humes is aught distinction). Additionally by my estimation evolution lacks a definitive value on which to ground morality or ethics, unless one counts surrvival to be a sufficient value. I find such a foundational value to be very dubious because it fails to distinguish whose survival is important, mine? Yours? Everyones?
We can also see a great deal of human moral behavior in existence in our closest relatives, chimps and bonobos.
If we were reptiles the chances of us having the same morality that we now have as evolved social primates would be zero.
Even Peter Singer accepts a great deal of evolutionary biology as an explanation for human morality. He simply does not think it is reducible to human biology, which is what evolution also tells us. Our main trait is intelligence, compared to other species, and that allows us a greater variety of behavior, and so we can build off of our basic morality and expand on it through moral debate. But, for anyone to claim that morality has nothing to do with biology is a rejection of basic science in the same way that creationists reject evolution. If one believes in evolution, then looking for evolution's impacts on human traits makes logical sense. It really makes no sense to claim we evolved, but, evolution has nothing to do with human traits, including such things as intelligence, compassion, etc. There is not a single human trait that is not impacted by human genetics.
Perhaps pointing to "empathy" is too specific, but I think it's clear that we have an innate sense of right and wrong - certainly it entails a non-verbal, mental capacity. Certain things SEEM wrong, like if we see a person being beaten or killed - this touches our emotions. So empathy doesn't capture this exactly, but it's close.
It is an innate feeling that we have, and I suggest morality stems from this feeling. It's not "dominant" it IS the basis of morality. My hypothesis isn't arrived at by deduction, rather - by abduction. It's the best explanation I'm aware of for morality, although I'm open to considering other possibilities.
The factors that led me to this hypothesis: we actually do have empathetic feelings - these are not learned and therefore they seem innate. Morality is consistent with morality - it entails putting ourselves in someone else's place. The "golden rule" seems to have risen in various cultures independent of one another, which suggests it is a rational interpretation of our innate feelings, including empathy. The golden rule encapsulates much of morality.
A key piece of evidence deals with the trolley problems. Most people agree that pulling the lever is okay to avoid killing 5 people, while killing 1 instead. However, most people also reject pushing the fat man onto the tracks, despite the fact the outcome is now different, five people will die instead of just one. However, neuroscience has sown that a different area of the brain lights up in the two situations, as physically pushing the person makes a biological difference in how the information is processed.
If one looks at the field of psychology these days, it's heavily influenced by biology. This includes topics addressing moral psychology.
The problem with your account, is that it doesn't come to terms with the fundamentally sisyphean predicament of being human. Like all evolutionary theory, it implicitly assumes that the only aim in life is, ultimately, survival, passing on the genome.
But religious ethics are premised on there being an aim above and beyond that of merely surviving. That is represented in various symbol and mythological narratives, but I think it amounts to something more than simply myth. In Buddhism, for example, the ultimate aim of existence is Nirvana, which is said to be 'world-transcending' and the ending of all suffering. The possibility of that aim, or the potential for realising it, provides a dimension or background to 'experience of being human' which is not at all encompassed by biology.
Quoting LD Saunders
He has no choice, being atheist.
[quote=Jacques Maritain]Every progress in evolution is dearly paid for; miscarried attempts, merciless struggle everywhere. The more detailed our knowledge of nature becomes, the more we see, together with the element of generosity and progression which radiates from being, the law of degradation, the powers of destruction and death, the implacable voracity which are also inherent in the world of matter. And when it comes to man, surrounded and invaded as he is by a host of warping forces, psychology and anthropology are but an account of the fact that, while being essentially superior to all of them, he is the most unfortunate of animals. So it is that when its vision of the world is enlightened by science, the intellect which religious faith perfects realises still better that nature, however good in its own order, does not suffice, and that if the deepest hopes of mankind are not destined to turn to mockery, it is because a God-given energy better than nature is at work in us.[/quote]
Moreover, evolutionary biology allows for proximate causes, and is not limited to such a goal being in the head of any individual. We take care of our children, not because we are cold-blooded calculating machines, but because we love them. We have sex, not because we are cold-blooded calculating machines, but because sex is pleasurable. Evolutionary biology has long recognized that proximate causes for behavior is different from the ultimate cause, so biology does not by any means state that there is only one goal in a person's life. Far from it.
I didn't say it was. What I'm saying is that it's a biological theory, the aim of which is to give an account of speciation, right? So while it has something to say about the evolution of the capacity for ethics, it is nevertheless reductionist, in that it implicitly assumes that ethical philosophy is a function of biology. So my argument is that evolutionary biology tends to promote a basically utilitarian attitude to ethics.
Evolutionary biology most definitely does not promote utilitarianism. As I indicated with the trolley problem. If it did promote utilitarianism, then the same part of the brain would light up in both scenarios, but, since it doesn't, this is biology verifying that we are not utilitarians. In fact, just look at the link regarding disgust and ethics, which is clearly non-utilitarian.
There's a useful abstract here.
If you are interested, a lot of research, both theoretical, computational and experimental, has been done in the field of the evolution of morality, and specifically altruism and cooperation. There are popular-level books and articles that cover these topics.
Is there no "fact of the matter" regarding the pain experience (the quale)? I think there is: pain is a state of consciousness. IMO, the sense of right/wrong is something like that - and this is why I relate it to empathy: we actually feel something when we see, or even ponder, some basic wrongs.
Also that particular snippet might be a reference to the 'is/ought problem', first articulated by Hume, in his celebrated passage:
Which is something that haunts every discussion of science and ethics. There's a discussion of the issue in respect of evolutionary ethics here.
I wasn't equating pain with bad and pleasure with good. I referred to pain as an analogy to the unique feeling of empathy. Empathetic feelings are not the same thing as pain.
First off, I would like to start by establishing the fact that, all killing is bad.
When soldiers come home from overseas, and people thank them for their service, the soldiers are not being commended for committing "good" murder. That is not what people thank them and look up to them for.
However, I see what you are getting at with the concept of "situational deviation."
I don't believe that our view of morality is a product of natural selection, because of essentially everything you said in your post. What evolutionary factor could possibly account for the conflict between our survival instinct and our morality?
Personally, I attribute the cause of our morality to be Divine Command Theory, or the view that morality is somehow dependent upon God.
However, the idea of Divine Command Theory raises some new questions regarding the concept of objective moral truths.
When creating humans, did God create us with a moral compass pointing in the direction of certain pre-existing moral truths? Or did God create moral truths, specifically for us?
The genius of humans is their ability to work together. What a waste our relatively massive brains would be if we didn't network them with language (language 'is' that network in some sense), which requires moralities that make that network possible by encouraging cooperation. One simple way to see the advantage of networks is to consider specialization. A community that protects individuals in their variety allows individuals to explore a vast space of imaginative and technical possibility only to return with their rare finds and make them common property. We can ask ourselves what any of us would be without our inherited technology, linguistic and traditional. And we can also ask ourselves why we consciously strive to survive. For most I think the answer is enjoyable relationships. This is not at all to deny our aggressive potential, but this is often directed so as to protect our community from its uglier forms (literal aggression as opposed to defensive violence.)
We are and we evolved from species that needed to band together and cooperate to survive.
It's not even some unique genius of humans. Dogs don't actually eat dogs (not as a rule), nor do bats nor bees nor any number of social animals. In fact, even solitary hunters, who you might think would be most prone to violence, generally avoid conflict with their conspecifics, because even when advantage is on their side, it's usually just not worth spending energy and risking an injury.
That's a good point.I suppose what I had in mind is the linguistic sophistication that goes along cooperation. And I also like the point about conspecifics. War is 'expensive,' and it only makes sense (even from the perspective that assumes an amoral greed) when the reward justifies the risk.
Here is the proof of your argument:
1. Morality comes from natural selection.
2. If morality comes from natural selection, then morality must be universal.
3. Morality is not universal.
4. Therefore, morality did not come from natural selection. (MT 2,3)
In opposition to the second premise, I propose that morality is both evolutionary and circumstantial, in which setting-dependent moral action maximizes survival. According to this line of reasoning, your solider-criminal example is accounted for. You explained that a soldier defending their country from invasion would be honored for weakening the enemy, but a sociopath who killed children would be punished. In this example, we see that morality is dependent on the circumstances and not actions. It must be noted that accepting the existence of circumstantial morality is not a denial of morals born from natural selection. You assume that natural selection exclusively benefits the individual, but I argue that it benefits both the individual and the community which accounts for altruistic morality and the lack of “dog-eat-dog morality” you mentioned. However, the individual still remains the ultimate priority as a result of reciprocity. Sociologically, reciprocity is rewarding kind action with kind action. These exchanges provide the individual with resources and social alliances, which reveals altruistic morality to be ultimately self-serving because it contributes to maximizing the chance for survival of both the individual and the community. The soldier is a perfect example of reciprocity. In return for protecting their country and killing lives of the enemy, the soldier receives domestic benefits, things like healthcare and discounts. Additionally, the soldier kills to protect not only themself, but also their community. This is all to say that I don’t see altruism as a threat to the idea that morality is constructed through natural selection. In fact, taking certain moral action in response to a particular setting maximizes chance for survival.
What if morality is universal, but societies simply get them (partially) wrong most of the time?
Aren't there many 'rules' that one could think of, that when humanity would follow them the world would be a better place? Isn't that universal morality?
Because you fundamentally misunderstand evolution - when you reduce it to the adage 'survival of the fittest.' Humans evolved in a tribal context - and the tribe best able to survive was one in which its individual members had a moral sense that compelled them to share food, fight together against threats, look after the young and so forth. Fittest in that sense, was anything but dog eat dog. Something Nietzsche got wrong to catastrophic effect.
We have "tribal" loyalty yet fear of "others" so "sheep eat goat" perhaps sums us up better. These are hard wired tendencies, but not necessarily overpowering of the intellect.
Left to our own devices (such as in the science fiction post apocalyptic scenario) we would probably find dog-eat-dog morality rising to the surface pretty quickly. So, what is it that suppresses this natural behavior in ordinary, non-apocalyptic situations?
According to Stephen Pinker, it is the State (in some form) that suppresses violence. The state is the expression of common interests, and constant violence (hyena-eat-jackal-eat-wildebeest...) is contrary to ordinary individual security. One might add that constant ad hoc violence is also not in the interest of the state. "State" here means centralized authority; king, city state, powerful priesthood, town council, parliament, politburo, mafia, or what-have-you).
So, continuing with Pinker (The Better Angels of our Nature) a reduction in interpersonal violence is very recent in human history--maybe as recent as during the last 10,000 years. 10K years marks the rise of city and the city state, a more tightly organized form of existence then the hunter-gatherers who characterized the previous millennia.
I would submit that evolution is not all about violence. Lions don't selectively cull out the best wildebeests, they tend to cull the old, sick, or injured wildebeest, because those are the easiest to kill. Wildebeest can graze safely near a recently fed pride of lions.
What seems to happen in human society when the control of the state recedes (such as during natural disaster, riot, revolution, war...) is that opportunism rises to the surface. A riot presents an opportunity to acquire goods for free. Looting isn't violence as much as it is opportunism. Rape, wanton killing, brutality, and all that is a marker for severe social breakdown, and it seems to take a lot of breakdown to get really uninhibited violence.
Hi Bitter Crank!
I think you are making a very good point. It certainly seems that the power structure and justice systems impose an order and morality on humanity. In our world today there are clearly widely held values and morals that regarding treatment of others and giving of one’s self that may seem contrary of themes of individualism or even tribe mentality one might expect from survival based morals. However, maybe those moments when “the State” breaks down, the violence and opportunism that ensures is indicative of more primitive instincts.
I think your argument is as follows:
1. If humans’ primary goal is to maintain individual security and opportunism, then morals have evolutionary origins
2. If there is no centralized authority, humans’ primary goal is to maintain individual security and opportunism.
3. If there is no centralized authority, then morals have evolutionary origins (1,2 HS)
4. Humans originally had no centralized authority
5. Humans’s morals originally had evolutionary origins (3,4 MP)
One problem I have with this argument however is Premise one. I don’t think it follows that opportunism is an indicator of evolutionary morals, rather it is an indicator of survival instincts that exist independent of morals. Morals are beliefs about the right way to act in the world. Instincts are concerned with self preservation. We hold our morals because we think they are true, while our instincts exist to preserve the body. I think it becomes very problematic if we are holding our morals for a reason other than truth.
It seems the main argument here is that humans exhibit evolution-driven morals that manifest in society-oriented ways when there is central authority maintaining the society, or they manifest in individual/offspring oriented ways when there is a breakdown of society. Even if these behaviors are exhibited however, I don’t think we can certainly say it is due to evolution. I think morals could exist independent of evolutionary forces, even if they contribute to a stable society, survival, or passing on of genes. In addition, I think our instincts for survival are not the same as our morals. Reactions to a dangerous situation are not the same as thought out choices we make aligned with our values.
In the examples you cited about anarchy breaking out and violence ensuing, this may reveal a weakness in humans; people might abandon or subjugate their values out of fear and desire to survive. I don’t think this in itself is evidence of remnant morality of the past, I think this reveals the impact irrationality and persistence of a will to survive.
1. If a conclusion expresses a normative claim, it cannot only be supported by a descriptive claim.
2. Any claim about evolution or natural selection are descriptive claims.
3. Any claim about moral systems are normative.
4. Therefore a conclusion about a moral system cannot only be supported by a claim about evolution or natural selection.
Additionally, the lines we draw when considering adaptive behavior into an ethical system are arbitrary. For example, most moral societies do not subscribe to social darwinism. Instead, it is considered moral to help the less fortunate in many situations. Another example of evolutionary behavior we consider immoral is violent anger. Anger can be considered an adaptive behavior because it can convince an individual to seek change and because of the physical effects it has on the body in certain situations. However, we actively seek to suppress and not act upon anger in a civilized society, despite it being one of our most evolutionary behaviors. It isn’t always incorrect to base a moral system around evolution. Some adaptive behavior can be considered morally good and some maladaptive behavior can be considered morally impermissible. What is wrong is to classify a behavior morally good or bad solely because of evolutionary reasons. In conclusion, any ethical system that bases itself only around evolution is fallacious.
Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought
Use of the word "unfortunate" for those who may be harmful to society and may not deserve pity at all is a shallow way of describing a condition. Likewise, the "fortunate" may deserve their success when it had nothing to do with luck.
Ironically, it is the fortunate who do not deserve their success who deceptively push this self-destructive concern for the toxic unfortunate, because people in neither status will see the falsity of pity for the losers and misfits and will be easily tricked into reacting by saying that the fortunate must deserve their condition if we are being forced to illogically conclude that all the unfortunate members of society got a raw deal.
:cheer:
What about if it has some conferred utility? Then, isn't it considered as beneficial towards some end?
Of course it should be considered ! Isn't that the purpose of this thread; to ask us to consider just that question? It's like creating a thread titled "Should this Thread be Considered?".
What do you mean by "stems from"? All of human life stems from biology which is an evolutionary process. Perhaps you really wanted to ask whether morality may be conceptually "grounded upon" evolution? Or whether moral stances may be justified by our understanding of evolution? Are those last two questions the same or different?
In any case if the source of everything human is to be found in biology one way or another, then the source of moral thought and feeling must also be found in biology. Even if moral thought and feeling is mediated and elaborated by human cultures and languages, those latter have their sources in biology. But it doesn't not follow from this that you can directly justify any moral stance by appealing to what is or has been the case in human evolution, or in other words by appealing to what is thought to be merely "natural".
On the other hand, it seems to be the case that the vast majority of humans are socially motivated, and it makes sense that any action which harms others in your community is morally significant. But some things which are considered immoral are merely persistent taboos, which may have originally had some significant sense or purpose for the community, but which no longer do, yet have hung around because they have become entrenched within the community by the abiding power structures and the human propensity for the habitual.
It never gets down to brass tacks, animal nature, naked truth. It's always too busy being super philosophical.
In morality, there's "good" and "bad", and what is "good" is considered moral, and what is "bad" is considered immoral. But what is "bad" is objectively just as moral as what is "good".
We are animals, and we are subject to the same laws as animals, and we behave similarly to animals, there are actually remarkable similarities between the behaviors of humans and bacteria. If humans observed humans the way animals observe humans, philosophy would be "a very different animal".
It is memory combined with subjectivity, this awareness and observance of the self, and in turn the other, that generates in us a concept of morality as something separate from ourselves, some "higher order" of behaviour that is mistakenly objective. Morality, like other compulsions, is a facet of our genetic coding. It is directly related to survival, but it is also one of a series of aspects of humanity that are perfectly suited to support the compulsion to replicate sentience in some non-organic form.
In other words, although morality stems from biology, biology cannot adequately explain morality, without going further into an unscientific (scientifically untestable) dimension of reality. Scientific investigation marks the pinnacle of aesthetic assessment, but it is unable to access certain factors which are essential to ethical existence.
We behave similarly to lower-order animals only when we deny awareness - both of the universe beyond our own existence and of the overall value of interactions in the success of that universe - when we focus only on the value of those interactions for our sense of ‘self’. Other ‘higher order’ animals with self awareness behave in a similar way, and then also exhibit altruism and advanced social behaviour when they have nothing to fear.
I see morality as an effort to broaden our awareness of value beyond ‘selfish value’. Selfish value informs and motivates internal processes of the organism lacking awareness of the universe, and amounts to a basic instinct towards the survival and benefit of the organism and/or its genetic code. Our awareness of this value in conflict with a more universal value that effectively renders humanity fragile, gives rise to self awareness and fear. Universal value depends on our awareness of the universe and of what would promote overall achievement. What is considered morally ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends on whether we have the courage to include family, community, ideology, generation, species, animals, life, the planet, etc in our awareness of ‘self’. We tend to draw the morality line where this broadened notion of ‘self’ appears threatened.
So killing is considered morally acceptable (without being necessarily ‘good’) behaviour only when it protects or benefits our community, our nation, our species, etc. Likewise broadening the notion of ‘self’ to include nation or ideology enables people to see the ‘moral goodness’ of sacrificing their own lives in order to protect it.
Conversely, homosexuality is considered morally ‘bad’ behaviour when it threatens the ideology or the specific notion of family or masculinity with which one has identified. And broadening the notion of ‘self’ to include generations of life beyond our own enables us to recognise the ‘moral goodness’ of environmental action that sacrifices our own comfort, convenience and economic benefit.
Because it's often not a successful tactic. It's successful when you get away with it, but how often is that? There would likely be repercussions if witnessed or caught.
And in answer to your title question: yes, of course.
Nerds Aren't Born That Way
Bullying could benefit society if it made its targets man up. In a society with the right attitude, jock nerd-bashing would make High IQs drop their cowardly and self-indulgent escapism and become Alpha Males.
So there must be something directing and manipulating this bullying that prevents toughening-up as a reaction. In this controlled and submissive society, reactions that threaten the upper class don't happen. By design, nerd-bashing takes self-respect away from those who will then meekly enrich ruling-class parasites by becoming willing Cash Cows for Corporate Cowboys. Those who think they are rebelling by becoming useless theoretical scientists are shameless cowards deserting the battlefield.
We feel it is wrong to ‘mess’ with anyone, but we also feel individually weak ourselves in relation to the universe as a whole, if we’re honest. Bullying is a strategy to make ourselves feel or appear stronger by challenging someone we’re confident we can dominate.
We are not determined to overpower the strong - we’re determined to construct an illusion of strength around ourselves, to overcome the humiliating awareness that individually we’re one of the most vulnerable creatures on the planet. But then, we haven’t really evolved to survive - we’ve evolved to increase awareness, to interconnect and to pursue the overall achievement of the universe.
Our strength lies in valuing the supposedly ‘weak’ - in recognising that people’s strengths aren’t related to their capacity to survive. We can feel that, even if we don’t yet understand why. That’s why we view bullying to be wrong.
Intraspecies relationships in evolution are defined by either cooperation or apathy. Interspecies rivarly is generally where things get violent (dog vs rabbit, jaguar vs ape, etc.)
Of course violence occurs within species. That is one of the mechanisms through which selection occurs.
Do an experiment. Put a bunch of dogs together, starve them for a week (like nature frequently does to its creatures), afterwards throw a T-bone into the mix and watch how violent those pups treat each other.
I agree, such a claim is only an aesthetic assessment, and highly debatable. But, nevertheless, science is, at least, up there in the top 5? [I]Hmm[/i]?
That is an accurate point. To clarify, my position here, I am regarding science as human artifice, and include all human artifice under the category of aesthetic existence. The aesthetic sphere is navigated by assessing the interesting (what is my interest?), and beauty is only one aspect of the interesting.
I would call scientific fact interesting, and in it's own way, it is beautiful without intending to be. But then again, is a beautiful maiden beautiful, only because she intends to be? And do we not find interest in the beautiful? I would say we are attracted to the beautiful for the mere fact that we find it interesting. Such is the capriciousness of aesthetic assessment.
Greatest thread ever.
It's simple: we evolved from small bands of apes. within these small bands of apes, we believed in something like justice. following urbanization, evolutionary group dynamics has been hijacked and pressed into the services of universal moralities and identity politics. read fm 3-24. if you can get a group recognized as "them" (ie, "not us"), feel free to commit any atrocities towards them.
lol beautiful. you might be interested in a book I wrote "the nordtbook: an introduction to chaotic evil" ...it's on amazon. I have an entry about "the seduction to nerddom" that basically talks about how eg jocks denigrate high IQ types to make the p***y off limits to them
Plato Is Patrician Play-Doh
That is a self-indulgent fantasy of the hereditary intellectual regime, which has detoured philosophy for millennia.
Atlas Is Taking Credit for What Prometheus Did
See: http://abeautifulmind.proboards.com, which also got no reviews. For that reason, I doubt if we really agree. I found that out from various embees about HighIQs, which is why I no longer pursue that matter on the Internet.
I too believe that empathy is an essential, if not most important, part of morality. At its simplest we feel or at least attempt to feel what others are experiencing from our behavior and that enables us to assess the moral nature of our actions. If behavior x makes us feel bad then we assume it's interpreted similarly by others too. Empathy isn't a perfect tool but is the most reasonable given the constraints, afterall mindreading is impossible.
What type of theory supports an empathetic model of morality? Consequentialism seems to fit well. Deontology, although not concerned about the effects of our behavior directly, is reconcilable through its universalizability principle - surely one doesn't want to make a principle of something that hurts us. Virtue ethics too can be accommodated with empathy. Correct me if I'm wrong.
By ''mirror neurons'' I think you're talking about empathy. As I said above, empathy is the tool we use to guide our behavior.
As for evolution, I think the most crucial development has been the rational mind. Our minds/brains can process our feelings, empathy playing the main role, and we can then modulate our moral behavior.
What I want to point out is that as the OP stated if evolution could explain morality then shouldn't the strong and powerful survive to pass on their genes. Morality, I've noticed, is more about protecting the weak and checking power. Doesn't this fly against evolution?
Of course I've heard people say that there's an evolutionary advantage in being moral - co-operation (social existence) is a good strategy. Notice however that co-operation is different from morality. The former is always about some form of benefit which the individual group members derive but the latter is specifically about seeing beyond such things as advantage/benefit.
The is-ought fallacy is very important. There may be sound arguments that justify immoral behavior i.e. it's possible that it is justifiable to, let's say, be a racist (Dr. James Watson) but something, our conscience, informs us that that's wrong.