Can Darwinian evolution impose any moral obligations on me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For example, which of these commandments does evolution impose an obligation upon me to obey?
  1. Honor your father and your mother.
  2. You shall not kill.
  3. You shall not commit adultery.
  4. You shall not steal.
  5. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  6. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
  7. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.
Hello snarflemike,
Since there are a lot of Catholics here I’ll use Catholics as a point of comparison to DE Darwinian evolutionists. A DE is more likely to view these laws (and perhaps the rest of the 613) as good and therefore feel compelled to keep them than a Catholic because he/she won’t have a code of conduct in competition to it. Looking a list of Catholic mortal sins List of Mortal Sins many of them have nothing to do with the commandments yet they will be held in higher regard and therefore be in competition God’s commandments.
 
Absolutely not. Evolution by natural selection is not a prescription, it is a description. Now, if you read into evolutionary psychology, you can make a case that natural selection has produced humans who have moral lives; we and other large primates have other-oriented behavior, that could be perceived as morality or politics. That doesn’t entail obligations, only tendencies. Were you to disregard all social instincts you would be what we call a sociopath, most like.
 
Evolution has produced a huge range of known species, 99% of which are extinct. Many of those species became extinct leaving no descendant species. What supports a particular evolutionary path in one environment may not support tin a later environment. Humans, with a possible existence of 2 million years and a ‘modern form’ existence of on 200,000 years are a new species.

There has been little chance for selection for such things as ‘coveting’, especially as the idea of permanent ownership is only a few thousand years old. The commandments are also a few thousand years old. There has been no time for evolutionary pressure based on them. Even if they codified earlier learnings they are not obviously geared towards increasing the offspring of those who hold to them. To explain further:
  • Honor your father and your mother.
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
  • You shall not commit adultery.
Arguably these commandments would have encouraged more stable and defensible family units, providing protection for offspring. Adultery, however, is an excellent way to produce a wide range of offspring. This has to be balanced against the risks of conflict.
  • You shall not kill.
Although this commandant is most useful in preserving in-group stability it is counter-productive in dealing with competition with out-groups. Men killing men and having sex with women from out-groups is a very good way of increasing offspring. A warrior class is also a good hunting group, maximising high-value food.
  • You shall not steal.
If you succeed in this, especially from out-groups, your offspring will have more food.
  • You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
  • You shall not covet your neighbour’s goods
These commandments are specifically in-group. You are free to covet the wives and goods of those who’re not your neighbours. Depending on success in developing your coveting into acquisition these could be of great advantage in producing offspring especially for men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top