Is evolution adequate for explaining ethics

[Gigas97]

First, the Darwinian evolution, which the atheist explains the origin of the entire animated world, including the origin of man and himself, does not know the concept of “good” or “evil”. From the point of view of Darwinism, these ideas are completely abstract and absurd. The only thing that matters in Darwinian evolution is the survival and development of species. However, one would be wrong to say that one can identify development and survival with some “superior purposefulness” of evolution, something that we could dress into the shape of some “evolutionary duty”. For Darwinists, evolution has no purpose, it just happens, flows like a river, deprived of the awareness that there is a goal at all. From the point of view of Darwinian evolution, one can even argue completely contradictory things, that is, justify protection of individual or species life, as well as the elimination of an individual or even the whole species. If the species survived - it’s good because it was supposed to survive. If a species is extinct, like dinosaurs, it’s good too because it means it was going to get extinct. Similarly with the unit - it will survive - good, it will die - also good, because it will place other units in the ecological niche. All this will be just as compatible with evolution. Hence the Darwinian atheist can not even say that the survival and development of species is some kind of higher property to which we would somehow be bound by the supposed laws of evolution. No such laws exist, in any case atheists have never shown that they could even exist.

But let’s say that an atheist will continue to insist and say that he feels a “moral imperative” in the form of an allegedly impulse, obliging him to protect the homo sapiens species. But how can an atheist show the ethical significance of this “impulse”? Taking into account the fact that the atheist brings consciousness to a bundle of prosaic electrochemical impulses in his brain, what will this impulse be different from, for example, the impulse that causes atheist urge to(sorry) urinate? Nothing really. They will be two identical impulses in terms of the electrochemical structure.

 

[Gigas97]

So where does the atheist know that there is a moral claim to preserve our species, or even any other species? Atheists sometimes claim that this is due to our “instinct”. I do not know, however, a man who would feel the “instinct to preserve the whole species”. Let’s say someone would ask us if we would give our lives to ensure the existence of our future generations. Are there any people who would feel at the moment some “instinctive impulse” obliging them to such a heroic act? I do not know anyone, I do not feel any “instinctive impulse”. It’s just some cultural abstraction and nothing more. And even if someone would feel such an impulse, how would he reconcile him with the instinct of preserving his own life, which would be in clear contradiction with the idea of sacrificing this life for the benefit of future generations that have not even been born yet? Apart from this potential conflict of instincts, the question of evaluating them appears again. Again, these are still only electrical impulses that the atheist would not be able to attribute to any ethical category. An atheist would not be able to show that one instinct has some alleged superiority over others. Therefore, an atheist’s reference to some alleged “instinct” that allegedly obliges us to preserve the species would be completely useless.

Sorry for many posts, i wasn’t able to fit everything in a single one.

 

[Bradskii]

Don’t dismiss the counter examples so easily. If evolution explains all moral behaviors then it must do so for all types of virtues including self regulating and heroic virtue. So far we’ve seen no virtue in your examples, only chicanery. Those examples “talk the talk but don’t walk the walk>”

Evolution tells us: “If it feels good and doesn’t cause the community to expel me then I may do it.”

Evolution tells us: “Survival of the fittest also means elimination of the weakest.”

Evolution does not explain why parents of a Down Syndrome child expend extraordinary amounts of their time, talent and treasure for the child’s benefit. So does the community the child is born into. Nor do the parents or the community do so “on the spur of the moment”.

Don’t confuse what brought us to this point in regard to morality and what we consciously decide what is right or wrong. What brought us here are unconscious, inbuilt characteristics which we have described as moral actions. That is all I am saying.

That we can consciously decide on an action that doesn’t align with those characteristics goes, I would have thought, without saying.

For example, evolution would dictate that we should generally spend very little time looking after those within society that don’t add anything. Like the elderly. But elders sometime have a great deal to add to the group. So there is a conflict within each of us: What value do they bring?

In some cases a lot. In most cases they are a drain on resources. Financially and mentally. Hence the conflict of emotions any child feels towards an elderly parent.

We have inherited our forefathers instincts. We need not be controlled by them. We are now masters of our own destiny.

 

[Bradskii]

So where does the atheist know that there is a moral claim to preserve our species…

It isn’t a moral claim. Preservation of the self ensures the preservation of the species. You don’t need to be aware of that for it to be true.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

goout:

Bradskii:

I don’t mean this to be derrogatory to Christianity in particular because it holds for all religions. Their answers are quite simplistic: It is written, therefore act this way.

That’s not true. That’s a radically fundamentalist understanding of Christianity. (we have had this discussion before I think)

Feel free to expound.

Christianity is definitively not a religion of the book. The book reveals God, the book is not God.
Fundamentalists tend to lose this perspective. They see morality as a mere adherence to the rules as written down.
Christianity is first of all adherence to a person in Jesus Christ. The source of good is objectively other, and the most radically other is person, not a book.

I do not look at a book and have any sense of relationship, right?
When I see another human being (and Genesis expresses this beautifully) I see an-other. Through and with another person I find my identity.

God is the ultimate other who is the good itself. We are called to seek the good in all moral evaluations because we have the durable promise of union with a person, God.

If it were the way you are saying above, that we act this way because it is written down, then the Old Testament is the summation of revelation. And Christianity is precisely the fulfillment of the Old Testament, in the person of the Son of the Living God,.

So you follow Jesus. Not what is written.

Tell me how you know what Jesus requires you to do.

 

[o_mlly]

Don’t confuse what brought us to this point in regard to morality and what we consciously decide what is right or wrong. What brought us here are unconscious, inbuilt characteristics which we have described as moral actions. That is all I am saying.

That we can consciously decide on an action that doesn’t align with those characteristics goes, I would have thought, without saying.

For example, evolution would dictate that we should generally spend very little time looking after those within society that don’t add anything. Like the elderly. But elders sometime have a great deal to add to the group. So there is a conflict within each of us: What value do they bring?

In some cases a lot. In most cases they are a drain on resources. Financially and mentally. Hence the conflict of emotions any child feels towards an elderly parent.

We have inherited our forefathers instincts. We need not be controlled by them. We are now masters of our own destiny.

The assertion that ethical behaviors evolved does not pass muster. In any ethical system one’s right must have a reciprocal obligation that falls on others to respect that right. To acknowledge the other’s right require first the acknowledgement of my obligation to respect that right. This is the act of a rational intellect and is not born into the child but a learned behavior and has been so since the first human existed. What you have described as ethical behavior is the child’s world of acting out of fear that someone will take his “blankie” away for bad behaviors. I suppose those with arrested development are locked into such a demented category.

You write, that we consciously decide with unconscious traits and that it goes without saying that we can consciously decide against those traits. Sounds like free will. I agree.

When in conflict, we consciously decide using our free will between our animal appetites and our informed intellect. Our obligation to others because our ethic, not our fear, demands that we do.

We have inherited our first fathers instincts as have all our forefathers. We call that Original Sin. It is the human condition, always has been. Moral freedom, the learned ability to deny our animal appetites, has also always been with us.

In the fully developed character, the Christian character, there is no conflict of emotions toward elderly parents only the knowledge that they deserve our concerted feelings of honor, respect and love. The accidents of financial drain or the sadness of knowing their pain does not alter that ethic.

 

[goout]

I don’t mean this to be derrogatory to Christianity in particular because it holds for all religions. Their answers are quite simplistic: It is written, therefore act this way.

So you follow Jesus. Not what is written.

Tell me how you know what Jesus requires you to do.

[/QUOTE]
I’m responding to your assertion that morality is sourced in written material that is subjective and indifferent to any written material from any religion.
Christianity does not propose written material as the font of objective goodness, it proposes a person.

What is it you are not understanding?

 

[Bradskii]

I’m responding to your assertion that morality is sourced in written material that is subjective and indifferent to any written material from any religion.
Christianity does not propose written material as the font of objective goodness, it proposes a person.

What is it you are not understanding?

If that person tells you one thing and another person something different, how do I know you are right and he is wrong? Or do you mean that YOU are the person? It’s not clear.

 

[goout]

goout:

I’m responding to your assertion that morality is sourced in written material that is subjective and indifferent to any written material from any religion.
Christianity does not propose written material as the font of objective goodness, it proposes a person.

What is it you are not understanding?

If that person tells you one thing and another person something different, how do I know you are right and he is wrong? Or do you mean that YOU are the person? It’s not clear.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion Brad after reading about “objective other”?
Brad, you have been involved in these discussions for years now, personally with me several times. Exact same material.

It defies belief that you don’t understand it.
And we are not going to the dance again.

 

[niceatheist]

Care to explain how chimpanzees have ethical systems? Not as complex as human systems, to be sure, but still, chimpanzee tribes function based on rules of behavior. We are not the only species on this planet that have some degree of ethical system.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

goout:

I’m responding to your assertion that morality is sourced in written material that is subjective and indifferent to any written material from any religion.
Christianity does not propose written material as the font of objective goodness, it proposes a person.

What is it you are not understanding?

If that person tells you one thing and another person something different, how do I know you are right and he is wrong? Or do you mean that YOU are the person? It’s not clear.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion Brad after reading about “objective other”?
Brad, you have been involved in these discussions for years now, personally with me several times. Exact same material.

It defies belief that you don’t understand it.
And we are not going to the dance again.

I haven’t reached a conclusion. I am asking a very straightforward question. And not just for my benefit but for anyone who is reading this.

Feel free to answer or not.

 

[o_mlly]

Care to explain how chimpanzees have ethical systems? Not as complex as human systems, to be sure, but still, chimpanzee tribes function based on rules of behavior. We are not the only species on this planet that have some degree of ethical system.

Do they? Rules of behavior, yes. But an ethical system, as in rights and duties one to another and all to the group, no. Would you care to make the case that chimps do?

Animals that herd or troop, in the case of chimpanzees, must have rules of behavior especially the one-on-one rules that govern aggression, threat displays, and fighting. These rules indicate that although the animals are gathered, usually for defense against predators, there remains competition over resources, such as food or mates. These rules restrain an individual’s actions but I don’t believe science has detected behaviors which can be inferred as obligatory acts that individuals must take as contributory to the troop, that is, in the human concept, to the common good.

 

[niceatheist]

Chimps, particularly bonobo chimps, have pretty complex behaviors that resemble humans in a lot of ways. They have dominance hierarchies not unlike humans, there are punishments for misdeeds. P. troglodytes (the common chimp) is just about the only other animal on the planet other than humans that we know of that make war; and they can be just as brutal as human war. They also have a similar kind of tribalism as humans.

Chimps are sensitive to what is right and wrong | ScienceDaily

 

[SPBlitz]

If I can throw my two cents into the ring:

Remember, evolution can only select for behaviors that have survival or reproduction value. So, if morality is due to evolution than the following statements would be true:

1. rape is wrong because it has no survival/reproduction value
2. murder is wrong because it has no survival/reproduction value
3. infanticide is wrong because it has no survival/reproduction value

etc.

These statements would have to be true because survival/reproduction is the only ‘goal’ that evolution can point towards. But if our morality is only due evolution (and therefore only looks at what increases or decreases survival value) then the following statements would also have to be true

1. If rape ever increased survival/reproduction value, then it wouldn’t be wrong.
2. If murder ever increased survival/reproduction value, then it wouldn’t be wrong
3. If infanticide ever increases survival/reproduction value, then it wouldn’t be wrong.

etc.

Now, I think most people would strongly disagree with these statements. Even if rape, or murder, or infanticide, or what have you, increased survival or reproduction chances, they would still be morally evil. Therefore, I think we have to conclude that our morality cannot be wholly explained by evolution.

 

[goout]

goout:

Bradskii:

goout:

I’m responding to your assertion that morality is sourced in written material that is subjective and indifferent to any written material from any religion.
Christianity does not propose written material as the font of objective goodness, it proposes a person.

What is it you are not understanding?

If that person tells you one thing and another person something different, how do I know you are right and he is wrong? Or do you mean that YOU are the person? It’s not clear.

How can you possibly come to that conclusion Brad after reading about “objective other”?
Brad, you have been involved in these discussions for years now, personally with me several times. Exact same material.

It defies belief that you don’t understand it.
And we are not going to the dance again.

I haven’t reached a conclusion. I am asking a very straightforward question. And not just for my benefit but for anyone who is reading this.

Feel free to answer or not.

Brad. I answered your question a couple of exchanges ago in good faith.
Have a great day.

 

[niceatheist]

I think this draws far too simplistic a line under possible evolutionary pathways to morality. For instance, rape, sadly, has been an aspect of human behavior as far as we can go. It was seen in ancient times as the rights of conquerors, and even into Medieval and Early modern times, and even in Christendom, it was, if not approved of, pretty much an accepted feature of the spoils of war.

But I’d take the broader approach. Humans are social animals. There’s an innate instinctual need for various social constructs, like morals and ethics, but the precise nature of those moral and ethical rules can be pretty divergent. We need rules, societies would collapse without them, but societies seem to have a fairly broad spectrum of approved and unapproved behaviors, suggesting societies come up with the rules, either through consensus or possibly through imposition (for instance, human sacrifices were part of many cultures, and it tended to be invaders who imposed new rules, like the ban on Sati in India during the British Raj).

Even within a culture there can be variation. The Athenians wrote of the Spartan’s for of eugenics (leaving unfit infants to die by exposure) with dismay, and yet both culture kept slaves. Creating Eunuchs were a longstanding practice in Oriental cultures, but in the Judeao-Christian tradition was viewed as pretty vile (though they were still creating Castratos in Italy until the 19th century). Prostitution was by and large accepted (if not always approved of) even in the Christian West in many places well into the 19th century, until Victorian sensibilities became the norm throughout the English-speaking world. And let’s not even get started on slavery, which both the Old and New Testaments simply accepted as a normal facet of society, and yet now you would be hard pressed to find any modern Christian who would view it as anything but deeply immoral.

 

[edwest211]

All the way back to the early 1960s.

 

[SPBlitz]

Hmm, you raise some interesting points, but I’m still unsure of how they refute any of my points. It’s quite possible that our desire to form societies is responsible for our morality, but surely our desire to form societies would be due to evolution? That the reason we form societies is because they increase our survival/reproduction chances? Then wouldn’t the rules formed by these societies still be related (even if indirectly) to increasing our survival/reproduction chances? You can layer it as much as you like, but if something is caused solely by evolution, then the answer to the question ‘Why?’ (Why is generosity good? Why is rape bad) must always be “because it increases survival/reproduction chances.” Since I think that most people would respond that such a premise can not be the good basis for a morality, then I think we have to conclude that evolution cannot be solely responsible for it.

 

[edwest211]

Evolution applies only to those who accept a certain worldview. One hundred people live on a remote island. There is enough food and shelter for everybody. Two people try to get something changed. No one else agrees with them. In this case, there are no lobbyists to call upon.

 

[niceatheist]

Pretty much all primates are social animals to one degree or another (with orangutans being the only mainly solitary great apes). So I’d say that the programming to obey some sort of social norms is in our DNA, and has pretty deep roots.

I’ll put it this way. I don’t think you can look at any social behaviors and just simply say “that behavior doesn’t confer survival benefits so how did it evolve?” We can probably answer the question to some degree for broader behaviors (i.e. the mating behaviors of humans, overall tendency of social organizations, kinship relations, etc.), and I’d say a lot of the commonality we see are based on behaviors that evolved because they conferred advantage. But very specific behaviors, that gets tougher, because we have to take into account a separate kind of evolution; cultural evolution.

Let’s take castration. Obviously, castrating a male means they cannot father children. So that seems a rather counterproductive behavior, if the only metric we’re applying is reproductive success of the individual. But evolution is not about reproductive success of individuals, but of entire populations. Creating eunuchs was, in most cases, part of a much larger social construct. Eunuchs were often trusted ministers in many courts, precisely because they could not father children who might either become competitors to the rulers, or alternatively make their positions hereditary. In fact, a similar logic was put in place in the Western Roman and Medieval Church with priestly celibacy. The Church gained considerable influence over the rising Germanic kings, but official celibacy saved the Church from the risk that bishops might found dynasties of their own, and threaten the royal dynasties in Europe.

So, you see, the advantages of Eunuchs (either actual, or through oaths of celibacy) were that they could create more stable political structures. More stable political structures mean less wars. Less wars means less people killed. So, through a sort non-Euclidean social logic, ministers who couldn’t or wouldn’t bear children meant more people likely survived due to stable political and social structures.