Is evolution adequate for explaining ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatima-Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SPBlitz said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have to understand that we are talking about what increased the survival of the individual in a group scenario in the very early stages of our development. If you did anything that resulted in you being ostracised, then evolution would filter you out. That took millions of years so it was pretty much hard wired into individuals.

If you now want to start talking about the interactions between groups, then it isn’t pleasant reading. For the group to survive they must protect what they consider to be theirs. And reduce the risk of another group taking what they have. Food, territory and (there’s no getting around this) women.

So within the group, evolutionary traits ruled the roost. Between groups, other pressures come to bear. And murder and infanticide and rape become common. There is a planet’s worth of examples for that.
 
Last edited:
SPBlitz said:
…I think we have to conclude that evolution cannot be solely responsible for it.
Click to expand...
It isn’t soley responsible. But it’s the basis. Other pressures come to bear. Inter group rivalry, the stratification of societies, politics, religion etc.

Go back to the basics and you’ll find that evolution laid the groundwork. Look at individual cases and there will be multiple factors determining the outcome.
 
edwest211 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is this one of those problems like ‘Two trains leave the station ten minutes apart, the first travelling at 50mph…’?
 
goout said:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
goout:
40.png
Bradskii:
40.png
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Brad. I answered your question a couple of exchanges ago in good faith.
Have a great day.
Click to expand...
No problem. You have a good one as well.

Now, goout has said that Christianity claims that a person is the font of objective goodness. Anyone feel the need to expound on that?
 
With such a wide and glaring disparity in human behavior (let alone familial appearance), it seems that we can eliminate Darwin from the equation.

And, if ethics is evolutionary, any deviation from the “norm” would seem to me to be a proof of free will.

I said “A proof” not the proof.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
With such a wide and glaring disparity in human behavior (let alone familial appearance), it seems that we can eliminate Darwin from the equation.

And, if ethics is evolutionary, any deviation from the “norm” would seem to me to be a proof of free will.

I said “A proof” not the proof.
Click to expand...
Hang on. Did you just say something didn’t exist and then go on to say that it would back up another of your assertions if it did.

Do you bet on all the horses in any given race?
 
In community, three types of union are possible: dominion, submission and communion with integrity. Humans use all three. The chimps only demonstrate two.

The passive form of union is that of submission, or masochism. The masochistic chimp or person subordinates himself to another who directs him, guides him, protects him. The masochist loses his individuality to his dependency on the other. The masochist makes himself the instrument of another outside of himself. He loses his individuality, his integrity. The rules of his behavior in the group require submission.

The active form of union is domination or sadism. The sadistic chimp or person wants to make the other chimp or person part of himself. He inflates and enhances himself by incorporating another person, who depends upon him.

But the sadistic chimp is as dependent on the submissive chimp as the latter is on the former; neither can live without the other. The difference is only that the sadistic chimp commands, exploits, hurts, humiliates, and that the masochistic chimp is commanded, exploited, hurt, humiliated. Both live under intense anxiety.

In contrast to these symbiotic unions, humans have a third way of uniting, a way which requires reason. Reason identifies the other as an end, not as an instrument. Mature love (agape) allows union under the condition of preserving one’s integrity, one’s individuality. Love is an active power in man; a power which breaks through the walls which separate man from his fellow men.

The chimps have behavior rules that harmonize order within the troop. But an ethical system also must aim at more than just group harmony. C.S. Lewis reminds us that an ethical system is concerned with three things: 1) harmony between individuals; 2) the inner harmony of the individual; 3) the general purpose of life (salvation).
 
o_mlly said:
The assertion that ethical behaviors evolved does not pass muster.

We have inherited our first fathers instincts as have all our forefathers. We call that Original Sin.
Click to expand...
I was going to give you some more links so that you might see my position more clearly. So that I might be in with a chance for evolution to ‘pass muster’. But that last comment shows that I would be wasting me time.

If your views are such as indicated by the last statement then it seems comparable to me posting details of the control system they used for getting Armstrong to land the lunar module if you deny they went to the moon anyway.
 
Last edited:
So providing that I accept somehow that salvation is a part of human life, then Lewis’s claims hold true. If I don’t believe that (and there have been human societies where notions of afterlife are pretty darned nebulous by Christian standards), then I’d say I have little reason to see much of a difference at all
 
Bradskii said:
If your views are such as indicated by the last statement then it seems comparable to me posting details of the control system they used for getting Armstrong to land the lunar module if you deny they went to the moon anyway.
Click to expand...
Has man today evolved from the first human being? No. Has he learned a lot, like how to go to the moon? Yes. Those are two different questions. In ethics, the ultimate giant step for mankind was Jesus Christ. Western civilization is based on His teachings. I’d cite them but your comments suggest you think you’ve evolved beyond them.
niceatheist said:
So providing that I accept somehow that salvation is a part of human life, then Lewis’s claims hold true. If I don’t believe that (and there have been human societies where notions of afterlife are pretty darned nebulous by Christian standards), then I’d say I have little reason to see much of a difference at all
Click to expand...
Well, you’d have to deny the second purpose of an ethical system as well. Learning is a process in time. We are today far more informed than our ancestors. I believe the number of human societies where notions of afterlife are still nebulous by anyone’s standards today is far less than ever before. But I could be wrong. Let’s toss it around again when we’re both in our afterlife.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, I think my answer was more directed towards the hypothetical new atheist type - you know, the Richard Dawkins-types that insist that all of human behavior is the result of evolution. I’m not sure if your beliefs fall into this category - I haven’t had the chance to read all of the earlier posts.

Still, I can’t help but feel as though you’re pulling a sleight of hand. You make a distinction between Darwinian evolution (which would have controlled early human development) and cultural evolution (which took hold once humans reached a certain level of development). You seem to be saying that evolution is sufficient to explain morality. Yet, when the uncomfortable implications of this are pointed out (from my first post), you instead appeal to cultural evolution to explain how morality isn’t based upon the ‘survival’ premise, and seem to be implying a distinction between the two. But either cultural/societal evolution comes from Darwinian evolution or it doesn’t. If it does, then my concerns from my earlier post still apply, since all of our cultural development, no matter how sophisticated, would still have sprung out of the same ‘the only value is survival/reproduction’ premise that controls Darwinian evolution. If not, then we’d have to admit that morality/ethics - on a fundamental level - cannot be fully accounted for by evolution, and we’ll have to look to something else for a full explanation.
 
SPBlitz said:
Forgive me, I think my answer was more directed towards the hypothetical new atheist type - you know, the Richard Dawkins-types that insist that all of human behavior is the result of evolution. I’m not sure if your beliefs fall into this category - I haven’t had the chance to read all of the earlier posts.

Still, I can’t help but feel as though you’re pulling a sleight of hand. You make a distinction between Darwinian evolution (which would have controlled early human development) and cultural evolution (which took hold once humans reached a certain level of development). You seem to be saying that evolution is sufficient to explain morality. Yet, when the uncomfortable implications of this are pointed out (from my first post), you instead appeal to cultural evolution to explain how morality isn’t based upon the ‘survival’ premise, and seem to be implying a distinction between the two. But either cultural/societal evolution comes from Darwinian evolution or it doesn’t. If it does, then my concerns from my earlier post still apply, since all of our cultural development, no matter how sophisticated, would still have sprung out of the same ‘the only value is survival/reproduction’ premise that controls Darwinian evolution. If not, then we’d have to admit that morality/ethics - on a fundamental level - cannot be fully accounted for by evolution, and we’ll have to look to something else for a full explanation.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Evolution doesn’t explain it all. It’s the basis for ethics. Reciprocal altruism is exceptionally common in nature. It’s the basis for moral behaviour. Societies, once formed, brought different pressures to bear.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top