Do morals come from economics?

[JJR]

According to Steven Pinker and his book, "The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature", morals (specifically sexual morals) come from the, "Darwinian economics of childbirth". What does this mean?

Basically, when a male and a female are considering getting together, the male is either lying about his willingness to care for the offspring (in many 3rd world countries like Honduras the dude just skips town . . . goes to a new village) or he is sincere . .. which will cost him years of toil. The female is risking using her finite reproductive process. These unavoidable factors are bound to have an effect, psychologically. If this danger response is indeed imprinted upon the human brain, then jokes about sex will always be funny. Sex will also always be a little, "dirty". If it were not, then it could be discussed openly at any time, and would be as, "funny" as a story where the humerous climax was eating a snickers bar. Null program . . . it's just a bunch of electricity in the pleasure center . .. but jokes about sex still trigger laughter.

It all boils down to food (for the baby), which is money, which, of course, is the root of all evil. That's procreational sex, baby.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

If this danger response is indeed imprinted upon the human brain, then jokes about sex will always be funny.

Non sequitur.

 

[JJR]

Non sequitur.

No. The facts that sex is the trigger for jealous rage, is pondered over, obsessed over, and is the subject of much literature and humor are relevant. Man is the sexiest primate . . . I'm simply explaining what morals are since we will always have a certain ammount of them. Some folks want too much morality, some lowlifes want too little as per usual.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

No. The facts that sex is the trigger for jealous rage, is pondered over, obsessed over, and is the subject of much literature and humor are relevant. Man is the sexiest primate . . .

Possible, but your statements do not logically follow one another. Sex jokes may be funny, but that this is caused by the mechanisms of selecting a mate is far from obvious.

Lavatory humour, such as what follows, is also relatively constant over time and cultures. I'd be hard pressed to expound on the Darwinian economics of taking a dump.

 

[chance]

<snip> Basically, when a male and a female are considering getting together, the male is either lying about his willingness to care for the offspring (in many 3rd world countries like Honduras the dude just skips town . . . goes to a new village) or he is sincere . .. which will cost him years of toil. The female is risking using her finite reproductive process.

If one is considering the Darwinian implications of these two scenarios, I would think that the family unit stands a much better chance of rearing children to reproductive age than the ‘love em and leave em’ tactic. Evolution should favour family units.

 

[Gurdur]

If one is considering the Darwinian implications of these two scenarios, I would think that the family unit stands a much better chance of rearing children to reproductive age than the ‘love em and leave em’ tactic. Evolution should favour family units.

r versus K strategy. Humans follow a K strategy.

That obviously forms the basis of some of our morals, but forming the base of morals is NOT equivalent to determining those morals, since there is more than one influence, and of course cultural development and individual free will play a large part.
__________

To the OP:
according to both Ayn Rand and to Karl Marx, all morality between humans can easily (Marx) or does (Rand) only reduce to monetary economics, which is obviously a cultural development (an unfortunate phase to be gotten over, according to Marx) or The Truth ® for all time and a universal condition (as according to Ayn Rand).

 

[Puppycow]

If one is considering the Darwinian implications of these two scenarios, I would think that the family unit stands a much better chance of rearing children to reproductive age than the ‘love em and leave em’ tactic. Evolution should favour family units.

Morality comes from both biological (genetic) and cultural (memetic) sources. Economics determines which genes and memes prosper in the long run.
In another thread I tried to argue that the puritanical Christian sexual mores (monogamy) have been adaptively successful, and that the evidence is that Christianity is now the most popular religion. It is adaptive because if couples actually follow it, it prevents STDs like syphalis and it also provides a strong protective group for raising children (two-parent families are stonger than one-parent families).

 

[Dave1001]

According to Steven Pinker and his book, "The Blank Slate - The Modern Denial of Human Nature", morals (specifically sexual morals) come from the, "Darwinian economics of childbirth". What does this mean?

Basically, when a male and a female are considering getting together, the male is either lying about his willingness to care for the offspring (in many 3rd world countries like Honduras the dude just skips town . . . goes to a new village) or he is sincere . .. which will cost him years of toil. The female is risking using her finite reproductive process. These unavoidable factors are bound to have an effect, psychologically. If this danger response is indeed imprinted upon the human brain, then jokes about sex will always be funny. Sex will also always be a little, "dirty". If it were not, then it could be discussed openly at any time, and would be as, "funny" as a story where the humerous climax was eating a snickers bar. Null program . . . it's just a bunch of electricity in the pleasure center . .. but jokes about sex still trigger laughter.

It all boils down to food (for the baby), which is money, which, of course, is the root of all evil. That's procreational sex, baby.

I'm sure there's an element of the "darwinian economics of childbirth" there. Overall I think economics is a heuristic that allows us to improve our morality as a species. Since currently the biggest contributor to human morality seems to be irrational cognitive bias.

 

[Dave1001]

If one is considering the Darwinian implications of these two scenarios, I would think that the family unit stands a much better chance of rearing children to reproductive age than the ‘love em and leave em’ tactic. Evolution should favour family units.

Both tactics seems to have long been at play in our species (and many others). Hence both sexual partner bonding and female opportunistic cheating in humans and other species.