Is Evolution Amoral?

[Mercutio]

Blobru--

You might be interested in reading B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." In it, Skinner talks about the evolution of culture, and specifically of values. (And while some here might call it memetics, Skinner was fond of referring to Natural Selection, to Learning, and to Cultural Change, each as a case of selection by consequences.)

In this case, of course, just as something is not selected for because it makes us more fit (the "fitness" is actually defined by its selection), Moral behavior is not selected for because it helps us to survive, but rather the fact that it has, in our past, helped us to survive, that makes us value it as moral behavior. Examples ranging from "thou shallt not kill" to kosher laws to sacred cows are easily seen as responses to the environmental situations from which they arose. In other environments, completely different moral structures might be selected (just ask science fiction writers).

 

[Tricky]

Is aviation pink?

AHA! At last we know the color of your airplane!

 

[JJM 777]

mangling of “survival of the fittest” into “survival of the strongest” aside, is it even true in the first place that evolution is amoral?

It is the luckiest who survive, not the strongest nor the fittest.

A number of diseases can take down anyone, whomsoever, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such diseases to survive.

A number of natural disasters can kill anyone who happens to be present, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such disasters to survive.

Major cosmic catastrophes can destroy any planet, so we need some amoral luck to avoid such catastrophes to survive.

Hence evolution is an amoral concept, because it does not care a heck about the survival of any life anywhere.

---

The word "amoral" means circumstances where moral considerations are not taken into account in decision-making. To make something "moral", by definition you need a thinking process that evaluates "good" and "evil" options, and makes a conscious choice between these. Random evolution does not make any conscious decisions between good and evil, unless we are talking about Intelligent Design.

---

However, assuming that Intelligently Designed evolution indeed worries about the survival of the fittest, mercilessly torturing to death the slower or sick creatures, what would this prove about the "morality" of such Intelligently Designed process?

To make it more simple, we hear that the stronger man is able to murder a weaker or sick man, and this also happens. What does this prove about the "morality" of such circumstances?

Morality is an altruistic concept, excercising restraint in situations where we would be able to kill or destroy, but we decide not to do so. Morality is also a learned quality, not a hereditary one. (Unless you believe that humans have significantly evolved genetically since the Nazi era or the colonialist slave trade era.)

 

[Mercutio]

It is the luckiest who survive, not the strongest nor the fittest.

Well... "Luck" is not generally seen as a systematic thing, so it will not exert a systematic pressure toward survival. "Strength" is systematic, and under some environmental conditions may very well be selected for; strength does come at a cost, both in terms of metabolism and in term of size, so there may be other environmental conditions that select against strength in favor of some other strategy (sneakiness? intelligence? stealth?)

But given that "fitness" is typically defined by reproductive success (for whatever reason, not just strength, not just physical health, or intelligence, or poisons, or coloration...), it is trivially true that it is the fittest who survive. By definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

It is the luckiest who survive, not the strongest nor the fittest.

A number of diseases can take down anyone, whomsoever, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such diseases to survive.

Or a working immune system.

A number of natural disasters can kill anyone who happens to be present, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such disasters to survive.

Or the ability to run from a fire, swim from a flood, eat your litter-mates during a famine...

Major cosmic catastrophes can destroy any planet, so we need some amoral luck to avoid such catastrophes to survive.

Or... Uh, well, if the planet is destroyed natural selection pretty much goes out the window. I'll give you that one.

Hence evolution is an amoral concept, because it does not care a heck about the survival of any life anywhere.

Glad to see you're keeping up your subscription to the non-sequitur-of-the-month club.

 

[Jon.]

Two more books to recommend that look at the interplay between morality and evolution: Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, and Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. The Shermer book is more directly on point, while Dennett conducts a more general discussion of the philosophical implications of the theory of evolution.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Ugh... for the last time... Just because evolution is survival of the fittest doesn't mean our morality should reflect that. It has SHAPED our morality but not in that "brutalize your lessers" way. Even then, we do have a range of options in how we can act.

I mean, just because there's gravity doesn't mean our morality should "follow" it, whatever that would even mean (I guess flying would be a sin?). Why should we care, morally speaking, that something slightly faster is able to more easily escape a predator?

What a massively unusual thing it is to say that it's a source of morality.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

How can a scientific theory (and a damn good one, at that) be considered amoral? Isn't your question the belief and support of that theory being amoral?

Some creationists like to invoke Hitler and his crew of eugenics supporters as being a good reason evolutionary theory is evil. We know where the evil is in that last statement.

Charlie (are rocks amoral?) Monoxide

 

[blobru]

Ugh... for the last time... Just because evolution is survival of the fittest doesn't mean our morality should reflect that. It has SHAPED our morality but not in that "brutalize your lessers" way. Even then, we do have a range of options in how we can act.

I mean, just because there's gravity doesn't mean our morality should "follow" it, whatever that would even mean (I guess flying would be a sin?). Why should we care, morally speaking, that something slightly faster is able to more easily escape a predator?

I agree completely.

What a massively unusual thing it is to say that it's a source of morality.

But, applied to human culture, is it an impetus for morality, a goad to moral thinking? And if it is, is it fair to call it "amoral"? That's what I'm wondering...

 

[blobru]

How can a scientific theory (and a damn good one, at that) be considered amoral? Isn't your question the belief and support of that theory being amoral?

... ...

Yeah, I think creationists often make that leap from the amorality of [the content of] scientific theories to the amorality of scientists, believers and supporters.

 

[Beerina]

I agree, ToE tells us nothing specifically about morality per se. But applied to culture (and I take your earlier point -- I consider memetics Dawkin's proposed extension of evolution to culture, but it may be best to regard them as separate theories) it does tell us that everything we do is in a sense a "moral" act, since it contributes to the cultural environment wherein behaviors compete for acceptance. That's the sense in which I mean evolution is moral

I think it's deeper than that. Evolution has a heavy hand in, if not outright fully creates, our innate sense of ethics and morality.

Evolution created pain. Evolution created emotions, which include emotions of emotional suffering. Evolution created consciousness itself that experiences these things, from god knows what physics out there. And only if bad pains and emotions exist, is there even a need for an "ethics" of how to behave with respect to other people to help minimize this.

A world without pain, and there would be no need for ethics that punching someone is wrong. A world without death (or with death but easy resurrection, i.e. bodily repair) would probably not develop an ethics that killing someone was wrong. A world of natural plenty with lives that are long and full would probably not develop an ethics that stealing was wrong, or at least a very minor one.

We have some socialized ethics, but an ant colony member might find it inconceivable that one wouldn't be completely and 100% selfless towards the group, up to and including working until you were old, then letting people kill you to get you out of the way. "It's obvious", they might think.

They find evolved joy in such behavior.

 

[blobru]

You might be interested in reading B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity." In it, Skinner talks about the evolution of culture, and specifically of values. (And while some here might call it memetics, Skinner was fond of referring to Natural Selection, to Learning, and to Cultural Change, each as a case of selection by consequences.)

Great suggestion, thanks. I wasn't aware Skinner had staked out the territory before Dawkins (a "meme" by any other name, would weigh as much...? )

In this case, of course, just as something is not selected for because it makes us more fit (the "fitness" is actually defined by its selection), Moral behavior is not selected for because it helps us to survive, but rather the fact that it has, in our past, helped us to survive, that makes us value it as moral behavior. Examples ranging from "thou shallt not kill" to kosher laws to sacred cows are easily seen as responses to the environmental situations from which they arose. In other environments, completely different moral structures might be selected (just ask science fiction writers).

Yes, evolution could account for the various moral codes we've inherited from the past; I wonder if it doesn't also enjoin us to act morally in the present: to pick a code say, or bits and pieces from different codes, or come up with a code of our own, and advocate for it by publicly adhering to it...

 

[blobru]

Two more books to recommend that look at the interplay between morality and evolution: Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, and Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. The Shermer book is more directly on point, while Dennett conducts a more general discussion of the philosophical implications of the theory of evolution.

I'll check those out too, thx Jon.

 

[blobru]

It is the luckiest who survive, not the strongest nor the fittest.

Luck is not an adaptation, unless you mean the "luck" of an advantageous mutation.

A number of diseases can take down anyone, whomsoever, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such diseases to survive.

A number of natural disasters can kill anyone who happens to be present, so you need some amoral luck to avoid such disasters to survive.

Major cosmic catastrophes can destroy any planet, so we need some amoral luck to avoid such catastrophes to survive.

Hence evolution is an amoral concept, because it does not care a heck about the survival of any life anywhere.

Well, no morality will protect you from disease and disaster. Though science gives you a better chance of surviving them. Or you can pray. Take your pick.

The word "amoral" means circumstances where moral considerations are not taken into account in decision-making. To make something "moral", by definition you need a thinking process that evaluates "good" and "evil" options, and makes a conscious choice between these. Random evolution does not make any conscious decisions between good and evil, unless we are talking about Intelligent Design.

Evolution is not conscious but the humans that are a product of it are, and are capable of moral decision-making.

However, assuming that Intelligently Designed evolution indeed worries about the survival of the fittest, mercilessly torturing to death the slower or sick creatures, what would this prove about the "morality" of such Intelligently Designed process?

To make it more simple, we hear that the stronger man is able to murder a weaker or sick man, and this also happens. What does this prove about the "morality" of such circumstances?

Nothing. Just that it can happen. And it's up to us to see that it doesn't. (Assuming no Intelligent Designer to appeal to.)

Morality is an altruistic concept, excercising restraint in situations where we would be able to kill or destroy, but we decide not to do so. Morality is also a learned quality, not a hereditary one. (Unless you believe that humans have significantly evolved genetically since the Nazi era or the colonialist slave trade era.)

Altruism is a moral concept. Morality is both learned and the result of learning; evolution applied to culture is a way to reinforce this (maybe).

 

[blobru]

I think it's deeper than that. Evolution has a heavy hand in, if not outright fully creates, our innate sense of ethics and morality.
... ... ...

I think evolution has provided us with an innate moral faculty which is shaped by our experience. Morality does seem a byproduct of cognition... I snipped out the rest because I don't know enough to comment on it intelligently; but it seems a plausible cause-and-effect.

They find evolved joy in such behavior.

Very poetic expression.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I wonder, do those asking the question (anti-evolutionists, not blobru) know the difference between amoral and immoral?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Stop, stop, stop. Everybody hold it. Can we decide on the actual question?

Once again, as discussed in another thread that I can't bother to find right now, people are confusing "evolution" and "atheism". I've often heard the "amoral argument" used against atheism. I'd be quite surprised to hear it used against evolution.

It doesn't matter whether evolution is moral or not, it still exists. Just as it doesn't matter whether Charles Manson is moral or not, he still exists (although it did matter quite a bit to his victims....)

There are evolutionist who believe in God. There are atheists who deny evolution. One is not related to the other, but the OP implies that they are, as has much of the discussion on the topic.

So, what shall we discuss? Pick one theory:

a) Atheism does/does not allow for morality; or
b) Evolution does/does not allow for morality.

 

[blobru]

I wonder, do those asking the question (anti-evolutionists, not blobru) know the difference between amoral and immoral?

I suspect some at least know the difference but can't see the difference between a- "no morals" and im- "not moral".

 

[T'ai Chi]

Since we are fitter than those weaklings, we just slaughter them ruthlessly. We survive, they don't. But well - that's evolution!

Don't animals in the wild kill the weak ones in the back? Birds pushing others out of nests and stuff.

Aren't humans just animals according to the evo theory?

 

[blobru]

Stop, stop, stop. Everybody hold it. Can we decide on the actual question?

Once again, as discussed in another thread that I can't bother to find right now, people are confusing "evolution" and "atheism". I've often heard the "amoral argument" used against atheism. I'd be quite surprised to hear it used against evolution.

It doesn't matter whether evolution is moral or not, it still exists. Just as it doesn't matter whether Charles Manson is moral or not, he still exists (although it did matter quite a bit to his victims....)

There are evolutionist who believe in God. There are atheists who deny evolution. One is not related to the other, but the OP implies that they are, as has much of the discussion on the topic.

So, what shall we discuss? Pick one theory:

a) Atheism does/does not allow for morality; or
b) Evolution does/does not allow for morality.

Just to put the OP in context:
On Sunday Bravo "Arts & Minds" there was a segment devoted to the recent run of atheist polemics topping the best-seller charts. It ended with a sort of rebuttal from a couple of celebrity theists -- one guy wearing a yarmulka who hosts a show on "practical Judaism" I think. He was asked, "Do you think all this interest in atheism is bad news for religion?" [approximately] Part of his response: "No, there will always be a need for religion; without religion, all you have is evolution, which is amoral, 'survival of the strongest', not the kind of world most of us would want to live in."
I thought I had heard that charge before levelled against evolution. At first I shrugged it off as apples and oranges, but the more I thought about it, the less sure I was... hence the OP.
Personally, I find the more I understand the world, the better person I want to be (if that makes sense). Science is a great aid to understanding; evolution applied to culture gives me a clearer idea what's going on and what I can do about it; so I'm trying out the theory in this thread that evolution has moral value, as a spur to moral thought and behavior, even though "amoral" in content.
I also wonder if some concession that evolution has moral worth might not make it less frightening for fundamentalists (on the other hand of course, that might make it more tempting, and even more FRIGHTENING! so who knows...)
Anyway, although opponents lump them together, my choice would be b) "evolution -- morality".