• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Evolution Amoral?

T'ai Chi said:
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?
Click to expand...

Humans aren't birds. We are a unique animal species (according to science).
 
T'ai Chi said:
Don't animals in the wild kill the weak ones in the back? Birds pushing others out of nests and stuff.
Click to expand...
Right. Just that the predators not only kill the weak, they kill just everything they can catch. Canids are good killers, Felines are awesome! But the most terrific killer that has ever evolved is called: homo sapiens.

That's why we're sitting here.

T'ai Chi said:
Aren't humans just animals according to the evo theory?
Click to expand...
Yep. We're some relatively clever mammals running around on two legs. That's about it.

Oh, I almost forgot, this strange evolutionary concept of cleverness led to an unprescedented higher order phenomenon: culture. Within our culture we define and appraise ourselves, using mechanisms like religion, philosophy, money. :D

I think, that is quite a differentiator. But only in our own minds of course, evolution doesn't care at all if we blow up mankind in an atomic hell fire by next Friday.

Herzblut
 
blobru said:
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...? ;) )
Click to expand...
Yeah, and he likely was not the first, either. The Shermer book you have had recommended to you? I saw Shermer present that at TAM2, and told him (while getting a copy signed) that it reminded me a great deal of Skinner's book from three decades earlier. He didn't appear to like the implication.
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...
Click to expand...
Well, from Skinner's perspective it certainly does, in two ways. First, it allows one to see morality as evolved rather than holy, and something that can be examined rather than simply accepted. Just as we can use the same mechanism that natural selection does to intentionally breed what characteristics we need in livestock, we can use the metacontingencies that have shaped culture to intentionally make cultural change.

Secondly...it actually does make some moral decisions (for those who say that science is a tool, but cannot make moral decisions, Skinner would very much disagree); for instance, as a response to a social problem, a leader might exploit a population for his own short-term benefit, or pander to them in the short term for their short-term benefit and his resultant popularity...or instead of taking a short-term view, plan for the long-term benefit of all, even at the short-term expense of both leader and population. In theory, what we now call "moral" is precisely what worked for the best long-term interests of our ancestors. Those who worked for short-term gain did not last. Look at how much of xian morality is about self-sacrifice; the "golden rule" is a long-term plan; the "7th generation" morality...even the idea of a sacred cow, in times of predictable famine, keeps a source of milk and a plow animal from being eaten in the short term. Anyway, in those cases where we have information about short-term vs. long-term benefit, there is a clear moral choice, by this model.

(Note--Skinner was also the product of his time and place; he could have been justifying the things he saw working for him...)
 
Mercutio said:
... it allows one to see morality as evolved rather than holy, and something that can be examined rather than simply accepted. Just as we can use the same mechanism that natural selection does to intentionally breed what characteristics we need in livestock, we can use the metacontingencies that have shaped culture to intentionally make cultural change.
...
Click to expand...

:yikes: "Yikes!" says blobru, "I seem to be a behaviorist (so much for my pretensions of Epicurean Absurdism or whatever it was -- probably never made sense anyways)."
That's a pretty good synopsis of what I was driving at in my uniquely convoluted and stilted fashion in the OP.
 
Herzblut said:
Right. Just that the predators not only kill the weak, they kill just everything they can catch. Canids are good killers, Felines are awesome! But the most terrific killer that has ever evolved is called: homo sapiens.

That's why we're sitting here.


Yep. We're some relatively clever mammals running around on two legs. That's about it.

Oh, I almost forgot, this strange evolutionary concept of cleverness led to an unprescedented higher order phenomenon: culture. Within our culture we define and appraise ourselves, using mechanisms like religion, philosophy, money. :D

I think, that is quite a differentiator. But only in our own minds of course, evolution doesn't care at all if we blow up mankind in an atomic hell fire by next Friday.

Herzblut
Click to expand...

That's a great answer; so straightforward it sounds cynical, but really just truth unadorned. Your avatar sure suits your posts: I can almost hear Orson Welles' voice comparing Borgias & cuckoo clocks as I read them. :p
 
NobbyNobbs said:
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.
Click to expand...

See the link I just posted above.

NobbyNobbs said:
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.
Click to expand...

I for one have not met any atheists who deny evolution. But that's just me.

NobbyNobbs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does, and does.
 
T'ai Chi said:
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?
Click to expand...

Don't animals in the wild breathe under water? Fish and others living all their lives in sea and stuff.

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

Damn. Now I know why such a large percentage of people who learn about evolutionary biology drown. In fact, it's a wonder that there are any of us left!

By the way, what does it mean to kill something in the back?
 
Last edited:
Blobru - the problem I have is that I don't see that an understanding of the theory of evolution makes it any more obvious that our actions affect the "moral environment" than an understanding of culture that doesn't take the theory of evolution in to account. I just don't see it.

The reason that I don't see it is that it doesn't require evolution (or memetics) to suggest that people's morality is influenced by the environment in which they grow up and live. If you asked anyone, "does the environment that people grow up in influence their later moral character" I think most would say yes. I think you're suggesting that they'd be more likely to say yes if they also understood the theory of evolution. I don't see any evidence that suggests that.

On the other hand, if your idea can make valid preditions about what environmental factors will positively influence moral character it can be very useful. You might then suggest that those who understand your model will be more effectively moral because of their better understanding of the way the world works. If that's what you're suggesting, I can agree very strongly.
 
blobru said:
Thanks, nice cross-link, [ "tadpole" ;) ].

When the domain came up -- Religious-Science.com -- I was sure it must be a creationist forum, but I guess the name's ironic; maybe camouflage, or bait(?)
Click to expand...

Well, the admin has a number of religious forums - he's a theistic evolutionist (mostly because of us on his boards making such cogent and logical arguments) and a devout Christian. I post on several of them, including CreationTalk which is an interesting case. He set up CreationTalk and DarwinTalk kind of like opposites - one has a rule that only a creationist can be a moderator and the other only a darwinist. But it ended up the same people posting on both, and DarwinTalk is not used much any more. CreationTalk is one of my favourite places to hang out, apart from here. :D
 
Roboramma said:
... the problem I have is that I don't see that an understanding of the theory of evolution makes it any more obvious that our actions affect the "moral environment" than an understanding of culture that doesn't take the theory of evolution in to account. I just don't see it.

The reason that I don't see it is that it doesn't require evolution (or memetics) to suggest that people's morality is influenced by the environment in which they grow up and live. If you asked anyone, "does the environment that people grow up in influence their later moral character" I think most would say yes. I think you're suggesting that they'd be more likely to say yes if they also understood the theory of evolution. I don't see any evidence that suggests that.
Click to expand...

Hi Robo. I'm arguing that evolution applied to culture ("memetics" if you will) suggests our every action competes for moral acceptance within that culture and contributes to its evolving definition of morality. So each of us has a role, everything we do has a role, inescapably, in determining the cultural consensus of right and wrong that is morality. It's the input we have into morality that stands out for me when I view culture through the lens of evolution, more so than the behavioral output (learned morality).

On the other hand, if your idea can make valid preditions about what environmental factors will positively influence moral character it can be very useful. You might then suggest that those who understand your model will be more effectively moral because of their better understanding of the way the world works. If that's what you're suggesting, I can agree very strongly.
Click to expand...

Well, now that Mercutio has outed me as a "behaviorist" ;) I'm probably committed to something like that. But it goes beyond what I originally intended.
My basic sense is that understanding culture in terms of evolution is a sort of civic catalyst -- a spur to moral activism -- to develop and advocate a personal morality -- add it to the cultural mix -- and thereby influence the evolution of the culture's concept of morality.
Still, it's all very much a work in progress, and I may well be (and usually am) dead wrong... :bricks:
 
Last edited:
To OP. Google Moral Antirealism and Moral Realism.

And even if there was a God his morality is a bad guide for us. There are many things which he allows which we would not and should not. So our morality is superior to God's already, and the argument of whether we need God to be moral poofs in the light of fact we already have morality with or without God that is superior to any we could deduce from what God does and allows if he exists.
 
The action of evolution is amoral.

The concept of evolution may entail any moral pontification as much as any other abstract idea might.
 
JJM 777 said:
Who is this "we"?

And who is committing the said "many things" if not "we"?
Click to expand...

So your question question about who is this 'we' is clearly specious since you seem to know who 'we' are.

The question is about morality and can it exist outside of a divine source. Clearly it can since we can recognize evil that god allows. We can apprehend that evil happens even if we fail to stop it or even participate in it. That not everyone has benefit of this morality doesn't deny it's existence. It exits.

God, being almighty could stop evil but does not. His morality is thus not suited to our purposes, and is thus clearly inferior to our morality.

If god exists, the very first thing we need to do is teach him right and wrong. With great power comes great responsibility. Peter Parker understands this, god needs to learn.
 
Faithkills said:
To OP. Google Moral Antirealism and Moral Realism.
Click to expand...

I believe the two best aids to moral choice in any situation are:

-- rational assessment (without dogma);

-- social sympathy (without prejudice).

This is not to say that an action inspired by any combination of irrationality, dogma, lack of sympathy, or prejudice cannot have good effects and be classifed by its consequences at least as "moral"; merely that an act rooted in reason and sympathy is more likely to have "good effects" (not always, especially where time is short and information is incomplete or misleading, but you do the best you can).

Since that commits me to two ethical ideals -- reason and sympathy -- I suspect that makes me a diluted (deluded?) moral realist, according to the definitions I googled.

And even if there was a God his morality is a bad guide for us. There are many things which he allows which we would not and should not. So our morality is superior to God's already, and the argument of whether we need God to be moral poofs in the light of fact we already have morality with or without God that is superior to any we could deduce from what God does and allows if he exists.
Click to expand...


How bad [or good] a guide depends on which God(s). My main problem with religious morality is dogma, which binds one to absolute edicts. Better that morality evolve rationally and sympathetically to fit the 'situation'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom