Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive

[RandFan]

Easy: hakuna matada.

Well played sir.

 

[fls]

Was this a hit and run by the OP?

Linda

 

[RandFan]

Was this a hit and run by the OP?

Linda

In all honesty I would have to guess no. Princess has answered most if not all of my queries. Sometimes it takes her a week or two. I'm guessing she is busy and can't always get right back. I have to take weeks at a time breaks myself so I know what it is like.

Princess is a thoughtful and sincere poster. Her arguments are well formulated and she doesn't resort to ad hominem or personal attack.

Thus far I have high regard for her.

 

[fls]

In all honesty I would have to guess no. Princess has answered most if not all of my queries. Sometimes it takes her a week or two. I'm guessing she is busy and can't always get right back. I have to take weeks at a time breaks myself so I know what it is like.

Princess is a thoughtful and sincere poster. Her arguments are well formulated and she doesn't resort to ad hominem or personal attack.

Thus far I have high regard for her.

Thanks. It looks to me like the statements she quoted could go either way, so it probably wouldn't hurt if she came back and supported her OP. But maybe I suffer from not having read the thread that spawned this one.

Linda

 

[Dr Adequate]

How can we justify the diet of a lion?

Not being lions, we don't have to.

 

[I Ratant]

Not being lions, we don't have to.

.
Just take pains to not be in the neighborhood when a lion is feeling peckish.

 

[Beerina]

I don't mind the correction. I wouldn't mind saying that it is, in part, due to evolution but if we are going to be pedantic, according to Dennett all human behavior is the result of evolution. How is it not?

Well, it's important to define what we mean here. Evolution could mean the evolving of useful traits. But it could also mean the evolving of other useful traits that have downsides that are more like parasites, mildly harmful but not so much it's drag outweighs its benefit.


Intelligence allows for even faster scouring of the evolutionary space to find advantages -- the associational mind learns and predicts things, and can send that knowledge to future generations, bypassing the need to encode it directly in the genes.

But that massive ability also has a downside -- religion, ethics, and so on, could indeed be like a mild parasite that exists, evolves, and reproduces (via teaching). Researchers might be missing the boat by presuming such things must, directly, have some kind of evolutionary advantage to the organism.

Religion might bind people together into large groups that aid the group's survival, but that may be more in the interests of it as a meme surviving, dragging the group, and thus the average individual, along with it.

 

[I Ratant]

Intelligence also actively interferes with the normal culling that natural evolution proceeds with.
Our concept of the "sanctity of life" isn't part of evolution, and those afflicted with recessive characteristics wouldn't be afforded the work-arounds of medical science in a non-interference setting which would work to shorten the lives or prevent the joinings of recessive traits.

 

[RandFan]

Not being lions, we don't have to.

So outcome is not important. Do you take a Kantian POV?

Of course, the more pertainent quetion is why any entity need to justify diet?

 

[RandFan]

Well, it's important to define what we mean here. Evolution could mean the evolving of useful traits. But it could also mean the evolving of other useful traits that have downsides that are more like parasites, mildly harmful but not so much it's drag outweighs its benefit.

Intelligence allows for even faster scouring of the evolutionary space to find advantages -- the associational mind learns and predicts things, and can send that knowledge to future generations, bypassing the need to encode it directly in the genes.

But that massive ability also has a downside -- religion, ethics, and so on, could indeed be like a mild parasite that exists, evolves, and reproduces (via teaching). Researchers might be missing the boat by presuming such things must, directly, have some kind of evolutionary advantage to the organism.

Religion might bind people together into large groups that aid the group's survival, but that may be more in the interests of it as a meme surviving, dragging the group, and thus the average individual, along with it.

I'm not sure any of that matters one way or the other. Evolution just is. It's not purposeful. It's not a guarantee of survival nor does it always result in an advantage. There are evolutionary adaptations that are benign or appear in some ways disadvantageous.

The mistake is to think that there are any human behaviors or traits that are not the result of evolution. There might be biproducts but none that are not evolutionary.

 

[Beerina]

Well, that is correct in tautological sort of way, if that's the level of discussion here. As opposed to some super-being dictating that this or that thing is this or that way for this or that reason.

I was referring to the belief that stuff like ethics, religion, and so on evolved because they were beneficial, per se, to the individuals or species. They could just be harmful abberations, side-effects of things like intelligence, which evolved as beneficial for wholey other reasons.

 

[RandFan]

Well, that is correct in tautological sort of way, if that's the level of discussion here. As opposed to some super-being dictating that this or that thing is this or that way for this or that reason.

Fair point about tautology. It's just that I think the point is missed by some. We have the capacity to think abstractly. People can think in terms of supernatural. To those that think that stuff like ethics are not the result of natural processes then I have to ask, what are they the result of? Supernatural processes?

I was referring to the belief that stuff like ethics, religion, and so on evolved because they were beneficial, per se, to the individuals or species. They could just be harmful abberations, side-effects of things like intelligence, which evolved as beneficial for wholey other reasons.

Agreed 100%

 

[Beerina]

It occurs to me there's also a conceit that we're "finished" evolving, so to speak. While a scientist would, of course, laugh at that, they all seem to be presuming that we're in a state where religion is stable, be it beneficial or parasitic side-effect.

But we could actually be in the process of evolving away religion; i.e. we are not at a local minimum in the "gradient descent space", but rather are rocketing down the side of a valley somewhere, paring away the parasitic side-effect of religion.

We just seem to be stable and stuck with it because the human lifespan, and even dozens of generations over several thousand years, is relatively short in evolutionary terms.

 

[Princess]

fls,

Was this a hit and run by the OP?

Full-time programmer, full-time student. I just don't have time post everyday, but I do try to answer everyone.

And occasionally, between posting cycles, someone writes something that I would have said myself. For intance:

And the reason that I missed it is because Princess made no such citations; her citations were entirely erroneous and she's making false accusations.

Well, either people were ascribing a normative value to evolution, or their comments on evolution were irrelevant to the question posed, which was "How can you justify your diet?"

Thats pretty much what I wanted to say, no need to reiterate the same point. Maybe I could say "I agree with you Dr Adequate, high five!", but he already knows that.



RandFan,

Your morality is the result of evolution. That you have a moral sense is because of evolution. Much of why you sense what is moral as moral is the result of evolution. Saying evolution is not a moral theory is not saying anything. It's like saying that human progress isn't natural or the result of evolution.

At least with regard to the underlined part, I've bounced around the idea that my moral principles are just feelings wired into my head and all the moral beliefs I hold are just post-hoc rationalizations. If we evolved a little differently, then everyone would hold different moral principles. For example, if incest didn't come with any genetic consequences, I doubt the word would even exist in our moral vocabulary at all. If people had a thick layer of blubber protecting them from the cold, there probably wouldn't be much incentive to shelter homeless people from the snow every year in Nebraska.

But, the more I think about it, the more irrelevant it seems. The rightness and wrongness of actions is circumstantial, it changes with the different want and needs that people have. If we went down a different evolutionary path, people would have different wants and needs, and it would make sense that we'd have a different set of rules for treating people.

Maybe, then, we have an argument that my moral senses are the result of evolution in a very indirect way. But evolution still plays no part in my moral decision making; I'm never overly concerned with the origin of peoples needs, just that people have any needs to satisfy at all.

In all honesty I would have to guess no. Princess has answered most if not all of my queries. Sometimes it takes her a week or two. I'm guessing she is busy and can't always get right back. I have to take weeks at a time breaks myself so I know what it is like.

Princess is a thoughtful and sincere poster. Her arguments are well formulated and she doesn't resort to ad hominem or personal attack.

Thus far I have high regard for her.

Thank you, I appreciate it

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I mostly agree with Princess' OP.

RandFan's point that our capacity for morality evolved is true, but beside the point. Princess was talking specifically about arguments of the sort: "We evolved to do X, therefore X is moral."

By the same thinking, as I said on the other thread, why not apply it to farming or living in fixed places (cities and towns)? We evolved to be hunter/gatherers, so the Neolithic Revolution was unnatural.

It's pretty much the same logic as people claiming that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. The point of Princess' OP, as I take it, is that evolution does not in itself provide answers to moral questions.

"Evolution made us omnivores" is not a statement about how humans "should" behave, nor does it carry any moral weight whatsoever.

In the context of the statement made on the other thread it was implied that since evolution made us omnivores that we should eat meat (or that eating meat was therefore automatically moral no matter what other considerations one might raise).

On the other hand, if you feel (independently) that people should act efficiently (there's Hume's "should"), then it's reasonable to infer from the observational fact that meat consumption is the most efficient way to get needed amino acids, that humans "should" consume meat.

I'd argue with the efficiency argument--at least as meat eating is practiced in the U.S. economy. We grow grain crops and feed them to animals make meat. With beef especially, this is terribly inefficient.

On a personal level, my body doesn't require nearly as much protein as many people think. I have no problem whatsoever getting enough from the foods I eat. Also, I enjoy eating very much, so I'm not motivated in the least to make my intake of nutrition maximally efficient. (If so, I'd eschew normal foods altogether and get all my amino acids from protein supplements and so on.)

And Princess's OP is wrong beyond the possibility of repair.

Other than the fact that you read the statement "Evolution made us omnivores" to be morally neutral (when it really wasn't in the context of the other thread), how so?

Evolution doesn't intend us to behave in any particular way. (Even thinking evolution can have intentions is fallacious.) I submit that for these questions to be moral questions at all means we must have a free choice about them. If evolution demanded a certain behavior, then there would really be no choice and no moral debate. Hence, there are no environmentalists who think it's immoral for us to keep inhaling oxygen rich air and exhaling C02 rich air. It's because we have no choice. Our physiology really does require that we breath. Eating meat is not similarly a requirement.

Evolution has made humans omnivores, just as it has made them binocular. This isn't a moral statement, but an observational description of the world.

We now have the capacity to "fix" both of those; if you don't want to be binocular, a surgeon can take care of that for you. If you don't want to be an omnivore, a dietician can take care of that for you.

Of course being binocular is nothing like being a meat-eater.

I don't eat meat, and I never in my life have even consulted with a dietician. I didn't need to change anything about my anatomy or physiology. I just don't eat meat.

 

[RandFan]

But evolution still plays no part in my moral decision making; I'm never overly concerned with the origin of peoples needs, just that people have any needs to satisfy at all.

As always, a good post.

Why do you care that people have any needs? What is your basis for that?

 

[RandFan]

RandFan's point that our capacity for morality evolved is true, but beside the point. Princess was talking specifically about arguments of the sort: "We evolved to do X, therefore X is moral."

I'm not making this argument. I'm saying that we cannot divorce evolution from moral reasoning. To do so is to argue in a vacuum. Morality then becomes Dennett's sky hook. What then is the basis for morality?

 

[fls]

fls,

Full-time programmer, full-time student. I just don't have time post everyday, but I do try to answer everyone.

Hey, I gave you three whole days.

And occasionally, between posting cycles, someone writes something that I would have said myself. For intance:

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Originally Posted by drkitten
And the reason that I missed it is because Princess made no such citations; her citations were entirely erroneous and she's making false accusations.

Well, either people were ascribing a normative value to evolution, or their comments on evolution were irrelevant to the question posed, which was "How can you justify your diet?

Thats pretty much what I wanted to say, no need to reiterate the same point. Maybe I could say "I agree with you Dr Adequate, high five!", but he already knows that.

I just didn't see that the quotes you provided in the OP excluded the points that drkitten brought up (i.e. that the statements could have been made in support of utilitarian values). I realize that others have assumed that that possibility was excluded, in agreement with you. I just thought it would be nice if someone (I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be you) provided quotes that confirmed that those quoted in the OP were referring to the "is/should" issue (for those of us (which may only be me ) that haven't read the thread that spawned this one).

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not making this argument. I'm saying that we cannot divorce evolution from moral reasoning. To do so is to argue in a vacuum. Morality then becomes Dennett's sky hook. What then is the basis for morality?

As I mentioned on the other thread, that's a whole other discussion, I think. (My answer is that I think a moral capacity evolved--like our capacity for language--but that the specific norms developed by social convention--as with specific languages.)

What Princess' post is about is the argument that evolution prescribes morality. I don't know if denying that evolution prescribes morality is the same thing as divorcing evolution from moral reasoning.

Do you accept the argument that because we evolved to be omnivores means that meat eating is necessarily moral? Or that vegetarianism is immoral since it goes against our "nature" or somehow is in conflict with the intention of evolution? What about farming, given than we evolved to be hunter/gatherers?

By the way, are you suggesting that moral norms actually evolved. . like biological evolution? Like not cheating on your taxes is a genetic trait?

If that were so, it seems to me that we're hardwired to behave in certain ways. If that's so, then there is no choice involved, and if that's so, I don't think we're talking about morality anymore. I think morality and moral reasoning presupposes the ability to make different decisions in a given situation.

 

[RandFan]

Do you accept the argument that because we evolved to be omnivores means that meat eating is necessarily moral

Or that vegetarianism is immoral since it goes against our "nature" or somehow is in conflict with the intention of evolution??

I don't see anything as necessarily moral or immoral. Further, I will concede that from time to time I have an intuitive impulse to see individuals as being on some scale of moral and immoral. Intellectually I know that this is is at best overly simplistic and at worst just an illusion. Morality is an abstract concept. A state derived by heuristics and emotion that we arbitrarily define based on our genetic predisposition and environmental variables.

Let me try this from a different perspective.

People are more likely to have a morbid fear of spiders than driving fast in a car. We understand this from an evolutionary perspective. Humans evolved with spiders and not cars. One is more likely to evoke an emotional response than the other. Yet both can lead to death. In fact the one that we fear least is the one that is more likely to cause our own mortality. That's the genetic side.

Now, we can look at the statistics and reason that if there is some rational basis to fear spiders and that poisonous spiders are bad then there is also reason to think that driving fast is bad even though we might actually enjoy it. That is the reason side.

To come to a conclusion that driving fast is potentially bad we must rely on evolutionary underpinnings of why something should be viewed as bad in the first place.

By the way, are you suggesting that moral norms actually evolved. . like biological evolution? Like not cheating on your taxes is a genetic trait?

It's an evolved meme.

If that were so, it seems to me that we're hardwired to behave in certain ways. If that's so, then there is no choice involved, and if that's so, I don't think we're talking about morality anymore. I think morality and moral reasoning presupposes the ability to make different decisions in a given situation.

Some great questions.

Well, we touched recently on the notion of free will. Keep in mind that whether or not we have conscious free will is really not important to the discussion. Clearly we can discuss and debate and influence each other. Clearly what we think of as morality has evolved over time and that debate and reason have contributed to that evolution. Whether we do that on a conscious level is beside the point. What you think of as choice might just be heuristic-based-problem solving and you just sense that you are consciously making a choice. Just because it doesn't meet your intuitive sense of what choice and or morality are doesn't mean that there is no choice or no morality. Personally I don't give a damn one way or the other about free will. It's meaningless. Whether you believe in free will or not that we discuss and debate and that our discussion and debate influence our behavior is trivially true.