Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive

[Inertia]

For anyone who believes in evolution:

Let's stay on topic, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[RandFan]

For anyone who believes in evolution:

You are off topic and in the wrong forum.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

For anyone who believes in evolution:

Go start your own thread elsewhere and I'm sure the rest of us will be happy to take any creationist argument apart. In the meantime I'll avoid commenting on how silly this guy's apparent claim that God (UFOs?) made the pyramids is.

ETA: Nevermind; don't even bother creating a new thread. I didn't even get ten minutes in before he started on the scientists are lying CT and started making unsupported claims about the physical characteristics of the fossils.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

It sounds like you're saying just the opposite: that to conclude that driving fast is potentially bad, we must go against the evolutionary underpinning of why something is bad.

In other words, in our discussion of vegetarianism, when someone says, "We evolved to eat meat and that's the end of the discussion", they're really saying that evolution precludes making a moral decision about eating meat. They're saying that choosing not to eat meat is somehow going against evolution or going against human nature.

It's an evolved meme.

Let's be very clear here: you're talking about something other than biological evolution. I'm pretty sure when people say "We evolved to be omnivores" they're not talking about a social norm that "evolved" as a meme. In the O.P., I'm under the impression that Princess was talking about biological evolution and not some analogous process (like "memes" that work like genes but only sort of).

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.

I agree that we don't need to answer the philosophical question of free will to discuss morality. I didn't raise that issue (I didn't use the term "free will"). There does need to be decision making involved in morality though. (Whether or not those decisions are made of free will is another issue, I think.)

If our behavior is truly innate, and we can do nothing different (as with breathing), it's absurd to talk about moral choices. So when people claim that it's human nature to eat meat, I say that if it were, there would be no question of vegetarianism or moral choices involving whether or not to eat meat. (In fact, if it were, then there would be no vegetarians either. We would have no more capacity to decide not to eat meat than a bird has about how to build a nest.)

In other words, claiming that meat-eating is "natural" or that not eating meat is unnatural or against evolution or against human nature is simply begging the question.

To illustrate this point, I've shown that the same argument doesn't work on any other question: the morality of farming and living in cities (given that we evolved to be hunter/gatherers), the morality of homosexuality, etc.

Another thought: if it's unnatural to be vegetarian (or if it goes against evolution or against human nature), does this mean that vegetarians aren't human? (The same thing with the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.)

 

[RandFan]

It sounds like you're saying just the opposite: that to conclude that driving fast is potentially bad, we must go against the evolutionary underpinning of why something is bad.

It's not my intent and I'm not certain how you get that.

1. I fear poisonous spiders.
2. Evolution instilled that fear because poisonous spiders can kill me and my ancestors evolved with poisonous spiders..
3. I evolved with a sense to want to live.
4. Humans didn't evolve to fear fast cars.
5. I'm not scared of fast cars.
6. I can reason that driving fast is relatively more dangerous than poisonous spiders.
7. I can reason that driving fast is a bad thing for me to do.

Please pay close attention to the inference from the premises to the conclusion that driving fast is bad.

Please note that the reasoning is similar to the reasoning that you use to conclude that killing animals for food is bad.

Do you see any similarity?

In other words, in our discussion of vegetarianism, when someone says, "We evolved to eat meat and that's the end of the discussion", they're really saying that evolution precludes making a moral decision about eating meat.

• This isn't my argument.
• It has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

Let's be very clear here: you're talking about something other than biological evolution.

Why is that important?

I didn't raise that issue (I didn't use the term "free will").

Hmmm... earlier you discussed there being "no decision".

In the last post you said:

If that were so, it seems to me that we're hardwired to behave in certain ways.

But that's fine. Let's move on. But first lets be clear.

We are not evolved to rule out a diet free of animal products such as meat, fish, poultry, etc.

In other words, claiming that meat-eating is "natural" or that not eating meat is unnatural or against evolution or against human nature is simply begging the question.

• This is not my argument.
• This has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

Another thought: if it's unnatural to be vegetarian (or if it goes against evolution or against human nature), does this mean that vegetarians aren't human? (The same thing with the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument.)

We are talking past each other and I blame myself.

I assure you that from day 1 I have understood your point. I assure you that from day 1 I have understood Cain, Volatile, Princess, Lonewulf and any other posters who argue that a person can't justify his or her behavior based on evolution. I understand the naturalistic fallacy. I understand the is ought problem.

I'm not in disagreement with those positions.

Do you understand that?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not my intent and I'm not certain how you get that.

1. I fear poisonous spiders.
2. Evolution instilled that fear because poisonous spiders can kill me and my ancestors evolved with poisonous spiders..
3. I evolved with a sense to want to live.
4. Humans didn't evolve to fear fast cars.
5. I'm not scared of fast cars.
6. I can reason that driving fast is relatively more dangerous than poisonous spiders.
7. I can reason that driving fast is a bad thing for me to do.

Please pay close attention to the inference from the premises to the conclusion that driving fast is bad.

Please note that the reasoning is similar to the reasoning that you use to conclude that killing animals for food is bad.

Do you see any similarity?

I agree that there is a similarity, but it has nothing to do with the "evolved" part. This part:

[*]I fear poisonous spiders.

[*]Evolution instilled that fear because poisonous spiders can kill me and my ancestors evolved with poisonous spiders..

[*]I evolved with a sense to want to live.

Seems to have nothing to do with this part:

[*]Humans didn't evolve to fear fast cars.

[*]I'm not scared of fast cars.

[*]I can reason that driving fast is relatively more dangerous than poisonous spiders.

[*]I can reason that driving fast is a bad thing for me to do.

OK--I accept that "I evolved with a sense to want to live" is trivially associated with "I can reason that driving fast is relatively more dangerous than poisonous spiders".

In the same way, "I evolved a capacity for morality" is trivially associated with my reasoning that led to choosing not to eat meat.

This is not the same thing as saying evolution is normative, which is what I (mistakenly it seems) thought you were arguing in favor of.


I know that a couple of points when someone made the typical fallacious claim that "we evolved as omnivores" means it's absurd to consider the morality of eating meat, and I (and others) pointed out that this is a form of the naturalistic fallacy, you said it was a knee jerk reaction. I disagree.

The argument you've been making is for a much more general role of evolution vis a vis morality (and I'm speaking of actual, biological evolution, not social or meme "evolution" of norms and such) that is nothing like the one I was labeling the naturalistic fallacy. I think you and I have some basic agreement on that more general idea of the evolution of a moral sense. (I suspect we also agree on the non-biological "evolution" of social norms--but I do think it's important to keep that separate lest we get confused over the question, "Is evolution normative?")

Hmmm... earlier you discussed there being "no decision".

Yes. If our nature is such, then there is no decision involved (as with breathing). I don't need to tackle the philosophical question of free will to point out that we can't just choose to do without breathing.

Not eating meat isn't the same as breathing. We do have a choice. (Again, I don't need to tackle the philosophical question of free will vs. determinism to show that we can choose not to eat meat and still live a healthy life but we cannot choose not to breath and still live.)

We are not evolved to rule out a diet free of animal products such as meat, fish, poultry, etc.

Well said. The flawed argument I'm objecting to are those quoted in Princess post (and the ones still being defended by AWPrime in the other thread) which say, one way or another, that we are evolved to rule out not eating meat.

I understand the naturalistic fallacy. I understand the is ought problem.

I'm not in disagreement with those positions.

Do you understand that?

I guess where I have problem with that was where you said, for example, our labeling AWPrime's argument (and the one who keeps saying "we evolved to be obligate carnivores") the naturalistic fallacy was a knee jerk reaction.

Maybe you were using that as a segue to the broader issue of the evolution of moral capacity in humans, and I was taking it as you defending those statements?

Or maybe you're pointing out that I've played fast and loose with the "naturalist fallacy" and the "is/ought" problem? I admit I've sort of mixed them both together.

(I've also been arguing with AWPrime using two separate lines of thought: 1)what does 'our nature is to do x' even mean--and is it true? and 2)even if you can prove our nature is x, it doesn't mean I ought to do x. Two different lines of thought even though I mostly lump it together under the label "naturalistic fallacy".)

 

[RandFan]

I agree that there is a similarity, but it has nothing to do with the "evolved" part. This part:

Seems to have nothing to do with this part:

I don't understand. I'm not sure how one has nothing to do with the other. What is trivial is the truth that if humans didn't evolve to fear death then we couldn't reason that driving fast is a potentially bad thing. Right?

OK--I accept that "I evolved with a sense to want to live" is trivially associated with "I can reason that driving fast is relatively more dangerous than poisonous spiders".

"Trivially"? If it wasn't for natural dangers that we evolved with to give us a sense of fear we wouldn't have one. That might be trivially true but it is very important none the less. Humans can infer that something that we naturally fear should be applied to things we don't naturally fear.

In the same way, "I evolved a capacity for morality" is trivially associated with my reasoning that led to choosing not to eat meat.

I'm willing to bet that any moral argument you can construct contains at least one premise that is requisite of evolution and there are a few. You might call that trivial but that won't render it so.

This is not the same thing as saying evolution is normative, which is what I (mistakenly it seems) thought you were arguing in favor of.

If you go back over my posts you might be surprised. FTR: Normative isn't a priori. Normative isn't absolute. What we conclude as normative is the result of evolutionary process (empathy, mind theory, compassion) and philosophical inquiry (observation and reasoning).

I know that a couple of points when someone made the typical fallacious claim that "we evolved as omnivores" means it's absurd to consider the morality of eating meat, and I (and others) pointed out that this is a form of the naturalistic fallacy, you said it was a knee jerk reaction. I disagree.

I think you should go back and look at what I've said. To simply state that evolution plays no part and there should be no consideration given to evolution is to be ignorant of the evolution of human psychology. It's not that simple. Yes, it is fallacy to state that infanticide is natural therefore I ought to commit infanticide (or anything akin to that argument be it rape or eating animals).

The argument you've been making is for a much more general role of evolution vis a vis morality (and I'm speaking of actual, biological evolution, not social or meme "evolution" of norms and such) that is nothing like the one I was labeling the naturalistic fallacy. I think you and I have some basic agreement on that more general idea of the evolution of a moral sense. (I suspect we also agree on the non-biological "evolution" of social norms--but I do think it's important to keep that separate lest we get confused over the question, "Is evolution normative?")

No, I don't think we should keep it separate. I think we should have a clear understanding of the role evolution plays in our moral sense. Further, while there is merit in separating biological and memetic evolution, to the extent that they are different ,we should be careful not to think them not significantly related. They are. The most important difference is that we have far less capability to influence our genetic (hardwired) psychology (at the present time).

Yes. If our nature is such, then there is no decision involved (as with breathing). I don't need to tackle the philosophical question of free will to point out that we can't just choose to do without breathing.

Not eating meat isn't the same as breathing. We do have a choice. (Again, I don't need to tackle the philosophical question of free will vs. determinism to show that we can choose not to eat meat and still live a healthy life but we cannot choose not to breath and still live.)

Yes, I understand you better now. Thank you.

Well said. The flawed argument I'm objecting to are those quoted in Princess post (and the ones still being defended by AWPrime in the other thread) which say, one way or another, that we are evolved to rule out not eating meat.

That's fine. I'm trying to keep the discussion from divorcing evolution from moral theory. To do so is to make an error. A significant one.

I guess where I have problem with that was where you said, for example, our labeling AWPrime's argument (and the one who keeps saying "we evolved to be obligate carnivores") the naturalistic fallacy was a knee jerk reaction.

To divorce evolution from moral theory is a knee jerk reaction and an overly simplistic application of naturalistic fallacy and or the is/ought problem. Evolution is not a moral theory but then again air pressure is not flight and therefore I could correctly state that air pressure is not aerodynamic theory but the truth of that fact doesn't illuminate or advance any argument on the theory of aerodynamics. On the contrary it paints a false picture suggesting that air pressure is irrelevant to aerodynamic theory and nothing could be further from the truth. If Hume is correct and moral judgments principally express our feelings then we ought to understand what those feelings are and why we have them. That is a scientific question and answering those questions can go a long way in helping us reason our moral theory.

Maybe you were using that as a segue to the broader issue of the evolution of moral capacity in humans, and I was taking it as you defending those statements?

Or maybe you're pointing out that I've played fast and loose with the "naturalist fallacy" and the "is/ought" problem? I admit I've sort of mixed them both together.

(I've also been arguing with AWPrime using two separate lines of thought: 1)what does 'our nature is to do x' even mean--and is it true? and 2)even if you can prove our nature is x, it doesn't mean I ought to do x. Two different lines of thought even though I mostly lump it together under the label "naturalistic fallacy".)

Let's assume for the moment that we evolved to be carnivorous and our species would cease if we stopped eating meat. Would it be moral to eat meat?

Would you not agree that your argument hinges on the fact that eating meat is unnecessary?

 

[dudalb]

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

I would hate to be taking a stroll on the veldt and hear a voice behind me say, "Life isn't Fair, Is It?".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand. I'm not sure how one has nothing to do with the other. What is trivial is the truth that if humans didn't evolve to fear death then we couldn't reason that driving fast is a potentially bad thing. Right?

Yes, I consider that trivial to a discussion of the relative risks of driving. I would also consider the fact that humans had to evolve the capacity for language (also a prerequisite to said discussion) to be trivial to the discussion.

"Trivially"? If it wasn't for natural dangers that we evolved with to give us a sense of fear we wouldn't have one. That might be trivially true but it is very important none the less. Humans can infer that something that we naturally fear should be applied to things we don't naturally fear.

I'm willing to bet that any moral argument you can construct contains at least one premise that is requisite of evolution and there are a few. You might call that trivial but that won't render it so.

Requisite doesn't mean non-trivial. If I were giving a friend who lives in my city directions to my house, it would be trivial to tell them that I'm located in this state and country. If I were listing requisites for holding the office of President of the United States, it would be trivial for me to mention the person must be currently alive and breathing.

I think you should go back and look at what I've said. To simply state that evolution plays no part and there should be no consideration given to evolution is to be ignorant of the evolution of human psychology. It's not that simple.

And that's a mischaracterization of my position. I don't claim that evolution has no role in moral considerations. However, my complaint against the arguments put forth is that evolution is not dispositive of any moral question.

No, I don't think we should keep it separate. I think we should have a clear understanding of the role evolution plays in our moral sense.

The reason I think we should keep it separate is the ambiguity of the term "evolution" in your second sentence. Are you talking about biological evolution or some analogous process like the "evolution" of social norms? They are two very different things. If we use the term "evolution" without knowing which one we're talking about, confusion will ensue.

Further, while there is merit in separating biological and memetic evolution, to the extent that they are different ,we should be careful not to think them not significantly related. They are. The most important difference is that we have far less capability to influence our genetic (hardwired) psychology (at the present time).

How are they significantly related? (Maybe this should be its own thread.) The way I see it, they're only similar by analogy or even metaphorically--the same way a computer virus is "related" to a biological virus.

To divorce evolution from moral theory is a knee jerk reaction and an overly simplistic application of naturalistic fallacy and or the is/ought problem.

But pointing out a flawed argument is not demanding that we divorce evolution from moral theory. When we're talking about the morality of meat-eating and vegetarianism, and someone chimes in with statements like, "Humans evolved to eat meat and that's the end of the discussion" or "it's unnatural for humans not to eat meat," I think there's nothing wrong with pointing out the problems with these arguments.

I can engage in the kind of discussion you're interested in having with you, but I can't get there with people making these arguments --or at least not until they first realize why those arguments don't work.

Let's assume for the moment that we evolved to be carnivorous and our species would cease if we stopped eating meat. Would it be moral to eat meat?

If that were the case it wouldn't even be a moral question, I think. It would be the same as breathing. In that case a human couldn't chose not to eat meat and still live.

Would you not agree that your argument hinges on the fact that eating meat is unnecessary?

Yes. In fact, as I first phrased it (unless I'm thinking of my statements on another forum) was that I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless it's justified. The fact that it's not necessary goes a long way toward showing why the justification isn't sufficient for me. In my mind, the moral balance is to weigh the killing of an animal against my gustatory preferences.

On my other forum, one guy didn't like the word "necessary" because he felt it was poorly defined. We expanded the meaning in that discussion to include not only "necessary for mere survival" but also "necessary for good health and longevity". I pointed out that not only can vegetarians enjoy health and longevity equal to meat-eaters, a number of studies show that they have superior health and longevity to meat-eaters. (Also less obesity.) For me, the good health part isn't part of my moral decision (and I'd point out that there may be confounding factors in those studies--that is, the outcome might not be due to the diet per se), but it sure slams the door on the "meat is necessary" argument.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I consider that trivial to a discussion of the relative risks of driving. I would also consider the fact that humans had to evolve the capacity for language (also a prerequisite to said discussion) to be trivial to the discussion.

I respect what you consider. I just can't agree neither to I understand but we don't need to belabor the point.

Requisite doesn't mean non-trivial. If I were giving a friend who lives in my city directions to my house, it would be trivial to tell them that I'm located in this state and country. If I were listing requisites for holding the office of President of the United States, it would be trivial for me to mention the person must be currently alive and breathing.

Agreed, requisite doesn't mean non-tivial. However your analogy is poor as analogies often are. Evolution can help us understand how and why we feel the way we do in order to reason morality.

The salient point is that without things like emotion and mind theory there is no morality. If this is true, and it is, how does our emotions and evolutionary psychology effect our morality?

Let me go back to driving fast. If we didn't fear things that cause death, dismemberment and/or bodily harm we wouldn't see driving fast as wrong. That is trivially true. What is important is how we go from fear of things like high places and high place avoidance to fast driving avoidance?

How do you reason moral truth? Where do you start? What are your base premises? You will find they are evolutionary based. You will also find, if you care to look, that researchers are finding out more and more about our psychology and how it impinges on our view of the world and this in turn can help inform our morality.

You can dismiss it but you don't advance the discussion by doing so.

And that's a mischaracterization of my position. I don't claim that evolution has no role in moral considerations. However, my complaint against the arguments put forth is that evolution is not dispositive of any moral question.

What is your base premise for morality? Is it in part harm avoidance? Why? Is it, in part, because it bothers you when others are harmed? Why do you feel that way? What about those that don't feel that way? What about those who feel a different degree or have a different sense as to why they are bothered about it?

The reason I think we should keep it separate is the ambiguity of the term "evolution" in your second sentence. Are you talking about biological evolution or some analogous process like the "evolution" of social norms? They are two very different things. If we use the term "evolution" without knowing which one we're talking about, confusion will ensue.

What is the appreciable difference?

How are they significantly related? (Maybe this should be its own thread.) The way I see it, they're only similar by analogy or even metaphorically--the same way a computer virus is "related" to a biological virus.

I think Dennett makes better arguments than I. In any event, I think you would need to explain how they are significantly different. It's like some people see memetics as not-natural. Of course memetics is a natural things otherwise it would be supernatural but memes are the result of evolutionary processes. Period. Full stop. There is value to understanding the differences between the two but no appreciable difference as it relates to this discussion.

But pointing out a flawed argument is not demanding that we divorce evolution from moral theory. When we're talking about the morality of meat-eating and vegetarianism, and someone chimes in with statements like, "Humans evolved to eat meat and that's the end of the discussion" or "it's unnatural for humans not to eat meat," I think there's nothing wrong with pointing out the problems with these arguments.

I never said there was. I'm saying that the knee-jerk response is misleading.

I can engage in the kind of discussion you're interested in having with you, but I can't get there with people making these arguments --or at least not until they first realize why those arguments don't work.

It's a bit of a two edged sword. Logical fallacy is something that is easily trotted out in a discussion and debate. Fallacy is itself a meme and it can become fixed in the users brain blinding him or her to insight. I know, I point out logical fallacy all the time.

However, it's not always as simple as it might seem. Fallacy is often contextual and itself can be misleading. Appeal to authority being perhaps the best example. I think this is a good example also.

If that were the case it wouldn't even be a moral question, I think. It would be the same as breathing. In that case a human couldn't chose not to eat meat and still live.

Agreed but it is important to understand the difference and why it is possible for a thinking and empathetic being to find killing moral. That something is lacking or could be lacking can tell us a lot about how we form moral opinions.

Yes. In fact, as I first phrased it (unless I'm thinking of my statements on another forum) was that I start with the premise that killing animals is wrong unless it's justified. The fact that it's not necessary goes a long way toward showing why the justification isn't sufficient for me. In my mind, the moral balance is to weigh the killing of an animal against my gustatory preferences.

Thanks.

But here's the thing, what is harm and how do you asses it? If I could be presumptuous for a moment, you see the act of killing an animal for consumption in a vacuum and decide that the harm is not worth the nutrition and satisfaction (pleasure) of eating meat (I don't fault that thinking).

I myself don't see it in so simple or limited. To begin with, my mirror neurons don't fire when it comes to the raising and killing of animals for meat. It's like driving fast. It doesn't bother me. I've slaughtered literaly hundreds of animals and could go back to that tomorrow. That doesn't make killing animals for food or driving fast good but I start off without one of the base mechanisms for morality as it relates to these two issues and now must now rely purely on reason to deduce whether driving fast or killing animals is wrong based on feelings that I have for other similar things.

I see life, from an evolutionary perspective, as a good thing and every additional day beyond birth as a good thing (so long as that day isn't a day of suffering).

Life for animals in the wild, statistically, is short and brutal. Most animals are eaten shortly after birth. Animal husbandry gives animals that are not capable of changing their environment, the way humans can, a life that is significantly longer than it could otherwise be and a life that is objectively better than it could otherwise be. Statistically, all animals in the wild die of predation or the elements. Animals husbandry doesn't change the fact that most of the animals will be killed but it changes how long they will live and the quality of their life. I see that as a very good thing. To state that becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm is, to me, short sided. I've thought the hell out of this and I can't see how the math would ever change.

I will concede that it is not as if we are rescuing animals that we would otherwise die at birth as Princess points out so well. These animals exist because we want to eat them. If we reduced or stopped animal husbandry we would reduce or eliminate, numerically, the number of animals harmed by killing them for consumption. However, we would also reduce, numerically, the number of animals that lived a life apart from the brutality of nature.

On my other forum, one guy didn't like the word "necessary" because he felt it was poorly defined. We expanded the meaning in that discussion to include not only "necessary for mere survival" but also "necessary for good health and longevity". I pointed out that not only can vegetarians enjoy health and longevity equal to meat-eaters, a number of studies show that they have superior health and longevity to meat-eaters. (Also less obesity.) For me, the good health part isn't part of my moral decision (and I'd point out that there may be confounding factors in those studies--that is, the outcome might not be due to the diet per se), but it sure slams the door on the "meat is necessary" argument.

I completely agree.

Thank you.

 

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
.
Just take pains to not be in the neighborhood when a lion is feeling peckish.

I would hate to be taking a stroll on the veldt and hear a voice behind me say, "Life isn't Fair, Is It?".

.
I've curtailed my after-sunset walks in the desert, as there -are- lions (cougars) in the neighborhood. I've seen their tracks, and neighbors have seen the animals.
And black bears.