Is Evolution Amoral?

[Faithkills]

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.




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'.

I completely agree with your bases for ethics. Just to pick a nit, however moral antirealism doesn't mean no morals. It just means that there is no morality intrinsically able to be derived. One can be a moral anti-realist and quite moral. In fact I would say that anyone who describes themselves as such is almost certainly more more than your average bear, as evidenced by the fact these things concern them at all.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Gravity is amoral and so is a flower and a rock and a tree and anything else that occurs in nature except for humans since morality is the domain of thinking animals and they are the only ones capable of that degree of thinking as far as we know.

 

[my_wan]

A charge often heard in debates over atheism, and there have been a bunch lately: “evolution is amoral!”

Without God, we’re reduced to the scientific world-view, justice based on Darwinism, survival of the strongest [sic], no mercy, law of the jungle, techno-fascism, etc…

Is this going too far? It seems at least plausible to me. I’ve never heard or seen evolution defended in moral terms; maybe it should be…

Going to have to go with Hokulele here. Does cooperative societies have a better chance at survival? Absolutely positively yes. Cooperation and care for the society as a whole is the basis of morality, not god. God is just an early systematic way of teaching and enforcing cooperation on a larger scale. Originally acted as our first laws. It has like all things been used for good and evil.

 

[blobru]

First off have to say, at the risk of sinking even lower in the estimation of real men everywhere, that Dogdoctor & my_wan's avatars -- stacked top to bottom like that -- is just so darn cute I could french kiss a teddy bear... aaww-h!

I completely agree with your bases for ethics. Just to pick a nit, however moral antirealism doesn't mean no morals. It just means that there is no morality intrinsically able to be derived. One can be a moral anti-realist and quite moral. In fact I would say that anyone who describes themselves as such is almost certainly more more than your average bear, as evidenced by the fact these things concern them at all.

Yeah, had a hard time pegging my own views accordingly, let alone what I'm trying to argue re evolution and morality. I decided that morality based on reason and sympathy tacitly assumes a perfectly rational, sympathetic [and informed] person will always act morally; so that paragon's conduct, even undefined in advance of the situation, functions as a sort of "objective standard": thus [diluted] moral realism. However, a morality that may change from one situation to the next sounds a lot like relativism, which is usually classed a branch of moral antirealism, so maybe I'm up the wrong tree here.

 

[blobru]

Gravity is amoral and so is a flower and a rock and a tree and anything else that occurs in nature except for humans since morality is the domain of thinking animals and they are the only ones capable of that degree of thinking as far as we know.

Yes, and humans and the domain of their thinking, culture (includes morality), evolve, which made me wonder whether it's fair to characterize "evolution" as wholly amoral (as a description of a natural occurrence: yes, amoral; as a description of human culture: not sure). Seems to me culture understood in terms of evolution suggests we pick a morality and act on it (as Sartre once summed up existential morality: "Choose!"); because every choice influences the cultural consensus of what morality is (approaching a democratic vision of Kant's categorical imperative: "Act as if willing a universal maxim").

 

[blobru]

Going to have to go with Hokulele here.

Those who don't get whacked with a copy of On the Origin of Species!

Does cooperative societies have a better chance at survival? Absolutely positively yes. Cooperation and care for the society as a whole is the basis of morality, not god. God is just an early systematic way of teaching and enforcing cooperation on a larger scale. Originally acted as our first laws. It has like all things been used for good and evil.

I'm guessing our moral faculty has evolved in part to fill those cultural niches: care and cooperation.

 

[Schmitt.]

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.

The primary issue with this seems to be the is-ought problem: the fact that it happens does not necessarily suggest that it ought to happen or that active encouragement in causing these things to happen is necessarily a good thing (or accurately reflective of what has just been described).

Nontheistic systems of morality aren't literally 'evolution'; there are plenty of moral philosophies which make no appeal to God yet favour altruistic behaviour - utilitarianism being the most obvious - and obviously there are plenty of theists who accept evolution. One would hope that reality would inform our moral decisions (alas, the exact opposite of what the yarmulke-wearing fellow is proposing), but it can't reasonably be understood to decide them.

It's also a misrepresentation of evolution. Altruistic behaviour can be favoured by natural selection; of course it can, numerous eusocial organisms take this to an extreme and they're extremely prolific.

Contemporaneously I think that 'survival of the fittest' is an incredibly unhelpful euphemism for natural selection. As understood in modern science fitness essentially takes on a jargon meaning of the probable rate of successful reproduction for an individual phenotype in a given environment. I think it's more helpful to speak of there being a varying probability of reproductive success within a varied population, but then this doesn't really have a zing to it. Though Darwin preferred 'survival of the fittest' to 'natural selection' because he felt natural selection implied an intelligent agent doing the selecting, so there's really no way to win the semantics game against antievolutionists. Except perhaps by shouting very long sentences through megaphones at silly people saying silly things. Go obstreperousness!

 

[Dogdoctor]

Yes, and humans and the domain of their thinking, culture (includes morality), evolve, which made me wonder whether it's fair to characterize "evolution" as wholly amoral (as a description of a natural occurrence: yes, amoral; as a description of human culture: not sure). Seems to me culture understood in terms of evolution suggests we pick a morality and act on it (as Sartre once summed up existential morality: "Choose!"); because every choice influences the cultural consensus of what morality is (approaching a democratic vision of Kant's categorical imperative: "Act as if willing a universal maxim").

If you are talking about "cultural evolution" that is not "evolution" and hasn't been shown to exist so far as I know. If cultural evolution did occur it would occur without morals although within cultural evolution would be the evolution of morals. In other words the passing on or success of moral traits within society will occur without moral consideration. There will be moral consideration but it won't affect the passing on of traits since those which favor society will be kept regardless of their morality as we understand them.

 

[blobru]

The primary issue with this seems to be the is-ought problem: the fact that it happens does not necessarily suggest that it ought to happen or that active encouragement in causing these things to happen is necessarily a good thing (or accurately reflective of what has just been described).

To me, the fact that it happens (morality) and everything I do is part of its happening (evolution applied to culture) suggests that I ought to think about what I'm doing -- see myself as a contributor to morality (anti-ignorance & anti-apathy if nothing else), which is a good thing... evolution qua moral kick in the butt!?

Nontheistic systems of morality aren't literally 'evolution'; there are plenty of moral philosophies which make no appeal to God yet favour altruistic behaviour - utilitarianism being the most obvious - and obviously there are plenty of theists who accept evolution. One would hope that reality would inform our moral decisions (alas, the exact opposite of what the yarmulke-wearing fellow is proposing), but it can't reasonably be understood to decide them.

I think ToE applied to culture augurs a mix of Kant's deontology and Sartre's authenticity, with 'memetics' as a metaphysical frame. ( no, seriously!)

It's also a misrepresentation of evolution. Altruistic behaviour can be favoured by natural selection; of course it can, numerous eusocial organisms take this to an extreme and they're extremely prolific.

"Eusocial": had never seen that word before (I thought you were referring to delegate orgies in Brussels).

Contemporaneously I think that 'survival of the fittest' is an incredibly unhelpful euphemism for natural selection. As understood in modern science fitness essentially takes on a jargon meaning of the probable rate of successful reproduction for an individual phenotype in a given environment. I think it's more helpful to speak of there being a varying probability of reproductive success within a varied population, but then this doesn't really have a zing to it. Though Darwin preferred 'survival of the fittest' to 'natural selection' because he felt natural selection implied an intelligent agent doing the selecting, so there's really no way to win the semantics game against antievolutionists. Except perhaps by shouting very long sentences through megaphones at silly people saying silly things. Go obstreperousness! [my bold]

Remake "Network" with Richard Dawkins as Howard Beale: "I want you put down your copies of Nature, get up out of your chairs, go to the window -- and yell: "Go obstreperousness!"

Sounds good to me.

 

[blobru]

If you are talking about "cultural evolution" that is not "evolution" and hasn't been shown to exist so far as I know.

Not as far as I know either. But "cultural evolution" is ToE expanded to human society [sort of]. And I propose it as a metaphysical basis for evo-ethics, so (like God) it doesn't have to be shown to exist, merely assumed as a plausible starting-point.

If cultural evolution did occur it would occur without morals although within cultural evolution would be the evolution of morals. In other words the passing on or success of moral traits within society will occur without moral consideration. There will be moral consideration but it won't affect the passing on of traits since those which favor society will be kept regardless of their morality as we understand them.

The native 'moral traits' of the next generation may be acquired through good ol' amoral evolution. But insofar as we shape the current moral environment that selects for those traits, we are active moral agents in the process.

 

[Beerina]

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.

It's important to realize that this concept, which I think has only been floating around for 10 years or so, and is gaining critical mass, isn't just some scientific support for absolute cultural relativism, which it may not in fact be.

Rather, it's just the observation that certain ethical behaviors we "believe are true" are really just the result of trying to minimize pain and difficulty, and maximize survival, i.e. good old evolution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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."

What a curious thing to say. In the doctrine of the vast majority of Abrahamic religions there most certainly is a "survival of the fittest", especially in their concepts of an afterlife. In their case the "fittest" are those who worship the correct God properly.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Not as far as I know either. But "cultural evolution" is ToE expanded to human society [sort of]. And I propose it as a metaphysical basis for evo-ethics, so (like God) it doesn't have to be shown to exist, merely assumed as a plausible starting-point.



The native 'moral traits' of the next generation may be acquired through good ol' amoral evolution. But insofar as we shape the current moral environment that selects for those traits, we are active moral agents in the process.

What I meant was the perpetuation of moral values is not predicated upon us understanding them from a philosophical point of veiw. We may moralize this or that concept but society in general is not too keen on moral philosophy and they are the ones who adopt or change their values (not moral philosphers).

 

[Herzblut]

Rather, it's just the observation that certain ethical behaviors we "believe are true" are really just the result of trying to minimize pain and difficulty, and maximize survival, i.e. good old evolution.

The opposite of pain is felicity, not survival. Anyways, your teleological thinking leading you to an utilitarian ethics is highly suspicious to me. Regarding myself as a humanist, no purely utilitarian ethics is at all acceptable, in my eyes.

Herzblut

 

[aries]

Erm ---

I think this whole things boils down to one thing, the misunderstand of Darwin's words: 'survival of the fittest'. If one doesn't remember him writing (or saying?) that 'it is not the strongest, nor the weakest, nor the loudest etc. that will survive. It is the one(s) most susceptible to change.' This statement from Darwin clearly shows that what Darwin meant was that it is the persons or animals or populations of any kind being able to survive in an ever changing eco-habitat that will survive through these changes that will occur in the habitat over the years.

However, I feel that the people rebutting this do have a point. The point is partly a valid one, I think, since Darwin's word about the survival of the fittest has been misused first by Ricardo in the 1850's, then by the Nazi's of the 1930's Germany.

If I were to answer the question I would day: 'yes, evolution is amoral, since it has no moral whatsoever, no ethics that it is imposed on it for society's sake,like it has no mores, values etc. from society to follow, simply because it is.' Evolution does what benefits the species e.g. mankind, or the butterflies, or the tapeworms' evolution best. In such, it has no morals of anykind, it just want to propagate and carry on the species thing. (sorry for the 'want' thing, I do know that evolution just doesn't 'want' things, it just is).

 

[Kahalachan]

Seems like a silly question. You might as well ask about other sciences. Is gravity amoral? A Maxwell's Equations amoral? Frankly, yes. Morality is irrelevant to the laws of the universe. "Evolution" does not owe us morality, though we appear to have evolved morality.

Gravity is benevolent cause it pulls things together.

Oh but it's also pretty mean with black holes

 

[blobru]

It's important to realize that this concept, which I think has only been floating around for 10 years or so, and is gaining critical mass, isn't just some scientific support for absolute cultural relativism, which it may not in fact be.

Rather, it's just the observation that certain ethical behaviors we "believe are true" are really just the result of trying to minimize pain and difficulty, and maximize survival, i.e. good old evolution.

Or maybe by minimizing pain and difficulty certain ethical behaviors have maximized their (the behaviors') own chances for survival?
That might suggest a cultural consensus about morality whose tenets evolve so slowly they appear absolute in the short term, but are relative long term...

 

[blobru]

What a curious thing to say. In the doctrine of the vast majority of Abrahamic religions there most certainly is a "survival of the fittest", especially in their concepts of an afterlife. In their case the "fittest" are those who worship the correct God properly.

Whoa, never looked at it that way. "Deistic" selection, with divine law as a sort of eugenic funnel ("eu-re-genic"?): not to decide who gets born, but who gets reborn!

 

[blobru]

What I meant was the perpetuation of moral values is not predicated upon us understanding them from a philosophical point of veiw.

Certainly not.

We may moralize this or that concept but society in general is not too keen on moral philosophy and they are the ones who adopt or change their values (not moral philosphers).

I think society in general, having agreed on a moral axis around which to organize, is seldom keen to revisit the issue. But the morality of individuals in society is always changing, evolving; sometimes in response to tacit ethics which the individuals don't fully appreciate, but moral philosophers do. These changes rarely add up to social revolution (they may though), but they often lead to social agitation for legal reform, or even minutely to shifts in everyday etiquette (ethics' baby sister).

 

[blobru]

Erm ---

I think this whole things boils down to one thing, the misunderstand of Darwin's words: 'survival of the fittest'. If one doesn't remember him writing (or saying?) that 'it is not the strongest, nor the weakest, nor the loudest etc. that will survive. It is the one(s) most susceptible to change.' This statement from Darwin clearly shows that what Darwin meant was that it is the persons or animals or populations of any kind being able to survive in an ever changing eco-habitat that will survive through these changes that will occur in the habitat over the years.

The moral of Darwin's story: virtue = adaptability?

However, I feel that the people rebutting this do have a point. The point is partly a valid one, I think, since Darwin's word about the survival of the fittest has been misused first by Ricardo in the 1850's, then by the Nazi's of the 1930's Germany.

The Nazis were occultist nutjobs who warped a lot of sound science, history, philosophy, and religion to suit their racist creed. "Evolution" isn't to blame for Nazism.
Ricardo's economics -- "comparative advantage" viz free trade -- is controversial, yes; but his theory precedes Darwin's by 40+ years.

If I were to answer the question I would day: 'yes, evolution is amoral, since it has no moral whatsoever, no ethics that it is imposed on it for society's sake,like it has no mores, values etc. from society to follow, simply because it is.' Evolution does what benefits the species e.g. mankind, or the butterflies, or the tapeworms' evolution best. In such, it has no morals of anykind, it just want to propagate and carry on the species thing. (sorry for the 'want' thing, I do know that evolution just doesn't 'want' things, it just is).

Yeah, I'm trying to argue it's legitimate to extend the theory of evolution beyond nature to culture and derive a 'morality' therefrom; but that may be overtaxing the original theory.