elevator

No you are misunderstanding. Evolution is driven by natural selection; the concept that genetic mutations which improve the ability of an individual to survive is more likely to be selected for in future generations. Of course, the end-result of such favorable mutations may be that the organism produces more offspring; but then only as a direct result of the increased adaptation to its environment. As soon as you realize that evolution is about natural selection; you will immediately see why altruism could be an evolved trait. There are so many examples of this in the animal kingdom I don't even know where to start. In addition to what I have already mentioned, to start read up on kin selection, group selection and inclusive fitness. Certain social insects, for example, are born sterile (certain ants, for example, exhibit individuals whose only purpose in life is to work in the colony; never to reproduce - where's the "offspring" mechanism here?). Some penguin fathers will care for their egg through the harsh antarctic climate while the mother is away feeding. Only after the mother returns after several months will the father leave the egg to feed. If the father were to leave the egg; the chick would die, and so the father has an evolved altruistic trait that demands he stay with the egg to assure the chick's survival. So we see examples of the extremes of social evolution; where a species develop workers and caretakers; this being the only function of these individuals. So this is very primitive altruistic behavior; sacrificing yourself (sometimes even your ability to reproduce) for the well-being of the social group.

The exact same mechanism is in place for more complex altruism we see in some other animals. I have given you several links showing how altruistic behavior is essential for social group coherence. Imagine a social group filled with selfish individuals. The group would very quickly dissolve. But in a group where all individuals show unselfish behavior, where all individuals show a genuine care for the survival of the group, where all the individuals work together to warn about approaching predators, etc. Can you really not see the usefulness of altruistic behavior in such social contexts?

If you don't have the time to read up on evolutionary processes or find papers on evolution hard to understand and read; then may I recommend a decent podcast for beginners: Dr. Zachary Moore's Evolution 101.

George S

The only features (including behavior, of course) of individuals that are not anti-gene-pool can last.

The given individual represents his gene-pool. If that individual does not reproduce natural selection hath struck. However, in a population with sex, any given individual is not the only bearer of the gene pool. There are parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews who have the same genes. Helping them helps the mix of genes that brought the individual to be.

This is not yet altruism. To fight for your blood relatives is not in the least altruistic. To defend your kin is not in the least altruistic. To raise your nephew when his parents died is not altruism.

Are the same behaviors applied to non-blood relatives altruism?

Of course, all humans are related. Aiding other humans is not altruism, it is humanism.

elevator

All organisms are related. And if you're willing to fight for your relatives or defend your kin to the point where it may be done at the expense of your own well-being then, yes, that is altruism.

Clearly we are lacking some definitions here. But my point, whether we want to call it universal morals, moral basis, altruism or humanism, is that basic moral knowledge is critical for social coherence (animal or human). I consider Humanism to be more of an ethical philosophy though, and altruism more of an ethical virtue or trait. I have defined my definition of altruism above (based on dictionary definions of the same word). We may argue semantics here; but I feel that draws away from the real issue we were arguing; namely the question of whether morality is divine or evolved.

In that context one may ask what to categorize these behaviors as:

• The penguin father who watches over his egg for months, starving himself to assure his offspring hatches.
• Dogs or walruses who adopt members of same species (or other species) as their own to raise.
• Grey whales who are willing to fight for hours to protect their offspring, risking their own life.
• Gibbons and Chimpanzees who may share food with the group, and other primates may groom eachother.
• Certain bats who may regurgitate blood to share with members of the group unable to feed that night.
• Dolphins who may support sick or injured animals by pushing them to the ocean surface.
• Certain monkeys (and other animals) who give warnings when predators approach the group.
• Some bird species who may help raise, feed and protect unrelated birds.

This is just a small selection, but clearly examples of some basic morality (whether we call it basic morality, altruism or humanism is subject to definitions). I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider the development of such basic evolved moral traits into more advanced moral philosophies in the presence of the superior intelligence of humans (compared to other animals) and culture; no higher divine power needed.

ohmi

According to evolutionary theory [almost?] ALL life is related , so the altruistic thing to do would be to exterminate all the humans who are destroying the viability of the planet before we do it for ourselves and take most other species with us

Mankind considers itself intelligent, but there is nothing quite so dumb as steadily destroying the basis of one's own home and the viability of one's own food supply as we are doing.

elevator

That's one thing we agree on

ohmi

Your assumption that altruism is governed by genetics is simply false , so evolution has no means to operate on altruism.

Inventing other concepts and calling them 'animal altruism' doesn't make it true, nor is there any connection between these strange concocted concepts and human altruism except in [the abusive using of] the word 'altruism' .

elevator

Then how would you categorize the animal behaviors above? If these are not basic moral behaviors what are they?

George S

Penguin: there would be no surviving offspring w/o this behavior. Not altruism.
Adoption. Within species, not altruism. Out of species, misfire of evolved trait.
Risking life for kids is not altruism. It favors the genes.
Grooming. Reciprocal altruism is not altruism; it is exchanging favors.
Bats. Ditto.
Dolphins. Misfire of instinct to push their own kid to air.
Warnings. Usually mutual altruism.
Raising unrelated critter. Misfire. Some birds imprint on the biggest nearby critter they first see. MOM! Also, birds raising cuckoo chicks is a misfire. The genetic imprint is to feed the gaping maw.

elevator

Even if you don't accept my definiton of altruism: "the unselfish motivation to do good for others, without expecting reward or recognition (in some instances at the expense of your own welfare)", you still have to concede that these are basic moral actions (whether intentional or unintentional). They are moral actions that are either necessary for survival or necessary for the coherence of a social group. For example an ancient human social group was probably more likely to survive if they shared food and resources, protected eachother from predators, and promoted positive social interaction. Point is; if basic moral traits (no matter how primitive) can evolve in social animal populations, why must we imagine a divine power to be behind our own moral knowledge? If such basic morality can evolve it is easy to see how the human race can develop morality and ethics further through the application of superior intelligence and culture.

ohmi

Once again, it is YOUR assumption that morality evolves , but it cannot use evolution unless it is genetically determined ... which it is not.

Morality is relative and subjective, allowing it to change during life [unlike one's genes]

Simple observation of children shows how they learn the false values of their parents/society , and indeed the morality of the world is declining as parents have less time for their children [in many families both parents have to work to pay the mortgage]

Thus the morality of whole nations is declining due to the immoral acts of international bankers ... this then clearly has nothing to do with genetics or evolution.

The barriers to the innate altruism of the human being are the immensely powerful inhibitons of the brain, the power of denial, the ablity to lie to oneself ... there is no way through these barriers by human effort , the conflict reains life-long in almost all people ... God alone offers the solutions :-

-1.- For a few whom God requires at Jesus' return to be saints ,ready to serve as a perfect priesthood, God offers the truth now , in this life [John 16:13]

-2.- For the many God offers freedom from the enslavement of this world (through death and resurrection to a righteous new earth where the many can at last live altruistic Loving lives. [2 Peter 3:13 ,Rev 7: 9-10])

The solution of evolution to mankind is toallow us to kill off the very species on which we depend for food, and so mankind is just an evolutionary dead end ... we seriously never can acknowledge the absolute morality of Love within us [no-one can deny that love is right, but so very few DO it to all people all the time , one in a million only,,, whom God chose from the beginning to be the firstfruit saints of this earth]

It is thus clear that most men cannot be moral, cannot even be true to ourselves [unlke all other animals] , but te solution to our immorality is outside us, beyond us , we just cannot Love because we use the world as our guide, not our deepest desire of heart ... genetics will not save us from ourselves, only God can do so, but such a 'costly' lesson in terms of human suffering [soon to escalate to unprecedented levels as mankind's immorality climaxes and God allows men to destroy themselves for sake of the inane inability to stop being greedy for more]

Is evolution evolving a better breed of mankind? Clearly not! things are getting worse rather quickly ... and the reason is that it really is not a genetic matter at all, so nothing to do with evolution ...