Fred Flintstonensis

It seems to me (being neither a biologist nor a philosopher, but being familiar with the major principles of both disciplines) that morals evolved.

In order to survive as a species, social behavior was selected for. The individuals who were not able to be 'civil' were less effective at passing there genetic code on down to the next generation.

It seems to me that what we call morals were nothing more than a evolutionary mechanism that had the positive result of creating social groups.

I suggested this (admittedly not well thought out) idea to a person I sort of know and he thought I was out of my mind (he is an atheist, too). He suggested that the existence of entire societies bent one destroying one another disprove my idea. He said that Germany's treatment of the Jews during the 30s and 40s also disprove it.

I retorted by saying that perhaps xenophobia was also selected for. I also went out on a limb and said that, like the evolution of speech, thinking and walking, the majority view is that morals evolved (I think I am right about that). He said "Majority view among whom? Certainly not philosphers of ethics!"

In the end, he said that my position (the entire time, he acted as if this idea was original with me) was absurd.

I usually do very well in casual, water-cooler debate, but I was wholly unprepared for this one and got creamed. But typical of debate, the loser isn't always the guy who was wrong.

This guy is a real prick by the way, so there is no love lost here, but I want to get armed and ready for round two. I still think that I am right. I might not be, but I think I am.

Any ideas?

Longbow

Well, I certainly do not adhere to your position. And, like your "buddy" there, I think the idea is kind fo absurd, myself. But, I will give you my two cents (hopefully less abrasively), and that might actually prepare you better for round two than a sympathetic response.

Actually, I think he is right about that. Especially looking through the history of ideas, the sort of approach to moral philosophy you are taking is microscopic compared to the alternatives. Even now, I think that "the majority view" you are thinking of is really based on a very selective group of people (perhaps usually atheists) that are specifically trying to take a "scientific approach to ethics".

Something like that is a lot more believably the "majority view" of anthropologists or biologists, but I doubt it is true if you look at major publications in moral and political philosophy (such as Ethics or Philosophy and Public Affairs). It is certainly not something like "We now know that...."

That's true, our behavior has evolved. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority of people that agree with this view still do not think that morality is an evolved trait like hair color. What the trait is is our interest in morality, not morality itself.

And I think this is the point. It is one thing to observe the evolution of traits. It is another thing to be able to say a whole bunch about what morality isn't. When you say that morality is nothing more than an evolved trait, then you are taking on an enormous burden of proof. In short, don't think that you are going to be able to just collect the conventional wisdom on such a view in a short amount of time and be pretty well equiped to effectively defend it. There are much easier (from a purely rational perspective) views to defend. And, I think if you separate the subject matter of morality from the behavioral traits and realize that you are the one that has the burden of connecting them, it puts your position in a whole new light.

Forget about Hitler and any of that for the moment. The fact is that morality is a subject of discussion. Saying that a subject that we talk about is an evolved trait is really quite a novel view (not that other people haven't taken such a view). Why wouldn't, for instance, physics be an evolved trait, then? Whatever the reasons are, why don't they apply to teh topic of morality?

That we behave morally can be and I would tend to agree is an evolved trait, but that doesn't show that the subject, itself, is just some aspect of evolution or our particular evolution.

K

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so an equal burden of proof would be on the person who claims that morality is more than an evolved trait. I think this proof would be a much tougher one.

Longbow

For one thing, no one needs to make the assertion that morality is more than an evolved trait, they can just treat it that way by not assuming that it is limited to being one. And for another thing, it is not hard at all to argue that morality is not anything like an "evolved trait". Morality is a topic of discussion not a trait. Saying that morality is an evolved trait is like saying that physics is.

K

Longbow:

Would you agree that the same is true for theists? No one would need to make the assertion that the supernatural exists, they could just treat as not limited to the non-supernatural.

I guess that it could have been phrased, "morals are evolved traits."

Mr. Sammi

Quite surprisingly I think morals evolved via the physical phenomena of give-take-share.

Notwithstanding the idea that humans suddenly appeared on Earth as a result of some waved magic-wand, the idea of accumulative successes over time seems to be an idea worth great consideration.

There could be some possibility of preconditioning an energy source which tends towards a mean realising in the end some great concept like morality. A possibility in thought but speculation in our physical reality.

The only aspects of our physical reality we can prove are our exchanges, accumulations and growth. It seems impossible due to careful reasoning that change can be accomplished without ADDING SOME ELEMENT or WITHOUT SUBTRACTING SOME ELEMENT. The addition of some energy-mass is implicated in GIVING while the subtraction of some mass-energy is associated with TAKING.

* * *

We must note that when some energy-mass is given, it is TAKEN from some other mass-energy. In the same binding of the relationship, when some energy-mass is TAKEN or GAINED it is LOST or GIVEN by some other mass-energy.

The sharing of the lot in this framework is called morality - the way we share our mass-energy. The reason why I call this morality is it also depends on an effect. The act and its result.
The way in which giving and taking is administered AND itz ultimate effect.

Thus morality is about sharing which has evolved and is continuing to evolve except if the mass-energy was preconditioned to tend towards a fair share for all, then we only went through the motions of evolution.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Longbow

What? Yes I would make the same statement about theists. I would have just as much the burden to show that god does not exist as the theist would to show that god does exist. But I don't really have to do that since I can effectively do the same thing for all intents and purposes just by not assuming that god exists.

Okay, saying that morals are evolved traits is like saying that the statements concerning physics are evolved traits. For instance, "Tell the truth," is neither an evolved trait nor a moral. The tendency not to lie could be an evolved trait. "Lying is wrong," is the relevant moral, and most people do not think that this statement means or could be defined as: "Most people tend to tell the truth."

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: Longbow ]</p>

K

Longbow:

I would have just as much the burden to show that morality consists of nothing beyond evolved traits as someone else to show that they do. But I don't really have to do that since I can effectively do the same thing for all intents and purposes just by not assuming that morals consist of anything more than evolved traits.

If nobody makes any claims, but just treats the world as if they are correct, what is the point of debate?


Ok, I'll give it another try.

Humans have evolved a number of behaviors that help them survive and reproduce. Some of these behaviors aid survival by allowing individuals to function as members of a society. Many of these social behaviors are lumped into a category that we refer to as morals when we attempt to discuss them in an abstract manner.

Longbow

No, you can't. You must rely on this assertion to draw conclusions. I do not. That is, unless you are abandoning the view.

So for instance, here you are begging the question if you are just not assuming that morality isn't limited to evolutionary traits. Nice assertion, but you must show this. If you do not, then it is not for all intents and purposes true. If you try to make a claim like "people tend to tell the truth so lying must eb 'immoral'," then you must first make the connection between people tending to do something and that behavior then being moral.

On the other hand, if I say that telling the truth is morally required because the blue gnome has decreed it, then whereas I might have some burden of proof with regard to a blue gnome, I certainly don't have to first show that morals aren't evolutionary traits and then deal with the blue gnome. It may even be that such a proof that morals aren't traits follows from the blue gnome arguments. That is why you have the burden of proof of showing that morals are evolutionary traits and why you really need this assertion to derive any subsequent conclusions most of which will have to follow from it (if you have an evolutionary theory of morality).

tronvillain

I suggest reading Matt Ridley's The Evolution of Virtue - it is all about the evolution of morality.