Evolution not God

[Nakosis]

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species. Those that survive pass down through culture and genetics those correct choices. Those choices wrong enough to cause early demise don't get passed down. Over time, the human brain gets wired via culture and genetics to feel certain choices are correct and other choices are wrong. So we get an inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong.

Now this is far from perfect since that only requirement is that it only requires it to be correct enough to allow survival until one is able to procreate.

In the past, these feeling of right and wrong get encoded into various religions. However not all religious morality comes from this evolutionary process. Individuals get inspired by whatever experiences they have and add to this religious moral code. Both ideas which are successful to survival and ideas which are not overly detrimental to survival get passed down to future generations.

There is a fairly wide range of what we as a species find as morally acceptable since as long as an idea is not overly detrimental to the survival of the species, it gets passed on.

I see my morals as partly evolved, partly inspired by my life experiences. Some even passed on to me by other people's concepts of God however there was no need for an actual God to declare absolute moral law.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A note. In biology in the survival and reproduction of the fittest genome doesn't take place on the level of the species. It takes place on the level of the individual organism and for sexaul reprduction requires 2 oganisms.
So long story short all members of a species doesn't have to have a good life, survive or reproduce for the species to survive or rather in the end reproduce. In other words morality doesn't have to benefit the species. Morality only have to work for a large enough group of organisms within the species and not all.
Thus the species is not even a standard and let alone the standard.

Regards.

 

[1213]

View attachment 73145​

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species. ...

Good, right and evil seems to be subjective opinions. If the highest standard is "survival for the species", it opens door for example to kill people that are not seen useful. That is why I don't like it.

 

[Nakosis]

Good, right and evil seems to be subjective opinions. If the highest standard is "survival for the species", it opens door for example to kill people that are not seen useful. That is why I don't like it.

So, how do you think those subjective opinions are formed?

 

[Nakosis]

Thus the species is not even a standard and let alone the standard.

Regards.

Ok, but that is not what I said.

 

[kadzbiz]

I will point out that evolution itself is not perfect, only good enough. Good enough to produce the next generation. As for "humanity's standard", you're casting a wide net there. Standards change from one culture to the next.

 

[Nakosis]

I will point out that evolution itself is not perfect, only good enough. Good enough to produce the next generation. As for "humanity's standard", you're casting a wide net there. Standards change from one culture to the next.

Yes, that is why I said it allowed for a wide range of morality and was far from a perfect process.

 

[kadzbiz]

Yes, that is why I said it allowed for a wide range of morality and was far from a perfect process.

ok. i must admit i had a little trouble following your words. it's not you, it's me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 73145​

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species. Those that survive pass down through culture and genetics those correct choices. Those choices wrong enough to cause early demise don't get passed down. Over time, the human brain gets wired via culture and genetics to feel certain choices are correct and other choices are wrong. So we get an inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong.

Now this is far from perfect since that only requirement is that it only requires it to be correct enough to allow survival until one is able to procreate.

In the past, these feeling of right and wrong get encoded into various religions. However not all religious morality comes from this evolutionary process. Individuals get inspired by whatever experiences they have and add to this religious moral code. Both ideas which are successful to survival and ideas which are not overly detrimental to survival get passed down to future generations.

There is a fairly wide range of what we as a species find as morally acceptable since as long as an idea is not overly detrimental to the survival of the species, it gets passed on.

I see my morals as partly evolved, partly inspired by my life experiences. Some even passed on to me by other people's concepts of God however there was no need for an actual God to declare absolute moral law.

Okay, take #2. The difference is that I see no evidence for this: The way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species.

I have found no way to ground all humans for morality as per the species. In short it is perfectly natural that I have a good life and you don't and so in reverse.
You have in philosophical terms made a base assumption, namely to use the species. But that is in effect an absolute as there is only one species. The problem is, that there is a sense in biological terms as for use as morality no species. The survival and all the rest happens as the level of groups of organisms, that don't have to be all the organisms in a species.

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, take #2. The difference is that I see no evidence for this: The way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species.

I have found no way to ground all humans for morality as per the species. In short it is perfectly natural that I have a good life and you don't and so in reverse.
You have in philosophical terms made a base assumption, namely to use the species. But that is in effect an absolute as there is only one species. The problem is, that there is a sense in biological terms as for use as morality no species. The survival and all the rest happens as the level of groups of organisms, that don't have to be all the organisms in a species.

Ok, I didn't say all morality as I noted exceptions. Also I'm talking about humanity as a species since I'm talking about human morality.

However then, what do you think is the basis for human morality?

 

[Yazata]

View attachment 73145​

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

I don't understand what you are saying there. "the moral for humanity's standard"? Shouldn't that be 'the standard for humanity's morality'?

In what follows that's what I will be taking you to have meant.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species.

Yes, I agree that's probably where our sense of morality originates. I agree that it's a product of evolution. But jumping from there to a plausible and emotionally desireable ethics isn't easy. Philosophy's "is-ought" problem arises there. How do we get from a discription of how things are to a prescription of how things should be?

That's where the issue of stereotypical social-Darwinism arises. Suppose Group A (Hitler and the nazis perhaps, or Islamic State) believes that it's "right" for it to conquer, enslave or kill everyone else. If that's successful, then victorious Group A will come to dominate the Earth.

Who would consider that 'good' in any moral sense? Pretty clearly members of Group A would (assuming they embrace Group A's ideology) and if they win their war of extermination, they will be all that's left of humanity.

I think most people will see ethical problems with that idea, and not just because they don't identify with Group A. There seems to be some more fundamental ethical problem with the idea that group-selection is all that defines morality.

Would Group A's victory really be good? And is the idea that something can really be right or wrong in any objective sense even plausible? Can our moral judgments be justified in any way that's less relativistic than relying on our own moral intuitions?

I consider it an open question and I don't know the answer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, I didn't say all morality as I noted exceptions. Also I'm talking about humanity as a species since I'm talking about human morality.

However then, what do you think is the basis for human morality?

Biological evolution, but not the species, but rather the reproduction of the fittest gene.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't understand what you are saying there. "the moral for humanity's standard"? Shouldn't that be 'the standard for humanity's morality'?

In what follows that's what I will be taking you to have meant.




Yes, I agree that's probably where our sense of morality originates. I agree that it's a product of evolution. But jumping from there to a plausible and emotionally desireable ethics isn't easy. Philosophy's "is-ought" problem arises there. How do we get from a discription of how things are to a prescription of how things should be?

That's where the issue of stereotypical social-Darwinism arises. Suppose Group A (Hitler and the nazis perhaps, or Islamic State) believes that it's "right" for it to conquer, enslave or kill everyone else. If that's successful, then victorious Group A will come to dominate the Earth.

Who would consider that 'good' in any moral sense? Pretty clearly members of Group A would (assuming they embrace Group A's ideology) and if they win their war of extermination, they will be all that's left of humanity.

I think most people will see ethical problems with that idea, and not just because they don't identify with Group A. There seems to be some more fundamental ethical problem with the idea that group-selection is all that defines morality.

Would Group A's victory really be good? And is the idea that something can really be right or wrong in any objective sense even plausible? Can our moral judgments be justified in any way that's less relativistic than relying on our own moral intuitions?

I consider it an open question and I don't know the answer.

I probably should have used basis instead of standard however I wanted to contrast it against using divine authority as the standard.

My point was not to judge what "good" moral standards were but how we ended up with where we are.

If some group had successfully conquered, enslaved, killed every other group then I'd assume that would be a basis to find this continued behavior as morally acceptable. So I'm not saying this ought to be used to determine what ought to be moral vs what ought to be immoral, only that what did happen caused the evolution of whatever morals we happened to currently have. A different past, like your example would lead to a different set of morals. IOW, the morals we happen to have don't require a divine explanation.

 

[Nakosis]

Biological evolution, but not the species, but rather the reproduction of the fittest gene.

Don't you think culture becomes a part of that? Humans are more culturally complex than other species.
Successful culture gets passed on as well as genetics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't you think culture becomes a part of that? Humans are more culturally complex than other species.
Successful culture gets passed on as well as genetics.

Well, no, not really. There is no one universal culture or even one single universal cultural behaviour I can think of. Can you?

 

[Nakosis]

Well, no, not really. There is no one universal culture or even one single universal cultural behaviour I can think of. Can you?

There doesn't have to be to have an effect. I think obviously different cultures encourage different moral values.
I'm not talking about a universal moral standard, Just how culture contributes to the moral values any group might have or any particular individual.

Something interesting I found...

• Biologists can explain morality on multiple levels.
As genetic behavior, moral outcomes are explained alternately by kin selection or reciprocity. As a psychological motive or intent, morality is explained by open learning systems shaped by emotion and reasoning from experience. As a social system, morality is explained by mutual accountability among individuals or by selective interaction based on social information. Processes at each level provide a context in which the others function.
The Evolution of Morality - Evolution: Education and Outreach

So I see here mention of 3 aspects of moral development.
1. genetic
2. life experience
3. culture/social system

Same 3 components I attributed in the OP.
I'm not a biologist but biology seems to generally agree with what I originally said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There doesn't have to be to have an effect. I think obviously different cultures encourage different moral values.
I'm not talking about a universal moral standard, Just how culture contributes to the moral values any group might have or any particular individual.

Something interesting I found...

• Biologists can explain morality on multiple levels.
As genetic behavior, moral outcomes are explained alternately by kin selection or reciprocity. As a psychological motive or intent, morality is explained by open learning systems shaped by emotion and reasoning from experience. As a social system, morality is explained by mutual accountability among individuals or by selective interaction based on social information. Processes at each level provide a context in which the others function.
The Evolution of Morality - Evolution: Education and Outreach

So I see here mention of 3 aspects of moral development.
1. genetic
2. life experience
3. culture/social system

Same 3 components I attributed in the OP.
I'm not a biologist but biology seems to generally agree with what I originally said.

What does the bold mean? What is the effect of those 2 on morality and how do they relate to your usage of the species?

 

[SalixIncendium]

People evolved to worship and fear deities they have placed in charge of overseeing their morals and ethics. Therefore, God is most certainly involved in the "moral for humanity's standard."

 

[The Sum of Awe]

View attachment 73145​

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution. Notice I said provides a standard, not a absolute.

They way I see it working is that "right" choices means survival for the species. Those that survive pass down through culture and genetics those correct choices. Those choices wrong enough to cause early demise don't get passed down. Over time, the human brain gets wired via culture and genetics to feel certain choices are correct and other choices are wrong. So we get an inherent feeling for what is right and what is wrong.

Now this is far from perfect since that only requirement is that it only requires it to be correct enough to allow survival until one is able to procreate.

In the past, these feeling of right and wrong get encoded into various religions. However not all religious morality comes from this evolutionary process. Individuals get inspired by whatever experiences they have and add to this religious moral code. Both ideas which are successful to survival and ideas which are not overly detrimental to survival get passed down to future generations.

There is a fairly wide range of what we as a species find as morally acceptable since as long as an idea is not overly detrimental to the survival of the species, it gets passed on.

I see my morals as partly evolved, partly inspired by my life experiences. Some even passed on to me by other people's concepts of God however there was no need for an actual God to declare absolute moral law.

After all of these threads, all of this pondering, when will you accept that morality is subjective?

I don't believe there is a concrete basis for morality. Everyone's moral code comes from their own life experiences, personality differences, the way they were raised, culture, etc. There are so many variables that determine one's version of right and wrong that we can never get to the bottom of what truly is right and wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

After all of these threads, all of this pondering, when will you accept that morality is subjective?

I don't believe there is a concrete basis for morality. Everyone's moral code comes from their own life experiences, personality differences, the way they were raised, culture, etc. There are so many variables that determine one's version of right and wrong that we can never get to the bottom of what truly is right and wrong.

What makes you think I haven't?

It is, IMO, subjective to a genetic/cultural/experiential process.
My only point here is that divine intervention is not a requirement for the development of morality in humans.