Right and Wrong debate for the existence of God...

[Just_me_Mike]

So let's begin...

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

Who's first?

 

[Meow Mix]

So let's begin...

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

Who's first?

Altruism has an evolutionary explanation in that protecting others protects genes likely to be similar to yours. This is likely why incest taboos exist as well: to protect the integrity of the gene pool.

Humans, as sentient beings, are no longer bound in the various selection arenas. We are able to abstract ideas from their original purpose such that we can take this evolved trait of altruism and apply it to, say, a puppy or something that doesn't share many of our genes.

Even some animals like dolphins and dogs are apt to behave altruistically towards non-dolphins and non-dogs but then again they also exhibit a relatively high amount of sentience, too.

 

[TEXASBULL]

No not really. We thought it was right to own slaves. We thought human sacrifice was right.

These are just the first two to come to mind. We have come a long way, but not there yet.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

To both posters, first I don't think I am talking about altruism, but the fact as TEXAS points out "we're not there yet, but getting close"
Where did the drive for right and wrong come from? I am looking for how it might fit into evolution.

 

[Skwim]

So let's begin...

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

Who's first?

Survival. Knowing that some stuff hurts, it dawns on us that if we avoid it we won't hurt. Knowing to avoid hurt is good. Not knowing to avoid hurt is bad. Good: right. Bad: wrong. Avoiding wrong stuff therefore increases ones chance to grow old enough to reproduce, and the ability to reproduce is necessary for any organism to evolve.

 

[Noaidi]

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

Knowing right from wrong within social species is important in maintaining social cohesion. Individuals recognising this and following pack rules is to their benefit. Chimpanzees known to steal food are often beaten and ostracised, thus reducing their 'fitness' within the group which, in terms of survival and reproductive success, is detrimental.

 

[logician]

"Right" and "wrong" evolve with societal norms, which are made to prevent chaos and anarchy.

Take away the police and all law enforcement, and see how long "right" is maintained in a society.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

So in your estimations, do other species even upto dolphins show signs of regret for things they do?

If you cite an example, I would also be curious if it is a genuine regret, or simply a method to obtain more food and security.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Also, if my sworn enemy who killed my family was hit by a car and lying on the road, Darwin theory says I would leave him without worry. However, why is it in our instincts to help people that are clearly thought of as our enemies and demonstratively are.

This person clearly offer no advantage to me, and I hate him, so why would I have an instinct to help him. How is that possible?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Much like religion, right and wrong are constructs of social control and cohesion.

Some people believe it is alright to practice genital mutilation, some of us don't.

Some people believe it is alright to kill homosexuals, some of us don't.

Some of us believe it is alright to take a nations natural resources by force, some of us don't

Different societies will have different concepts of right and wrong.

Perhaps if there are two groups of animals; one who evolved the concept of right and wrong and one who didn't. Then the group who has the concept will be socially more cohesive and therefore more able to survive.

But that would be hard to prove.

 

[Noaidi]

Also, if my sworn enemy who killed my family was hit by a car and lying on the road, Darwin theory says I would leave him without worry. However, why is it in our instincts to help people that are clearly thought of as our enemies and demonstratively are.

This person clearly offer no advantage to me, and I hate him, so why would I have an instinct to help him. How is that possible?

I've thought about similar situations. Would I help the person who had killed my family? I probably would. We do gain a feeling of satisfaction from doing good deeds. Perhaps this is all altruism is - a positive feeling within ourselves, created from doing good acts. If I give to charity, I feel good knowing that I have done good. Maybe altruism is basically a selfish behaviour.

I'm not saying that this view is correct - it's just something that occurred to me as plausible as I read Just Me Mike's post. Feel free to shout me down as a selfish ******* while I work out my position on this!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Also, if my sworn enemy who killed my family was hit by a car and lying on the road, Darwin theory says I would leave him without worry. However, why is it in our instincts to help people that are clearly thought of as our enemies and demonstratively are.

This person clearly offer no advantage to me, and I hate him, so why would I have an instinct to help him. How is that possible?

Here you are talking about empathy. This is different from right and wrong.

You may feel some form of empathy for said enemy, but because he/she is a member of your species and we are hard wired to to ensure the survival of our species and that includes keeping members of the species alive.

 

[Noaidi]

Here you are talking about empathy. This is different from right and wrong.

You may feel some form of empathy for said enemy, but because he/she is a member of your species and we are hard wired to to ensure the survival of our species and that includes keeping members of the species alive.

But are we hard-wired to ensure the survival of our species? The most intense competition in Nature is intra-specific competition. Getting rid (or at least reducing the influence) of other members of the same species is a large part of individual survival.

 

[Meow Mix]

So in your estimations, do other species even upto dolphins show signs of regret for things they do?

If you cite an example, I would also be curious if it is a genuine regret, or simply a method to obtain more food and security.

Koko the sign language speaking gorilla was once asked if she wanted to hurt a male she perceived as a threat for her attention with one of her female caregivers (or it might have been the other way around, but still).

She responded "no"

When asked why not, she responded "Because he's like me"

If that's not the Golden Rule then I don't know what is. We don't want to hurt other sentient beings because they, like us, are aware.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also, if my sworn enemy who killed my family was hit by a car and lying on the road, Darwin theory says I would leave him without worry. However, why is it in our instincts to help people that are clearly thought of as our enemies and demonstratively are.

This person clearly offer no advantage to me, and I hate him, so why would I have an instinct to help him. How is that possible?

Because as I already said we are sentient beings with the ability to abstract beyond instinct. It's explanatory enough that altruism has an evolutionary origin but we as thinking beings have abstracted it in a deeper way. It's out of the selection arenas, so to say; just like our appreciation for abstract art.

 

[Falvlun]

There's a couple of threads around about the evolution of morality.
Is morality unique to humans?
Do morals evolve or...?

Animals do appear to display behavior consistent with moral behavior, like a sense of fairness, empathy, altruism, etc. These sorts of behaviors could have evolved to improve social cohesion, thereby improving personal survival. We likely inherited these sorts of behaviors, as we naturally are social, pack sort of creatures. Our big brains allowed us to think about things in a more complex manner, and our language ability allowed us to perpetuate certain behaviors with greater speed and complexity than genes alone could.

I really don't understand why so many people find the existence of morality as so inexplicable.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So let's begin...

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

We made the concepts of right and wrong. Even religion tells us that. Remember the story of Adam and Eve? What tree did they eat the fruit from? The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They ate from it, they had the choice to eat from it. They chose to create good and evil. We chose it, we continue to choose it.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

But are we hard-wired to ensure the survival of our species? The most intense competition in Nature is intra-specific competition. Getting rid (or at least reducing the influence) of other members of the same species is a large part of individual survival.

In ideal conditions yes. You are right though the instinct for self preservation would overwhelm the instinct for empathy. Most animals will form some form of pack. There is strength in numbers.

-Q

 

[Willamena]

It is apparent that human beings have innate faculties for knowing right and wrong. Where did this come from? How does it fit into evolution?

Appearance comes from having cognitive ability.

 

[Falvlun]

In ideal conditions yes. You are right though the instinct for self preservation would overwhelm the instinct for empathy. Most animals will form some form of pack. There is strength in numbers.

-Q

Only if the numbers work together and don't turn on each other.