Evolution cannot account for morality

[Pat Mustard]

We cannot get our morality from evolution because evolution does not care about how we treat others. Also, it makes no sense that we have instincts therefore it makes more sense that God wanted us to have instincts. Evolution only starts with life, which makes no sense, it should show how inanimate matter turns into life as well. Also, if evolution has all this power then where does evolution come from?

Yes it can. Humanity evolved as a social species. As such certain rules of behaviour had to be developed and passed onto offspring to ensure that human societies didn't collapse into anarchy.

Just because it's not directly encaptured in our DNA doesn't mean it isn't evolved. Morality is an emergent property of our evolution.

[chiknsld]

You're saying that empathy already existed as a consequence of evolution? That's interesting because it does appear that animals already display some characteristics of empathy, even though they are pretty brutal, lol. So the ability to empathize coupled with higher intelligence than that of primal animals, is what allowed humans to create morality? This actually makes some sense. I suppose what does not make sense is the fact that evolution exists in the first place.

No, empathy was the result of humans living in groups to sustain life, human psych evolution. The animals that display this behavior also live in groups.

Your problem seems to be that you believe 'evolution' is only genetic.

Ah, I see, the whole nurture part of life. Yes I think you are right I look at all behavior as pretty much a direct result of genetics. I also find it hard to believe that any infinite amount of "group socializing" can somehow be passed on to offspring. Even if you can pass on some characteristics such as temperament, I would see a big difference between that and empathy. Most psychopaths did not have psychopathic parents (they might have had certain genetic predispositions to psychopathy however). 

I guess if you raised Hitler in a different environment he could have been a normal person, but then again he could have had some psychological issues (something wrong with his brain). But I am pretty sure if Hitler had children that wouldn't mean that they would be evil as well. I do not think being "good" or "bad", or having empathy, is a trait that is passed on to children (like having green eyes).

What makes more sense is that empathy is already part of life itself and that as organisms become more intelligent, for some reason this results in a higher emanation of that morality which is already inherent to life. In other words, I see morality as a direct indication or corollary of intelligence (rather than something like IQ).

Do you think it's possible that there could exist a super advanced species that is several orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans, which do not care about morality? It feels as though life has a willingness towards morality, perhaps from its own understanding that there is value in survival. But you would have to wonder how such a subjective "value" could be derived from billions of years of matter existing.

[Pat Mustard]

Morality does utilize evolution indirectly.

People who mistreat other people get thrown out of tribes, or beaten or killed.  This makes it rather hard for them to reproduce, and their genetic line is more likely to die out.

People who play well with others generally prefer to hang out with like-minded people, and there is safety in numbers.  Survival is better in a strong, mutually beneficial community, and the individuals who live in such an environment are more likely to have strong, healthy, safe offspring.

There is a natural bias towards moral behaviour in successful communities.  Religion simply summarizes existing community standards in scripture and designates clergy to be teachers and enforcers.

This sounds reasonable, but I wonder if there's any scientific evidence. 

Does moral behavior lead to more offspring than, for example, a man who cheats on his wife and makes lots of illegitimate babies? Or a guy who lies to women to get them into bed? Or someone like Elon Musk, whose immoral acquisition of lots of money gets him dates? 

As I recall there was a paper a while back claiming that one in every 200 men is directly descended from Genghis Khan, famous moral exemplar.

There was that fertility doctor who secretly used his own sperm and ended up having like a hundred babies. 

In US culture, lots of people have babies but don't settle down into stable moral environments. 

It would be interesting to see some kind of scientific studies.

In the light of his age Chinggis was very moral. He would spare cities that surrendered, honourable opponents and give those nations he defeated a wide power of self government afterwards. Meanwhile, in Europe we had Caedite Eos.

[Jehanne]

To the OP, Professor Richard Dawkins discusses your questions in his many books; my favorite is his The God Delusion. It's on Audible, read by Professor Dawkins and his now-former wife, Linda Ward.

[Belacqua]

In the light of his age Chinggis was very moral.  He would spare cities that surrendered, honourable opponents and give those nations he defeated a wide power of self government afterwards.  Meanwhile, in Europe we had Caedite Eos.

The human animal has evolved very little since Genghis Khan's time. 

If morality, on the other hand, has changed -- if he was moral in the light of his own time, but not according to ours -- then it may complicate the idea that morality is in any way related to Darwin-style evolution.

I have no doubt that behavior is affected by our physical nature, and that our physical nature has evolved. But if very different types of morality are compatible with physical types at the same stage of evolution, then the relationship seems far from simple or predictable. "Evolution favors morality" may be too simple, if animals at the  same stage of evolution can have very different moralities.

[Pat Mustard]

In the light of his age Chinggis was very moral.  He would spare cities that surrendered, honourable opponents and give those nations he defeated a wide power of self government afterwards.  Meanwhile, in Europe we had Caedite Eos.

The human animal has evolved very little since Genghis Khan's time. 

If morality, on the other hand, has changed -- if he was moral in the light of his own time, but not according to ours -- then it may complicate the idea that morality is in any way related to Darwin-style evolution.

I have no doubt that behavior is affected by our physical nature, and that our physical nature has evolved. But if very different types of morality are compatible with physical types at the same stage of evolution, then the relationship seems far from simple or predictable. "Evolution favors morality" may be too simple, if animals at the  same stage of evolution can have very different moralities.

If it wasn't clear that you were an idiot before now, the above dispels all doubt. What you said on evolution and morality amounts to not even wrong.

[Jehanne]

In my opinion, this is as much of a question of economics as it is a question of philosophy, theology, etc. The majority to most individuals are motivated by self-interest, and if moral behavior is rewarded and immoral behavior is punished, people tend to be moral.

[chiknsld]

In my opinion, this is as much of a question of economics as it is a question of philosophy, theology, etc.  The majority to most individuals are motivated by self-interest, and if moral behavior is rewarded and immoral behavior is punished, people tend to be moral.

So, if it is not something that is passed on in terms of DNA replication, then what exactly is it that evolved? Surely you are not saying that the systematic growth of a subjective "group dynamic" is the same thing as it evolving, right? So then I was right in at least saying that morality is not a product of biological evolution.

Now it makes more sense what you all were telling me, in that it is a cultural phenomenon, an indirect use of evolution, a consequence of evolution. So I would assume that you could envision a species where there is no morality? Or does it just so happen to be the case that all life will tend towards evolution due to the need for compromise, group dynamics, etc.?

If so, we may say that life itself will always lead to morality. Matter will always lead to life (eventually). A universe will always lead to matter/energy (or it always existed). 

So you wouldn't agree that God is part of life but you would agree that morality is part of life? Again, is it possible for there to exist an advanced species with no morality? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant.

[Angrboda]

I would agree. We cannot get what is normally thought of as morality from evolution. We also can't get it from the Judeo-Christian god. I imagine that goes for Allah, as well.

This simply means that morality is a bit of a head-scratcher. The most obvious answer is that morality as commonly conceived doesn't exist. It's just an error to think that things are right or wrong independent of specific interests. The idea that there is good in the moral sense that isn't based on good in the sense of instrumental utility would just be an error.

[Nay_Sayer]

We cannot get our morality from evolution because evolution does not care about how we treat others. Also, it makes no sense that we have instincts therefore it makes more sense that God wanted us to have instincts. Evolution only starts with life, which makes no sense, it should show how inanimate matter turns into life as well. Also, if evolution has all this power then where does evolution come from?

Something smells.