Morality evolved.

[Smitty]

New here, figure I might as well get something going right away.

An unending topic for non-believers (though I looked through the last seven pages and couldn't find it listed as a topic or I would have posted there) is how to answer believers who think that morality can only come from God. I enjoy reading brainier (I hesitate to say "brighter," because I scoff at that word when it is used as the self-description adopted by some atheists) folk than I (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al) explaining and answering the anti-scientific assertions of believers. But so far, everyone I have read comes up with unnecessarily long and involved answers to the question of the origin of morality. Yet this appears to me to be one of the easiest problems to explain, hardly a problem at all (though the believers will never accept it, naturally).

I see morals and morality to be an obvious product of the evolution of gregarious species. Every gregarious species which depends on the cooperation of member individuals for group survival (and thus, individual reproduction) from ants and bees, to herd and pack animals both prey and predator, to ape and to humans, every such species has evolved a code of conduct. Whether it is an almost entirely instinctual division of labor among the simplest critters, a pecking order, a hierarchy of dominance, and finally, our own morals and manners, these behaviors developed and evolved to aid our cooperative effort to survive, prosper, reproduce. In short, morality is profoundly a product of evolution.

Simple as that, or so it seems to a dumb blue-collar guy like me. Why don't I see the book authors and magazine (the skeptic and humanist mags) columnists giving this answer? Or am I wrong?

[The Grand Nudger]

The difficulty is in determining the specifics. Whilst we can imagine any generality to be possible (such as any of your examples), that's not exactly equivalent to explaining something. Even in your example of simple divisions of labor one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved?

We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). Still just conjecture unless we can pin down specifics. There is also a growing trend to explain things by way of causes, and not cause. Maybe there are a lot of variables in the morality question? That's why it's a difficult question. Morality doesn't leave fossils.

[Smitty]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']

. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)

Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.

(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)

Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.

Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.

I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.

---

[quote='Smitty' pid='244758' dateline='1330199727']
[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']

. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)

Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.

(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)

Not the way I'd put it (although the argument for evolution does have an unavoidable circular quality to it). First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.

Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.

I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.
[/quote]

---

What's going on here, why won't it print the text of my reply?

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']

. . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved?

[quote='Rhythm' pid='244482' dateline='1330156065']

Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.

(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)

Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.

Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.

I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.

I hope the thread posts this time . . .

---

I'm having a devil of a time posting here . . .

(Quote). . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)

Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.

(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)

Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.

Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.

I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.

---

I'm having a devil of a time getting this to post . . .

(Quote) . . . one could ask why this behavior emerged? What purpose did it serve for that creature, how was this purposes achieved and how was "critical social mass" if you will- the point at which morality shows benefits, achieved? (end quote)

Glad to get a response! As to "why," I don't see how this is different from the "why" of any particular evolved physical charactoristic. "It was useful in a particular time, place, and context, so it tended to be selected for," would be my answer.

(Quote) We could also take the stance that the various "moralities" of any given animal are the product only of what remains (IE-the really violent/immoral shit kept ending up dead whilst the nice/moral things survived). (end quote)

Not the way I'd put it. First, what kept ending up dead was generally what was seen as uncooperative in a way that the group percieved as threatening group survival or well-being. Such a "judgement" might have led to an individual being ostracized by the group or getting a smaller share of the food, or ultimately, not getting laid and reproducing. The particulars of evolution are often a problem for believers; how do you explain the absurdly-inconvenient antlers of the Cenozoic Irish Elk but as the whimsical creation of God? But they are easily explained: the gals thought they were hot, and the bearers of such antlers got laid. In a rather similar fashion you can answer the particulars of morality, which to a great extent is not universal but culturally relative. Why will a father murder a beloved daughter who lies with a man who is not her father's choice for her, in some Middle Eastern cultures? As abominable as such a thing seems to us, it is an intensely moral stance for the father, who could hardly overcome his misery and countenance murder without it being an inescapable moral imperative. A believer (here) will try to kill this idea with an over-simplification: " . . . so the father is going to get laid more often because he kills his daughter, is that it??!!" Who knows, seems unlikely, but the evolution of physical traits most often can't be observed in immediate, case-by-case, cause-and-effect transactions, either. And to arrive at why the particular moral imperative evolved, in the particular culture, time, place, etc., you would be dealing with the product of a lot of variables, as you say.

Why do all birds have bills? Any Darwinian rejects the notion that God said "Shuh-ZAAMM!!" and made 'em that way, and knows that the evidence currently points to birds having evolved from some early Jurassic dinosaurian that had jaws and teeth . . . and would agree that the short answer is that it is explained by who survived and got laid and who didn't get laid, and ultimately by the survival of the genes of the ones who got laid. Morals aren't selected for genetically, and they weren't handed down on stone tablets by God, either, yet every gregarious species has its code of conduct because willful selfishness and disregard of others disrupts the group, threatening prosperity if not survival.

I'm repeating myself, so will come back to see what you think.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Stephen Pinker's book "The Better Angels of our Nature" talks about the evolution of morality and suggests some reasons for it. For example business is a thing that works to civilize a society. Instead of surviving by raiding from other groups like wild animals do, humans learned that trade created win win situations. Therefore things that foster trade, things like law and order, learning how to set aside differences for a common goal, protocol, even road building also work to civilize a group of people. With the process of civilizing comes the development of morality. I wish I could go into this further but it's a long subject. I suggest you read the book.

Anyway, people somehow attribute morality with the teachings in some sort of holy book but, if you look at it, these holy books are interpreted things. These interpretations (doctrines) change over time (though those in the religion rarely admit it). The question is, what caused the religious people to reinterpret their holy books? I say that, as morality evolved, the doctrines had to be adjusted in order to remain relevant. If this is true than morality does not come from any holy book, it evolves over time. What caused this evolution are things in a civilization (things mentioned much better in Stephen Pinker's book).

Religions are good at enforcing a moral code. This sort of enforcement does not lend itself very well to change thus they are usually behind the times.

That's my take on the situation, feel free to pick it apart. I don't think it's bullshit but it might be.

[The Grand Nudger]

I love his theory that we were selected to speak, and that we don't speak merely by happy accident. Any theory or research that erodes the massive amount of "happy accidents" we contemplate in earnest does more work in eradicating the very notion of providence than almost anything else.

[Smitty]

As I've told "Rhythm" in a PM, I had some wierd problem in trying to post to this site, something to do with quotes.

I've read some Pinker, what a mind the man has, but not that book, yet.

My notion is that morality and manners are a product of evolutionary pressure on individuals within gregarious species to "get along" in the interest of their own individual well-being (access to food, social standing, opportunities to mate) BECAUSE getting along serves the interests of the group. This doesn't mean that we can look at a specific example of morality or manners and figure out an evolutionary sequence for it. Oh, sometimes we can for very simple things. The custom or manner of shaking right hands, as we've all read, likely derives from the fact that it formerly showed willingness to temporarily take one's "sword-hand" out of play. The widespread moral injunction against incest surely came about to avoid the likelihood of genetically-defective offspring. But many or most moral injuctions are both specific to cultures and arose from far too many antecedant factors to even guess at an evolutionary lineage. I'm not interested in tracing particulars, and do not think it is even necessary in order to say that codes of conduct come not from God but from the needs of cooperative species both simple and complex. Pack-hunters such as wolves MUST have brains which are maleable for the learning of cooperative behaviors. Individuals that do not have such brains will tend to be selected out of the gene pool. Solitary-hunters such as some of the felines probably do not have very socially-maleable brains. As "Rhythm" pointed out to me, and as Pinker has explained at length, the most modern methods of examining the physical brain are uncovering structure, connections, and chemical compounds that enable our complex socialization. How can these not be yet more evidence of evolution?

[Minimalist]

how to answer believers who think that morality can only come from God

Actually, its quite easy.




History is smeared with the crimes of jesus freaks and their fucking "morality."

[DeistPaladin]

I can assure you this topic has been fully explored ad neuseum with various apologists. I seem to remember one 50 some odd page thread where I try to reason with Waldork about the social contract and how morality is a function of our empathy with other sentient beings, arguments he neither seemed to understand nor find more elucidating on the topic of metaethics than "GodWillsIt".

The argument (and it's variants like TAG) has many flaws, ranging from the spurious assumption that "a god" must mean "Jesus" to the completely vapid nature of the assertion God(Verb)It. In a nutshell, here's how these arguments work:

1. Ask some abstract philosophical "why" question
2. Offer "God(Verb)It" as your answer (GodWillsIt, GodDidIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc.)
3. Feel smug and say "nyeth nyeth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus"

And this is as close to rational as the asylum of Christianity can be.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've told "Rhythm" in a PM, I had some wierd problem in trying to post to this site, something to do with quotes.

I've read some Pinker, what a mind the man has, but not that book, yet.

My notion is that morality and manners are a product of evolutionary pressure on individuals within gregarious species to "get along" in the interest of their own individual well-being (access to food, social standing, opportunities to mate) BECAUSE getting along serves the interests of the group. This doesn't mean that we can look at a specific example of morality or manners and figure out an evolutionary sequence for it. Oh, sometimes we can for very simple things. The custom or manner of shaking right hands, as we've all read, likely derives from the fact that it formerly showed willingness to temporarily take one's "sword-hand" out of play. The widespread moral injunction against incest surely came about to avoid the likelihood of genetically-defective offspring. But many or most moral injuctions are both specific to cultures and arose from far too many antecedant factors to even guess at an evolutionary lineage. I'm not interested in tracing particulars, and do not think it is even necessary in order to say that codes of conduct come not from God but from the needs of cooperative species both simple and complex. Pack-hunters such as wolves MUST have brains which are maleable for the learning of cooperative behaviors. Individuals that do not have such brains will tend to be selected out of the gene pool. Solitary-hunters such as some of the felines probably do not have very socially-maleable brains. As "Rhythm" pointed out to me, and as Pinker has explained at length, the most modern methods of examining the physical brain are uncovering structure, connections, and chemical compounds that enable our complex socialization. How can these not be yet more evidence of evolution?

Minor correction with regards to incest. It isn't so much that there is a high likelihood of genetic defect, but that selection seems to favor populations of organisms which draw widely from their total possible gene pool (especially if they can extend it to hybridization). This touches on heterosis or "hybrid vigour". Ideally, you want your mate to be as unlike you as possible while still being able to procreate with you (our entire ag system is based upon this btw). This may be the origin of incest taboos. Conjecture.

(it would be more appropriate to say that this is a mechanism whereby a creature that lacks interest in incest, or views it as less than preferable would have a competitive advantage, and that advantage would express itself in surviving populations, perhaps -in the case of ourselves; very social and highly evolved intellectually speaking- as "taboo")

[DeistPaladin]

ADD: here it is, the 52 page thread where I and others here tried to patiently explain to Waldork why presuppositional apologetics fails.

Turn to http://atheistforums.org/thread-8159-post-166727.html#pid166727 and wade through as much as you dare to subject your mind to.