Can Darwinism account for morality?

[Aaran]

Hi,

I've been reading the depressingly interminable Brothers Karamazov  by Dostoevsky for some time now. One of the ideas that keeps returning is that "If god is dead, then everything is permissible". 

The simple fact that the godless are just as capable of demonstrating empathy and goodness as the devout turns that notion on its head, but the argument is often made that the yardstick with which modern societies quantify 'goodness' is inherited from the religious worldview. An accretion from the thousands of years of religious ascendancy.

This led me to wonder whether there was any scientific explanation for the development of the moral compass in humans. Could it have been that social cohesion was advantageous to our distant ancestors, and therefore a distinguishing factor in natural selection? Social cohesion is after all, only possible if the individuals who constitute a population are mindful of the well-being of those around them. 

I'm not hugely familiar with Darwin. My hope is that somebody who can claim otherwise might shed some light on this issue, that is, the emergence of morality - from an evolutionary perspective. 

Thank you.

[Alex K]

Yes, that's absolutely the case. We evolved as a social species for the past few million years, and that leaves its traces.

As an aside, I think the fact that one cares for members of one's family and peer group can also be understood in terms of Dawkins' selfish gene picture, where genes which promote benevolence towards other members of the tribe become more successful because they protect their copies in other individuals in the group and aid their replication. As a consequence of this, random kindness towards other individuals which are not closely related could also merely be an accidental side effect of this evolved protection of relatives, in addition to Darwinian selection for social skills which you propose.

[abaris]

If some of you guys would actually look up recent cognition and empathy experiments with higher animals, the question needn't be asked. And yet it always raises it's ugly head in one form or another.

I'm not adressing you personally, OP, but the shitstorm that's already on the horizon, given the nature of the question.

[FatAndFaithless]

Let's just be careful with our wording on this topic, because sometimes I feel that people overreach when discussing morality and evolution.

It's no doubt that the base drives and feelings we have (empathy, protection of family and friends, cooperation being desirable, etc) have emerged through our evolution as a social species. But I sometimes encounter people who try to address any moral issue we have today from an evolutionary perspective, and I find their arguments pretty terrible. Our moral and legal systems today have been designed (intelligently designed, one might say~) by us and our predecessors for the millenia that human societies have existed.

Many times our intrinsic and natural instincts or feelings about a situation (bred by evolution in a social species) would be considered immoral if we were to act on those reactive feelings. For example, I'm sure anyone here has been in a situation where they've been angry enough that they've desired to punch the asshat that's making you so angry (a natural reaction, animals fight all the damn time), but I'd also wager that most of us here would agree that reacting with violence towards speech is immoral.

Our moral and legal systems might draw from a common pool of natural evolved instincts or feelings, but in many situations we create systems in order to discourage some of those natural reactions (territorialism, tribalism, aggression, etc).

[Nope]

I think that this is a question that really bothers many theists. Perhaps we can have a sticky that outlines the majority of views here so that we can direct the new comer to it.

[Alex K]

A valid point, FAF, pop evo psych is plagued by armchair adaptationalism and overinterpretation of cultural traits as biological. I didn't intend in my post to go as far as to imply that all of morality is simply a product of our evolution, which is pretty obviously not so when one considers how drastically ideas about morality differ between cultures and times.

[FatAndFaithless]

A valid point, FAF, pop evo psych is plagued by armchair adaptationalism and overinterpretation of cultural traits as biological. I didn't want to go as far as to imply that all of morality is simply a product of our evolution, which is pretty obviously not so when one considers how drastically ideas about morality differ between cultures and times.

Evo psych is exactly what I was thinking about when I made that post.

[abaris]

But the foundations were already laid out by being a social species. No social species can survive without a set of rules to make the pack or community work and live together.

The rest is civilization.

[Alex K]

Erm, I mean adaptiationism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hi,

I've been reading the depressingly interminable Brothers Karamazov  by Dostoevsky for some time now. One of the ideas that keeps returning is that "If god is dead, then everything is permissible". 

The simple fact that the godless are just as capable of demonstrating empathy and goodness as the devout turns that notion on its head, but the argument is often made that the yardstick with which modern societies quantify 'goodness' is inherited from the religious worldview. An accretion from the thousands of years of religious ascendancy.

This led me to wonder whether there was any scientific explanation for the development of the moral compass in humans. Could it have been that social cohesion was advantageous to our distant ancestors, and therefore a distinguishing factor in natural selection? Social cohesion is after all, only possible if the individuals who constitute a population are mindful of the well-being of those around them. 

I'm not hugely familiar with Darwin. My hope is that somebody who can claim otherwise might shed some light on this issue, that is, the emergence of morality - from an evolutionary perspective. 

Thank you.

Modern Synth, not "darwinism".  Darwinism...is what ignorant creatards call Modern Synth.  If you're asking whether not evolutionary theory can account for our "moral compass"......such as why we don't go around killing every other human being we meet......well, how many of us do you think would be here  if that was how we behaved? What state would we find the enterprise of humanity in, for those few which had escaped the axe while delivering it many times?  

We are what remains, so...yeah, it can, at a fundamental level, even with no -actual- "moral compass" involved..., just a trend in the behavior of the population -which remains- (which could change.......at any time, and -has- changed many times.. of course).