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.

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...whatsoever, just a trend in the behavior of the population -which remains-.

Do you object to my use of the term 'Darwinism' on the grounds that it is inaccurate and outdated (which I concede it is, somewhat), or that it a term established within the lexicon of your Christian fundamentalist enemies? It may well be the case that in the United States, bedeviled as you are by creationists on every front, the word 'Darwinism' has distinctly negative connotations. 

However, I'm not from the USA, I'm from the United Kingdom. Creationism is a virtually nonexistent (or at least, extremely docile) ideology, and 'Darwinism' is almost never used as a pejorative term. The State Church, the Church of England, reconciled itself to Darwin's theory some time ago. There is no up-swell of Christian fundamentalism to appropriate and dirty-up the word 'Darwinism', as there is where you're from. You are at liberty to discard it if you choose. I don't think I will, it seems somewhat pedantic, and it is tolerably known what I am referring to when I use it.

[The Grand Nudger]

We -could- call it Jerry (rather than Modern Synth or Darwinism). : shrugs :

 Did you have any thoughts regarding the portion of my response directed at answering the question of whether or not Jerry can account for our behaviors?

[Minimalist]

but the argument is often made that the yardstick with which modern societies quantify 'goodness' is inherited from the religious worldview.

The religious make many absurd arguments.  So what?

[Aaran]

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).

That's an excellent post, thank you.

I regret having inferred that everything constituting the moral system of any given society is derived from natural selection.  The human intellect is quite liberated from the confines of instinct, and this is what furnishes people with the ability to conjecture on the morality/immorality of things like making lewd remarks, which can't really be addressed from the perspective of evolution.

[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).

That's an excellent post, thank you.

I hope I didn't infer that everything constituting the moral system of any given society is derived from natural selection.  The human intellect is quite liberated from the confines of instinct, and this is what furnishes people with the ability to conjecture on the morality/immorality of things like making lewd remarks, which can't really be addressed from the perspective of evolution.

The most annoying thing is when creationists ask a fascile question like "If evolution and survival of the fittest is true, why should we help the needy/why shouldn't we kill people with disabilities/etc etc." They view Darwinism as some sort of proscriptive code, instead of simply the biological mechanisms through which we arrived at our current state of genetic diversity. You might not hear that line of argument much in the UK, but I can't tell you the number of times I've been asked "why be good, if we're all just animals and only the fittest should survive?", along with the attendent comparisons to nazi eugenics and the like.

[Aaran]

We -could- call it Jerry (rather than Modern Synth or Darwinism).  : shrugs :

 Did you have any thoughts regarding the portion of my  response directed at answering the question of whether or not Jerry can account for our behaviors?

I don't think the comparison is fair. Approach any person on the street and attempt to engage them on the topic of 'Darwinism', and they will know exactly what you are talking about.

If, however, someone tried to elicit my opinion on 'Jerry' I don't think I could be criticized for questioning the mental balance of my interviewer. 

I didn't say anything about the other portion of your response because I took no objection to it. I agreed with you completely.

[The Grand Nudger]

As -I- question the knowledge of anyone who refers to Modern Synth.......as "Darwinism" (you see, even generously taken "darwinism" simply -isn't- the theory of evolution, only a part of it, making your question just a -tad bit- nonsensical if you wanted to know whether or not evolutionary theory can account for morality).  

But, in the end, as I said, "that which we call a rose".

[Aaran]

but the argument is often made that the yardstick with which modern societies quantify 'goodness' is inherited from the religious worldview.

The religious make many absurd arguments.  So what?

I wasn't iterating that under the impression that it was a perfectly reasonable counterbalance to the argument from natural selection. 

Of course its silly. But hearing it still turned my thoughts to the alternatives.

[Thackerie]

What the hell is "Darwinism"???? A 19th century religious movement that worshipped Charles Darwin?

Or just a phrase uttered by utterly ignorant fundigelicals in an ignorant attempt to ridicule evolution?

I didn't think a respectable atheist would ever use that term.

[FatAndFaithless]

Err...

From wikipedia..

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

I mean, I know creationists hear the "ism" at the end and immediately consider it a worldview/ideology/religion, but it's a legitimate term coined by Huxley himself.