Evolution cannot account for morality

[Astreja]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Morality comes from a small village in Bavaria (Moralterburrgen, pop. 622) and was invented in 1292 by a cobbler named Pieter Derflingerschloppenhausen, who was tired of being murdered by his neighbours. Once he invented morality, he never got murdered anymore.

Boru

[Belacqua]

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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

The trouble with a scientific analysis of the effects of moral behaviour is that, in science, you first have to define your terms. Since morality seems inextricably linked to culture, you can’t use the same parameters to study Genghis Khan’s behaviour that you would use to study that of your neighborhood philanderer.

Boru

[Jehanne]

Human civilization arose, perhaps, due to the discovery of fermentation (and, with it, booze & sex, plus, offspring) which fuelled the rise of agriculture. With grain came the need to store the grain, guard it and to account for it, along with moral codes of who gets access to it, and when. Gradually, the whole of government and civilization arose over food growth, storage and distribution, and with such, moral codes & laws, along with the institutionalized priesthood who created the myths and legends of organized religion.

[brewer]

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?

Humans made god and morals. A god was needed as an enforcer/reward fulfiller.

[chiknsld]

1. Morality is a human construct through its strongly founded on pro-social instincts and traits and yes intelligence is an evolutionary trait. But the way you were phrasing it in your original comment you made it sound as though evolution was some form of prescriptive doctrine. Which it is not.

2. Abiogenesis is a separate process from evolution so yes it makes perfect sense.

3. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or life and complexity is simply the gradual development of life from simpler forms. Evolution is some form of god it's simply population mechanics, And cells don't have instructions it's merely chemistry and it's complex because it's had billions of years to develop and countless failed attempts.

What makes more sense?

a) Matter undergoes complexity under the power of evolution leading up to life and then life undergoes mutation. 

or

b) Matter undergoes complexity randomly, then turns to life randomly, then life undergoes mutation because of evolution. 

Try thinking about it  Which one makes more sense?

[chiknsld]

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?

Humans made god and morals. A god was needed as an enforcer/reward fulfiller.

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.

[brewer]

1. Morality is a human construct through its strongly founded on pro-social instincts and traits and yes intelligence is an evolutionary trait. But the way you were phrasing it in your original comment you made it sound as though evolution was some form of prescriptive doctrine. Which it is not.

2. Abiogenesis is a separate process from evolution so yes it makes perfect sense.

3. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or life and complexity is simply the gradual development of life from simpler forms. Evolution is some form of god it's simply population mechanics, And cells don't have instructions it's merely chemistry and it's complex because it's had billions of years to develop and countless failed attempts.

What makes more sense?

a) Matter undergoes complexity under the power of evolution leading up to life and then life undergoes mutation. 

or

b) Matter undergoes complexity randomly, then turns to life randomly, then life undergoes mutation because of evolution. 

Try thinking about it  Which one makes more sense?

Neither.

[brewer]

Humans made god and morals. A god was needed as an enforcer/reward fulfiller.

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.