Evolution cannot account for morality

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ah, I think I understand. Evolution is merely a process that we attribute to life and there is no indication that evolution could ever apply to anything else. 

The theory of evolution applies to life and nothing else. Abiogenesis is not the same theory. Stellar formation is not the same theory. Even if the word evolution could be applied to anything (the evolution of music) these are not the same thing.

[Brian37]

If we are going with goddidit then I assume he(?) was sampling some herb or other botanical when coming up with the platypus. May have made it out of leftover parts.

When I think of the "God did it" gap answer, I think of a dog left in a house too long who ends up tearing up the house because you didn't give it enough attention.

[Anomalocaris]

The statement “evolution can not account for morality” is as shallow, nonsensical, ignorant and insipid as “evolution can not account for my farting in front of my in-laws at 6:30pm”.

evolution made it possible for me to be able to fart.  evolution made a in-law relationship  feasible and desirable, from a certain point of view.   why I have these particular set of in-laws, why i was with them and why I farted at this particular time is largely up to the contingent circumstances of that day of my life.  

So it is with morality.  evolution made it feasible for us to have morality.  evolution selected a slight preference for reciprocity in what morality appeals by giving populations which holds it amongst themselves an survival advantage.   It is contingent circumstances of our culture that made us think we have some special morality.

[Belacqua]

It's easy to accept that the way humans evolved resulted in us having morality.

What I don't see yet is why evolution would necessarily result in us having any particular morality. I mean, it would be nice to think that natural selection favors societies in which everyone lives happily together and shares resources. But is there any scientific evidence that this is true? Maybe strong DNA is more effectively passed down if one or two tough guys enslave harems and rape them to produce lots of babies.

Is there any empirical, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that evolution gives rise to the kind of morality that we happen to like?

[Ahriman]

It's easy to accept that the way humans evolved resulted in us having morality.

What I don't see yet is why evolution would necessarily result in us having any particular morality. I mean, it would be nice to think that natural selection favors societies in which everyone lives happily together and shares resources. But is there any scientific evidence that this is true? Maybe strong DNA is more effectively passed down if one or two tough guys enslave harems and rape them to produce lots of babies.

Is there any empirical, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that evolution gives rise to the kind of morality that we happen to like?

Now that's a model I can get behind.

[Jehanne]

It's easy to accept that the way humans evolved resulted in us having morality.

What I don't see yet is why evolution would necessarily result in us having any particular morality. I mean, it would be nice to think that natural selection favors societies in which everyone lives happily together and shares resources. But is there any scientific evidence that this is true? Maybe strong DNA is more effectively passed down if one or two tough guys enslave harems and rape them to produce lots of babies.

Is there any empirical, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that evolution gives rise to the kind of morality that we happen to like?

As I said earlier, the rise of agriculture at the dawn of the Neolithic era demanded cooperation between larger and larger groups of human beings. More humans resulted in a greater likelihood of an infant surviving to reproductive age. Instead of 9 out of 10 human infants perishing in the 1st year of life, maybe only 1 out of 2 did. As cooperation aided survival, that genetic trait was passed down. Remember that infanticide occurred all throughout the Paleolithic and Mesolithic eras, and so, infants and small children who lacked amenable traits were simply abandoned or killed by their parents or other kin. To survive in that era, an infant or young child needed to cooperate with Mom & Dad.

[Paleophyte]

It's easy to accept that the way humans evolved resulted in us having morality.

What I don't see yet is why evolution would necessarily result in us having any particular morality. I mean, it would be nice to think that natural selection favors societies in which everyone lives happily together and shares resources. But is there any scientific evidence that this is true? Maybe strong DNA is more effectively passed down if one or two tough guys enslave harems and rape them to produce lots of babies.

A few guys with harems wouldn't do it. More likely you're looking at a lot of soldiers doing the whole rape and pillage thing for several millennia. And a lot less organized general rapiness for a few million years before that.

Is there any empirical, repeatable, quantifiable evidence that evolution gives rise to the kind of morality that we happen to like?

You're looking at competing drives here. Biologically we optimize for one solution, socially we optimize for another. And of course there are numerous stable solutions for many problems. Is it any wonder that we're a crazed little species? One might predict that this state of affairs would give rise to a whole slew of different cultures with core commonalities and near infinite variety around the edges, which is exactly what we see.

In the special case of rape we're almost certainly evolved to find it even more traumatic than it clearly is. The selection pressure is for the strongest women who resist the most to breed only with the strongest, rapiest men, so nature hardwires in some extra emotional pain and suffering to help ensure that's how it goes down. This is what we observe in ducks and they know nothing of morality. No room in their tiny, smooth birdy brains for that. Nature's a real Mother some times.

[Belacqua]

[...]

And of course there are numerous stable solutions for many problems. Is it any wonder that we're a crazed little species? One might predict that this state of affairs would give rise to a whole slew of different cultures with core commonalities and near infinite variety around the edges, which is exactly what we see.

[...]

Yes, this seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Perhaps it's a bit like language acquisition. Each baby is born with no language, but with a capacity to pick one up quite quickly. Which one he acquires depends on who he's with. Then if he doesn't have one by a certain age we'd say there's some deficit involved.

Likewise with morality. We are evolved to pick up some set of standards that align us with our immediate society. But what those standards are depend entirely on when and where we're born. 

Some societies emphasize cooperation and empathy, while others prefer competition. Both are natural, and both came about, indirectly, through evolution. 

That's my guess.

[Pat Mustard]

This may of course be too much to ask of the social deviant though. The persons who have hidden agendas, malicious intentions, etc. Someone with a hidden agenda is not interested in proper discourse.

Talking about yourself in public is not a very good habit.

[Pat Mustard]

If we are going with goddidit then I assume he(?) was sampling some herb or other botanical when coming up with the platypus. May have made it out of leftover parts.

As Pterry Pratchett was fond of writing "why the duck-billed platypus?"