Hello, again. It's been some time since we last talked, but I've done research.
I talked to a very smart guy, and he pointed out that in the evolutionary scenario you've laid out, it's not about morality, as in right and wrong, it's about power!
It's about the strong deciding what they think is right, with no moral weight, because evolution gives it no weight to the right or the wrong, only what is best to survive.
Oh. Well, mammals often have an Alpha male who saunters about the place having the power. That does not mean the group can't work together, though. It also doesn't mean that the Alpha male can do as he wants. It's simply not benefitial to be a homicidal maniac towards your own group members. It's more benefitial to be altruistic. I think I've said that last bit before. I suppose I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what you're arguing/saying/asking.
What I'm saying is that, according to the theory of Evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
Morality is subjective, as in, decided by the strong, with no objective weight behind it.
In the case of a serial killer, it isn't a matter or right and wrong, it's a matter of how long he can carry out his version of morality in public before the stronger majority is able to force their morality on him.
So long as he is able to say he's right, without question, he is right.
Science can't decide whether or not there is objective morality. Evolution can't show it any more than gravity can make only bad people trip and not good people. Evolution concerns survival and reproduction, and it does explain how and why people and animals behave altruistically towards one another. That behaviour is not governed by objective laws or rules, but the evolutionary advantage of behaving a certain way as opposed to another. You have to explore philosophy to find objective morality.
No, I don't. I do believe that there are certain actions for given situations that cause less suffering to people than others, consistently. That's about as objective as it gets.
@smaakjeks wow..It seems apparent to me that with moralistic behavior, we "increase" our fitness collectively. In some instances, you DIE without social "moral recipocate behavior." Without this behavior, we're going to destroy the earth and each other in the long run. To me it's just that simple.
It's not my intention to be controversial........It just that it's blatantly obvious to me.
You are absolutely spot on. And indeed it is controversial, because by far and way the prevailing paradigm in biology is the selfish gene idea. I.e. all selection occurs at individual level or lower (chromosome, gene, base pair). It is thought that if selection above individual level (or "group selection") happens, it is too weak to matter. It's a very heated topic nowadays. Anyway, altruism is a mechanism that in theory works to bring selection up to group level. Cont...
In other words, altruistic groups do better than selfish groups. There's a lot of theoretical and experimental research into this, with different premises and results, with varying degrees of merit. What you might want to read is the work by Hamilton (1964), specifically Hamilton's rule. Group selection applies as a derivative of that rule. Yes, the basics for group selection are THAT old, yet we're still bogged down by stubborn biologists who think it's all about genes.
@smaakjeks Check out Robert Sapolski's research with a babboon troup in regard to the Alpha male. VERY interesting. I'm sure I butchered his name with that spelling;)
On an aside, would you discuss "behavior strategies" outside of kin as the environment changes? Look at how our monetary system is causing billions to starve...and how altruistic people are merging in different groups to counter it or provide solultions. Please tell me what you think....
I usually stay away from social primate research as it is quite rife with.... dodgy conclusions. But I may check it out when I get the time. Very, very busy lately with my masters degree.
Behaviour strategies outside of kin? Well, there are a number of models concerning apparent altruism. It seems that you're asking if we are too altruistic for our selfish good. I would say yes. Humans are hyper-altruistic. We are the only species that DEFINITELY conducts in reciprocal altruism.
The one about um... hold on... *scroll scroll scroll*.... A utopian society. Um, I see now that you may have meant utopian as perfect, desirable society. Anyway, my point is that it's a new environment vs. slow working evolution. I explained in my previous comment (about us being genetically similar to our African tribal ancestors). That's what the condom simile was about. We haven't adapted to the abundance of chocolate either, so many of us get fat.
"Heh...I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here...."
Our societies are young. Too young for much behaviour to be altered by evolution. In other words, we haven't changed much genetically since we lived in small tribes in Africa. But our societies have (for the most part). Dawkins goes on to divide evolution and society up in genetic memory, and society's learned memory. Ideas are inherited as well as genes. Ideas like slavery/genocide/torture = bad.
"Dang. I didn't think you'd actually say that. =P"
Hehe, I don't think we should, mind you. I answered strictly in terms of cost and benefit (the parameters of evolution of behaviour), which is the sense I thought you meant it in. And so it is possible that a society that goes Spartan could be more succesful (like a nation that inforces in slavery might), we don't want to live in such a society. Our behaviour is dependent upon more than genes, which is something I should have said earlier.
"I think I see what you're saying....things that feel good are good/essential, and things that make you feel bad are bad?"
In broad terms, yes. But remember, evolution can be slow to pick up on changes in environment. In the past when food was much more scarse, it was advantageous for us to pig out once we found food, so we could store it as fat for rainy days. Today, that's not so good. Health problems relating with diet top the mortality list in industrial nations.
"But obviously not everyone thinks that. Is it possible to live in a threat-free society?"
We are still subject to variation. Be it in height, strength or agressiveness. Most murders are crimes of passion. We have been SO wronged that the mental prohibitors that enable us to go "hey, wait" when we get an impulse simply aren't enough. I imagine a neurologist would know more about that. Other times, as with serial killers or sociopaths, it's basically a malfunctoning brain.
"What happens to the kin while the trait is developing?"
You mean over evolutionary time, right? The kin in the population as a demographic. Well, there are some animals out there that don't raise or protect their young at all. Many fish, for example, will release eggs and sperm into the water, and that's that. However, there are also many fish that protect their young early after hatching. It depends on what we call the species' life history. I can explain more about life history if you like.
Nope. Everything that causes suffering (you know, apart from medicine & necessary suffering like that) is wrong. Why I feel this way is because I don't want to see people suffer (proximate cause). Why our ancestors historically feel this way - especially with one's own group - is what we've been talking about (ultimate cause).
"Creationism is right, then?"
Oh, hehe. No, nothing is morally right or wrong in science.
To our instinct, we are still in small, tribal communities (like we have been for much longer than in huge cities). Just like our instinct is still at the level where sex = mating success. A condom doesn't alter the pleasure, but it sure alters the result. Following your argument, a condom should make sex completely pleasureless. Evolution is much slower than the change in our societies, and our inventions. Therefore we can bypass it, and use our brain to defy it if we want to.
But, you make a very interesting point. I'm going to check out if social animals act any less protective (at all) with older members of their group. If the research is there, of course.
"If we are here only to survive and reproduce, we *should* murder those that get in our way of having an utopian society"
Perhaps. But if we evolved with the desire to protect our group, we wouldn't want to. A large society like we have today is only a few thousand years old. Evolution has not adapted us to it.
"(...) She would be dragging the group down in survival of the fittest."
Evolution isn't always as precise as what you describe above. For example, a trait would have to develop that makes one protect one's kin before they reproduce (assuming that's easy to know), and to then subsequently ignore them after. Then you have factors like high mortality anyway (so no need to manually get them to croak), and the fact that in intelligent social animals, the elderly can teach the young.
In science, nothing is wrong. How we act around people is just another adaptive trait. Therefore right or wrong doesn't apply to evolution or ethology. Need it be objectively wrong for us to refrain from doing it?
Murder has been detrimental to our survival and reproductive success. Otherwise we would not be social animals. In the past we've relied on sticking together to survive. That means murder is not cool.
Once there is selective pressure behaviour can change to increase repr. success of the population. Why does sex feel good? Should it feel good in an objective sense? Nope. But since it's been essential to reproduce, it has been benefitial for that act to cause pleasure. In the same sense, acting in a way that in evolutionary scale has proven itself to be detrimental now feels bad. Standing at a ledge makes you feel bad too. We have called our behavioural restrictions against each other morality.
So we have a rule of behaviour that if you come near my (hypothetical) kids with the intent of harming them, I'll not let you. You would have the same rule for me. So if we live together in a group, it's benefitial to not be a threat to each other. Otherwise, I'd have to spend energy on guarding against my groupmembers constantly. Peaceful families would then be more successful at working together in peace with other families. Selective pressure.
But the tendency to look out for family members could spill over into looking out for our group. Evolution follows from adaptive pressure. So if kin protection is benefitial (adaptive pressure), but there is no detrimental effect to protecting one's group (lack of adaptive pressure), the tendency of kin protection might spill over. Spillover is proposed in other behaviour as well, for example sexual cannibalism in spiders resulting from advantageous agressive behaviour at juvenile stages.
Kin selection. We behave in a way that preserves our survival, right? That's because we want to live so we can reproduce and pass on our genes. Well, we have genes in common with our siblings (50%). Making sure they survive is benefitial to our genes' survival in evolutionary scale.
"Why?"
A likely cause is something ethologists call spillover. Kin selection is most definitely advantageous.
It's not the purpose. Nature dictates no purpose. It's just what happens. Those with higher reproductive success get to pass on more of their genes, and become more typical in the future populations. Finding a purpose is not within the scope of science. Nature doesn't give a toss about us, so we have to find our own purpose in life, whether it is to seek knowledge, achieve happiness, explore philosophies, etc. or a combination. I hope you find yours.
"Question - how do you know that about evolutionary time?"
I meant as in the scale. Over the course of evolution, it would be detrimental to be a selfish douche to your peers. What I mean is, selfish douches would have less chance of surviving (because they'd be outcasts), whereas those who reciprocated and cooperated would be accepted and gain mating privileges.
"Okay, so everything's about society?"
When it comes down to brass taxes, everything is about reproductive success.
"Uuuh....this video proved nothing to me... Why is murder considered wrong?"
We wouldn't in general trust other people if murder were okay. Society would break down if we did. And not just human societies. In evolutionary time, the peaceful cooperative individuals survived because of the advantages of teamwork. Non-cooperative individuals were cast out for not helping. This happens in many animal societies.
I agree that there is an evolutionary advantage for altruism. However altruism in animals is instinctive, while in humans it has to be learned. What advantage ( evolutionary or otherwise) would it be for humans to choose whether they behave altruistically or not?
"I agree that there is an evolutionary advantage for altruism. However altruism in animals is instinctive, while in humans it has to be learned."
That's a false dichotomy, because the alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. Our conscience is not learned, for example. We have a certain part of the brain dedicated to understanding how other people feel. These cells are called mirror cells. When these cells don't develop properly, you get a sociopath.
"People who don't understand how others feel? Autism rather than sociopaths?"
Autism has a broad diagnosis spectrum. It is a brain disorder, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong with the mind. A sociopath is one who in principle doesn't understand that other people are just that. They are experts at manipulating and exploiting people. Some of them become cult members or serial killers.
"What advantage ( evolutionary or otherwise) would it be for humans to choose whether they behave altruistically or not?"
Well, you must be able to remember who hasn't treated you nicely. Evolution favors a tit-for-tat response in altruism/betrayal. Also, all animals, including humans, can be exploitive. If we think we can get away with something that's wrong, we might just do it. There are advantages to that.
Thanks for your answer. The ultimate altruistic behaviour in humans is possibly dying for someone else, for example a bodyguard throwing himself in the path of a bullet. Neither his genes are passed on, nor does he have any tit for that advantage. Why do it then?
"Thanks for your answer. The ultimate altruistic behaviour in humans is possibly dying for someone else (...) Neither his genes are passed on, nor does he have any tit for that advantage. Why do it then?"
I'm not sure why bodyguards do it. It may have to do with their training. Self sacrifice in principle does occur in nature, most often with one's kin. Altruism for the sake of one's relatives is called kin selection. There's a decent article on wikipedia about it. Google "kin selection".
I was reading back over the comments, and I noticed this statement you made:
"Just because evolution explains the origins of morality, does not mean we should adhere strictly to evolutionary principles of altruism when living together."
If we are not to hold to the morality originated by Evolution, what other standard for morality are we applying?
Like the issue of Euthanasia. By what standard is the preservation of the old encouraged? Definitely not by Evolution.
"If we are not to hold to the morality originated by Evolution, what other standard for morality are we applying?"
Evolution only provided us with rough tendencies for social behaviour. The rest is determined by what we agree on (we think) is the best for us all. We make social contracts (constitutions and laws) with our intelligence. Basically, I would not want to live anywhere where murder or rape were accepted.
"But why, along with our intelligence, would we have gained the will to "do good"?"
That's what I tried to explain with sex as an illustration. There is no objective need for altruism to make us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. But it definitely increases our chances of doing so, and so as social animals, that benefits us. The video explains the benefits of social behaviour.
"But his conversation is basically over while I work it through. When I have more information maybe we could take this up again."
Sure, no problem!
"Thanks for the civil discussion, by the way."
My pleasure. I'm a budding ethologist, so I'm more than happy to discuss issues of behaviour and altruism. Right now I'm reviewing the latest research on sexual cannibalism. And they say MEN aren't romantic...! *ba-dum-tshhh*
"According to the Evolutionary view of morality, people will tend to work together as a group only until there ceases to be a benefit to it."
No. Adaptive behaviour does not change in realtime. Behaviour and internal reward mechanisms (orgasm, for example) work by rules of thumb. Just ask yourself why sex still feels good even when using contraceptives. Because the reward mechanism is approximate. It's not triggered by fertilizing the egg, but just by the act of physical stimulation down there.
Whether a nation forms a democracy because of the benefit to the people, then disbands it when it turns to tyranny, or a group of students forms a study group until they disband it because of no further benefit, people form groups because of benefits.
Per your example: Sex would continue when the benefit of offspring or pleasure ceases.
Can you show me examples where groups are formed outside of any benefit, explained by the Evolutionary idea of morality?
Not evolutionary benefits, necessarily, but benefits that we have agreed upon rationally. You can't explain modern society with evolution (because our cultural evolution is much, much quicker). However, we are social (at all) because of evolution.
"Per your example: Sex would continue when the benefit of offspring or pleasure ceases."
What? I suspect you were a bit hasty when you wrote this.
"Sorry, I was a bit hasty. I meant "until" instead of "when"."
Yes, much better. But it still seems like you missed my point. Sex feels good BECAUSE it is advantageous. Just like getting wounded hurts. There is no objective reason why things should feel good or painful. These mechanisms have evolved because it has been advantageous. It has historically been adequate for physical stimulation to feel good (instead of fertilization directly).
I thought you said your point was that sex feels good because pleasure is a reward mechanism for carrying out the act, not because the act was advantageous.
"I thought you said your point was that sex feels good because pleasure is a reward mechanism for carrying out the act, not because the act was advantageous."
Sorry, it's hard to make myself clear with a 500 char. max. Things feel good/bad because they are benefitial or detrimental. That is the origins of pain/pleasure. But these mechanisms are sloppy. They are not necessarily selecting for the precise advantageous trait, but something that correlates well enough for selection to take place.
I think I see your point. My point is, pleasure, whether as a reward, or as an indicator as to whether sex is advantageous or not, is still a benefit, in and of itself.
And pain is not of itself detrimental. Pain is an indicator of injury, which is detrimental. But that was your point, wasn't it?
"I think I see your point. My point is, pleasure, whether as a reward, or as an indicator as to whether sex is advantageous or not, is still a benefit, in and of itself."
What do you then define as benefit? Your point seems rather circular from where I'm sitting.
"And pain is not of itself detrimental. Pain is an indicator of injury, which is detrimental. But that was your point, wasn't it?"
Exactly. And a deterrant for getting injured again.
I think there's a point that needs to be clarified in this conversation. There seems to be two usable definitions of "benefit".
I meant that pleasure derived from sex is considered a benefit by the persons involved.
That definition is defined by the person experiencing it, but something that feels beneficial is not necessarily going to be a benefit, both in the short and long runs.
That definition is defined by the person experiencing it, but something that feels beneficial is not necessarily going to be a benefit, both in the short and long runs."
Right. We are side tracking a bit now, though. My point was that the mechanism (orgasm) that increases our tendency to increase our fecundity is general (and in this case all but obsolete). The same applies to the tendencies of social behaviour.
Something will seem like a benefit according the experiences of a person or animal, but will not necessarily be a benefit according to the well-being or survival of the being.
"Something will seem like a benefit according the experiences of a person or animal, but will not necessarily be a benefit according to the well-being or survival of the being."
I agree.
"Which definition are you using?"
When discussing evolution, benefit is the absolute kind. The actually advantageous benefit. The above can be defined as perceived benefit. In the same way something tasty is pleasurable and therefore perceived as a benefit to experience.
"Would you define morality from an Evolutionary standpoint as creatures forming groups because if an increased chance of survival?"
Historically, yes. It's not like animals are statisticians or anything. They never decided to form groups, just like giraffes never decided to grow longer necks. The tendencies to accept, protect and assist other members of the population just spread in the population like any other advantageous trait.
"If that is the natural tendencies of all populations"
It's not, for several reasons. There are many animals that are not at all social, and some where only one gender is social. Different strategies for different life histories.
"then why do you not believe it applies to all group behavior?"
I already answered this (when you were typing this comment, proably). We have free will, or a close approximation to it, at least.
"Yes we have a free will. But we also have certain tendencies, instincts, and social pressures which would help define our actions."
Yep. We are programmed by nurture and nature.
"Could you define social dynamics for me, please?"
The interactions between individuals in a social population. Evolution works all the time, but at a lower resolution than at individual interactions. Social dynamics is affected by specific situations that have little effect on reproductive success or survival.
I see. But if our actions are in part defined by those tendencies, wouldn't they apply to social interaction as well?
If social population is a result of evolution, and the tendencies to form groups that perform a specific function also the result of evolution, wouldn't the actions of a social population in the situations you described also reflect evolutionary tendencies?
"I see. But if our actions are in part defined by those tendencies, wouldn't they apply to social interaction as well?"
To a certain extent. But personal convictions, perceptions of the world, variance in these tendencies (as with all traits), mood manipulating chemicals (hormones and neurotransmittors)... all these different factors make social interactions extremely complex and not just a product of our evolutionary past.
No one. Simple causality dictates who provides more viable, fertile, successful offspring.
"Watch the video then answer this question:
How would the Evolutionary view of morality have helped the man in that situation?"
A view cannot help anyone, but social animals usually cast out the rotten eggs. I should mention that it's not a view, it's science. Ethology is a field of biology with a whole pile of literature written on altruism and its evolution.
"What I meant was, would Evolutionary morality have properly answered the question, "Why should I not kill you"?"
There is no "evolutionary morality". There are moral laws we humans use and develop, and they are derivitive of simple rules of thumb that are adaptive and advantageous. Morality has its origins from evolutionary adaptive behavioural patterns (the ones described in my video). If you want to look at how deviants from those rules fit into the mix, I can elaborate.
"Would the "simple rules of thumb that are adaptive and advantageous" give a reason that the act of murder is wrong? "
If we are talking about evolution, there is only advantageous or detrimental behaviour. So, nothing can then be right or wrong. You could ask if murder is advantageous, and in general in evolutionary history the answer is no.
"But that appears to be a fault with the evolutionary grounds for morality"
Again, you must distinguish is from ought. Just because evolution explains the origins of morality, does not mean we should adhere strictly to evolutionary principles of altruism when living together.
"But not all that's currently considered immoral can be called that."
We have a social development that follows our changing goals and philosophies.
I find that the definition of the actions of species according to evolution get extremely confusing when you add in one element:
Intelligence. Specifically, of course, human intelligence.
It's easy enough to define the activities of non-sentient animals by their instinct to survive.
But human beings do not necessarily follow that goal. Our social interactions are so much more complex. And we do not always follow the evolutionary principles that appear to be necessary to survive.
"We don't actually know how sentient other animals are."
We know that the majority of them are aware of other beings around them, though we also know that they aren't capable of complex language (communication, yes, but not of a level of expressing the full set of ideas), and therefore aren't capable of achieving culture.
According to Evolution, though, that could simply be "not yet." Specifically, I'm talking about recorded history.
And in answer to your question, I am having difficulty understanding how the human ability make choices that are not advantageous to survival would have evolved.
"I am having difficulty understanding how the human ability make choices that are not advantageous to survival would have evolved."
Alright. You have to remember that evolution has no goal or purpose. And it can't predict the future. Nature selects for the traits that are advantageous at the time. In the next generation, the trait may be neutral to survival, or even detrimental. So our intelligence has helped us in the past (especially as social animals). In the future; who knows?
I think I see what you mean, and to a certain point it makes sense.
But here's an example of something that I'm confused about:
In the animal kingdom, it's animal nature for the herd to allow the old and sick to die, because they aren't good enough to survive. They do nothing to protect them.
Humans, due to our intelligence, have decided that the old and sick should die, even when it's detrimental.
Animals aren't allowed to make the choice, we are. Does Evolution allow for that?
"In the animal kingdom, it's animal nature for the herd to allow the old and sick to die, because they aren't good enough to survive. They do nothing to protect them."
It certainly applies to many species, but not all. Some apes do take care of their elders, for example.
"Animals aren't allowed to make the choice, we are. Does Evolution allow for that?"
It's about what their mental and physical recources allow. In desperate times, the old and weak humans suffer too.
In times of limited resources, humans are capable of, and often choose, to give additional resources to the young, old, and sick, whereas the survival tendency tells us to limit their resources, as they do not give us more benefit then others.
What have we observed in apes? Do they care for their impaired until their resources begin to decrease, then limit resources to the impaired?
I don't know. But if you go to a library with internet access, I'm sure you can get directions on how to search the scientific literature. Key words would be:
"altruism"/"altruistic", "kin selection", "hominid", "elderly", "dominant". I recommend ISI (Web of Knowledge) as a search database. The literature will be under behavioural science. Hope I've helped you get started. Looking in the literature yourself isn't that bad. The sooner you learn that, the better.
"Does a capacity for self-sacrifice present problems with the Evolutionary viewpoint?"
It used to, because how could self-sacrifice enhance your fitness, right? Well, it comes down to who's genes are passed on. You share half of your genes with you offspring. 3 of your kids will make for 1.5 x your genes and it is in your genes' best interest to survive, even if you die. Sacrifice for your kids therefore makes sense, since self-sacrificing traits will get passed on. This is called kin selection.
That makes sense in that perspective, but there are other examples of self-sacrifice.
Like throwing yourself in front of a bus to save someone you don't know from being run over.
Does the ability to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know, who may or may not be more worthy than you to survive, present problems with Evolution?
"Does the ability to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know, who may or may not be more worthy than you to survive, present problems with Evolution?"
Evolution concerns the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time. Strange behaviour doesn't present any problems with that. But such altruistic acts do seem very at odds with what one would expect. However, consider our background. We have only recently reached such high populations. In the past we have been (continued...)
limited to small populations. The smaller a population is, the bigger the chance that you share many genes with the next person. It's an extention of kin selection. There are also benefits of showing yourself to be brave and kind. You become more popular. It may be a cynical way of looking at our altruism, but I don't think it taints the acts themselves. There's a difference between the evolutionary reason for being kind, and the feelings/thoughts we have when we do them.
"We know that the majority of them are aware of other beings around them"
No, we don't know that. Behaviour can be manipulated by very simple triggers. For example: there is no need to know what a boot is in order for an insect population to develop a tendency to avoid the underside of one.
"(...)they aren't capable of complex language (communication, yes, but not of a level of expressing the full set of ideas)"
The detail of communication varies, but to what extent is also often unknown.
I should have clarified the first point, because the amount of awareness usually increases the larger the animal. I meant that animals have awareness, even though it's limited.
As to communication, I've often heard that you cannot have culture without a uniform spoken and written language. Whatever the level of communication in animals, humans are the only beings with a language and culture this complex.
"I should have clarified the first point, because the amount of awareness usually increases the larger the animal"
I'm afraid I have to contradict you again. We don't have a metric by which to attribute the level of awareness.
"I've often heard that you cannot have culture without a uniform spoken and written language"
Then you'll have to define culture. But this will have to wait. It's getting very late (or early!). It's 3:30am for me, you see. I really enjoyed the discussion so far! Nite nite
All right, I'll just respond to this and wait for your reply when you're able.
"We don't have a metric by which to attribute the level of awareness."
I was speaking of awareness as compared to human beings. No animal has been shown to be capable of the amount of awareness human beings have been shown to possess.
According to Wikipedia, culture is hard to define. But the definition I was looking for was listed like this:
"an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning"
Animals can have a society, so to speak, but not to the point seen in humans, because, in part, of the inability to transmit and record knowledge using language.
I've enjoyed the conversation, too, so far. I'm glad it's been civil.
"an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning"
If you define it as something only humans can have, then no other animals have a culture (obviously). Social learning is a trait that other animals possess, though. Symbolic thought? We have no idea. But there are no animals writing plays or poetry, if that's what you mean ;-)
Put simply, we can't get inside animals' heads. It's the biggest problem in ethology
"I was speaking of awareness as compared to human beings. No animal has been shown to be capable of the amount of awareness human beings have been shown to possess."
And I'm trying to tell you that we can't know how aware other animals are. Awareness is not necessarily bound by intelligence. And we can't measure intelligence properly either, not even in humans. IQ tests are the closest, but there are plenty of high scorers who do or say stupid things.
According to Wikipedia: "awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive."
Another subject talked about on that page is self-awareness, something animals don't show a lot of.
And scroll up, I'd left a question that wasn't answered yet.
"Did religion is the cause of human moral and norm and a major catalyst build a civilization and progress? well I think it was."
Why then are animals also capable of altruistic behaviour? Also, why do the morals emphasized by the religious coincide with the social norms of the society? Texts don't change (much), but the interpretations and practiced doctrines. Surely that indicates that religions adapt to the society in order to keep up with the zeitgeist.
From primitive animalistic moral standard to superhuman goal(which I indicated as "Focused"); Every step of Human evolution-We see religion played a major part. From the Hindu kush >Assyrians>Egyptian>Greek all the major civilizations was orbiting Religion? Why?
Religion was a necessity and a "Demand" to every culture and civilization.
And whenever a society denied to Upgrade it's religious "need" and stick to old morals then no wonder that Specific society is sure to doom.
"Religion was a necessity and a "Demand" to every culture and civilization."
Yes. I don't see your point, though. What does this have to do with morality?
"And whenever a society denied to Upgrade it's religious "need" and stick to old morals then no wonder that Specific society is sure to doom."
That's a really bold assertment about a VERY complicated series of events. Societies go under for different reasons, and many extant ones still adhere to "outdated" morals. Also, many secular...(cont.)
(Cont)... Also, many secular societies are doing fine without religion dominating. In fact, religiocity of a society is inversely proportionate to the education and well-being of its population. That's not saying religion causes the opposite, but it certainly shows that religion isn't a requisite for a society to evolve.
That zebra guy Gary got me a bit worried, so I looked up the average life span of zebras. It is actually as much as 25 years! I had no idea, but that means that he could have a long and good life if he doesn't keep taking stupid risks like that. :)! Great video, 5 stars!
"That zebra guy Gary got me a bit worried, so I looked up the average life span of zebras. It is actually as much as 25 years! I had no idea, but that means that he could have a long and good life if he doesn't keep taking stupid risks like that. :)! Great video, 5 stars!"
smaakjeks Hello. I haven't read much biology or anything, and there is one thing I wonder about the origin of life in the primeval soup or what it's called. You said in a comment that many similar reactions took place simultaneously, but did life arise many places in the same way or did just one of those reactions lead to life? Were there varieties from the start or just one type? That is maybe difficult to know, but you probably know what the consensus is or what the most popular hypothesis is?
Or was I a bit confused now..I see that the comment I was thinking about was the one about simultaneous trials on your profile page.. But anyway, the question is one I have wondered about for some time, and it would be great to know what biologists say about that..
I just found something in Scientific American, a new theory suggesting that maybe three cell types evolved simultaneously and were sharing DNA freely..but I was thinking about what happened before they were cells..life didn't start up as whole cells, did it?
It's funny you should ask. I'm in the process of making my first of a few videos on the origins of life. But since you ask:
We don't know the finer details about how life started. What seems likely is that many early self-replicators (not complete cells yet) were in competition for the resources and so eventually only one species of them managed to survive. From that, more complex cells could speciate and evolve. By statistical chance, it is likely all life descended from one species of them.
Thank you very much for that information. I have been thinking about this for a while. I have favourited this morality video, by the way. It is a useful video to watch for all the christians I debate, with all their "how did that "evolve" mr atheist"-questions.. Cheers!
And another thing: ethobiology is far, far more interesting and intellectually-challenging than the notion that 'God gave us rules to follow. We must not question them, we must just follow them'. Thats a good point.
I agree with Leviathon019.
Cyricist001 1 year ago
Hello, again. It's been some time since we last talked, but I've done research.
I talked to a very smart guy, and he pointed out that in the evolutionary scenario you've laid out, it's not about morality, as in right and wrong, it's about power!
It's about the strong deciding what they think is right, with no moral weight, because evolution gives it no weight to the right or the wrong, only what is best to survive.
Leviathon019 2 years ago
Hullo. I'm not sure what scenario you mean. Our discussions spralled all over the place.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
I meant the evolutionary reasoning you gave behind morality. That species develop rules dictating how they interact.
Leviathon019 2 years ago
Oh. Well, mammals often have an Alpha male who saunters about the place having the power. That does not mean the group can't work together, though. It also doesn't mean that the Alpha male can do as he wants. It's simply not benefitial to be a homicidal maniac towards your own group members. It's more benefitial to be altruistic. I think I've said that last bit before. I suppose I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what you're arguing/saying/asking.
smaakjeks 2 years ago 2
What I'm saying is that, according to the theory of Evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
Morality is subjective, as in, decided by the strong, with no objective weight behind it.
In the case of a serial killer, it isn't a matter or right and wrong, it's a matter of how long he can carry out his version of morality in public before the stronger majority is able to force their morality on him.
So long as he is able to say he's right, without question, he is right.
Leviathon019 2 years ago
Science can't decide whether or not there is objective morality. Evolution can't show it any more than gravity can make only bad people trip and not good people. Evolution concerns survival and reproduction, and it does explain how and why people and animals behave altruistically towards one another. That behaviour is not governed by objective laws or rules, but the evolutionary advantage of behaving a certain way as opposed to another. You have to explore philosophy to find objective morality.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"You have to explore philosophy to find objective morality."
You're right in that science doesn't give us guidelines for right and wrong. Do you believe objective morality exists?
Leviathon019 2 years ago
No, I don't. I do believe that there are certain actions for given situations that cause less suffering to people than others, consistently. That's about as objective as it gets.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
@smaakjeks wow..It seems apparent to me that with moralistic behavior, we "increase" our fitness collectively. In some instances, you DIE without social "moral recipocate behavior." Without this behavior, we're going to destroy the earth and each other in the long run. To me it's just that simple.
It's not my intention to be controversial........It just that it's blatantly obvious to me.
blaziermissy 1 year ago
@blaziermissy
You are absolutely spot on. And indeed it is controversial, because by far and way the prevailing paradigm in biology is the selfish gene idea. I.e. all selection occurs at individual level or lower (chromosome, gene, base pair). It is thought that if selection above individual level (or "group selection") happens, it is too weak to matter. It's a very heated topic nowadays. Anyway, altruism is a mechanism that in theory works to bring selection up to group level. Cont...
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@blaziermissy
Part 2:
In other words, altruistic groups do better than selfish groups. There's a lot of theoretical and experimental research into this, with different premises and results, with varying degrees of merit. What you might want to read is the work by Hamilton (1964), specifically Hamilton's rule. Group selection applies as a derivative of that rule. Yes, the basics for group selection are THAT old, yet we're still bogged down by stubborn biologists who think it's all about genes.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Check out Robert Sapolski's research with a babboon troup in regard to the Alpha male. VERY interesting. I'm sure I butchered his name with that spelling;)
On an aside, would you discuss "behavior strategies" outside of kin as the environment changes? Look at how our monetary system is causing billions to starve...and how altruistic people are merging in different groups to counter it or provide solultions. Please tell me what you think....
blaziermissy 1 year ago
@blaziermissy
I usually stay away from social primate research as it is quite rife with.... dodgy conclusions. But I may check it out when I get the time. Very, very busy lately with my masters degree.
Behaviour strategies outside of kin? Well, there are a number of models concerning apparent altruism. It seems that you're asking if we are too altruistic for our selfish good. I would say yes. Humans are hyper-altruistic. We are the only species that DEFINITELY conducts in reciprocal altruism.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
""Following your argument"
Which one..? "
The one about um... hold on... *scroll scroll scroll*.... A utopian society. Um, I see now that you may have meant utopian as perfect, desirable society. Anyway, my point is that it's a new environment vs. slow working evolution. I explained in my previous comment (about us being genetically similar to our African tribal ancestors). That's what the condom simile was about. We haven't adapted to the abundance of chocolate either, so many of us get fat.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Heh...I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here...."
Our societies are young. Too young for much behaviour to be altered by evolution. In other words, we haven't changed much genetically since we lived in small tribes in Africa. But our societies have (for the most part). Dawkins goes on to divide evolution and society up in genetic memory, and society's learned memory. Ideas are inherited as well as genes. Ideas like slavery/genocide/torture = bad.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Dang. I didn't think you'd actually say that. =P"
Hehe, I don't think we should, mind you. I answered strictly in terms of cost and benefit (the parameters of evolution of behaviour), which is the sense I thought you meant it in. And so it is possible that a society that goes Spartan could be more succesful (like a nation that inforces in slavery might), we don't want to live in such a society. Our behaviour is dependent upon more than genes, which is something I should have said earlier.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"I think I see what you're saying....things that feel good are good/essential, and things that make you feel bad are bad?"
In broad terms, yes. But remember, evolution can be slow to pick up on changes in environment. In the past when food was much more scarse, it was advantageous for us to pig out once we found food, so we could store it as fat for rainy days. Today, that's not so good. Health problems relating with diet top the mortality list in industrial nations.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"But obviously not everyone thinks that. Is it possible to live in a threat-free society?"
We are still subject to variation. Be it in height, strength or agressiveness. Most murders are crimes of passion. We have been SO wronged that the mental prohibitors that enable us to go "hey, wait" when we get an impulse simply aren't enough. I imagine a neurologist would know more about that. Other times, as with serial killers or sociopaths, it's basically a malfunctoning brain.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"What happens to the kin while the trait is developing?"
You mean over evolutionary time, right? The kin in the population as a demographic. Well, there are some animals out there that don't raise or protect their young at all. Many fish, for example, will release eggs and sperm into the water, and that's that. However, there are also many fish that protect their young early after hatching. It depends on what we call the species' life history. I can explain more about life history if you like.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"You believe murder is right, then?"
Nope. Everything that causes suffering (you know, apart from medicine & necessary suffering like that) is wrong. Why I feel this way is because I don't want to see people suffer (proximate cause). Why our ancestors historically feel this way - especially with one's own group - is what we've been talking about (ultimate cause).
"Creationism is right, then?"
Oh, hehe. No, nothing is morally right or wrong in science.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Cont.
To our instinct, we are still in small, tribal communities (like we have been for much longer than in huge cities). Just like our instinct is still at the level where sex = mating success. A condom doesn't alter the pleasure, but it sure alters the result. Following your argument, a condom should make sex completely pleasureless. Evolution is much slower than the change in our societies, and our inventions. Therefore we can bypass it, and use our brain to defy it if we want to.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
But, you make a very interesting point. I'm going to check out if social animals act any less protective (at all) with older members of their group. If the research is there, of course.
"If we are here only to survive and reproduce, we *should* murder those that get in our way of having an utopian society"
Perhaps. But if we evolved with the desire to protect our group, we wouldn't want to. A large society like we have today is only a few thousand years old. Evolution has not adapted us to it.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"(...) She would be dragging the group down in survival of the fittest."
Evolution isn't always as precise as what you describe above. For example, a trait would have to develop that makes one protect one's kin before they reproduce (assuming that's easy to know), and to then subsequently ignore them after. Then you have factors like high mortality anyway (so no need to manually get them to croak), and the fact that in intelligent social animals, the elderly can teach the young.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"But is murder wrong?"
In science, nothing is wrong. How we act around people is just another adaptive trait. Therefore right or wrong doesn't apply to evolution or ethology. Need it be objectively wrong for us to refrain from doing it?
Murder has been detrimental to our survival and reproductive success. Otherwise we would not be social animals. In the past we've relied on sticking together to survive. That means murder is not cool.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Once there is selective pressure behaviour can change to increase repr. success of the population. Why does sex feel good? Should it feel good in an objective sense? Nope. But since it's been essential to reproduce, it has been benefitial for that act to cause pleasure. In the same sense, acting in a way that in evolutionary scale has proven itself to be detrimental now feels bad. Standing at a ledge makes you feel bad too. We have called our behavioural restrictions against each other morality.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"I agree. What's that have to do with morality?"
So we have a rule of behaviour that if you come near my (hypothetical) kids with the intent of harming them, I'll not let you. You would have the same rule for me. So if we live together in a group, it's benefitial to not be a threat to each other. Otherwise, I'd have to spend energy on guarding against my groupmembers constantly. Peaceful families would then be more successful at working together in peace with other families. Selective pressure.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
Cont.
But the tendency to look out for family members could spill over into looking out for our group. Evolution follows from adaptive pressure. So if kin protection is benefitial (adaptive pressure), but there is no detrimental effect to protecting one's group (lack of adaptive pressure), the tendency of kin protection might spill over. Spillover is proposed in other behaviour as well, for example sexual cannibalism in spiders resulting from advantageous agressive behaviour at juvenile stages.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Wait - what?"
Kin selection. We behave in a way that preserves our survival, right? That's because we want to live so we can reproduce and pass on our genes. Well, we have genes in common with our siblings (50%). Making sure they survive is benefitial to our genes' survival in evolutionary scale.
"Why?"
A likely cause is something ethologists call spillover. Kin selection is most definitely advantageous.
Cont.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"I trust you're answering the rest of my question, though..... "
Que? What question? I get an e-mail with every comment reproduced, so I shouldn't have missed any. But, could you ask again?
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Most depressing purpose in life ever."
It's not the purpose. Nature dictates no purpose. It's just what happens. Those with higher reproductive success get to pass on more of their genes, and become more typical in the future populations. Finding a purpose is not within the scope of science. Nature doesn't give a toss about us, so we have to find our own purpose in life, whether it is to seek knowledge, achieve happiness, explore philosophies, etc. or a combination. I hope you find yours.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"If murder is a harm to society it shouldn't be allowed, right?"
I don't mean to be blunt, but if someone in the tribe murdered your brother would you let them have sex with your sister?
"Is murder wrong, though?"
We humans think so, and that's all the justification I need. It's by fellow humans we are held accountable.
"If a child is disabled and it's not contributing to society, should it be cast out"
We make the rules, and we don't want to go all Spartan on our kids.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Question - how do you know that about evolutionary time?"
I meant as in the scale. Over the course of evolution, it would be detrimental to be a selfish douche to your peers. What I mean is, selfish douches would have less chance of surviving (because they'd be outcasts), whereas those who reciprocated and cooperated would be accepted and gain mating privileges.
"Okay, so everything's about society?"
When it comes down to brass taxes, everything is about reproductive success.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"Uuuh....this video proved nothing to me... Why is murder considered wrong?"
We wouldn't in general trust other people if murder were okay. Society would break down if we did. And not just human societies. In evolutionary time, the peaceful cooperative individuals survived because of the advantages of teamwork. Non-cooperative individuals were cast out for not helping. This happens in many animal societies.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
"I do good for people because it makes me feel good" makes sense from a certain view.
But why, along with our intelligence, would we have gained the will to "do good"?
I have to say I'm fairly confused by this. I definitely need to think about it. you have a good point of view, but im a little sceptic.
afuckingbadass 2 years ago
"But why (...) would we have gained the will to "do good"?"
At an evolutionary scale; because our reproductive success benefited from it. All behaviour is rooted in that basic principle (with some exceptions).
"I have to say I'm fairly confused by this. I definitely need to think about it. you have a good point of view, but im a little sceptic."
Awesome! I'll be happy to answer any further questions, or point you to where you can investigate this on your own.
smaakjeks 2 years ago
I agree that there is an evolutionary advantage for altruism. However altruism in animals is instinctive, while in humans it has to be learned. What advantage ( evolutionary or otherwise) would it be for humans to choose whether they behave altruistically or not?
modibbo0607 3 years ago
"I agree that there is an evolutionary advantage for altruism. However altruism in animals is instinctive, while in humans it has to be learned."
That's a false dichotomy, because the alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. Our conscience is not learned, for example. We have a certain part of the brain dedicated to understanding how other people feel. These cells are called mirror cells. When these cells don't develop properly, you get a sociopath.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
People who don't understand how others feel? Autism rather than sociopaths?
modibbo0607 3 years ago
"People who don't understand how others feel? Autism rather than sociopaths?"
Autism has a broad diagnosis spectrum. It is a brain disorder, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong with the mind. A sociopath is one who in principle doesn't understand that other people are just that. They are experts at manipulating and exploiting people. Some of them become cult members or serial killers.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"What advantage ( evolutionary or otherwise) would it be for humans to choose whether they behave altruistically or not?"
Well, you must be able to remember who hasn't treated you nicely. Evolution favors a tit-for-tat response in altruism/betrayal. Also, all animals, including humans, can be exploitive. If we think we can get away with something that's wrong, we might just do it. There are advantages to that.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Thanks for your answer. The ultimate altruistic behaviour in humans is possibly dying for someone else, for example a bodyguard throwing himself in the path of a bullet. Neither his genes are passed on, nor does he have any tit for that advantage. Why do it then?
modibbo0607 3 years ago
"Thanks for your answer. The ultimate altruistic behaviour in humans is possibly dying for someone else (...) Neither his genes are passed on, nor does he have any tit for that advantage. Why do it then?"
I'm not sure why bodyguards do it. It may have to do with their training. Self sacrifice in principle does occur in nature, most often with one's kin. Altruism for the sake of one's relatives is called kin selection. There's a decent article on wikipedia about it. Google "kin selection".
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I was reading back over the comments, and I noticed this statement you made:
"Just because evolution explains the origins of morality, does not mean we should adhere strictly to evolutionary principles of altruism when living together."
If we are not to hold to the morality originated by Evolution, what other standard for morality are we applying?
Like the issue of Euthanasia. By what standard is the preservation of the old encouraged? Definitely not by Evolution.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"If we are not to hold to the morality originated by Evolution, what other standard for morality are we applying?"
Evolution only provided us with rough tendencies for social behaviour. The rest is determined by what we agree on (we think) is the best for us all. We make social contracts (constitutions and laws) with our intelligence. Basically, I would not want to live anywhere where murder or rape were accepted.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I see what you mean by that. It makes sense. I'm going to keep looking for more information.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
I'm posting a new comment, to make this discussion more accessible.
Again I'm finding that human intelligence makes it difficult to understand behavior from an Evolutionary point of view.
"I do good for people because it makes me feel good" makes sense from a certain view.
But why, along with our intelligence, would we have gained the will to "do good"?
I have to say I'm fairly confused by this. I definitely need to think about it.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"But why, along with our intelligence, would we have gained the will to "do good"?"
That's what I tried to explain with sex as an illustration. There is no objective need for altruism to make us feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. But it definitely increases our chances of doing so, and so as social animals, that benefits us. The video explains the benefits of social behaviour.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Sorry I haven't responded in a while.
But his conversation is basically over while I work it through. When I have more information maybe we could take this up again.
Thanks for the civil discussion, by the way.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"But his conversation is basically over while I work it through. When I have more information maybe we could take this up again."
Sure, no problem!
"Thanks for the civil discussion, by the way."
My pleasure. I'm a budding ethologist, so I'm more than happy to discuss issues of behaviour and altruism. Right now I'm reviewing the latest research on sexual cannibalism. And they say MEN aren't romantic...! *ba-dum-tshhh*
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Good one! Yeah, I'm gonna ask around. It's confusing, so maybe asking others will help me understand it.
What is ethology?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Yeah, I'm gonna ask around. It's confusing, so maybe asking others will help me understand it."
Sure thing. I may have just presented it in a very rushed manor.
"What is ethology?"
The scientific study of animal behaviour.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
According to the Evolutionary view of morality, people will tend to work together as a group only until there ceases to be a benefit to it.
But who defines what the benefit is.
watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI
Watch the video then answer this question:
How would the Evolutionary view of morality have helped the man in that situation?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"According to the Evolutionary view of morality, people will tend to work together as a group only until there ceases to be a benefit to it."
No. Adaptive behaviour does not change in realtime. Behaviour and internal reward mechanisms (orgasm, for example) work by rules of thumb. Just ask yourself why sex still feels good even when using contraceptives. Because the reward mechanism is approximate. It's not triggered by fertilizing the egg, but just by the act of physical stimulation down there.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Whether a nation forms a democracy because of the benefit to the people, then disbands it when it turns to tyranny, or a group of students forms a study group until they disband it because of no further benefit, people form groups because of benefits.
Per your example: Sex would continue when the benefit of offspring or pleasure ceases.
Can you show me examples where groups are formed outside of any benefit, explained by the Evolutionary idea of morality?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"(...)people form groups because of benefits."
Ah, okay I see what you mean. My answer is then:
Not evolutionary benefits, necessarily, but benefits that we have agreed upon rationally. You can't explain modern society with evolution (because our cultural evolution is much, much quicker). However, we are social (at all) because of evolution.
"Per your example: Sex would continue when the benefit of offspring or pleasure ceases."
What? I suspect you were a bit hasty when you wrote this.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Sorry, I was a bit hasty. I meant "until" instead of "when". Hope that makes more sense.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Sorry, I was a bit hasty. I meant "until" instead of "when"."
Yes, much better. But it still seems like you missed my point. Sex feels good BECAUSE it is advantageous. Just like getting wounded hurts. There is no objective reason why things should feel good or painful. These mechanisms have evolved because it has been advantageous. It has historically been adequate for physical stimulation to feel good (instead of fertilization directly).
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I thought you said your point was that sex feels good because pleasure is a reward mechanism for carrying out the act, not because the act was advantageous.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"I thought you said your point was that sex feels good because pleasure is a reward mechanism for carrying out the act, not because the act was advantageous."
Sorry, it's hard to make myself clear with a 500 char. max. Things feel good/bad because they are benefitial or detrimental. That is the origins of pain/pleasure. But these mechanisms are sloppy. They are not necessarily selecting for the precise advantageous trait, but something that correlates well enough for selection to take place.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I think I see your point. My point is, pleasure, whether as a reward, or as an indicator as to whether sex is advantageous or not, is still a benefit, in and of itself.
And pain is not of itself detrimental. Pain is an indicator of injury, which is detrimental. But that was your point, wasn't it?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"I think I see your point. My point is, pleasure, whether as a reward, or as an indicator as to whether sex is advantageous or not, is still a benefit, in and of itself."
What do you then define as benefit? Your point seems rather circular from where I'm sitting.
"And pain is not of itself detrimental. Pain is an indicator of injury, which is detrimental. But that was your point, wasn't it?"
Exactly. And a deterrant for getting injured again.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I think there's a point that needs to be clarified in this conversation. There seems to be two usable definitions of "benefit".
I meant that pleasure derived from sex is considered a benefit by the persons involved.
That definition is defined by the person experiencing it, but something that feels beneficial is not necessarily going to be a benefit, both in the short and long runs.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"(...)
That definition is defined by the person experiencing it, but something that feels beneficial is not necessarily going to be a benefit, both in the short and long runs."
Right. We are side tracking a bit now, though. My point was that the mechanism (orgasm) that increases our tendency to increase our fecundity is general (and in this case all but obsolete). The same applies to the tendencies of social behaviour.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
So to clarify:
Something will seem like a benefit according the experiences of a person or animal, but will not necessarily be a benefit according to the well-being or survival of the being.
Which definition are you using?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Something will seem like a benefit according the experiences of a person or animal, but will not necessarily be a benefit according to the well-being or survival of the being."
I agree.
"Which definition are you using?"
When discussing evolution, benefit is the absolute kind. The actually advantageous benefit. The above can be defined as perceived benefit. In the same way something tasty is pleasurable and therefore perceived as a benefit to experience.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"Can you show me examples where groups are formed outside of any benefit, explained by the Evolutionary idea of morality?"
The evolutionary origins of morality don't explain all group behaviour, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Would you define morality from an Evolutionary standpoint as creatures forming groups because if an increased chance of survival?
If so, then such cooperation would continue until such benefit ceased.
My point was that groups would not form unless there was a mutual benefit to the participants in the group.
Why does Evolutionary morality not explain all group behavior?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Would you define morality from an Evolutionary standpoint as creatures forming groups because if an increased chance of survival?"
Historically, yes. It's not like animals are statisticians or anything. They never decided to form groups, just like giraffes never decided to grow longer necks. The tendencies to accept, protect and assist other members of the population just spread in the population like any other advantageous trait.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
If that is the natural tendencies of all populations, then why do you not believe it applies to all group behavior?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"If that is the natural tendencies of all populations"
It's not, for several reasons. There are many animals that are not at all social, and some where only one gender is social. Different strategies for different life histories.
"then why do you not believe it applies to all group behavior?"
I already answered this (when you were typing this comment, proably). We have free will, or a close approximation to it, at least.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"If so, then such cooperation would continue until such benefit ceased."
Allowing for evolution to work on the adaptive pressure in favour of isolation, yes.
"My point was that groups would not form unless there was a mutual benefit to the participants in the group."
But I'm not sure if you're appreciating where evolution ends and social dynamics takes over.
"Why does Evolutionary morality not explain all group behavior?"
We have an approximate to free will. We can make decisions.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Yes we have a free will. But we also have certain tendencies, instincts, and social pressures which would help define our actions.
Could you define social dynamics for me, please?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Yes we have a free will. But we also have certain tendencies, instincts, and social pressures which would help define our actions."
Yep. We are programmed by nurture and nature.
"Could you define social dynamics for me, please?"
The interactions between individuals in a social population. Evolution works all the time, but at a lower resolution than at individual interactions. Social dynamics is affected by specific situations that have little effect on reproductive success or survival.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I see. But if our actions are in part defined by those tendencies, wouldn't they apply to social interaction as well?
If social population is a result of evolution, and the tendencies to form groups that perform a specific function also the result of evolution, wouldn't the actions of a social population in the situations you described also reflect evolutionary tendencies?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"I see. But if our actions are in part defined by those tendencies, wouldn't they apply to social interaction as well?"
To a certain extent. But personal convictions, perceptions of the world, variance in these tendencies (as with all traits), mood manipulating chemicals (hormones and neurotransmittors)... all these different factors make social interactions extremely complex and not just a product of our evolutionary past.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"But who defines what the benefit is."
No one. Simple causality dictates who provides more viable, fertile, successful offspring.
"Watch the video then answer this question:
How would the Evolutionary view of morality have helped the man in that situation?"
A view cannot help anyone, but social animals usually cast out the rotten eggs. I should mention that it's not a view, it's science. Ethology is a field of biology with a whole pile of literature written on altruism and its evolution.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that helps your argument.
You said "A view cannot help anyone, but social animals usually cast out the rotten eggs."
in response to my question, "How would the Evolutionary view of morality have helped the man in that situation?"
What I meant was, would Evolutionary morality have properly answered the question, "Why should I not kill you"?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"What I meant was, would Evolutionary morality have properly answered the question, "Why should I not kill you"?"
There is no "evolutionary morality". There are moral laws we humans use and develop, and they are derivitive of simple rules of thumb that are adaptive and advantageous. Morality has its origins from evolutionary adaptive behavioural patterns (the ones described in my video). If you want to look at how deviants from those rules fit into the mix, I can elaborate.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
My original question was:
"Would morality, from the standpoint of evolution, have the proper answer for that question?"
Would the "simple rules of thumb that are adaptive and advantageous" give a reason that the act of murder is wrong?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Would the "simple rules of thumb that are adaptive and advantageous" give a reason that the act of murder is wrong? "
If we are talking about evolution, there is only advantageous or detrimental behaviour. So, nothing can then be right or wrong. You could ask if murder is advantageous, and in general in evolutionary history the answer is no.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
But that appears to be a fault with the evolutionary grounds for morality:
Some actions can be justifiably called wrong because of a negative effect on the group.
But not all that's currently considered immoral can be called that.
In fact, some things which are currently prohibited could be considered detrimental to society, and shouldn't be considered wrong at all.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"But that appears to be a fault with the evolutionary grounds for morality"
Again, you must distinguish is from ought. Just because evolution explains the origins of morality, does not mean we should adhere strictly to evolutionary principles of altruism when living together.
"But not all that's currently considered immoral can be called that."
We have a social development that follows our changing goals and philosophies.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I find that the definition of the actions of species according to evolution get extremely confusing when you add in one element:
Intelligence. Specifically, of course, human intelligence.
It's easy enough to define the activities of non-sentient animals by their instinct to survive.
But human beings do not necessarily follow that goal. Our social interactions are so much more complex. And we do not always follow the evolutionary principles that appear to be necessary to survive.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"It's easy enough to define the activities of non-sentient animals by their instinct to survive."
Minor point. We don't actually know how sentient other animals are.
"(...)And we do not always follow the evolutionary principles that appear to be necessary to survive."
Are you having difficulty understanding how human intelligene could have evolved seeing as it doesn't always make us behave advantageously?
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"We don't actually know how sentient other animals are."
We know that the majority of them are aware of other beings around them, though we also know that they aren't capable of complex language (communication, yes, but not of a level of expressing the full set of ideas), and therefore aren't capable of achieving culture.
According to Evolution, though, that could simply be "not yet." Specifically, I'm talking about recorded history.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
And in answer to your question, I am having difficulty understanding how the human ability make choices that are not advantageous to survival would have evolved.
Can you explain it to me?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"I am having difficulty understanding how the human ability make choices that are not advantageous to survival would have evolved."
Alright. You have to remember that evolution has no goal or purpose. And it can't predict the future. Nature selects for the traits that are advantageous at the time. In the next generation, the trait may be neutral to survival, or even detrimental. So our intelligence has helped us in the past (especially as social animals). In the future; who knows?
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I think I see what you mean, and to a certain point it makes sense.
But here's an example of something that I'm confused about:
In the animal kingdom, it's animal nature for the herd to allow the old and sick to die, because they aren't good enough to survive. They do nothing to protect them.
Humans, due to our intelligence, have decided that the old and sick should die, even when it's detrimental.
Animals aren't allowed to make the choice, we are. Does Evolution allow for that?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"In the animal kingdom, it's animal nature for the herd to allow the old and sick to die, because they aren't good enough to survive. They do nothing to protect them."
It certainly applies to many species, but not all. Some apes do take care of their elders, for example.
"Animals aren't allowed to make the choice, we are. Does Evolution allow for that?"
It's about what their mental and physical recources allow. In desperate times, the old and weak humans suffer too.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
An ape's tendency to take care of his elders only compares to humanity's if the reasons are the same. Are they?
Yes, in times of difficulty old and weak humans suffer, but at the same rate of other humans.
That is a choice, that we give them the same considerations we give other humans, instead of sacrificing them first.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"An ape's tendency to take care of his elders only compares to humanity's if the reasons are the same. Are they?"
I'm not sure, I haven't checked. And again, we can't know what animals think. We can only infer.
"Yes, in times of difficulty old and weak humans suffer, but at the same rate of other humans."
In war and famine we die young, too. Think of the natural wars being faught everyday in a desperate struggle for survival in the ecosystem.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
In times of limited resources, humans are capable of, and often choose, to give additional resources to the young, old, and sick, whereas the survival tendency tells us to limit their resources, as they do not give us more benefit then others.
What have we observed in apes? Do they care for their impaired until their resources begin to decrease, then limit resources to the impaired?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"What have we observed in apes?"
I don't know. But if you go to a library with internet access, I'm sure you can get directions on how to search the scientific literature. Key words would be:
"altruism"/"altruistic", "kin selection", "hominid", "elderly", "dominant". I recommend ISI (Web of Knowledge) as a search database. The literature will be under behavioural science. Hope I've helped you get started. Looking in the literature yourself isn't that bad. The sooner you learn that, the better.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I may look up that stuff.
The main point of that was to see if the animal kingdom ultimately exhibits the same capacity for self-sacrifice that humanity does.
Does a capacity for self-sacrifice present problems with the Evolutionary viewpoint?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Does a capacity for self-sacrifice present problems with the Evolutionary viewpoint?"
It used to, because how could self-sacrifice enhance your fitness, right? Well, it comes down to who's genes are passed on. You share half of your genes with you offspring. 3 of your kids will make for 1.5 x your genes and it is in your genes' best interest to survive, even if you die. Sacrifice for your kids therefore makes sense, since self-sacrificing traits will get passed on. This is called kin selection.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
That makes sense in that perspective, but there are other examples of self-sacrifice.
Like throwing yourself in front of a bus to save someone you don't know from being run over.
Does the ability to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know, who may or may not be more worthy than you to survive, present problems with Evolution?
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"Does the ability to sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know, who may or may not be more worthy than you to survive, present problems with Evolution?"
Evolution concerns the change in allelic frequencies in populations over time. Strange behaviour doesn't present any problems with that. But such altruistic acts do seem very at odds with what one would expect. However, consider our background. We have only recently reached such high populations. In the past we have been (continued...)
smaakjeks 3 years ago
(Part 2...)
limited to small populations. The smaller a population is, the bigger the chance that you share many genes with the next person. It's an extention of kin selection. There are also benefits of showing yourself to be brave and kind. You become more popular. It may be a cynical way of looking at our altruism, but I don't think it taints the acts themselves. There's a difference between the evolutionary reason for being kind, and the feelings/thoughts we have when we do them.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"We know that the majority of them are aware of other beings around them"
No, we don't know that. Behaviour can be manipulated by very simple triggers. For example: there is no need to know what a boot is in order for an insect population to develop a tendency to avoid the underside of one.
"(...)they aren't capable of complex language (communication, yes, but not of a level of expressing the full set of ideas)"
The detail of communication varies, but to what extent is also often unknown.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
I should have clarified the first point, because the amount of awareness usually increases the larger the animal. I meant that animals have awareness, even though it's limited.
As to communication, I've often heard that you cannot have culture without a uniform spoken and written language. Whatever the level of communication in animals, humans are the only beings with a language and culture this complex.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"I should have clarified the first point, because the amount of awareness usually increases the larger the animal"
I'm afraid I have to contradict you again. We don't have a metric by which to attribute the level of awareness.
"I've often heard that you cannot have culture without a uniform spoken and written language"
Then you'll have to define culture. But this will have to wait. It's getting very late (or early!). It's 3:30am for me, you see. I really enjoyed the discussion so far! Nite nite
smaakjeks 3 years ago
All right, I'll just respond to this and wait for your reply when you're able.
"We don't have a metric by which to attribute the level of awareness."
I was speaking of awareness as compared to human beings. No animal has been shown to be capable of the amount of awareness human beings have been shown to possess.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
According to Wikipedia, culture is hard to define. But the definition I was looking for was listed like this:
"an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning"
Animals can have a society, so to speak, but not to the point seen in humans, because, in part, of the inability to transmit and record knowledge using language.
I've enjoyed the conversation, too, so far. I'm glad it's been civil.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning"
If you define it as something only humans can have, then no other animals have a culture (obviously). Social learning is a trait that other animals possess, though. Symbolic thought? We have no idea. But there are no animals writing plays or poetry, if that's what you mean ;-)
Put simply, we can't get inside animals' heads. It's the biggest problem in ethology
smaakjeks 3 years ago
"I was speaking of awareness as compared to human beings. No animal has been shown to be capable of the amount of awareness human beings have been shown to possess."
And I'm trying to tell you that we can't know how aware other animals are. Awareness is not necessarily bound by intelligence. And we can't measure intelligence properly either, not even in humans. IQ tests are the closest, but there are plenty of high scorers who do or say stupid things.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
According to Wikipedia: "awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive."
Another subject talked about on that page is self-awareness, something animals don't show a lot of.
And scroll up, I'd left a question that wasn't answered yet.
Leviathon019 3 years ago
"According to Wikipedia:"
Right. I have not contradicted any of that.
"Another subject talked about on that page is self-awareness, something animals don't show a lot of."
How could they show it? We can't ask them. We do not know how aware animals are. That's the story (for now), and there's no getting around it.
"And scroll up, I'd left a question that wasn't answered yet."
Oh, the evolution allowing stuff question? Sorry, I'll get right to it.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Human race and religion evolved side by side.
There is proof of religion in Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon...But the shape of religion changed with Human progress and become more focused.
Now the Question is: Did religion is the cause of human moral and norm and a major catalyst build a civilization and progress?
well I think it was.
javedmahmood 3 years ago
"Did religion is the cause of human moral and norm and a major catalyst build a civilization and progress? well I think it was."
Why then are animals also capable of altruistic behaviour? Also, why do the morals emphasized by the religious coincide with the social norms of the society? Texts don't change (much), but the interpretations and practiced doctrines. Surely that indicates that religions adapt to the society in order to keep up with the zeitgeist.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
From primitive animalistic moral standard to superhuman goal(which I indicated as "Focused"); Every step of Human evolution-We see religion played a major part. From the Hindu kush >Assyrians>Egyptian>Greek all the major civilizations was orbiting Religion? Why?
Religion was a necessity and a "Demand" to every culture and civilization.
And whenever a society denied to Upgrade it's religious "need" and stick to old morals then no wonder that Specific society is sure to doom.
javedmahmood 3 years ago
"Religion was a necessity and a "Demand" to every culture and civilization."
Yes. I don't see your point, though. What does this have to do with morality?
"And whenever a society denied to Upgrade it's religious "need" and stick to old morals then no wonder that Specific society is sure to doom."
That's a really bold assertment about a VERY complicated series of events. Societies go under for different reasons, and many extant ones still adhere to "outdated" morals. Also, many secular...(cont.)
smaakjeks 3 years ago
(Cont)... Also, many secular societies are doing fine without religion dominating. In fact, religiocity of a society is inversely proportionate to the education and well-being of its population. That's not saying religion causes the opposite, but it certainly shows that religion isn't a requisite for a society to evolve.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
That zebra guy Gary got me a bit worried, so I looked up the average life span of zebras. It is actually as much as 25 years! I had no idea, but that means that he could have a long and good life if he doesn't keep taking stupid risks like that. :)! Great video, 5 stars!
winterstellar 3 years ago
"That zebra guy Gary got me a bit worried, so I looked up the average life span of zebras. It is actually as much as 25 years! I had no idea, but that means that he could have a long and good life if he doesn't keep taking stupid risks like that. :)! Great video, 5 stars!"
Yeah wow, that is long! Thanks!
smaakjeks 3 years ago
smaakjeks Hello. I haven't read much biology or anything, and there is one thing I wonder about the origin of life in the primeval soup or what it's called. You said in a comment that many similar reactions took place simultaneously, but did life arise many places in the same way or did just one of those reactions lead to life? Were there varieties from the start or just one type? That is maybe difficult to know, but you probably know what the consensus is or what the most popular hypothesis is?
winterstellar 3 years ago
Or was I a bit confused now..I see that the comment I was thinking about was the one about simultaneous trials on your profile page.. But anyway, the question is one I have wondered about for some time, and it would be great to know what biologists say about that..
winterstellar 3 years ago
I just found something in Scientific American, a new theory suggesting that maybe three cell types evolved simultaneously and were sharing DNA freely..but I was thinking about what happened before they were cells..life didn't start up as whole cells, did it?
winterstellar 3 years ago
It's funny you should ask. I'm in the process of making my first of a few videos on the origins of life. But since you ask:
We don't know the finer details about how life started. What seems likely is that many early self-replicators (not complete cells yet) were in competition for the resources and so eventually only one species of them managed to survive. From that, more complex cells could speciate and evolve. By statistical chance, it is likely all life descended from one species of them.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
Thank you very much for that information. I have been thinking about this for a while. I have favourited this morality video, by the way. It is a useful video to watch for all the christians I debate, with all their "how did that "evolve" mr atheist"-questions.. Cheers!
winterstellar 3 years ago
The pleasure is all mine. Please, don't hesitate to ask if you have other questions. Send me a private message anytime.
smaakjeks 3 years ago
/salute
piecharthosen 4 years ago
And another thing: ethobiology is far, far more interesting and intellectually-challenging than the notion that 'God gave us rules to follow. We must not question them, we must just follow them'. Thats a good point.
ChrisJMoor 4 years ago
Yeah, I was very tempted to go deeper into ethology, but had to limit it to the broad strokes. Glad you liked it =)
smaakjeks 4 years ago
NOM NOM NOM
dwellerofrhymes 4 years ago
Beat me too it!
Brilliant.
ChrisJMoor 4 years ago
Superb.
SofaKingLoaded 4 years ago
another fine video , thank you Smaakjeks. Hope we get many more. Especially with Gary in.
oliesbw 4 years ago
"another fine video , thank you Smaakjeks. Hope we get many more. Especially with Gary in."
Hehe, thanks.
smaakjeks 4 years ago