An Evolutionary Basis For Morality

Is our morality unnatural? Does it contradict evolutionary theory? We take a look at behavioural science and see for ourselves.

This video is available for viewing and downloading in superior quality at:
http://www.veoh.com/channels/glassriver

Main reference of information:
Alcock, John, Animal Behavior 8th ed. 2005

Category:

Education

Tags:

• morality
• evolution
• god
• science
• altruism
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• religion

[smaakjeks]

@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]

@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...

[blaziermissy]

@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.

[smaakjeks]

@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.

[blaziermissy]

@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....

[Cyricist001]

I agree with Leviathon019.

[smaakjeks]

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.

[Leviathon019]

"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?

[smaakjeks]

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.

[Leviathon019]

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.