Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Practicing an “evolutionary morality”, meaning moral behavior understood as an evolutionary adaptation, is often considered to be a recipe for moral disaster. After all, wouldn’t that mean that whatever increased reproductive fitness would be moral?
Well, “whatever increased reproductive fitness would be moral” only if you are guilty of doing really bad science and even worse moral philosophy.
Actually, science can show that all “Christian moralities” (moral standards enforced in Christian communities), as well as virtually all other enforced cultural norms, are just different, semi-random collections of heuristics (fallible, but usually reliable rules of thumb) for accomplishing the same evolutionary function. That common evolutionary function is increasing the benefits of cooperation in groups.
To have a sensible discussion, we have to define what understanding morality as an evolutionary adaptation means. An evolutionary morality is not a full answer to the question “How should I live?” Evolutionary morality answers a much more limited, but still important, question, “What cultural norms (moral standards) should be enforced in a group?” Further, “evolution” means both biological evolution and cultural evolution. Cultural evolution here is just the process of variation and selection and copying (reproduction) of norms based on whichever norms groups find most attractive.
Again, the idea that evolutionary morality is “about creating a system of morals based solely on the measurement of reproductive success” is nonsense. Even if we only consider the biological component of morality and ignore its cultural components, it is still nonsense. Lots of behaviors such as greed, dominating others through violence, and prohibiting ‘genetically defective’ people from reproducing might increase reproductive fitness but are obviously, to us, immoral.
Biological evolutionary morality is almost exclusively focused on the evolutionary origins of our biology that motivates altruism. That biology underlies our emotions of empathy, loyalty, guilt, and indignation (motivation to unselfishly punish bad behavior regardless of costs to yourself). Biological evolutionary morality can be described as “about understanding morality as an adaptation that motivates altruism that increased benefits of cooperation in groups and, thereby, increased the reproductive fitness of our ancestors”.
Biological evolutionary morality is consistent with moral acts being “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”. What a Horror for Christians! It sort of sounds sensible.
Cultural evolutionary morality comes to the same conclusion as biological evolutionary morality, but for different reasons. Enforced cultural norms (moral standards) exist because groups selected them based on their attractiveness, particularly their ability to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups, sometimes to increase reproductive fitness, but more often for psychological or material goods benefits.
The evolutionists repeat their perversion! Again, moral acts are “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”.
And even worse, perfidious science also shows that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (that Christians assumed had a supernatural origin) is actually just a compact heuristic for a winning altruistic strategy from game theory known as indirect reciprocity.
Jesus described this version of the Golden Rule as summarizing the “law and the prophets”, or summarizing morality. So Christians are basing their morality on a winning game theory strategy revealed by understanding morality as an evolutionary adaptation.
Ok, but Christian morality is enforced by supernatural promises and threats. Why should, first, a secular group choose norms to enforce that advocate “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”? And second, why should a secular person accept the burdens of such altruistic norms when they expect doing so will not be in their best interest?
The purpose of living socially is, at bottom, to “increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”. Also, enforcement would be wasted on self-interested behaviors, such as self-interested economic cooperation, because people are generally more than willing to act in their own self-interest. The only kind of behaviors that justify cultural enforcement are ‘altruistic’ behaviors. Enforced cultural norms in groups inevitably advocate what, at least at some point, were “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”.
For example, prohibitions against stealing, lying, and murder require the individual to act altruistically by accepting the cost of not stealing, lying, and murdering in order to benefit the group regardless of how much the individual may want to steal, lie, and murder. Strange enforced norms such as circumcision and not eating pork can be costly to the individual, but beneficial to the subgroup, in that these markers of membership in the subgroup can increase the benefits of cooperation within the subgroup.
I’ll describe my own justification for almost always accepting, even when I expect doing so will be against my self-interests, the burdens of acting consistently with “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”.
First, the psychological rewards I feel of pleasure at acting altruistically and in the cooperative company of friends and family. These rewards contribute strongly to my sense of well-being. (Arguably, much of the human emotional sense of well-being is a biological adaptation that exists because it encouraged our ancestors to cooperate in groups.)
Second, human biology based, and culture shaped, moral intuitions are more consistent with this principle than any alternative moral principle. That is, my conscience motivates me to follow the principle regardless of my own expectations of what will be in my best interests.
Third, I intellectually know that acting altruistically to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups is a winning strategy in game theory, even when in each individual interaction the winning strategy is to act selfishly. (Altruism wins only over multiple interactions.)
These three sources lead me to, almost always, follow the above moral principle in interactions with other people, even when, in the heat of the moment of decision, I expect doing so will be against my self-interest. That is, I put my trust more in the wisdom of the ages than in my own poor prediction capabilities in the heat of the moment regarding what will most increase my well-being over a lifetime.
I’ll bring in just the most basic moral philosophy concerning oughts. Accepting the burdens of acting morally consistent with the above evolutionary morality can be rationally justified as an instrumental ought. Specifically, “If I desire durable well-being, then based on evolutionary science, I ought (instrumental) to act according to ‘altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups are moral’”. There is no logical error in basing such an instrumental ought in facts from science and about desires.
However, it would be a logical error to think that an individual ought to conform with the evolutionary function of morality because it was ‘natural’ or science, or similar nonsense. Instrumental oughts are all that can be derived from science. But instrumental oughts appear good enough to me, at least till something better shows up, if anything ever does.
[ Edited: 15 January 2012 09:51 AM by Mark Sloan ]
The ancient hominid who strolled along the African Savannah that decided to cooperate with his neighbor, lived longer and passed on more of his genes than the man who tried to kill his neighbor and failed.
Cooperation and noncooperation both survived, to different degrees, but it is obvious which one prevailed more often. Thus we are here talking about it.
I agree. Rape is part and parcel of “evolutionary morality”, and is also sanctioned from time to time in King James. I think you’re onto something!
JayD
I you trying to be funny? I don’t find rape funny at all.
How is rape “part and parcel” of “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”?
Or are you serious and somehow missed the parts where I said;
Well, “whatever increased reproductive fitness would be moral” only if you are guilty of doing really bad science and even worse moral philosophy.
And then I repeated twice for good measure:
… the idea that evolutionary morality is “about creating a system of morals based solely on the measurement of reproductive success” is nonsense.
Yes, rape of out-groups, such as foreigners and slaves, has been morally acceptable to societies where “outsiders” did not merit moral consideration.
But I find disgusting any implication that rape is somehow consistent with the evolutionary function of morality, to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups by altruistic acts. What is altruistic about rape and how does it increase the benefits of cooperation within a group?
The ancient hominid who strolled along the African Savannah that decided to cooperate with his neighbor, lived longer and passed on more of his genes than the man who tried to kill his neighbor and failed.
Cooperation and noncooperation both survived, to different degrees, but it is obvious which one prevailed more often. Thus we are here talking about it.
Thank you, it is pleasure to be understood.
But criticisms are welcome. The main reason I post is to get feedback on how to best present my position so the most people understand it.
This approach of making a pejorative, but true, claim about the function of Christian morality being the same as the function of all cultural moralities turned out fairly well. It may be useful to keep in my quiver for ‘first contact’ types of presentations to people who think bizarre things such as “Rape is part and parcel of ‘evolutionary morality” “.
Ok, but Christian morality is enforced by supernatural promises and threats. Why should, first, a secular group choose norms to enforce that advocate “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”? And second, why should a secular person accept the burdens of such altruistic norms when they expect doing so will not be in their best interest?
...
I’ll describe my own justification for almost always accepting, even when I expect doing so will be against my self-interests, the burdens of acting consistently with “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”.
First, the psychological rewards I feel of pleasure at acting altruistically and in the cooperative company of friends and family. These rewards contribute strongly to my sense of well-being. (Arguably, much of the human emotional sense of well-being is a biological adaptation that exists because it encouraged our ancestors to cooperate in groups.)
Second, human biology based, and culture shaped, moral intuitions are more consistent with this principle than any alternative moral principle. That is, my conscience motivates me to follow the principle regardless of my own expectations of what will be in my best interests.
Third, I intellectually know that acting altruistically to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups is a winning strategy in game theory, even when in each individual interaction the winning strategy is to act selfishly. (Altruism wins only over multiple interactions.)
I’d say your first and second justifications are just two ways of describing the same thing: the psychological reward gained from acting “altruistically” and the psychological punishment of acting selfishly. I’m a little skeptical about your third justification—I suspect your own psychological reward structure as described in your first two justifications skew your perception of what constitutes a “winning strategy.” Assuming a “winning strategy” only looks at physical (and not psychological) rewards, then in reality the “winning strategy” is to publicly advocate altruism (and its enforcement through societal norms and standards) while privately cheating to maximize one’s own well-being.
How to deter cheating by rational individuals unencumbered by the psychological rewards and punishments that burden most of us, most of the time? The only way I can think of is through the risk of being caught and punished. If the perceived risk of being caught multiplied by the subsequent punishment-induced decrease in my well-being exceeds the perceived rewards of cheating, I won’t cheat—even if I lack a conscience, or if my conscience temporarily fails me. Hence our criminal justice system.
But no system of justice can in reality be 100% effective. There will always be times when individuals can get away with cheating. Wouldn’t it behoove us, then, to instill as strongly as possible into the members of our society the belief that the risk of getting caught is 100%, and the belief that the subsequent, inevitable punishment is eternal suffering? Hence the success of groups which adopt religions with God the Ultimate Policeman and Hell the Ultimate Punishment.
Absent religion, we must rely on the psychological rewards and punishments that motivate altruistic behavior. We must cultivate the belief that one’s own, individual well-being depends more on the well-being of one’s group than it actually does. In other words, we should deceive* our children into believing in a false “winning strategy.”
*Are we really “deceiving” them if we ourselves believe in that same, false winning strategy? What did George Costanza say—“It’s not a lie if you believe it, Jerry,” or something like that?
I you trying to be funny? I don’t find rape funny at all.
How is rape “part and parcel” of “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”?
I said part and parcel of evolutionary morality. Altruism is only a subset of evoluntionary morality. At least read “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins before writing anything else on this topic.
And personally, I do find rape to be rather funny in an abstract way. Murder jokes can be funny—everyone agrees. Why should rape be treated any differently? Have the feminists brainwashed everyone into believing rape is worse than murder?
I’d say your first and second justifications are just two ways of describing the same thing: the psychological reward gained from acting “altruistically” and the psychological punishment of acting selfishly. I’m a little skeptical about your third justification—I suspect your own psychological reward structure as described in your first two justifications skew your perception of what constitutes a “winning strategy.” Assuming a “winning strategy” only looks at physical (and not psychological) rewards, then in reality the “winning strategy” is to publicly advocate altruism (and its enforcement through societal norms and standards) while privately cheating to maximize one’s own well-being.
The first two justifications are distinct. Perhaps it would be clearer if I reworded the second to be:
“Second, human biology based, and culture shaped, moral intuitions are more consistent with this principle than any alternative moral principle. That is, my conscience motivates me to follow the principle without any conscious thought even when I expect doing so will not be in my best interests and can be expected to reduce my psychological rewards.”
This “now” emotional justification is distinct from the first justification which is an expectation of “future” psychological rewards. My conscience is fully capable of motivating me to do something, because it is ‘right’, that I do not expect will increase my psychological rewards in the future..
What strategy most often ‘wins’ in a purely game theory sense is a function of the particular circumstances. In environments where synergist benefits of cooperation are available, reputations are known, and poor cooperators are punished (common circumstances for social groups), indirect reciprocity is a winning strategy for whatever benefits of cooperation the agents are seeking.
However, as you point out, assume there are agents who either can somehow ‘cheat’ but not be detected, or who are somehow immune to the punishment (perhaps immune to a purely psychological punishment). For those agents an even better strategy would be to advocate altruism while acting as selfishly as possible. Yes, that is right. Game theory is quite clear that reciprocal altruism and all altruistic cooperation strategies are susceptible to attack if social punishment is somehow thwarted. This will result in a decrease in the total benefits of cooperation in the group.
Ok, now let’s talk about why the third justification as not dependent on the first two. The first two are only based on 1) a “now” emotional motivation from my conscience and 2) a “future” expectation of emotional rewards. The third justification does not specify whether the benefits of cooperation are emotional, material goods, reproductive fitness, or whatever people decide the benefit of their cooperation will be.
Assume the agents in our society were intelligent computers without emotions. The first two justifications would be meaningless to them. However, if they ‘desired’ to increase the benefits of cooperation, the third justification would still be meaningful to them. Assuming they didn’t figure out how to cheat undetectably, and social punishment for cheating was something they wished to avoid, a society of computers could derive and enforce indirect reciprocity (The Golden Rule plus punishment for cheaters) as well as we could.
Perhaps it would be clearer if I rewrote the third justification as:
Third, I intellectually know that acting altruistically to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups is a winning strategy in game theory, where those benefits may have nothing to do with emotional rewards, cheaters can be detected and punished, and even when in each individual interaction the winning strategy is to act selfishly. (Altruism wins only over multiple interactions.)
Antisocialdarwinist - 15 January 2012 10:30 AM
How to deter cheating by rational individuals unencumbered by the psychological rewards and punishments that burden most of us, most of the time? The only way I can think of is through the risk of being caught and punished. If the perceived risk of being caught multiplied by the subsequent punishment-induced decrease in my well-being exceeds the perceived rewards of cheating, I won’t cheat—even if I lack a conscience, or if my conscience temporarily fails me. Hence our criminal justice system.
But no system of justice can in reality be 100% effective. There will always be times when individuals can get away with cheating. Wouldn’t it behoove us, then, to instill as strongly as possible into the members of our society the belief that the risk of getting caught is 100%, and the belief that the subsequent, inevitable punishment is eternal suffering? Hence the success of groups which adopt religions with God the Ultimate Policeman and Hell the Ultimate Punishment.
Yes, I think you have nicely summarized “the success of groups which adopt religions with God the Ultimate Policeman and Hell the Ultimate Punishment”. However, that success may have been greater in less morally sophisticated times when rule of law was absent or less fair. Looking at today’s world, less religious societies (Denmark, Australia) arguably are more moral (as judged by conformity with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), than highly religious societies. The time when religion was an effective tool for increasing the benefits of cooperation may be past at least in advanced countries.
Antisocialdarwinist - 15 January 2012 10:30 AM
Absent religion, we must rely on the psychological rewards and punishments that motivate altruistic behavior. We must cultivate the belief that one’s own, individual well-being depends more on the well-being of one’s group than it actually does. In other words, we should deceive* our children into believing in a false “winning strategy.”
*Are we really “deceiving” them if we ourselves believe in that same, false winning strategy? What did George Costanza say—“It’s not a lie if you believe it, Jerry,” or something like that?
But the strategy is not false. It is as real, and as reliable, as mathematics. The strategy also does not necessarily rely on emotional rewards, as per my description of a hypothetical emotionless intelligent computers deriving and adopting as an enforced social norm “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you”. To maximize the effectiveness of these strategies for increasing the synergistic benefits of cooperation, the intelligent computers would have to figure out how to detect and punish cheaters.
I you trying to be funny? I don’t find rape funny at all.
How is rape “part and parcel” of “altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”?
I said part and parcel of evolutionary morality. Altruism is only a subset of evoluntionary morality. At least read “The Selfish Gene” by Dawkins before writing anything else on this topic.
And personally, I do find rape to be rather funny in an abstract way. Murder jokes can be funny—everyone agrees. Why should rape be treated any differently? Have the feminists brainwashed everyone into believing rape is worse than murder?
In the field of evolutionary morality, it is presently uncontroversial that evolutionary morality, morality understood as an evolutionary adaptation, is a biological and cultural adaptation that increases the benefits of cooperation in groups by altruistic behaviors.
I am not aware of Dawkins, or any other serious scientist expressing anything significantly different in the last 50 years. If you are aware of where Dawkins or any other scientist has done so, please point that out.
Part of why I post is to figure out why people so irrationally cling to the bizarre notion that “Evolutionary morality is about creating a system of morals based solely on the measurement of reproductive success” which you appear to be advocating. It is bad science and worse moral philosophy. Yes, there were some morally and scientifically challenged people who did advocate that position in the 1920’s, but people also used to think the world was flat.
Your mistake is that altruism is only an adaptation in certain, special conditions. Altruism toward perfect strangers is not generally an adaptation. In humans, it actually seems that hostility toward perfect strangers is the adaptation. Google: ingroup outgroup.
You only have to look at human history to see that murder and rape of perfect strangers has been widely, almost universally practiced. Hunter-gatherer societies (which most closely resemble our environment of evolutionary adaptedness) are actually the most violent societies of all. For further information, I direct you to Steven Pinker’s latest book.
You really don’t seem to know much in the way of selfish gene theory or evolutionary biology—not to mention zoology, anthropology, psychology, history, or political science. Because I don’t understand how else you could possibly have got the idea that altruism is the natural, evolutionary state of affairs. It’s a good idea to actually acquire some knowledge before you go charging into a forum with your waffle-packed attempted contributions.
Your mistake is that altruism is only an adaptation in certain, special conditions. Altruism toward perfect strangers is not generally an adaptation. In humans, it actually seems that hostility toward perfect strangers is the adaptation. Google: ingroup outgroup.
You only have to look at human history to see that murder and rape of perfect strangers has been widely, almost universally practiced. Hunter-gatherer societies (which most closely resemble our environment of evolutionary adaptedness) are actually the most violent societies of all. For further information, I direct you to Steven Pinker’s latest book.
You really don’t seem to know much in the way of selfish gene theory or evolutionary biology—not to mention zoology, anthropology, psychology, history, or political science. Because I don’t understand how else you could possibly have got the idea that altruism is the natural, evolutionary state of affairs. It’s a good idea to actually acquire some knowledge before you go charging into a forum with your waffle-packed attempted contributions.
There is an amusing aspect to your comment that you may not suspect.
I have been thinking that you did not know enough about evolutionary biology—not to mention zoology, anthropology, psychology, history, or political science - or moral philosophy, to make any assertions on these subjects in any forum. Not only that, but you were so misinformed and certain of your misinformation that you were incapable of engaging in rational conversations on these topics.
I find this circumstance a little entertaining.
I still suspect you may be a forum troll, amusing yourself by saying intentionally ridiculous things and then waiting for people’s indignant replies.
The best response to a troll is to not feed them.
But there is a chance you are actually serious.
If you are serious, I am interested in what you think.
First, why do you think that, paraphrasing, “Rape is moral by any evolutionary morality” or (as you implied) “Evolutionary morality is unavoidably the idea that whatever increases reproductive fitness is moral”.
Second, why do think that I disagree with the following? So far as I know they are both true and my post was intended to be fully consistent with them being true:
hostility toward perfect strangers is (an) adaptation in some circumstances.
murder and rape of perfect strangers has been widely … practiced
Third, why to think that it is NOT true that “altruism is (a) natural, evolutionary state of affairs”? Do you think that our emotions of empathy, loyalty, and indignation (motivating altruistically punishing evil doers) are not part of our biology? Perhaps you do not experience these emotions yourself?
Our biology has many emotional adaptations that motivate all kinds of behaviors that increased the reproductive fitness of our ancestors. These include greed, a desire to dominate other people through violence, a desire to exploit people outside your in-group, and so forth.
But, relevant to morality, these biological adaptations also include empathy, loyalty, indignation, guilt, and shame. All have been critical to enabling people to become the incredibly cooperative species we are. Without our emotions to motivate altruism, we would have probably stayed less advanced than bands of chimpanzees. Those emotions are the biological basis of morality. What do you find confusing about this?
We still have the difficulty that we consider each other chock full of misinformation.
Perhaps I could understand better where you are coming from if you were to tell me which of your books you think are most relevant to the discussion?
In reciprocity, I can tell you that over the six years I have been researching my project, I have bought over 600 relevant books (from Amazon at least), or about two a week. Though since my project has come together, I have recently slowed down on purchases. Just to give you a flavor of what I consider relevant, my most recent purchase (usefully organized for me by Amazon) were, in order,:
Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (Kindle Books) Wade, Nicholas
Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution (Kindle Books) Richerson, Peter J., Boyd, Robert
Actually I have had this excellent book for years, but wanted the kindle version for its copy and paste capability.
Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Kindle Books)
Mackie, J
A History of Pagan Europe (Books)
Jones, Prudence, Pennick, Nigel
The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life (Kindle Books)
Trivers, Robert (If you know anything about evolution, you will know who Robert Trivers is.)
Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (The Paul Carus Lectures) (Kindle Books)
MacIntyre, Alasdair
Common Morality: Deciding What to Do (Kindle Books)
Gert, Bernard
The Weight of Things: Philosophy and the Good Life (Kindle Books)
Kazez, Jean
Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition (Bradford Books) (Kindle Books)
Casebeer, William D.
[ Edited: 16 January 2012 01:14 PM by Mark Sloan ]
First, why do you think that, paraphrasing, “Rape is moral by any evolutionary morality” or (as you implied) “Evolutionary morality is unavoidably the idea that whatever increases reproductive fitness is moral”.
Rape is widespread in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness of many animals, including humans. Furthermore, simple evolutionary considerations show that rape is indeed an adaptation in certain circumstances (e.g. if there is no question of reprisal). That rape can be an adaptation is not controversial. If you look up sociobiological theories of rape, there’s a whole literature on this question.
Mark Sloan - 16 January 2012 01:04 PM
Second, why do think that I disagree with the following? So far as I know they are both true and my post was intended to be fully consistent with them being true:
Surely if raping perfect strangers is an adaptation, then bang goes your theory that “evolutionary morality” is inherently altruistic?
Mark Sloan - 16 January 2012 01:04 PM
Third, why to think that it is NOT true that “altruism is (a) natural, evolutionary state of affairs”? Do you think that our emotions of empathy, loyalty, and indignation (motivating altruistically punishing evil doers) are not part of our biology? Perhaps you do not experience these emotions yourself?
Because it’s simply not true that altruism is the natural state of affairs. It’s trivially not true. To think that it could be true would require a misunderstanding of the basics of evolutionary biology.
Even if we take the case of altruism between close kin, this altruism is only predicted and observed to be rather limited altruism. More altruism will be bestowed on brothers and sisters than on cousins. Genetically unrelated members of the population might benefit from a lesser kind of altruism if there’s enough repeated encounters for cooperation to pay. But perfect strangers won’t benefit from any altruism at all (unless it’s as a misfiring of some other adaptation, which is rare). This is borne out by observation: Wolf packs will typically kill other wolves on sight. Chimpanzees, provided they have the tactical advantage, will kill or rape any chimpanzees they see from a rival community.
Mark Sloan - 16 January 2012 01:04 PM
In reciprocity, I can tell you that over the six years I have been researching my project, I have bought over 600 relevant books (from Amazon at least), or about two a week. Though since my project has come together, I have recently slowed down on purchases. Just to give you a flavor of what I consider relevant, my most recent purchase (usefully organized for me by Amazon) were, in order,:
Put them all down and pick up “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker. The book shows that left to their own devices, humans are wicked, savage, and absolutely horrible creatures. So much for your “evolutionary morality”. It’s only through thousands of years of cultural evolution that we’re now, in some parts of the world, relatively non-violent. At least toward other humans—non-human animals are being rapidly driven extinct, and the few ones that are spared are kept in concentration camps.
. . . I do find rape to be rather funny in an abstract way. Murder jokes can be funny—everyone agrees. Why should rape be treated any differently? Have the feminists brainwashed everyone into believing rape is worse than murder?
Put them all down and pick up “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Steven Pinker. The book shows that left to their own devices, humans are wicked, savage, and absolutely horrible creatures. So much for your “evolutionary morality”. It’s only through thousands of years of cultural evolution that we’re now, in some parts of the world, relatively non-violent. At least toward other humans—non-human animals are being rapidly driven extinct, and the few ones that are spared are kept in concentration camps.
I assume our thus far completely unsuccessful attempts at communication are as frustrating for you as for me.
But I might have the crux of the problem in sight.
The biological component of morality (our emotions that motivate altruism) is only ONE type of evolutionary adaptation. This ONE type of adaptation is a set of biological heuristics that exists because it increased the reproductive fitness of our ancestors by increasing the synergistic benefits of cooperation in groups.
The fact that we have many other biological adaptations such as greed and, for men, a proclivity to rape has NOTHING TO DO with the “evolutionary morality” I propose.
As was settled moral philosophy well over 50 years ago, only ignorant people or evil people advocate the idea that a behavior is somehow morally admirable based only on it being natural or a product of evolution.
If fact, such adaptations, to the extent they decrease the benefits of cooperation in groups, are immoral according to the derived definition of morality as AN evolutionary adaptation (“Altruistic acts that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups are moral”).
In my opinion, anyone is BARKING MAD who believes that, of the biological adaptations that motivate behavior, ALL motivate moral behavior. (I am using caps her to emphasize words that, based on experience to date, you seem to all too easily gloss over.)
I remain uncertain if you think I hold this crazy view (and I am barking mad), or if it is a view you actually hold, or if it is view you think no one should hold (which would be quite sensible).
I don’t remember Steven Pinker ever saying anything I really disagreed with. In fact, after reading the reviews, I decided not to read his new book “Better Angels of Our Nature” because I expected to not find anything really new. His main points as presented by his reviewers (except for yours) seem uncontroversial.
Now you are claiming that Steven Pinker thinks “that left to their own devices, humans are wicked, savage, and absolutely horrible creatures. So much for your ‘evolutionary morality’.”
I think you have misread him. Pinker is too smart to believe anything like that.
Are chimpanzees “wicked, savage, and absolutely horrible creatures”? No, of course not. They share many of our emotions that motivate altruistic behaviors including empathy, loyalty, and indignation. I have no reason to believe they do not love their family and friends as people do. At least their relevant brain chemicals are the same.
What chimpanzees lack is the enforced cultural norms encoded in language that we enjoy that advocate more clever strategies for increasing the benefits of cooperation, such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Pinker is quite correct that, since the emergence of culture, enforced cultural norms’ more flexible and clever strategies for increasing the benefits of cooperation have been wonderfully effective at reducing the level of violence (and increasing the level of cooperation) in human societies.
Why you think this means “So much for your ‘evolutionary morality”, remains a mystery to me.
These enforced cultural norms, such as the Golden Rule, are products of an evolutionary process (variation, selection, and reproduction) and represent “evolutionary morality” in the same sense that our moral emotions of empathy and loyalty do.
I have taken my best shot here.
If you still find this incomprehensible, further communication is likely useless.
[ Edited: 16 January 2012 06:13 PM by Mark Sloan ]
I’ll post again a translation by Idries Shah of a comment made by Farid-u-din Attar, a Sufi who lived 800 years ago. “Religion, as the term is commonly used, both by the theologians and by their opponents, is not what it is thought to be. Religion is a vehicle and its rites, practices, and moral teachings are meant to have a certain uplifting effect on certain communities at certain times. Because of difficulties in maintaining the Science of Man, religion was chosen as the vehicle for human development. This has always been misunderstood by the shallow, for whom the vehicle has become the idol.”
One issue with your view of morality as a development of altruistic impulses that increase the survival benefits of group cooperation, it seems to me, would be Robin Dunbar’s work on “optimal” group sizes for different primate species. If I recall, his optimal size for a human group was around 150. I would say that morality goes beyond this through the capacity we have for identification with group identity symbols. But that there is also an underlying foundation beyond evolved emotions, residing in our capacity (generally not utilized) to recognize identity of consciousness.
The fact that we have many other biological adaptations such as greed and, for men, a proclivity to rape has NOTHING TO DO with the “evolutionary morality” I propose.
Okay, applying the principle of charity, I’m going to interpret you as equating “evolutionary morality” with “morality within genetically closely related groups”. Then you’d at least have a coherent argument.
The problem is, there’s too much waffle. You veer into group selection for a while, which isn’t compatible with the selfish gene theory of natural selection. You go on about Christianity as a whole as opposed to just the Golden Rule (which isn’t compatible with kin selection anyway—you are 100% related to yourself, whereas your neighbour, unless he’s a clone or identical twin, isn’t). It’s all very confused and confusing, and I don’t know if it’s worth bothering with.
