When I encounter the concept of ethics by natural selection, it is typically from sociobiologists who argue that evolution has written a moral code into our brains - much as theists claim that God has written a moral code into our consciousness. Indeed, I do not think that the similarity of these views is an accident. Both are looking for an outside author of our moral sense.
Ethics by natural selection, then, is the view that specific moral principles are biologically/genetically hardwired into the brain/consciousness through a process of natural selection.
My take on it is that all our natural dispositions have had evolutionary advantage.
You mention that this is a 'big statement.'
In fact, it is false.
Our dispositions typically come bundled. Some are good, some provide evolutionary advantage, some do not. It is not uncommon for a bad trait to come bundled with a good trait and survive for that reason. One example: The same genetic trait that causes cicle cell anemia also provides an immunity from malaria.
Also, 'evolutionary advantage' itself is not an absolute. It depends on context. A trait might provide an advantage in one context, and a disadvantage in another. Its usefulness depends on the context that the creature then finds itself in.
A creature that alters his environment can turn a disadvantage into an advantage, or vica versa, as I illustrated in my posting.
Finally, 'atruism' does not provide an absolute advantage. Every time a predator eats we have a counter-example to the claims that evolution favors altruistic traits.
The social, cultural and religious constructs that all human societies have created, have done so . . . to create frameworks through which these naturally occurring be...
... middle of paper ...
...ools where they can have no affect - so they are used only in areas where the mind/brain is maleable and can be influenced through social forces.
But we do not need - in fact, we have no room for an 'ethics from natural selection' in any of this. It plays no useful role.
We use our brains in order to alter our environment to fulfill our desires. We use it to avoid situations that are painful or uncomfortable - to create heat when we are cold, to gather food when we are hungry, to keep our children safe. We invent tools to do this more efficiently. Also, the more we learn, the more efficiently we can fulfill our desires.
Morality is not a framework for 'rationalizing' the behaviors we naturally have. We don't need a framework for that. Morality is a tool for altering our environment - primarily, for creating neighbors who will help us rather than to us harm.
In “Toward a Universal Ethics,” written by Michael Gazzaniga, a question is posed to coax his audience toward a science based ethics. “The question is, Do we have an innate moral sense as a species, and if so, can we recognize and accept it on it’s own terms? It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.”(Gazzaniga, 420 para. 6). Gazzaniga answers the question for us, but he was wrong to assume that the brain’s systematic response to moral situations means that science should dictate ethics and morality. Instead, ethics and morality should be considered a part of humanity, which is influenced and balanced by many things including science, religion, and individual
White, Mary. “Making Responsible Decisions: An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decisionmaking.” The Hastings Center Report 29.1 Jan./Feb. (1999): 14-21.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
Besides, I feel that the idea of Natural Selection is really similar to the teaching of Buddha. “This preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variation, I call Natural Selection” Darwin explained the definition of Natural Selection. It means that all creatures should keep the good things and destroy the bad things in order to survive in the world.
...or maintenance of traits that enhance the individuals overall fitness, as stated by ______. For males some of this fitness, which is influenced by the condition of the individual, goes into the expression of sexually selected traits, such as mating calls. This has a indirect result for other traits such as foraging behavior or increasing the risk of predation. This trait then becomes costly, resulting in the evolution of condition dependence, as shown by Price et al. 1993; Anderson 1994; and Johnstone 1995. Individuals in higher conditions have an advantage over others as they have a larger pool to allocate among their competing demands. This means that "condition dependence is expected to arise because individuals in higher condition are better able to pay higher marginal costs of further exaggeration than those in lower conditions”, as stated by Rowe and Houle.
Well now that you understand what comes from subjective morality, let's look into objective. Objective morality is the view on life that there are rules in regards to morality, about a person's behavior. There are 2 ways you can come about these moral rules; religiously or scientifically. Let's first look at morals from a religious point of view. More specifically Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to follow the teachings of Jesus, and obey what He says. Within this belief system God is ultimately good. And to be good you must become more like God. What are Gods attributes? Goodness, righteous hate, justice, knowledge, love, rationality, mercy, speech, truthfulness, and wisdom. We can see that if a person did these things we have a perfectly good person. Let's now take a step back. Addressing what evolution, and science has to say about objective morality. The ironic thing is one of the things evolutionists and Christians can agree on. That morality isn't subjective. As for the moment there is a developing theory on humans containing a moral gene. Previously within evolution it was always assumed parents and religious practices taught right from wrong. This was more of a subjective view. As of the last decade or so there has been new developments on digging deeper into where truly morality comes from. There have been multiple primatologists and biologists supposing a theory that morals have originated from our ancestors, and have been evolving over time. Do to the social behaviors of apes and other species. The apes showing empathy, and having essential mammal group behaviors. It translates into simplistic moral behaviors of apes. Nicholas Wade, a writer on psychological maters for The New York Times, spoke on such matters "Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution." Wade
I never really grasped a straight forward definition of morality given by the speaker. Morality to me is a person’s code of conduct that they live their life by. It is a person’s beliefs that make them feel if something is right or wrong.
Different theories have been developed which relate to this theme of moral decay throughout history, even several centuries after Hesiod's life. This idea of evolutionary decay seems to corroborate with the widely received, contemporary theory of evolution, or Darwinism, brought forth through the designs and beliefs of Charles Darwin in which he states that, in nature, only the fittest creatures will survive ...
First, for humans to evolve spiritually, it must go from an inferior stare to a superior state. Second, for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a state of interiority. Thirdly, an inferior state includes a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Fourth, therefore for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Before going into detail, I will define some terms. Moral evil is the type of evil caused by intentional action or inaction in some cases. They include but aren’t limited to lying, killing, theft, and other injustices. Natural evil can be defined as an evil that occurs as consequences of nature such as diseases, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. An inferior state is state of lower quality and a lesser, more mediocre version of something. A superior state is a state of better quality and enhancement. In this case, the superior state is the result of evolving spiritually and developing virtues to reach a more enlightened state.
...elop morals as a result of practical material situations and experience as described in The Grapes of Wrath and confirmed by the ideas of Plato. We humans evolved from creatures of pure instinct into something that craved a sense of order; the concept of morality is likely a byproduct of this. Ultimately it is more likely that we born morally neutral as opposed to good or evil. We were born creatures of instinct, but we have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. This is entirely due to cultural upbringing as well as experience and practical material situations.
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.
Additionally, speciesists argue that human beings are the only creatures who are self-aware. They believe that due to this characteristic, they are able to think rationally while all other nonhuman animals cannot. Speciesists claim that this enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a higher moral status. This argument, like many other speciesist arguments, fails when “the argument from marginal cases” is applied. The argument from marginal cases argues t...
Due to Mendelian genetics individual selection is greatly accepted by many biologists. Darwin placed individual organism at the ‘center of the biological universe’ (6). Individual organisms are the ones who will have an advantageous trait that will be passed on to their offspring, which will in turn result in the change of populations and even species over time (6). Traits themselves are selected upon due to the fact that they will either have a positive effect or a negative effect on an individual. The positive effects will help the individual survive and in turn help them produce more offspring and pass on their genetic information (6). Individuals act on their own needs and will display selfish behaviors. Natural selection favors these selfish genes due to the fact that there is no risk in receiving the benefit