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
Usage of genetic modification to pick and chose features and personality traits of embryos could conceivably occur in future times. Wealthy individuals could essentially purchase a baby with built-in genetic advantages (Simmons). Ethically, these seem immoral. Playing God and taking control over the natural way of life makes some understandably uneasy. Ultimately, religious and moral standpoints should play a role in the future of genetic engineering, but not control it. Genetic engineering’s advantages far outweigh the cost of a genetically formulated baby and
Weighing in with a professor from Harvard, a chair of neurobiology from the Open University, and a chair of psychology from Northwestern University, the anti-sociobiologists defend the idea that genes and environment work together, much like a dance, in which the individual is taught social behavior. In an excerpt from their book, Not in Our Genes, theorists Richard Lewontin from Harvard, Steven Rose from the Open University, and Leon Kamin from Northeastern University propose, as the title suggests, that social behavior is not genetic. Rather, it is taught or influenced by an individual’s surrounding environment...
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.
The nature vs. nurture debate: the nature side, are those such as biologists, psychologists and others in the natural sciences, argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side are sociologists and others in the social sciences, they argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. This argument should be dismissed because you don’t have to look far to see that both genetics and our environment, plays a role in who we are and our behaviors. (Glass). The point is there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture, either one alone is insufficient to explain what makes us human. (Colt). Our heredity gives us a basic potential,...
Natural selection is a theory suggesting that some genetic traits will be more common than another trait in a given environment in which the organisms live in. Natural selection is a slow and gradual process which will happen in the matter of generations of the species. The traits become less or more common depending on the environmental circumstances, in other words, selection pressure.
... i.e. for pragmatic reasons, the evolution of ethics had different roots - psychological, spiritual. It is based on the person’s ability for empathy, which is the basis of moral behavior of a person, his kindness and decency. It can be argued that the ability for empathy highlighted man from the world of animals. With the development of spirituality and feeling of compassion, people began to feel uncomfortable by the fact that their actions were constantly associated with the infliction of suffering to other beings and even their killing. Even in ancient times high minds have concluded that man as being rational and moral should not defile themselves with murder. The alternative is to live a more moral, more humane life, without killing animals. Humanity will then become higher in the spiritual sense and feel a beneficial effect of merciful attitude to the weakest.
This "selfish gene", possessing a certain selfish emotional nature, acts as an independent entity fighting to ensure its replication in future generations, maximizing its number of descendents (2). Those successful in replicating have made the most of their given environment (1). For the interests of this paper, is it valid to assume that natural selection occurs at the level of DNA? Hence, what can be implied about genetic predispositions?
...current adaptations and those positive results from the adaptations far outweigh negative consequences on the species.
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.
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
So what exactly is morality and why does it pose such a complicated question? In the book Western Philosophy by David Papineau, it discusses the many different approaches to moral beliefs. Illustrious philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle’s take on morality are one’s personal behavior and set of inner values. Morals can also derive from a social standpoint, where the popular belief rules over all others; if most believe it to be true, then it must present itself as being true. But as stated in the book, even these interpretations can be “very narrow view[s]” (134). Morality also stems from a religious standpoint. Religion has perhaps had the biggest impact on people’s lives and the way ...
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.
Extinction, although not as pleasant a concept as the idea of adapting to ones surroundings, plays just as large a role in natural selection as anything else. As one adaptation of a species proves beneficial, and as that variation begins to propagate, the original, less advantageous variant will die off. It is the unchanged species that are in immediate conflict with the species undergoing the natural adaptation that stand to suffer...
Throughout our lives we have all been influenced by our environment and other outside forces. Our environment may change the way we think, act and behave in life. Since we are all products of our environment, it comes to no surprise that we, as humans, tend to behave in a society the same way others around us behave but at the same time we strive to find who we really are (Schaefer 73). Since birth, humans have always analyzed the world around them. With each day that passes, humans take in more and more information from the outside world. The information which humans obtain through their environment subconsciously influences the decisions people make throughout their daily life (Neubauer 16). On the other hand, our genetics also play a vital role in determining what type of person we are and what will we become.