Re: Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)


"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC." <aardvark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:tyu%e.381278$_o.314445@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.knoerr_NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dhkj7r$vg7$02$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> >> Actually, it's a name I adopted from a baseball park at the Kaserne in
> >> Schwetzingen I worked at many years ago.

> > That's funny, because we might have met in REAL life - I also lived in
> > Schwetzingen for a couple of years, later I moved to Heidelberg.

> My time in Germany was about thirty years ago. I really liked Heidelberg
and
> Mannheim.

So you were here when the hippies and students rallied the streets of
Heidelberg? I was still pretty young then, but these were exciting times
when there was a big jolt rocking the society. The post-war generation
revolting against their parents...

> >> > What is your connection with anthropology, is it linked to your
> >> > teachings?

> >> Evolutionary ethics.

> > To be honest, I have no particular idea about evolutionary ethics, could
> > you give me a brief description of what it means?

> Consider: 1. evolutionary forces shapes the physical attributes of humans;
> 2. physical attributes includes the cerebrum, cerebellum, and thus the
> cognitive processes; 3. most behaviors are the results of those cognitive
> processes (behaviors including those we term ethical and moral);
Therefore,
> 4. It seems altogether likely that our moral and ethical sense were
heavily
> influence, if not determined*, by evolutionary forces.

I see. Doesn't that overlap a lot with sociobiology, just with more accent
on evolution? Authors like E.O.Wilson point to the same direction, that
behavior is a result of our biological nature.
I have no doubt that our moral and ethical sense were shaped by evolutionary
forces. The fact that humans on distinct continents developed similar value
systems and social rules (mostly as religions) independently from each other
is a hint that we use to cherish behaviors which are USEFUL for our
survival.

> In order to determine whether this conclusion is correct, then one needs
to
> study anthropology, paleo-anthropology, "lower" animal behavior, brain
> structure (physiology, physiognomy, and their related activities), and
> several other sciences, including comparative anatomy.

Yes, we cannot understand human nature by just looking at certain scientific
disciplines without connecting them to see the broader picture.

> After five years of study, I am becoming increasingly convinced that
> morality and ethics are the direct result of evolutionary forces and
> imperatives that date back several million years if not earlier. It's a
work
> in progress. Admittedly, the work in this area lives under a cloud of
> suspicion.

Suspicion of whom? Creationists?
I'm not afraid that the truth will prevail, because truth itself is selected
in an evolutionary process. Someone whose idea of the world comes closer to
the truth will be better prepared to handle the obstacles of life than
someone who has a distorted idea of reality, do you agree?

> * Determined being used here in the strict, technical sense-- set and
> unchangeable.

Understood. I guess you also have to deal a lot with what we call our "free
will", right?


.

Quantcast