Re: Darwin's morality

From: Phil Roberts, Jr. (philrob_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 09/29/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 05:13:46 +0000 (UTC)

Michael Ragland wrote:

Michael Ragland wrote:

> MR:
> Comment: I think only a fool would insist good and evil don't exist in
> the world. As a "general principle", however, I don't think Darwinian
> evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms.
>
> PR:
> My take on this is that natural selection is "inadvertently"
> manufacturing morality (via cultural evolution, i.e., the evolution or
> rationality) at a faster rate than she can eliminate it via her
> customary genteel technique of dealing with inefficiency, as explained
> in my response to a poster to another egroup:
>
> MR:
> I don't know what to say Phil except that Darwinian evolution results in
> life (at least on this planet) that is not caring or compassionate and
> that includes human beings.

I agree that it SHOULD NOT result in caring organisms (excluding
immediate kin of course). But that flies in the face of the simple fact
there acturally ARE organisms that care about things much greater than
their own interests, and that such organisms currently constitute AN
EVOLUTIONARY ANOMALY (e.g., concern for the suffering of a bird with
a broken wing, the plight of the Palestinians, the whales, etc.).

> The processes of natural selection work on
> every organism, not just humans. Yes, we are a different organism and we
> have cultural evolution and scientific and technological advances but
> the principles of Darwinian evolution apply nevertheless.

They are SUPPOSED TO APPLY. But we have it on fairly good authority
that homo sapiens are considerably more "good" than can currently
be explained employing the mechanics of natural selection:

   We are "nicer than is good for our selfish genes," and "we are never
   allowed to forget the narrow tightrope on which we balance above the
   Darwinian abyss." (Dawkins, 1996).

I would suggest that the best way to understand the evil in the
world is to first try to understand the good, since most of the
evil is itself the result of folks getting a little too carried
away with imposing their own particular brand of "good" on the
world.

> Whether it be
> territoriality, war, genocide, xenophobia, rape, sexual selection,
> competiveness, etc.

IMHO, you've left out the very core of human motivation:

   There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor
   more decisive in his psychological development and motivation --
   than the estimate he passes on himself. This estimate is
   ordinarily experienced by him, not in the form of a conscious,
   verbalized judgment, but in the form of a feeling, a feeling
   that can be hard to isolate and identify because he experiences
   it constantly: it is part of every other feeling, it is involved
   in his every emotional response. ... it is the single most
   significant key to his behavior. (Nathaniel Branden).

> And underlying all of these is the highly complex
> trait of aggression.

Agression in humans is in an entirely different category, arising
from the fact that nature has co-opted (exapted) a number of
biological impulses to assist in the sheperding of self-worth
(fear of asking for a date, giving a speech, anger over an
insult, sex as a basis for endearment, etc.).

> You cannot have a species which is caring and
> compassionate under such conditions.

You are looking at man from the perspective of your fellow
human being glasses. Once you put on your natural scientist
glasses what you will find amazing is not the amount of evil
in the world, which is perfectly compatible with what we have
a right to expect, but that there is so much self-sacrifice
in the pursuit of "noble" causes (e.g., 9/11 terrorists and
rescue workers, self-endangering Greepeacers, etc.)

> Of course, that doesn't mean there
> aren't individuals out there who are caring and compassionate but they
> are truly a minority. The reality of their existence doesn't weaken
> Darwinian evolution but it does show how diverse it is.
>

It shows that our current understanding of natural selection is in
need of an addendum, precisely as Dawkins as maintained, to explain
why there is so much self-sacrifice in nature's most rational
species:

    Human and baboon have evolved by natural selection. If you look at
    the way natural selection works, it seems to follow that anything that
    has evolved by natural selction should be selfish. Therefore we must
    expect when we go and look at the behavior of baboons, humans, and all
    other living creatures, we will find it to be selfish. If we find that
    our expectation is wrong, if we observe that human behavior is truly
    altruistic, then we will be faced with something puzzling, SOMETHING
    THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING. [my emphasis].

> You write, "My take on this is that natural selection is "inadvertently"
> manufacturing morality (via cultural evolution, i.e., the evolution or
> rationality) at a faster rate than she can eliminate it via her
> customary genteel technique of dealing with inefficiency." I think you
> are confused but I'll ask you this how does the manufacturing of the
> "evolution of rationality" produce inefficiency for natural selection?

Because nature is selecting for "ruthless selfishness" and has,
via the "moralization mechanism" (below) has actually ended up with a
species that cares more for non-related others and cares less
for themselves (volatility in self-worth) than has been predicted
by our formal models:

   Even with qualifications regarding the possibility
   of group selection, the portrait of the biologically
   based social personality that emerges is one of
   predominantly self-serving opportunism EVEN FOR THE
   MOST SOCIAL SPECIES, for all species in which
   there is genetic competition among the social co-
   operators, that is, where all members have the chance
   of parenthood (Donald Campbell).

We have a valuative profile that appears to be "red-shifted"
toward valuative objectivity relative to the "ruthless
selfishness" predicted by our formal models as the most
efficient means of caring out nature's unconscious aggenda
of perpetuating DNA.

The "inadvertent" arises from the mechanism I mentioned in the
post you are responding to:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me suggest a hypothetical mechanism, actually first
identified by Hume (1739), that I believe might
challenge the genetic determinism advocated by the likes of
Wilson, de Waal, Arnhart and yourself, and argued against
by Dawkins, Gould, and implicitly a number of others (e.g.,
Hamilton). It forms the centerpiece of the paper I have URL'd
at the bottom of the page. Assume for the sake of argument that:

    Moralization mechanism:

        'An increase in cognitive objectivity (knowledge, cognitive
         competence, wisdom, intelligence, etc.) "facilitates" an
         increase in valuative objectivity (valuative impartiality)
         IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS ADAPTIVENESS.

This is analogous to the thesis developed in Kohlberg, 1981, only
postulated to transpire in cultures in much the manner Kohlberg
has postulated moral maturity as a function of cognitive
development in the individual.

> In many ways we have not culturally evolved and exhibit some of the same
> behaviors we did thousands of years ago.

They might look the same to an outside observer, but I would say
that most behavior in our pre-reflective ancestors was in the
pursuit of PHYSICAL interests. In modern man most behavior is
in pursuit of EMOTIONAL interests (self-worth).

> Where "we" have evolved is
> scientifically and technologically but biologically we lag far behind in
> the scientific and technological complexity we have created.

I agree. But I would also point out that we are far AHEAD of
other species in our concern for non-related others and our
capacity to experience GUILT when we fall short of our
idealized expectations in the "goodness" category.

>
> MR:
> Panadaptationism is a strawman.

I wish it were so. When is the last time you attended an
evolutionary psychology conference? I recently attended
one in which I was the only person amongst some fourty
professors who seriously considered the possibility that
morality might actually be maladaptive. You couldn't
be more wrong about the widespread pandemic of
panadaptionism in the halls of higher learning, IMHO.

s 

-- 
                   Phil Roberts, Jr.
Why We Turned Out Like Captain Kirk Instead of Mr. Spock:
        The Psychodynamics of Genetic Indeterminism
   http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/dada/90/Kirk.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... DARWIN'S GREAT TAUTOLOGY ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe ... The mechanism he referred to was "natural selection". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... Below is the article that discusses the tautology concept from an ID ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except ... tautology, which explains nothing that we do not already know. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... evolution results in caring and compassionate organisms. ... If kin selection is operative in human beings that is not what I meant ... a byproduct of Darwinian evolution. ... The processes of natural selection work on every organism, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
    ... _Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson ... What I disagree on is that Wilson claims that natural selection operates ... The biologists mentioned above do not claim that natural ... Miller does not say that natural selection, ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast