Re: Darwin's morality
From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: TomHendricks474: "Re: Different Forms of Life (Copy)"
- Previous message: Brett Aubrey: "Re: Different Forms of Life (Copy)"
- In reply to: Phil Roberts, Jr.: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:04:32 +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.
PR:
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.).
MR:
If kin selection is operative in human beings that is not what I meant
by "caring". I'm using the term "caring" as a synomyn for empathy and
compassion which can include one's kin (but not necessarily) and to
those outside one's kin. Kin selection isn't based on "caring" but
altruism in the sense of sacrificing yourself to propagate your own
genes. If kin selection operates in humans in some form it is decidely
genetically deterministic and I don't equate "caring" and "empathy" and
"compassion" towards one kin and outside of it as genetically
deterministic. I already stated compassion is a rare commodity but it is
a byproduct of Darwinian evolution. This doesn't weaken Darwinian
evolution but it does show how diverse it is.
MR:
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.
PR:
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).
MR:
I don't think much of Dawkins. He's an ethologist with a gift for
popularizing (and consequently often simplfying and distorting)
biological concepts. We can only be more "good" for such a time before
we fall off the tightrope into the Darwinian abyss. Much of the world is
already a nightmare and it could get and probally will get much more
worse. It's just a matter of time.
PR:
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.
MR:
I know what good is Phil. It's not emotionally and/or physically or
sexually hurting yourself or others. At least that is my definition. I'm
quite well aware there have been people and organizations and even
countries-states which have tried to rationalize their evil by
projecting and scapegoating and presenting their ideology as what is
"good" for the world. I don't confuse my definition of what is "good"
with the latter.
MR:
Whether it be territoriality, war, genocide, xenophobia, rape, sexual
selection, competiveness, etc.
PR:
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).
MR:
I don't have any control over the estimate a person places on themself
or the environmental and genetic factors which play a part in that. If a
person estimates themself to feel they are inferior I have no control
over that. If a man estimates women are garbage and should be punched
around like a bean bag I have no controll over that. If a person
estimates themself to have feelings of high worth and self esteem I have
no control over that. How a person estimates themself is extremely
complex and involves innumerable interaction of environmental and
genetic factors. Arguably, those who are closest to the person e.g.
family, neighborhood, school, etc. have more of an influence on the
interaction of the individual's environmental and genetic makeup. But
there are also larger forces at work such as the media, videogames,
internet and society and world at large. Suicide is a leading cause of
death among young people.
MR:
And underlying all of these is the highly complex trait of aggression.
PR:
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.).
MR:
Human aggression is much more than that. Get real. There is real
predatory human aggression which has nothing to do with sheperding of
self worth (fear of asking for a date, giving a speech, anger over an
insult, sex as a basis for endearment. I'm not necessarily suggesting
aggression be removed through genetic engineering in the future or if
that is even possible. I am, however, saying I hope certain forms of our
aggression (such as predatory aggression which is exhibited in crime and
wars) can hopefully be modified through genetic engineering in the
future. This may also not be possible and we may reach a dead end or
destroy ourselves. It may not be necessary to eliminate aggression but
it has to be ameliorated if we are to survive as a species. Pick up the
newspaper and read about North Korea, Iran, Chechyna, Al Quada, Hamas,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. and how the Al Quada terrorists are trying
their damnest to infiltrate into the U.S. not to mention the sleeper
cells they already have here. Or how Russian plutonium was found in the
back of a car in Prague and on an airplane.
MR:
You cannot have a species which is caring and compassionate under such
conditions.
PR:
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.)
MR:
Yup, the 9/11 terrorists sure did self sacrifice for the pursuit of a
"noble" cause. I don't consider that good Phil. Crashing three gas
filled jumbo jets into two skyscrapers filled with thousands of people
and into the Pentagon which killed several people or the fourth jet
which was foiled by passengers and crashed in a field in Pennsylvannia.
Do you consider that good? As far as the rescue workers they were doing
what they were trained to do and many of them died because of lack of
communications. I respect Greenpeacers. They have stood up for their
principles attempting to protect the environment. Their ship the Rainbow
was blown out of the water. There are many good organizations in the
world fighting good causes but they don't make an appreciable difference
or dent in the long run. Any temporary victories they achieve can be
undone. Evil predomintes in the world. There are different degrees and
kinds of it but it predominates. This is our Darwinian nature. Most
evolutionists would probably not say Darwinian evolution is evil. The
term evil has theological connotations. Indeed, many evolutionists and
even ordinary folk emulate the principles of Darwinian evolution. People
are classified into weaker and stronger and survival of the fittest.
MR:
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.
PR:
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:
MR:
I don't know what you're talking about. Dawkins is most famous for his
"Selfish Gene" book which postulates the only purpose of a human being
is to propagate and perpetuate his or her genes. Dawkins was the one who
stated "nature was red in tooth and claw". If you arer trying to
extrapolate Dawkins statement, "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" as a basis
for self sacrifice in nature's most so-called "rational" species then I
think you are seriously deluded.
PR:
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].
MR:
I've already stated human beings are not compassionate creatures because
of Darwinian evolution. I've already stated I don't consider altruism in
the context of possible human kin selection to qualify for compassion,
empathy and caring. Altruism in the context of possible human kin
selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self
in order to propagate and perpetuate kin's genes. It has nothing to do
with compassion or empathy and doesn't (or rarely does) extend beyond
one's kin. There are isolated example of strangers saving a drowning
woman, coming to the defense of somebody being violently raped or nearly
beaten to death but these are not examples of kin selection.
MR:
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?
PR:
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:
MR:
Well the quote by Donald Campbell totally refutes your assertion. How
have we've ended up with a species that cares more for non-related
others and cares less for themselves? Especially in light of the
following,
"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).
PR:
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.
MR:
Enlighten me. What is the valuatative profile. What does "red-shifted"
mean. What is valuatative objectivity? I would argue as long as the
agenda of perpetuating DNA is "unconcious" e.g. unknown and undirected
Darwinian evolution will continue. As a result you can throw your
valuatative objectivity (whatever that means) out the window.
PR:
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:
MR:
Just out of curiousity could you lead me to an article which Dawkins
states clearly he is not a genetic determinist. I'm also not sure de
Waal is a genetic determinist. Could you provide an article to that
effect? Also, could you provide an article stating Hamilton is not a
genetic determinist e.g. I believe he came up with kin selection. I know
Gould isn't a genetic determinist. I think everybody knows that. And it
is simplistic to label Wilson a genetic determinist because he does
acknowledge the role of the environment. In fact, I think all these
gentlemen realize genes interact with the environment but they have been
sterotyped.
PR:
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.
MR:
Well if its not adaptive what good is it? There is more to a human being
that cognitive objectivity, knowledge, cognitive competence, wisdom,
intelligence, valutative objectivity and valuatative impartiality. One
could argue science embodies many of these traits and yet it has yet to
make the human species more adaptive to its present environment. I'm
willing to acknowledge the possibility that these traits may ultimately
assist in making us a more adaptive species but that hasn't happenned
yet.
PR:
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.
MR:
Well obviously if you have extremely malnourished Africans drinking
urine from animals and washing in urine their cognitive development may
be compromised. In fact, cognitive development can be compromised
anywhere. If a child is constantly neglected (not touched) severely and
frequently beaten or have learning disabilities, etc. their cognitive
development can be compromised. But I don't think cognitive development
by itself is a necessary indicator of moral maturity. There are many
individuals who have high cognitive development and are morally
immature. I see them on television everynight and the past has many
examples of them. Moral maturity not only possibly requires cognitive
development but emotional development. Somebody can be cognitively
developed but emotionally undeveloped and such a person can't be morally
mature. I'm not even morally mature to the point where I want to be. I
think it is a lifelong process like learning.
MR:
In many ways we have not culturally evolved and exhibit some of the same
behaviors we did thousands of years ago.
PR:
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).
MR:
What? What the hell do you think the stock market is? The oil in Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venuzuela? What about Monsanto and its drive for
marketing worldwide crops? What about protecting our borders? What about
gem interests? Tanzanite? What about the real estate and construction
and contractor industries? Do you think terrorism is in pursuit of
emotional interests of self worth? What about crime? Do you think North
Korea and possibly Iran have nuclear weapons because of emotional
interests of self worth? Do you think Afghanistan is selling heroin in
pursuit of emotional interests of self worth? Do you think those
Chechynans blew up that school of children in pursuit of emotional
interests of self worth? Do you think American soldiers are over in Iraq
in pursuit of emotional interests of self worth? Do you think the
conflict between the Arabs and Israelis is in pursuit of emotional
interests of self worth? Do you think the worldwide movement of
neo-Nazism is in pursuit of emotional interests of self worth? Do you
think the pollution of the oceans and the biosphere are emotional
interests of self-worth? Do you think the mass extinction of species is
in pursuit of emotional interests of self worth? Do you think human
overpopulation is in pursuit of emotional interests of self-worth? I
could go on much longer Phil. I could probably fill many pages. If you
answered yes to any of these questions than obviously I have a different
concept of self worth than you do. But I will concede that it is
relative when it comes to the pursuit of emotional interests of self
worth. I personally couple self worth with goodness and as explained
before that means not emotionally, physically and/or sexually hurting
yourself or others. To me that is true self worth not only towards
oneself but others.
MR:
Where "we" have evolved is
scientifically and technologically but biologically we lag far behind in
the scientific and technological complexity we have created.
PR:
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:
You got to be kidding. Stalin committed genocide in the Ukrain through
starvation and approximately 1,000,000 died and he shook hands with
Roosevelt at Potsdam. After the Holocaust the Germans had no regrets.
During it the Vatican knew what was happenning but kept his mouth shut
for fear it would make it "harder" on the Jews. The U.S. State
Department knew and many other governments but nobody bothered to delay
the death by trying to blow up the railroad tracks. IBM, Ford and other
corporations operated through their German subsidiaries and knew what
was happenning. Carnegie and the Harriman Railroad Fortune contributed
to Nazi Germany's eugenics research. The U.S. bombed Cambodia
exacerbating the situation there. The Khmer Rogue came to power and Pol
Pot and his henchmen decimated most of their own population. He was
never brought to justice and died an old man. The French, UN, and the
U.S. saw an impending massive genocide in Rwanda but did nothing. We are
not 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. That is totally false.
MR:
Panadaptationism is a strawman.
PR:
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.
MR:
Well that was your problem. You attended an evolutionary psychology
course. Evolutionary psychology is just a politically correct term for
sociobiology. Since sociobiology is highly genetically deterministic
morality may be seen as maladaptive e.g. going against nature.
PR:
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 "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria do quite well without it." Stephen Hawking
- Next message: TomHendricks474: "Re: Different Forms of Life (Copy)"
- Previous message: Brett Aubrey: "Re: Different Forms of Life (Copy)"
- In reply to: Phil Roberts, Jr.: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
