Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics

From: Michael Ragland (ragland37_at_webtv.net)
Date: 10/03/04 

Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:16:00 +0000 (UTC)

"Michael Ragland" <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cjmoer$1bg3$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

"Michael Ragland" <ragland37@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:cjk7g5$hlj$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural
selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism
or enlightened self-interest? How can, for instance, the action of
Maximilian Kolbe be explained from a biological point of view? (Kolbe
was a German priest who starved himself to death in a concentration camp
to rescue a fellow prisoner.)

Reason:
David Sloan Wilson began to broach this topic in his book, "Darwin's
Cathedral."
Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak, nested
within each other, creating an evolutionary oscillation between the two,
witnessed by the paleontological and anthropological record which shows
the rise and fall of many large communities over time

Response:
I would have to read more of Wilson's work. My understanding of
biological altruism is based on kin selection/group selection.
Apparently the two forms of selection aren't the same but in kin
selection altruism is based on sacrificing one's self to insure the
propagation of "kin" genes. At least that is my superficial
understanding. In this way biological altruism= genetic selfishness. A
mother may sacrifice her life in rescuing her child but in doing so she
is selfishly making sure her "genes" are propagated. I could be mistaken
but I don't think kin selection has been proved in humans. It is usually
used as a model for certain insects. In any event, in human society
there are many examples of altruism which are not specifically kin
related such as police, firefighters, paramedics, soldiers, etc. I
suppose in a relatively "ethnically" homogeneous country such as Japan
or some of the European countries and other countries elsewhere these
aforementioned professions could be subsumed under "kin selection" or
some form of "group selection". Not immediate family kin but ethnic kin.
I think group selection has operated both positively and negatively. I
think Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan represented seriously negative
forms of group selection. In such examples of group selection there is
an "ingroup" and an "outgroup" the latter being targeted for
discrimination, persecution and extermination.

Reason:
Beyond kin-bonded benefits, there are also synergistic relationships
which can benefit both parties, regardless of genetic similarity.
Symbiosis between different organisms is, in fact such an arrangement.
Social groups can form for mutual benefit; cooperatives are a good
example in the human sphere.

Response2:
Agree

Response:
You write, "Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak,
nested within each other, creating an evolutionary oscillation between
the two, witnessed by the paleontological and anthropological record
which shows the rise and fall of many large communities over time. I
think you are right. Do you have any examples from the anthropological
record which shows the rise and fall of many large communities over time
and this being a result of the crosses-purposes of altruism and
selfishness?

Reason:
Yes, all of them. More specifically, it is easy to see more altruism
being displayed in the early Roman republic, as opposed to the later
Roman empire, where selfish individuals had managed to subvert Rome to
serve their own selfish purposes.

Response2:
Okay.

Reason:
In a population of largely selfish individuals, the formation of
altruistic groups within it have a distinct set of advantages; mutual
protection, self-sacrifice and forethought (eg. preparing stores for the
winter) all serve the greater interests of the group, and therefore such
groups begin to predominate the area due to their survival advantages of
strength through numbers.

Once these large, predominantly altruistic groups begin to dominate an
area, the field is clear for selfish individuals to begin to prosper
within those groups by cheating and preying on the good-will of the more
altruistic individuals in the group. Once the selfish individuals
predominate again, the community is destroyed and the field is clear for
the formation of altruistic groups again.

Response:
What is the evolutionary explanation for this?

Reason:
I would have a hard time rephrasing any better than I did the first
time.

Response2:
Then you don't have an evolutionary explanation. I don't regard the
statement, "Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak,
nested within each other, creating an evolutionary oscillation between
the two" to be an evolutionary explanation of this phenomena. I find it
very disturbing altruism and selfishness are cross-purposed, nested
within each other and creating evolutionary oscillation. What is the
relationship between the two. Can one biologically exist without the
other e.g. without cycling? I can understand in theory some forms of kin
selection/group selection altruism applied to humans because such
altruism is biological in nature and is geared towards pertuating one's
genes. It is therefore "selfish" and I can see altruism and selfishness
as two sides of the same coin.

You write, "Beyond kin-bonded benefits, there are also synergistic
relationships which can benefit both parties, regardless of genetic
similarity. Symbiosis between different organisms is, in fact such an
arrangement. Social groups can form for mutual benefit; cooperatives are
a good example in the human sphere. Since altruism and selfishness are
cross purposed and nested within each other and result in evolutionary
oscillations this suggests the "seeds" of one contain the "seeds" of the
other.

 Reason:
This oscillation between selfish and altruistic populations continues
until another permutation of traits creates a balance which allows the
two purposes to co-exist without diminishing each other.

Response:
I don't think such a permutation of traits has occured. Do you?

Response:
?

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
 Stephen Hawking

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OOL I - Manifesto and metatheory
    ... micro-ecosystem in order for natural selection to result in such ... This argument has nothing to do with altruism. ... >> All that is required for kin selection to operate is that the actor ... kin altruism in simple chemical replicators would usually ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Hamiltons rule
    ... >>> frequency of the allele. ... Selection is generated by fitness differences, ... I claim that the trajectory of the altruism trait is sigmoid in almost exactly ... >> altruism allele to selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
    ... Altruism and selfishness are crossed-purposes, so-to-speak, nested ... biological altruism is based on kin selection/group selection. ... Apparently the two forms of selection aren't the same but in kin ... the field is clear for selfish individuals to begin to prosper ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Perpetually Perplexed
    ... This is a common misconception about the kin ... If the organism's altruism is expressed ... > invariant for all social interactions), ... > holding b and c constant was certainly not part of many kin selection ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • RE: Fw: Edward O. Wilsons "bombshell" on the reality of group
    ... selection -- and the same seems to hold true for humans. ... inclusive fitness concept has always been organism group centric (group ... revolutionary poly-centric argument for the evolution of "altruism" ... argument is argued to be gene centric. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)