Re: Darwin's morality
From: Phil Roberts, Jr. (philrob_at_ix.netcom.com)
Date: 10/03/04
- Next message: Phil Roberts, Jr.: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
- Maybe in reply to: TomHendricks474: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Next in thread: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Reply: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
Michael Ragland wrote:
>
> 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.
> (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.
I wasn't talking about others. I was talking about the motivation
underlying almost everything human bengs do, including WHAT YOU
AND I ARE DOING RIGHT HERE AND NOW. This discussion is probably
about 2% a quest for truth, and about 98% about intellectual
one upsmanship, in which each of us is striving to demonstrate
to a bunch of lurkers that he is the intellectual king of the
hill. Of course, its not easy to admit this. Its a little
like being caught in the middle of masterbating. You and
I are engaged in striving to maximize our self-worth by finding
evidence of that we are charming, witty, brilliant, in touch
with a truth that we are striving to bring to the poor
unfortunate masses if only they could see the light, 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.
You don't. But there are probably about twenty million Muslims
who, in spite of their abhorence of violence, probably were thinking
that its about time we got a taste of our own medicine (e.g., the
millions of displaced refugees resulting from what, from their
perspective,
constitutes a biased foreign policy favoring the Israeli's).
Where you see evil, a lot of them see justice. Like beauty,
good is often in the eye of the beholder. That's why the
term 'noble' was place in quotes. It was supposed to alert you
to the fact that noble causes are often in the eye of the
beholder. You know, my little quip about the fact that most
of the evil in the world is the result of folks simply trying
to impose their own particular view of good on the rest of
us. You don't really think the 9/11 terrorists saw themselves
as perpertrating evil, do you? After all, God himself was on
their side just as he was on ours when we decided to arm the
Israeli's to the teeth. :)
>
> 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.
>
But evil in the quise of "ruthless selfishness" is not biologically
enigmatic. What we need to understand is why there is any good
at all, e.g., why there is a warm spot in our hearts for "Love
your neighbor as you love yourself":
Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a
society in which individuals cooperate generously
and unselfishly towards a common good, you can
expect little help from biological nature. Let
us try to TEACH generosity and altruism, because
WE ARE BORN SELFISH. Let us understand what our
selfish genes are upt to, because we may then at
least have the chance to UPSET THEIR DESIGNS,
SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED
TO. (Dawkins) [emphasis mine]
The identification of individuals as the unit of
selection is a central theme in Darwin's thought.
This idea underliees his most radical claim: that
evolution is purposeless and without inherent
direction. ... Evolution does not recognize the 'good'
of the ecosystem' or even the 'good of the species.'
Any harmony or stability is only an indirect result of
individuals relentlessly pursuing their own self-interest
-- in modern parlance, getting more of their genes into
future generations by greater reproductive success.
Individuals are the unit of selection; the "struggle
for existence" is a matter among individuals (Stephen
Gould).
_With very few exceptions_, the only parts of the theory
of natural selection which have been supported by
mathematical models admit no possiblity of the
evolution of any characters which are on average to
the disadvantage of the individuals possessing them.
If natural selection followed the classical models
exclusively, species would not show any behavior more
positively social than the coming together of the
sexes and parental care....
Clearly from a gene's point of view it is worthwhile
to deprive a large number of distant relatives in order
to extract a small reproductive advantage. (W. D. Hamilton)
Like Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in
some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive
world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our
genes. I shall argue that a predominent quality
to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.
This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness
in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are
special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own
selfish goals best by fostering a limited form
of altruism. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in
the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise,
universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are
concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense (Dawkins).
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).
Humans and baboons 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 selection should
be selfish. Therefore we must expect that when we go and
look at the behaviour of baboons, humans, and all other
living creatures, we shall find it to be selfish. If we
find that our expectation is wrong, if we observe that human
behavior is truly altruistic, then we shall be faced with
something puzzling, SOMETHING THAT NEEDS EXPLAINING
[my caps] (Richard Dawkins).
Unlike [Lorentz and Montagu], I think 'nature red in
tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of
natural selection admirably. (Dawkins).
>
> MR:
> Well the quote by Donald Campbell totally refutes your assertion.
>
> "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).
No. You've misunderstood. Campbell is not talking about
what "is" but about what theoretically "ought" to be, and the
huge discrepency which currently exists between the two. He's
implicitly saying the same thing as Dawkins, that the social
cohesion in human culture is currently beyond the naturalistic
pale, i.e., that its "something that needs explaining".
>
> MR:
> Just out of curiousity could you lead me to an article which Dawkins
> states clearly he is not a genetic determinist.
As an enthusiastic Darwinian, I have been dissatisfied with
explanations which my fellow-enthusiasts have offered for
human behaviour. They have tried to look for 'biological
advantages' in various attributes of human civilization. For
instance, tribla religion has been seen as a mechanisms for
solidifying group identity, valuable for a pack-hunting
species whose individuals rely on cooperation to catch large
and fast prey. Frequetnly the evolutionary preconception in
terms of which such theories are framed is implicitly group-
selectionist, but it is possible to rephrase the theories
in terms of orthodox gene selection. Man may well have
spent large portions of the last sseveral million years
living in small kin groups. Kin selectio and selection in
favour of reciprocal altruism may have acted on human genes
to produce many of our basic psychological attributes and
tendencies. These ideas are plausible as far as they go,
but I find they do not begin to square up to the formidable
challenge of explaining culture, cultural evolution, and the
immense differences between human cultures around the world,
from the utter selfishness of the Ik of Uganda, as described
by Colin Turnbull, to the gental altruism of Margaret Mead's
Arapesh. I think we have got to start again and go right
back to first principles. The argument I shall advance,
surprising as it may seem coming from the author of the
earlier chapters, is that, for an understanding of the
evolution of modern man, we must begin by throwing out the
gene as the sole basis of our ideas on evolution. I am an
enthusiastic Darwinian, but I think Darwinism is too big a
theory to be donfined to the narrow context of the gene. The
gene will enter my thesis as an analogy, nothing more.
(Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 205).
> I'm also not sure de
> Waal is a genetic determinist. Could you provide an article to that
> effect?
He is arguing (e.g., 'Good Natured') via evidence of a certain
amount of benevolence
observable in species phylogentically proximal to man, that
goodness is adaptive, and as such is the direct product of
natural selection as opposed to Dawkins, and implicitly most
of the founding fathers of sociobiology, that you simply
can not use the logic of natural selection to explain human
nature via any known direct route. Dawkins is maintaining
that natural selection is going to need an addendum, tentatively
referred to as "memetics", as a place holder for whatever it
is that is going to fill the explanatory void. It is my
contention that psychodynamics is going to fill this void and,
as such, I see myself, via Hume (see my URL below) as putting
some flesh on the bones of Dawkins' proposal.
> Also, could you provide an article stating Hamilton is not a
> genetic determinist e.g. I believe he came up with kin selection.
You have to understand something here. Wilson got sociobiology
off to a very bad start with his last chapter in 'Sociobiology'
in which he implied, if not directly stated, that the new discoveries
by the likes of Fisher, Haldane, Price, Hamilton, hold the promise
of a complete reduction of morality to biology. He still maintains
this, whereas guys like me think that parts of biology are actually
going to reduce to psychodynamics, e.g., the moralization mechanism
that, indeed, much of physics (e.g., the paradoxes and anomalies)
might actually reduce to psychology (e.g., our imposition of
concepts such as existence, occurrence, property, cause and
effect, etc. in order to understand nature). My theory is
GROUNDED in natural selection, but explains the how and why
of how the introduction of rational agency into the process
has resulted in a whole new ball game.
> I know
> Gould isn't a genetic determinist.
Both Dawkins and Gould are indeterminists when it comes to
human nature. The difference is that Gould thinks the problem
is with our understanding of natural selection whereas Dawkins
thinks the problem is with our understanding of human nature.
I'm in the Dawkins camp in that I think the reason that our
formal models of natural selection are out of sync with it
arise from the fact that all our formal models assume natural
selection is a blind mechanical process, but with the advent
of man and his phylogentic neighbors natural selection has
acquired "eyes".
> I think everybody knows that. And it
> is simplistic to label Wilson a genetic determinist because he does
> acknowledge the role of the environment.
Perhaps, but a determinist nonetheless, in that Wilson thinks
everything is going to reduce to physics, whereas guys like
myself and Dawkins think its might just be possible that rationa
creatures can actually transcend the rules of nature once they
have been identified.
>
> MR:
> Well if its not adaptive what good is it?
Its not any good from nature's perspective to have creatures
that care about non-related others. Its a price that has to
be paid if you want to have rational creatures do the heavy
lifting, in that they eventually acquire global understandings
and values that go far beyond what is necessary to perpetuate
their DNA, including coming to question their own "will to
survive" in the quise of 'feelings of worthlessness'.
>
> 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 believe, that among other things, the need for self worth includes
needs for love, attention, religion, moral integrity, power, wealth,
purpose, meaning, autonomy, justice, etc. Assuming just about
everything you have mentioned above would come under one of these
headings, then you can assume that I am maintaining that most if
not all of your
examples are actually being driven by ego-related emotional needs
far more than is commonly appreciated rather than material needs,
as we would expect to find in a species
of naturally selected organism. Take away ego-related need, and
I believe we would have the same motivations that govern behavior in
a pride of lions, another social species at the top of the food
chain. Once they have filled their bellies and screwed their mates,
they have nothing to do but lay around snapping at an occasional fly
or two. We can't do that, because we have an appetite they don't
have, our insatiable lust for self-significating experience.
> 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.
I think you are confusing an increased ABILTILITY to reek havoc
on the world via advances in technology with an increase in evil
intent. Compared to other species, most of us are considerably
more caring than is currently biologically explainable:
By human standards, life in a fish school or a baboon
troop is tense and brutal. The sick and injured are
ordinarily left where they fall, without so much as
a pause in the routine business of feeding, resting
and mating. The death of a dominant male is usually
followed by nothing more than a shift in the dominance
hierarchy, perhaps accompanied, as in the case of
langurs and lions, by the murder of the leader's
youngest offspring (E. O. Wilson).
Ethologists consider other animals relatively peaceful
if they see but one or two aggressive encounters while observing
an organism for, say tens of hours. But think of how many millions
of hours we can log for most people on most days without noting
anything more threatening than a raised third finger once a week
or so. (Stephan Gould).
--
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
- Next message: Phil Roberts, Jr.: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
- Previous message: Fabrizio J. Bonsignore: "Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics"
- Maybe in reply to: TomHendricks474: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Next in thread: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Reply: Michael Ragland: "Re: Darwin's morality"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
