Re: Evolution and Love
- From: "Malcolm" <regniztar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:09:10 -0500 (EST)
"ysimonson" <simonson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
> Similarly, a person who has a divorce shouldn't neccessarily be called
> immoral; maybe it was a mistake on their behalf, or maybe a
> traumatizing event occurred. If they don't divorce, then good for
> them. If they don't, well they're not immoral. But that is divergent
> from this topic.
>
> Obviously my understanding of evolutionary psychology was flawed.
>
This is the sort of question that science cannot answer.
The phenomenon of divorce is open to scientific investigation, and we know
that it is very socially determined. Western society is extremely unusual in
having a very high divorce rate.
We also know that humans, like other animals, pursue adaptive goals. Girls
who are young, healthy, intelligent, rich, energetic, socially adept, are
perceived as more attractive mates by the majority of young men. These are
also the traits that are likely to make them good mothers. Of course young
men don't articulate this as "I want someone who will be good at helping me
to pass on my genes", and in fact this type of analysis is controversial
(creationism is respectable when applied to behaviour, but not to the body).
It seems obvious that adaptive forces are at play.
Unfortunately there are no easy conclusions that can be drawn. If a divorcee
is pursuing his adaptive interests (because a better partner comes along) is
that more or less immoral than if he is in fact frustrating them (because
his children will be less successful)?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution and Love
- From: Attys Erebos
- Re: Evolution and Love
- References:
- Evolution and Love
- From: ysimonson
- Evolution and Love
- Prev by Date: Re: Hamilton's rule
- Next by Date: Re: Chemicals Do Not Benefit
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution and Love
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution and Love
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|