Supposed Evolution of Morals

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have what for me, is a tough question put to me by a fella who apparently doesn’t believe in God and feels that morality arose through an evolutionary process, (I’m not sure if he believes it’s a biological process, or simply a brain development issue where so called primitive brains lacked the frontal lobe region to process ‘moral’ issues. He feels that chimps display a ‘lower form of morality’ or perhaps more appropriately, a primitive precursor to morality, and this issue is pretty easily refuted- (at least I hope I’m doing an ok job refuting the claims), however, the tougher point that he makes is that folks with damaged frontal lobes who have been extensively studied, have shown a lack of ‘ability’ to act in a moral manner, even in regards to their own safety/well-being, according to some researchers (although I’m not sure if it’s a lack of ability, or a lack of desire).

I’m having trouble countering this, as most of my attempts seem to go in a circle and end right back up at the frontal lobe controlling the processing of morality which leads to decisions based on the universal moral standards. It appears to me, that although I of course don’t believe the fella’s assertion, that he has a strong case for the fictional primitive man and the decreased frontal lobe region which resulted in less and less moral consideration on their part.

now, I realize that God’s character is the source of morality, and I as a born again Christian, don’t doubt that for one second, but either the fella has a strong case which will unfortunately bolster his own rejection of God, and strengthen other folks resolve to explain everything in biological terms, eliminating God’s involvement altogether, or there is just something I am not seeing/understanding.

I’ve gone through quite a number of articles mentioning morality, and they are quite good, but I can’t seem to discover anything that addresses this frontal lobe controlling our ability to act in a moral manner question other than articles mentioning it in a purely naturalistic manner. I realize that folks with damaged frontal lobes still know right from wrong, but they apparently are incapable of acting upon that knowledge. The argument for the naturalist could be made I guess that as brains increased in size and complexity, the mind’s reasoning power expanded to a point where it could then reason that acts that are good are beneficial to others and therefore good on the whole, and from their, it could be argued that good acts expanded from being self-centered/beneficial, to where they became self-less, and good for others, or moral so to speak. If this argument can be made, then it throws God out of the equation altogether, and lays it at the feat of minds that developed to the point where they were able to reason

I’ve corresponded with a think-tanker/Christian on this subject, but haven’t really received a satisfactory counter logical reasoning argument to the evolution of morals issue.

2

It’s an interesting question. Frontal lobe damage can cause poor impulse control. Inebriation can have a similar effect on an acute basis. Moral living requires higher cortical functioning. I don’t see how that “throws God out of the equation” at all. I don’t see how evolution throws God out of the equation. Evidence for evolution proves that species didn’t originate magically or supernaturally. It was part of a natural process in continuity with the evolution of the universe. That does not disprove God as the originator and sustainer of the universe.

3

Well I can see why you would think that if you believe in macro-evolution and think perhaps God could have set it in motion- however, (not that my personal view is relevent, but) I don’t beleive in macro-evolution, and not that I need for others to beleive the same, but for the sake of hammering out an argument here, if you beleive God set macro-evolution in motion, take the position that God didn’t, and try to argue from a view point of ‘either God creation, or evolution minus a total divine intervention accounts for morality’

4

OK. God created people in such a way that they require certain cognitive abilities in order to function morally. Explain why that’s a theological problem for you.

5

Im not somebody who believe`s in god as such but evolution or not we still looked to someone to tell us what is considered right and wrong. For the most part it was the churches job and it was supposedly given to them from god.

6

felix I’ll have to think that through a bitm ore later- quickly looking at it, I’d say that isn’t a problem for me- I guess my first post is asking for a reasoning argument against the biological evolution of morality- I apologize if I misunderstood your post- quite tired right now

7

Hi Lynda- well- that was a refining of the moral code, but the universal moral code is somethign we all know without being told anything- even children feel an instant guilt over htigns that they’ve never been taught (I personally believe this innate sense is the workings of the Holy Spirit, but for the sake of this argument problem I’m facing, I’d like to not state that and ask that arguments for or against the biological evolution of morals be made)

8

While I staunchly believe that morals are something that can be and are explained by biology, others disagree and we’ve talked about it some in this thread (which I thought was good):

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 93&start=0

and this thread (which I thought had potential):

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … 38&start=0

Here is something from the first thread that might prove an interesting starting point for you:

9

I do not believe that children feel an innate sense of guilt. I have a daughter she is 14 mths and from an early age she has had an interest in our cats. She would chase them and then when she managed to get hold of them she would pull and tug to the point of hurting them. When she was younger she did not understand and would carry on regardless completely oblivious to the effect she was having, but now a few months on she will look to me when she does this to see my reaction and now her behaviour has modified so now she no longer gets to the point of hurting them. Also if she does she is now aware that it is something wrong and will then look to me for forgiveness as it were. So i firmly believe that children are a completely blank canvas as to where morals are concerned.

10

  1. Brains don’t think.

  2. Morality isn’t feelings.

  3. People don’t choose only for the pursuit of pleasure.

What you are getting into is a discussion surrounding the questions of predisposition narrowing options versus predisposition determining actions. Even within a Secularist point of view, one cannot entirely subscribe to predisposition determining actions because the nature of predisposition and choices is correlative and probabilistic. What the Secularist can say, though, is that people only choose one option or another on the basis of the pursuit of pleasure. As a Christian, I would never subscribe to that because of God, and, as Kierkegaard explains, God is above both the aesthetic and the ethical. As a Secularist, one can subscribe to that because the Secularist does not believe in God and only deals with the aesthetic and the ethical. So really, the discussion starts to center itself on whether or not people choose simply for the pursuit of pleasure or not.

It is not about countering the argument. It is about deliberating over the discussion and thinking.

11

Lynda, I agree that some morality is taught, but if what you are saying is true about a blank canvanse, then a child who is isolated from all human contact would grow to have no sense of a moral what-so-ever (Ignoring the obvious mental problems that would result from such an existence). All people are born with an inate desire to avoid conflict.

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but infants obviously know only one hting, manipulation for their own benifit, however, as they grow, children begin to display, without any outside influence, a sense for others- they independantly show a desire to share, to include others because they want the other to experience fun, etc. They also develope the sense to knowwhen they’ve done something wrong that hadn’t been previously taught to them. Infact, it’s my belief that a child has to be taught out of reasoning the moral good- a desensitizing if you will.

It’s true that children will look for moral guidance by observing their parents subtle gestures, glances, postures, however, it’s also true that children will display independant moral ethics on their own when no other reason for doing so exists. Their selfish desires could be adhered to, but they set that aside for the benifit of others.

Admittedly, this seems to strengthen the ‘evolution of morality’ argument by suggesting that the smaller infant brain is more like primitive brains, and that as the infant’s brain begins to make the proper synapse connections, then, the sense of a universal moral code sets in.

I’m trying to develope this a bit further as I think it may be important, but for now, it’s in it’s infancy- The idea is that morality, as Dawkins might point out, is basically selfish, and viral in nature, in that the person doing the moral thing is ultimately seeking comfort from the Supreme Being. (Note, they are not seekign comfort from the ones that benifit from the moral act, but rather from God)

However, the problem with htis is that follwong God often is quite contradictory to comfort. Dawkins contends that the ‘moral gene’ which he calls a mind virus lol, is passed on through those folks who have developed the ‘moral gene’ as a means of passing along the selfish comfort system, yet, as any religous person who closely follows God can attest, follwong God is not a comfort. The path is hard, discouraging, and involves great personal sacrifice at times.

Dawkins proposes that ‘religious genes’ are ‘memes’ (or groups of expressions that can’t be measured conveniently for Dawkins) that are ripe for manipulation. Dawkins contends that memes are viral, and then goes on to suggest that they spread by thought? I’m sorry, but virus’s don’t spread by thought- Dawkins tries to cover himself inthat after claiming memes are virus’ by turning around and contending that memes are ‘collections’ of thoughts

I’ll work on this a bit later. I’ve said that morality isn’t needed for survival, and according to natural selection, things not needed for survival are rejected. Perhaps a looser definition of natural selections covers this by stating that not only are things that are needed for survival accepted by the process of natural selection ,but as well, so are thsoe things that might benifit a species.

Xunzian- thanks for thosel inks, I’m reading them through, but will take me some time- as you pointed out in the first thread, right off the bat [I think the first thing we need to do when we consider altruism is to get rid of Spencher and his “Survival of the Fittest”. Silly notion that doesn’t pan out very well and creates more trouble than it is worth.]

I agree-

12

Skittle, Brains enable thinking by processing information. I agree that morality is not based on feelings, (although Dawkins would dissagree)

You said [So really, the discussion starts to center itself on whether or not people choose simply for the pursuit of pleasure or not.]

I think that discussion might come after determining how morality arose- either through evolution or through an instilling by a Supreme Being.The problem is that there are opinions based on observation that morality is related to the capacity of the brain to reason, and my question is, has this been satisfactoraly backed up with evidences, or have there been counter evidences to suggest that brain size/development isn’t a basis for morality.

I think predisposition can be observable in the patterns of lower species, but you’re right, in a reasoning species like humans, it can’t be nailed down because choice does play a part that isn’t predictive.

13

Processing information is not the same as the initial thought or will of the “I.” Read Donald Mackay for his systems analysis. His flow chart (Behind the Eye):

“Information-flow map of a system capable of modifying its own goals. SS, supervisory system; C, comparator; O, organizing system; F, field of action; E, effectors; R, receptors; FF, feedforward; I(f), indicated state of field; I(g), indicated goal-state or criterion of evaluation. The organizing system, O, organizes the repertoire of possible activity (e.g. fight, feeding or flight) which may be pre-wired and/or built up in response to the regulatarities of its field of action, F. The supervisory system, SS, selects from O part of the repertoire appropriate to incoming mismatch signals from the comparator, C, and supervises the development and trial and updating of the repertoire.”

This information-flow map avoids duplication for the matter of information economy.

[i]“If we draw information-flow maps which represent no more than these facts we are not generating a theory;”

"The supervisory system, SS, has, in short, the power to change the target settings I(g) so as to settle for a new target because of some unacceptable mismatch being signalled to it from the comparator C.

A second area where action by SS could be valuable is that of the organizing system O. O’s job, we remember, is to determine as quickly and accurately as possible the action required by E to bring I(f) into line with target I(g). It is a computational network in some general sense such that in response to a mismatch signal it selects from the repertoire an action calculated to have a good chance of bringing the indicated state into line with the goal state. The subroutines within the repertoire…represent implicitly the constraints of reality, the structure of the field of action, F, against which the system is struggling."[/i]

Though I cannot claim to be adept at this sort of thought experiment, I can note that the technique and approach of systems analysis clearly demonstrates the relationship of the brain within the thought process. Consciousness requires this self-supervisory activity to exist. Of course, this sort of thought experiment is not to be confused with boxes, as in limiting the subject. This sort of thought experiment applies the knowledge of systems analysis to the human consciousness and brain to recognize the relationships and exponentially complex number and quality of manners in which the brain and the “I” work together. One must separate the verb from the subject to understand this sort of system.

14

Nazareth, you’ve managed to put a lot of words in to Dawkins mouth, and you’re completely misrepresenting him. Just read ‘The God Delusion’, chapter 6 and you’ll see you’re way off mark.

You’ve also completely misunderstood memes and how ‘selfishness’ at the GENE level works, not at any thought process level, not at the species level, at the level of the gene. Gene’s can’t actually be selfish as they don’t think, it’s an anthromorphism that usefully illistrates Dawkins’ point. It’s a huge difference to the stuff you’re claiming that Dawkins believes.

If you want to beat your friend’s arguments look at the logic, gaping flaw in there. There’s also evidence that shows that it’s not that they lack morality, it’s that the can’t subconciously imagine the consequences of their actions and hence don’t even realise the action they’re about to take is immoral. If you ask them to logically map out the consequences, they can reach them, it’s the inner theatre that’s the problem, not the outer logic. I’d usually cite a source for a claim like that, but my philosophy of the mind classes were so long ago.

But on the otherhand, how this helps with your ‘morality from his character’ I don’t know as it makes no sense. Can’t you see that it’s childish gibberish, has absolutely no redeeming features to it as a logical argument? You seem like an intelligent person, how can you doublethink like that? Scary.

15

Matt- I took what I wrote of him directly from quotes of his- He stated in an arguemt that memes transfere through thought, like when a proffesor teaches their students, or when a nun or other religiou teacher teaches their students- his position was that this is how the memes of religion propogate, and infered that it’s nothign more than being misled when a religious person develops morals based on teachings from religious figures. He states that us poor religious folk can’t help it because we’ve got the ‘religious gene’ that was passed on to us, so in effect we’re simply victims of misinformation and made susceptible due to the religious viral gene (which he later switched to meme label)

Dawkins

I don’t mean to misrepresent him- this is coming from direct quotes of his- if I’ve misrepresented, please point out why?

You say

In the technical sense no- but Dawkins proposes that they monopolize their position by dissalowing other gene information from propogating- thus implying that in a sense they are themselves selfish so to speak.

You say

That’s all true, but then the coutner argument to that is that less developed brains showed a stunning similarity which would suggest that somewhere during the development of the brain as man evolved, there was a ‘lightswitch’ so to speak that got turned on because the brain was at some point capable of doing so, and from that arose a reasoning that invented a universal moral code that has pretty much become standard- Dawkins would probably argue that the first folks who invented the universal moral code were infected with a biological virus, a religious viral infection, which they then passed along, and as the brain further developed, this moral code became more and more refiend. Dawkins might further argue that as the mind became more capable of reason, it reasoned that a universal code could be used to control the masses, and his argument might include the reasoning that only those who didn’t inherit the religious gene were capable of true reason unnaffected by otehr folks moral ethics.

you say

Is there truly evidence for that? Or might it also be a case that they simply don’t care? Not sure what difference that might make for the sake of this issue, but it might be important distinction.

Just for the record, I don’t really want to beat the friends points, but I do want a more thorough understanding and perhaps coem up with a reasoning that is just as, if not more, probable for the case of Divine Code instilled. This exploration is more about my satisfacvtion of curiosity than in winning an argument- to be honest, it does bother me a bit that the case for evolved morality does superficially seem strong. It’s something I’d ultimately like an answer or reasonable explanation for that wqould bolster my own personal belief- but is not absolutely necessary for my faith, as it could be I guess possible that there is indeed a ‘lightswitch’ so to speak, but in my limited understanding, doesn’t necessarily go toward disproving one view or the other, but might help to bolster one- it’s my beleif that reasoning will help clarify this issue some- perhaps this has already been satisfactorally ‘resolved’ by others in the past, I don’t know.

Not sure why you think there is no reason to examine such issues, or that it’s “childish gibberish” (Perhaps you could explain more why you think that?) but you’re welcoem to your opinion of course. I think it’s fascinating to investigate all angles to get a clearer understanding of the whole, and not just a basic understanding of a premise.

Skittles I’m not good at that kind of thoight process either- hard for me to follow or make sense of- I am even having difficulty understanding where your going with your excplanation I’m afraid.

16

Matt- don’t worry, I haven’t taken offense to the childish gibberish remark- it may very well be, and if so, I don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t. I don’t claim to know anything about the finer art of arguing or debate, the process etc- I just think in a way that seems reasonably objective- perhaps I’m wrong and admittedly, there is probably some bias on my part that unconsciously sneaks it’s way into my posts. But I’d like to make a bit of defense for why I think it’s reasonable- not that it is a right defense, but the only one I’m able to do.

It used to be that there was a system of ‘peer review’ that was more a system of ‘peer usage’ than the ‘peer review’ that we know today- the old system employed the brightest minds who were capable of truly objective annalysis- the process took forever, and became quite expensive, but it produced truly objective results. Our current peer review process is quite speedy, and is often marred by bias and a not so objective opinion based decisions. In the old system, the subject matter didn’t matter- all sides and possible problems were hammered out until a reasoble and objective consensus could be had- in the new system, this isn’t the case (Just think of the kyoto treaty, global warming ‘consensus’ and others where opinion and sometimes blatant bias are the deciding factor)

If a line of reasoning starts in one direction, I guess my mind works to envision the problems from different angles, to present them, and try to resolve those problems before continuing on. Admittedly, there is a seemingly problematic issue for Divine inspired moral ethics in that brain damaged folks seem to lack soemthing- Will? Morality itself? Reasoning? If we can narrow down what they lack, then we can move on to whther an evolution of minds model is shown by brain damaged brains, or whether morals truly are Divine inspired after all.

I mean, For me, there is enough personal experiential evidence to beleive God exitsts, and ultimately, that is enough for me, but I do like to try to go beyond the generality of belief and try to understand why I believe some aspect of the faith. It’s one thing to say I beleive, it’s another to have to think about the reasons why, and try to explain them to someone. I’m not looking to turn this thread into a religious sermon, but want to explore all angles to understand why I do beleive that morals are from God, and that can be done in my opinion by a purely annalytical process that explores all sides of the sceince behind both trains of thought- but we’ll concentrate on just the secular train for this thread.

I dunno- I just think it’s important to explore all avenues to understand an issue more thoroughly in order to come to an informed and reasonable conclusion

17

Maybe I’m wrong on this, but infants obviously know only one hting, manipulation for their own benifit, however, as they grow, children begin to display, without any outside influence, a sense for others

Without any outside influence?
They from birth have a that sense but it is undeveloped, they realise that there are people who are strangers or close family, but not mother as they believe that mother and themselves are one and the same. As they grow they then start to build an identity of their own and that it is seperate from the mother. As a young child they realise there are others an will then use these people to thier own will as a young child is often incapable of some tasks.
As for the preservation of the well being of others this is not learnt until they are much older around the age of 3+ and it is learnt from the interaction between themselves and others.

All people are born with an inate desire to avoid conflict.

I disagree again people are born with a self presevation desire that often leads to conflict. This is displayed often as children learn to interact with others.

They also develope the sense to knowwhen they’ve done something wrong that hadn’t been previously taught to them.

How have you come to that conclusion?

Their selfish desires could be adhered to, but they set that aside for the benifit of others.

Yes they do but it is only because it benefits them to see that their carers are happy as they are more likely to have their desires done, for them to put their will aside for a strangers benefit is highly unlikely, and may only be present when the child gets much older and then it is usually down to outside conditioning.

but the universal moral code is somethign we all know without being told anything- even children feel an instant guilt over htigns that they’ve never been taught (I personally believe this innate sense is the workings of the Holy Spirit,

Ok then if that your belief then how do explain that there are rapists and murders and peadophiles then? Is the holy spirit selective in whom he inparts the moral code to?
[/quote]

18

Without any outside influence?
[/quote]

I’m going to have to say yes, without any outside influence

I’m not sure how any of this counters what I said? Perhaps I’m just missing your point?

I agree that their actions often lead to conflict, however, this doesn’t nullify their innate sense to avoid conflict- the two desires are in conflict with each other.

I will have to say that there is an imediate sense of violation that child feels- The child, and even infant feel and express anger when their social expectations have been violated. The infant hwo cries when a toy is denied them. As a child grows, their sense of social obligation expands to include others feelings, and not just their own, however, even at very early ages, you’ll note that children offer things to others

I’m not sure we can decisevely make that determination- perhaps I’m wrong, but as I’ve mentioned, children instictively know when their own social expectations have been violated, and perhaps, there is more to the child giving a thing away than just a selfish desire to be happy because their carers or others are happy. Even if htis is true, there is an inherent need to be happy by excersizing a moral code that makes others happy that goes beyond simple need of survival.

No, rapist and murderers desensitize themselves to the universal moral code. The code still stands and is still valid, but the criminal has convinced themselves the code is not worth pursuing or obeying. They still know it is wrong. The case of the braindamaged person though is another issue that I’ve been trying to explore, as it presents it’s own problems in regards to the origins of morals, which is why I started this thread. I think it’s important to examine the development of morality from infant to adult, as this may help in discovering some aspect of the origins.

I beleive infants show and increasingly show a basic sense of a universal moral code, and as they develop, they expand to include concidering future results and not just immediate results, not to say that young children display only immediate result oriented ‘morality’, but it might be unrefined, and may not be not immediately obvious to the observer.

Another aspect of infant ‘morality’ is emotions. Emotions go hand in hand with ethical evaluation and determination- I’ll have to develope this more later, but infants show a basics in emotions.

19

Skittles I’m not good at that kind of thoight process either- hard for me to follow or make sense of- I am even having difficulty understanding where your going with your excplanation I’m afraid.

Sorry, I’ll try to be a little clearer with my own understanding given the quotes I used.

The “I,” or the consciousness, is not the Supervisory System - we are not some essence that sits above our head and has some sort of relationship with the rest of the body. Neither are some structure within our skulls that’s determined to do this or that based on the chemistry at the time and the genetic predispositions, etc. The consciousness itself is actually the system, you might say - without input one has no consciousness, for instance. The brain is part of this system, yes, but it is not the consciousness itself either. The consciousness is the person; the consciousness transcends the brain and receptors in and of themselves. When I say, “I think this equals this,” I indicate consciousness. I do not say, “My brain thinks this equals this.” I could say, perhaps, “My brain allows me, as apart of me, to see the patterns and the data in such a way as to think this equals this.” That, as you can see, though, is quite different.

20

You’ve also completely misunderstood memes and how ‘selfishness’ at the GENE level works, not at any thought process level, not at the species level, at the level of the gene. Gene’s can’t actually be selfish as they don’t think, it’s an anthromorphism that usefully illistrates Dawkins’ point. It’s a huge difference to the stuff you’re claiming that Dawkins believes.

Dawkins’ analogies must be embarrassing for atheists. They are entirely unnecessary. He has not created a theory about religion, he has created an analogy to religion - a way of describing religion. Unfortunately, his analogies largely fall on themselves. It’s kind of like saying, “I have to pass my virus into the toilet,” when I simply could say, “I have to take a dump.” He’s not doing anything spectacular in his analysis of Religion. His contributions are in the area of biology, not philosophy of Religion.