Discussions
Morality Is Instinct, Resulting from Natural Selection
Posted by JacobDiv • 7/16/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Evolution, morality, natural selection
DNA evidence is showing how morality developed in humans, because groups with morality have better survivability than those who don't. To me, this is a logical conclusion, but a few decades ago, scientists argued that natural selection operates at the individual level, not the group level. Here is a quote showing how they thought:
"It is universally conceded by those who have seriously concerned themselves with this problem … that such group-related adaptations must be attributed to the natural selection of alternative groups of individuals and that the natural selection of alternative alleles within populations will be opposed to this development. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning behind this conclusion. Only by a theory of between-group selection could we achieve a scientific explanation of group-related adaptations. However, I would question one of the premises on which the reasoning is based. Chapters 5 to 8 will be primarily a defense of the thesis that group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist. A group in this discussion should be understood to mean something other than a family and to be composed of individuals that need not be closely related." by George C. Williams.
Well, Mr. Williams's chapters 5 and 8 can go in the trash can, along with his idea that genes are not selected as a result of the success of populations of people.
Conclusion
Thinking this through today, it dawned on me that morality and the feelings that drive it are at a deep instinctive level, developed for survival, not for any higher purpose. Our sense of right and wrong is a mental process created to help us survive, by making our group more likely to survive.
Since our morality developed under conditions that don't apply anymore, sounds to me like morality is basically a nice word for mob rule with heartfelt zeal. I guess I am skipping over a few steps of logic, but to me, this all lines up better than Stonehenge.
Any thoughts?
p.s. I think this pretty much rules out the whole concept of Hell or a bad place after death. Hell is a rumor, a speculation, made up by someone, discovered by leaders to be a good motivator. Hell is total bull. Same for Heaven, including the mythic virgins awaiting Muslims who die in battle. I am glad to have this figured out, because I have been running my life with clear intentions of avoiding Hell, just in case it was real.
Now, I think the morally right thing to do is to survive and help my family. To the extent that is accomplished by helping others, that is what morality is.
I still want to be a nice guy though. I just like it that way. But being friendly and cooperative, without cheating other people is not moral, it's just comfort for me.
Yea, and 99.99999999% of everything said about God is rumor. Better to each his or her own on that one, just leave it there.
User Comments
-
I agree with everything you said 100%
and most people get real MORAL when there's something in it for them.
Just check out the "group dynamics on here" as a microcosm.
In other words if your an outcast on here there's a great chance I will like you.-
thanks jsinkeywest, agreement always is extremely welcome.
Regarding people's tendency to have morals that fit their Earthly needs has always struck me as so openly self serving, I thought people would notice and at least try to stop doing that. I'll get hung for suggesting such a thing a long time before we wise up.
I would say the most disappointing thing in my life, other than the temporary loss of my children, is the sad fact that people are slow to learn. I see it in how we have run the Vietnam war over again, less than 30 years after it ended the first time. GW Bush sees it in how I am repeating the mistake of the war resistors, in his eyes.
And so the world goes round and round. :-) What a relief finally cracking this nut about morality. Thanks again for the encouragement. -
"Regarding people's tendency to have morals that fit their Earthly needs has always struck me as so openly self serving, I thought people would notice and at least try to stop doing that."
That doesn't make any sense. I disagree with the opening premise--in my experience, morality is often inconvenient and often requires acting in ways that are precisely opposite to what would serve our 'earthly needs'--but if we accept your premise then why on earth would people "try to stop doing that?" If they've created a justification that allows them to feel good and righteous about doing exactly what they want to do, why would they change anything? -
Some people resist their Earthly needs, in deference to group interests. When this happens, it's a counter example to the self-serving scenario. I guess I would call that genuine morality. Maybe it's the lowlifes that will hang with me, but I don't mind admitting that I don't happen across much genuine morality, I mostly see the obviously self-serving kind.
Where there is no obvious or immediate benefit to a person for acting with morals, the group benefits; that is the definition of morality. Thus, a moral person still benefits in the end, by being within a group that is more likely to survive. To me, a person who gives so much to the group as to literally sacrifice themselves is a kind of saint, but that makes saints out of suicide bombers, so I am not sure how to explain that. I guess being a saint isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
Morality always is self serving, but sometimes the reward is more immediate than others.
MadameX
If they've created a justification that allows them to feel good and righteous about doing exactly what they want to do, why would they change anything?
They would change if they realized their good and righteous feelings were self referential, instead of referencing a higher power, as would be their claim when claiming morality. In other words, once I realized that people tend to make morality that conforms to their Earthly needs, I figured I had to be on guard to protect me from false pretenses. I thought others would think the same way as I think.. terrible assumption.
-
-
Richard Dawkins covered this topic extensively in his book, The God Delusion.
I challenged the idea of a religious-fueled morality in an article I wrote, titled "I'm not the Antichrist, I'm just anti-Christ." (Link: www.kobrascorner.com/philo/not-antichrist-but-anti-christ.php)
Another good article to read is "Why Atheism?"
www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm-
thanks for the reading tips.
I guess I had to come to this on my own. That old, "not invented here" problem, at the individual level. :-)
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
