morality within evolution

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

I have had a question forming for some time now, and I'm not quite sure if I can yet ask it properly. Forgive me if this doesn't come out right...

What place does morality hold within the context of evolutionary theory?

Perhaps I would do well to explain somewhat. I recently completed Stephen J. Gould's book "Rocks of Ages" in which he describes what he calls "Non Overlapping Magisteria." This he describes as the respectful separation of science and religion, implying that the two attempt to answer completely different aspects of a given puzzle. In effect, science cannot address matters of faith, and religion cannot address matters of fact.

Given some posts I have seen from others elsewhere here, sometimes in association with nature oriented religions, I am puzzled. Can morality be the result of natural evolution? Or, as Gould implies, is this a matter of human psycho-social development that cannot be adequately addressed by scientific scholarship? Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific basis for their moralities? Or should the whole subject of moral development be held aside, restricted to the "magisteria" of religion?

Just some fuel for discussion...

[I, Brian]

As morality is essetnailly seen as a human aspect, I don;t think it is ever inferred in the theory of evolution.

In terms of Sociobiology there may perhaps be an argument to be made that human morality itself is a direct development from the rules of interaction that govern social apes.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Brian!

Thank you very much for your response.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

As morality is essetnailly seen as a human aspect, I don;t think it is ever inferred in the theory of evolution.

Yes, I understand. Yet morality is covered in social/cultural development, which seems often couched in "evolutionary," or at least "developmental," language.

In terms of Sociobiology there may perhaps be an argument to be made that human morality itself is a direct development from the rules of interaction that govern social apes.

OK, this is heading where I intended. Is it then "right" or "justifiable" to look to nature for moral guidance?

[alexa]

[QUOTE :Is it then "right" or "justifiable" to look to nature for moral guidance? [/QUOTE]
Hello juantoo3,

Maybe we should look at morality associated with moral. As Brian, said before, this applies only for humans.

Regarding the nature, as a moral guide, I have an example in my head : an animal doesn't kill another one just for fun. It kills to survive.

In my opinion, as long as you can learn something, no matter the source, it's a good thing.

Regards,

alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, alexa!

Thank you for your post.

Originally Posted by alexa

Maybe we should look at morality associated with moral. As Brian, said before, this applies only for humans.

Yes. Of course, this leads to ambiguity and vagueness.

Regarding the nature, as a moral guide, I have an example in my head : an animal doesn't kill another one just for fun. It kills to survive.

True. Of course, some animals eat their young. Some animals make babies and the father either leaves the mother, or both leave their babies to fend for themselves. Some male animals mate with as many females as they can get away with. The list continues...can these things be acceptable to humans as examples of morality?

In my opinion, as long as you can learn something, no matter the source, it's a good thing.

I accept this premise, but I question nature as a source. Perhaps humans are better left to define morality from other human examples? Or perhaps morality, at least as defined by and for humans, is something that distinguishes us from animals?

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I accept this premise, but I question nature as a source. Perhaps humans are better left to define morality from other human examples? Or perhaps morality, at least as defined by and for humans, is something that distinguishes us from animals?

I think this is the source of all the world's religions. Each religion has basically good principles of morality.



Now, what do we do with those poor people who don't care about morality and their behaviour is more like of an animal ?



We cannot condamn an animal only because it behaves like an animal. But we can learn from their behaviour. There are parents who abuses their children or leave them, just like some animals do. Same thing with the males. How many men are happy only with one woman ? Not many, unfortunately. And what about a religion which allows for a man as many wives and concubines as he can afford to keep ?



I have read recently an article about the evolution of life in the Universe. (I know there are a lot about his subject ). This article points the fact that the human being is on stagnation from thousands years now. Of course the science and the technology have evoluated. But what about us ? The history should be a good teacher. Then, why the same mistake is done again and again ? Ignorance or proud of the human being who thinks he will succeed there where others have failed ?



An earthqauake or a volcano can take our lives in a minute. What can we learn from these natural events ? We are mortals and the life is short. We cannot ignore nature as its all around us.

[alexa]

ups, sorry about the distance between paragraphs. I have lost the internet conection and it was difficult to save my post elsewhere.

alexa

[I, Brian]

I've edited the text, so it is now legible.

[alexa]

Thanks a lot, Brian !

Do you think it's possible to have a personal draft folder where we can save the messages before sending them ?

alexa

[I, Brian]

I don;t believe that one exists - my personal policy is to quickly use the followig:

CTRL+A - highlights all the message
CTRL+C - copies the highlighted message.

In the event that the post is lost, I then simply use

CTRL+V - paste all copied back in

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, alexa!

Thank you very much for your post!

By the way, I love the icon you chose, very nice.

Originally Posted by alexa

I think this is the source of all the world's religions. Each religion has basically good principles of morality.

It is really difficult to say with any certainty just exactly where religion did come from. You may have seen some of the discussions elsewhere. Even in considering the cave paintings at Lascaux and other places, the "religious" aspects are educated guesses by the researchers, they simply have no real way of knowing. It is a fair guess to say that religion and morality came out of nature, but we have no way to show that as fact. Or at least, I haven't seen anything.

I very much agree with the last part of your statement, each religion does have basically good principles of morality. I just wonder where this morality comes from...

Now, what do we do with those poor people who don't care about morality and their behaviour is more like of an animal ?

We lock them away, in a prison or mental institution.

We cannot condamn an animal only because it behaves like an animal.

Yet, so often, we do. If a bear acts like a bear and destroys a campsite, the bear is sometimes dealt with harshly. If a wolf acts like a wolf and kills a rancher's sheep, the wolf is killed for being a wolf. If an alligator attacks a human, or threatens to, it is all too often killed around here. So very often we do condemn animals for behaving just as they were meant to.

But we can learn from their behaviour. There are parents who abuses their children or leave them, just like some animals do. Same thing with the males. How many men are happy only with one woman ? Not many, unfortunately. And what about a religion which allows for a man as many wives and concubines as he can afford to keep ?

I am pleased to see you picked up on what I was trying to say with my examples. And this to a great degree illustrates my point. Because nature allows this kind of behavior, is it "right" for humans to hold such behavior as morality? I think in most enlightened societies, deadbeat dads and runaway moms are frowned upon. This is not socially ideal behavior, and it reflects in the laws and in the culture. Generally speaking harems are not permissable either, and looked down upon as well. This is natural behavior, but it is not moral behavior.

I mean, let's face it, nature can be a very cruel mistress. Morality is not her strong suit, regardless of some of the rosey pictures I have seen painted.

I have read recently an article about the evolution of life in the Universe. (I know there are a lot about his subject ). This article points the fact that the human being is on stagnation from thousands years now. Of course the science and the technology have evoluated. But what about us ? The history should be a good teacher. Then, why the same mistake is done again and again ? Ignorance or proud of the human being who thinks he will succeed there where others have failed ?

I think Solomon had a stroke of psychoanalytic genius when he wrote "there's nothing new under the sun." I think we have animal drives and desires, but morality so often seems to be at odds with those drives, keeping those drives in check in civil societies. The best for society at the expense of the best for the individual. Yet I see some promote a surrender of sorts to animal drives, and I cannot help but wonder the end result of such a moral code and way of life. I think it would be a return to the cave, so to speak. I do not see how it could in any way promote humanity, or provide for common good. Which returns me to the comment I made earlier about morality separating humans from animals.

An earthqauake or a volcano can take our lives in a minute. What can we learn from these natural events ? We are mortals and the life is short. We cannot ignore nature as its all around us.

I agree. I just don't see how this can be a driving factor in establishing a moral code to live by. An individual philosophy of "live life to the fullest" perhaps, but I don't see how it can reflect in the way to treat others around you, especially strangers. It doesn't reflect directly in the "social graces."

I understand that I do not know. That is why I asked my question. All of this is guess work, and wide open to discussion.

Thanks again!

[alexa]

Hello Juantoo3,

It's my pleasure to have with you this conversation.

I have no intention to say I have an answer for you. More I learn about life, more I know I know nothing.

So, let's try to approach this topic from different positions and maybe we are lucky enough to be closer tothe truth at the end of it.

[QUOTE : It is really difficult to say with any certainty just exactly where religion did come from.
I just wonder where this morality comes from...[/QUOTE]
Each religion has its leaders or founders (Moise, Jesus, Muhammad, Lao Zi, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc). They were all very wise people. They were also philosophers and reformers. Maybe they didn't like the behaviour of people around them, so giving moral rules was the best solution to teach them to behave otherwise.

We lock them away, in a prison or mental institution.

I think there is no enough space to put all of them inside.

So very often we do condemn animals for behaving just as they were meant to.

This is human arrogance to punish animals and prove superiority.

Because nature allows this kind of behavior, is it "right" for humans to hold such behavior as morality? I think in most enlightened societies, deadbeat dads and runaway moms are frowned upon. This is not socially ideal behavior, and it reflects in the laws and in the culture. Generally speaking harems are not permissable either, and looked down upon as well. This is natural behavior, but it is not moral behavior.

The nature has its means to perform selection. If a child is left in the jungle, there is no way to have a scientist at the end of his life. We need a society to become social beings. With each of us, the nature and the society give a shot to have a better person.

Which returns me to the comment I made earlier about morality separating humans from animals.


I just don't see how this can be a driving factor in establishing a moral code to live by. An individual philosophy of "live life to the fullest" perhaps, but I don't see how it can reflect in the way to treat others around you, especially strangers. It doesn't reflect directly in the "social graces."

You are right. Morality separates humans from animals. The only problem is how a person understands the morality. His education, his culture, the life experience and his age are important factors to consider.

I understand that I do not know. That is why I asked my question. All of this is guess work, and wide open to discussion.

In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. Nowadays, it's suicide even to try to read all of them. The amount of information is so high, we have only the possibility to specialize in a field and try to do the best for it.

Regards,


alexa

By the way, I have chosen my icon as people who know me well say this kind of regard characterize me

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

Originally Posted by alexa

So, let's try to approach this topic from different positions and maybe we are lucky enough to be closer tothe truth at the end of it.

Yes, please. I think that would make a very good thought exercise.

Each religion has its leaders or founders (Moise, Jesus, Muhammad, Lao Zi, Confucius, Zoroaster, etc). They were all very wise people. They were also philosophers and reformers. Maybe they didn't like the behaviour of people around them, so giving moral rules was the best solution to teach them to behave otherwise.

Yes, I agree. Philosophy (religious or otherwise) I would think to be distinct from socio-biology. Yet not inseparable. Perhaps some religious philosophers (here I am thinking of the foundation of Hinduism) looked to nature as a source, but realized many things in nature were not suitable to human society. At some point somebody must have realized that "animal morality" was not beneficial for the advancement of human society, and began teaching morality apart from nature. Just a thought...

This is human arrogance to punish animals and prove superiority.

I agree that humans do have a habit of proving superiority over nature in many nasty ways. The examples I presented though, were to show that sometimes that demonstration of superiority is necessary, for protection of human life or limb, or property. Humans do get carried away with this though.

The nature has its means to perform selection.

Yes, but so much of human society and morality is to circumvent natural selection. In the wild, a handicapped child would likely die. In modern society, even children born very pre-mature are saved alive, and society frowns on allowing handicapped individuals to wither and die. It still happens, but it is not encouraged as a social norm, even though it would be very much in accord with nature.

We need a society to become social beings. With each of us, the nature and the society give a shot to have a better person.

Another chicken and egg puzzle; which came first, society or social animals? I can see nature creating a better person if one allows for our present biological make-up. Society I would think definitely makes for a better person in that with strength in numbers, there is greater opportunity for each individual to thrive.

Morality separates humans from animals. The only problem is how a person understands the morality. His education, his culture, the life experience and his age are important factors to consider.

Certainly. Because a moral code exists, does not mean that each and every individual follows that code strictly. Especially since so many moral codes seem to be constructed in such a way as to guarantee failure, or at least sabotage absolute compliance. But there is social pressure on each individual to comply, and non-compliance carries social penalties.

In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. Nowadays, it's suicide even to try to read all of them. The amount of information is so high, we have only the possibility to specialize in a field and try to do the best for it.

Yes, there is so much information, too much for any one person to grasp and use. For all of our collective learning, I think we are finding we create more questions with each new answer.

Thank you again, Wes

[alexa]

Hello again, juantoo3

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Certainly. Because a moral code exists, does not mean that each and every individual follows that code strictly. Especially since so many moral codes seem to be constructed in such a way as to guarantee failure, or at least sabotage absolute compliance. But there is social pressure on each individual to comply, and non-compliance carries social penalties.

I think you have found something. There are indeed to many moral codes and religions and each of them seemed to work perfectely only for his founder. Does this mean the followers of a religion cannot understand the moral code as it was expected to ? Why we cannot get the same result as Jesus or Budda or the other founders ?

It's like we have the potential, but we have not enough strenght to use it.

I would like to propose you something. What do you say if we try to find the moral code of each religion (the base only) and see what they have in common and what makes them appart. As I'm a Christian, I would need some time to find the suitable information, or maybe other members will be interested to help us a little.

Let's take the world religions, as Brian gave us to the left.

I know it's a long shot, but once we have a global picture of what is moral and what is imoral, I hope we should be able to see the evolution of human being and the role of nature in a moral code.

What do you think ?

Regards,

alexa

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


alexa, as an aside to this discussion.. that is the entire point of Buddhist praxis... to get the same result as the historical Buddha Shakyamuni

realize that for the Buddhist, this can take a multiple of lifetimes... just as it was with the historical Buddha.

back to the regularly scheduled discussion