Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
2.



First things first - stop saying this is Darwin's theory (no one's done it in a few pages, but still). Darwin made some passing comments about complex social behaviors possibly having some heritable aspect, but Darwin did not promote the "social Darwinist" theories you're refering to.

I am not using "social Darwinian" theories. Under the basic theory of evolution, mutations either die out or are successful. The mutations that are successful are the ones that help the carrier of that mutation carry on their genetic line. The mutations that do not help the carrier survive (or carry on their genetic line - survive until they can reproduce) dies out because the carrier dies. Every step in the evolutionary process is a mutation that has helped us survive. So absense some divine influence, our moral instincts are a mutation that has carried on because that mutation has helped us survive. Just like the mutation that created our eyes, opposable thumbs, and brain.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic Second - if (pretty much) all people are genetically predisposed to have an instinct driving them to feed starving children, why is that universal instinct not the basis for a "universal" moral code? Because it may be irrational? Just because self interest may find expression in several ways (evolutionary/instinctual and rational), why would the evolutionary (universal) aspect not be a sound basis for a universal code of morality?

The problem, like I pointed out with the father killing his step childre, is if people's morality is just based on self interest mutation then the argument of what is right and wrong breaks down to what helps us survive. If people have two conflicting instincts on what is moral how do you decide who is right? In different isolated societies people will develop different moral instincts (there will be different mutations) and some will help people survive better than others. They will also differ depending on different environmental factors. So people in warm climates will have different moral instincts than people in cold climates (just like they have different weather protectoin). If all we have is the theory of evolution, our moral instincts, are just mutations and we will never be able to agree on what is the right mutation.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic Justifying one's irrational impulse to do good with "faith" is no more convincing an argument that basing it on "thousands of years of evolutionary pressures producing this instinct in individuals with a higher rate of survival." In fact, it is much less so. Evolution strikes me as a much better (and much less culturally relative) basis for any universal code than God and religion (which, as is perfectly obvious, does not produce "universal" codes of morality but instead conflicting relative ones).

We will have to agree to disagree. Without a universal instinct for good that is not universally based, I do not believe mankind could ever agree on morality. The "good" instincts developed by evolution are just mutations that help us survive. They will not only be relative from society to society, but future mutations may be better. So if certain humans are born with a mutation that tells them to kill the weak and these humans reproduce more successfully than us, and take over the world who are we to criticize their morality, because it has helped them carry on their genetic line.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic The rational free-rider problem is applicable to all moral codes, not just ones that consider themselves to be based on evolved instincts for self-interest. It undermines divine morality as much as evolutionary behaviorism, and in nearly the same way.

Here I also think you are wrong. If I understand that my instincts are there just to help me survive, then cheating on my taxes, if I can get away with it is fine. If I know that no one will catch me, it increases the amount of resourcesw that I have, and it will not effect the society I live in (being one in two hundred million tax payers my step will be insignificant) then I should do it. If there is a universal moral code that says you should not cheat then no matter how it benefits me I should not do it. Period. Same thing goes for stealing or any other crime.

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic (After all, it is the divine mover who gave us rationality, which, if we exercise it, tells us that it is in our interests to ignore God's moral codes.) And, while it may seem superficially rational to eschew moral behavior to free-ride, besides the cute Kantian and Rawlsian cites offered (which may be summarized as "acquiescing to serve a broader interest in lieu of my immediate self interest is in fact in my longer-term self interest" or "the shoe may be on the other foot some day"), it is entirely rational to debate whether it is in fact rational to assume one's own rational analysis of what behaviors will be individually beneficial is superior to instinctive behaviors with millenia of proven success.

So you find some money on the floor in your Gym. One instinct tells you to keep it, and another one tells you to turn it into the front desk in case someone claims it. Which one do you listen to? both instincts are there to help you survive. I believe one of the instincts comes from some place besides a mutation that helps you survive.