application of evolution

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by boagie

Nature is amoral, why would you assume nature has any morality to bestow...

Ah, a tricky one. So let's rephrase it. In nature humans as well as other animals are known to commonly behave in ways that we humans would judge as moral. And this behavior not only transcends education, culture, and religious belief among humans, but it also transcends species in some cases.

So perhaps it's natural to behave in a way that we'd regard as moral -- even if the idea of moral vs immoral is a purely human judgement?

In other words, nature IS moral. It just doesn't know it!

[Didymos Thomas]

Wow, Aedes, I've never thought to approach the matter in this way. Now I'm probably going to have to spend a great deal of time thinking about what you've said.

[Aedes]

My views on this are very influenced by this article in the NY Times Magazine, which I've referenced here a few times. I've even gone and looked at a couple of the source studies and talked with a junior faculty member at UNC in Philosophy and Cognitive Science about this (we may collaborate on a study at some point).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/ma...chology-t.html

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Ah, a tricky one. So let's rephrase it. In nature humans as well as other animals are known to commonly behave in ways that we humans would judge as moral. And this behavior not only transcends education, culture, and religious belief among humans, but it also transcends species in some cases.

So perhaps it's natural to behave in a way that we'd regard as moral -- even if the idea of moral vs immoral is a purely human judgement?

In other words, nature IS moral. It just doesn't know it!

Aedes,

It is true that nature appears to produce a potential for moral behaviour but as you have pointed out in another thread, if the context is not of a particular nature it might not evoke that possiabilty or potentiality. For lack of a better word for it, it is an emergent quality in the individual organism, which arises only in a group dynamic. If it is as I understand it, compassion is the essence of all morality, and the essence of compassion is the ability to identify with the self in others, then the group/society is essential to there being any morality at all. So yes nature does seem to produce moral potenial in the creation of life consciousenss, by it requires other to evoke it. In a practical sense the greater the identification with other the more likely is the compassion. This can actually be seen in examples of humanitarian aid, where the focus group for potential fund raising are much more generous if the needy more closely resemble themselves.

[Aedes]

Boagie,

I make no case for nature producing behavior that corresponds identically to human ideals of morality.

My point is that morality is a judgement. And it so happens that the behaviors we judge as morally good are often those that we do anyway -- like compassionate things.

And it sure stands to reason that we would evolve to socially judge things as good if they're to our advantage, as morally good things usually are.

Thus, the moral behavior is largely innate because it is advantageous, and the moral judgement has arisen to reward this advantageous behavior.

[boagie]

Aedes,

Yes, I understand now, amazing the ways of self interest is not. A lot of morality and/or ethics might be understood this way, as the biological extension of ones self interest. Do you think it has this universal application across the board?

[mashiaj]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Boagie,

I make no case for nature producing behavior that corresponds identically to human ideals of morality.

My point is that morality is a judgement. And it so happens that the behaviors we judge as morally good are often those that we do anyway -- like compassionate things.

And it sure stands to reason that we would evolve to socially judge things as good if they're to our advantage, as morally good things usually are.

Thus, the moral behavior is largely innate because it is advantageous, and the moral judgement has arisen to reward this advantageous behavior.

yes i agree morality is for our advantage, hot to kill, not to harm, etc.
but religious morality not at all because it is in opposition with the survival instincts and behaviors such as sex, material wealth, greed, violence etc.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

All society does really is protect you from people doing some things deemed wrong. But when it comes down to it you might have to do some of that, then it is no longer beneficial to follow the contract of society so to speak

The social contract theory is not a good model for many reasons, first and foremost of them is that our biology prevents us from making rational social decisions.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Aedes

In other words, nature IS moral. It just doesn't know it!

I imagine you said this for more of a lark than for profundity, but this is a remarkably self-centered way of looking at it. Unfortunately it is the way most of our species look at nature.

The apparent fact of the matter is, however, that morality does not revolve around what we think to be moral, (even if we perfected some Kantian rational morality) but what nature programs into our social behavior. The morality of nature is certainly not coincidental, and should it so deem, nature could have changed what is "moral" altogether.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I imagine you said this for more of a lark than for profundity, but this is a remarkably self-centered way of looking at it. Unfortunately it is the way most of our species look at nature.

The apparent fact of the matter is, however, that morality does not revolve around what we think to be moral, (even if we perfected some Kantian rational morality) but what nature programs into our social behavior. The morality of nature is certainly not coincidental, and should it so deem, nature could have changed what is "moral" altogether.

Mr. Fight the Power,

It will be interesting to hear something further along this line Mr. Fight the Power. I have not found in the past that I often disageed with you. You make it sound however as though nature had intend something, that nature has a consciousness, admittedly certain behaviour were selected out, and nature undoubtedly give us the mental prowess to make evaluations/ judgements through selection. Morality is quite a meaningful concept, obviously it could only, like all other meanings, be the property of a conscious subject. I have heard something of this nature in the past that somehow there is an objective morality--a naturalized epistemology. I did not understand it then, and I do not understand it now, perhaps as this dialogue moves along however, I will see the errors of my ways.