NationStates Jolt Archive

There is a common idea that religion defines morals. I was however struck by how similar morals tend to be across religions. So it got me to thinking that perhaps morals had a more basic level.

What if morals were determined both individually and as a society by our biology?
How would they look then?

One of the original basic tenets of evolutionary theory was “survival of the fittest”. This is so often misrepresented on so many levels. However if you look at it on a gene by gene level rather than on an individual person level a lot of behavioural characteristics become a lot more understandable.

Would morals be different given the sole objective of promoting replication of particular genes?

So “moral” #1 might be: Preserve the life of humans

Given that humans share a much greater proportion of your genes than other creatures a good survival plan for your genes would be to make sure as many of you fellow humans survive as possible.

From moral #1 would come basic rules like:
Don’t hurt people (as wounding people will reduce their survival rate)
Don’t kill people (pretty obvious one)

It’s a start  so where to from here…

One problem is a lot of morals revolve around material possessions and I am having trouble working them into the model. Anyone have any good ideas as to how that might work?

No, they cannot. The fact that something is natural does not mean that it is good.

Go look up The Evolution of Evil: An Inquiry into the Ultimate Origins of Human Suffering by Timothy Anders, it actually gets into this idea in depth.

I personally felt that he was missing a few things, but it's still an interesting read.

You might also want to try The Globe, Science of Discworld II. Pratchett and crew take this on as well, noting that morals such as helping those not related to you make no evolutionary sense.

This sounds to much like that idea that people don't have any personal responsibility. As if you go out murdering and raping that it wasn't your choice to do so but your GENES made you do it! It's not your fault, you can't go against what is naturally part of you! :rolleyes:

Morals are a learned concept. Your environment and then your own personal choices determine what you believe.

There is a common idea that religion defines morals. I was however struck by how similar morals tend to be across religions. So it got me to thinking that perhaps morals had a more basic level.

What if morals were determined both individually and as a society by our biology?
How would they look then?

One of the original basic tenets of evolutionary theory was “survival of the fittest”. This is so often misrepresented on so many levels. However if you look at it on a gene by gene level rather than on an individual person level a lot of behavioural characteristics become a lot more understandable.

Would morals be different given the sole objective of promoting replication of particular genes?

So “moral” #1 might be: Preserve the life of humans

Given that humans share a much greater proportion of your genes than other creatures a good survival plan for your genes would be to make sure as many of you fellow humans survive as possible.

From moral #1 would come basic rules like:
Don’t hurt people (as wounding people will reduce their survival rate)
Don’t kill people (pretty obvious one)

It’s a start  so where to from here…

One problem is a lot of morals revolve around material possessions and I am having trouble working them into the model. Anyone have any good ideas as to how that might work?if Biology defines morals, then Genetic disorders would be encouraged to be removed from the gene pool.

once a child reaches biological adulthood (puberty) they would no longer be the responsiblity of the parents.

Materialistically, if you cannot afford it... tough.

if you cannot work due to disability, there should be no assistance unless it's willingly given by another person.

It seems to me that what are considered universal morals are actually just developments that lead to better functioning of the society in question. Obviously a distaste of murder is important for any society to function. Where applicable, laws against fraud and theft and disregrad were placed, but they were far from universal.

This sounds to much like that idea that people don't have any personal responsibility. As if you go out murdering and raping that it wasn't your choice to do so but your GENES made you do it! It's not your fault, you can't go against what is naturally part of you! :rolleyes:

Morals are a learned concept. Your environment and then your own personal choices determine what you believe.
It's not quite that, it's more along the lines of where did morality come from? Religion says it was given from (a/the) god(s). A biological model would have it that it gives us an evolutionary advantage to have them. There-in lies the issue, because while it makes sence to help those related to you (Your mate and offspring), and help those who you can reasonibly expect a reward from (to further your ability to raise children, or win prestige to gain a mate), it doesn't make sense to risk your life and your ability to transmit your genes for someone you do not know and who could never reward you.

And yet humans have a tendancy to do so.

I think for some basic things, yes. However, there is a lot of morality that is external of simple survival.

For example, we treat and try to cure people with genetic diseases or deformities rather than leave them for dead; were we to talk in terms of simple genetic propagation, there would be little or no incentive to keep them alive. In fact, it would be more desirable to let them die because it would enable the mutations that cause such illnesses to gradually be eliminated.

I really think technology is the wrench in biological moral determinism because it changes the dynamics of the situation; there are a lot of things that technology creates that our genetic morality can't deal with. The stuff built in to us is the product of billions of years of evolution that is meant to keep us alive in the environment that it arose in, in our case the hunter-gatherer lifestyle on the savannahs of Africa.

Put it in perspective:
We moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture in 120,000 years. In that remaining 10,000 years, we move from simple agricultural villages and writing to being able to explore space and manipulate things on the nanoscale, and our population has grown from a few million to nearly 7 billion...we are moving at a rate so fast that our biological morality is simply unable to manage and we have had to develop new morality to accommodate these changes.

It's not quite that, it's more along the lines of where did morality come from? Religion says it was given from (a/the) god(s). A biological model would have it that it gives us an evolutionary advantage to have them. There-in lies the issue, because while it makes sence to help those related to you (Your mate and offspring), and help those who you can reasonibly expect a reward from (to further your ability to raise children, or win prestige to gain a mate), it doesn't make sense to risk your life and your ability to transmit your genes for someone you do not know and who could never reward you.

And yet humans have a tendancy to do so.

Isn't it whenever we achieved that "spark" that made us human that we developed our own morals? As a species we realized that we needed to cooperate in order to survive. Whether hunter/gatherers or settling down after farming and animal husbandry we needed to work together for the benefit of the group. This would mean we would have to help each other survive on all levels. Running amok among each other, commiting "immoral" acts would hardly allow this to happen now would it? If one dies then that means one less person to hunt, farm etc. It was for our own benefit that gave us morals I think.

But pretty much all those responses assume that you are in competition with other humans for survival.

But thats completely the opposite of what you would expect biologically.

Humans have essentially an identical set of genes.. with differences in types of each gene. Therefore it is immediately the goal of all humans to keep as many humans alive as possible based on their basic biological urge.

Yes at the micro level there are advantages to favouring your direct kins survival, but they are very small effects compared to the survival of humans in general.

Therefore the smooth working of human society would be the best way to maintain a large population of human genes.

Its not a competition of human against human. Its human vs environment.

It's not quite that, it's more along the lines of where did morality come from? Religion says it was given from (a/the) god(s). A biological model would have it that it gives us an evolutionary advantage to have them. There-in lies the issue, because while it makes sence to help those related to you (Your mate and offspring), and help those who you can reasonibly expect a reward from (to further your ability to raise children, or win prestige to gain a mate), it doesn't make sense to risk your life and your ability to transmit your genes for someone you do not know and who could never reward you.

And yet humans have a tendancy to do so.

We're pack animals, with no innate ability to determine who shares your specific familial genes.

Personally, however, I don't believe that morality is inherently biological. It's one level removed from biology, in that biology causes intelligence, which causes morality to come into being.

Isn't it whenever we achieved that "spark" that made us human that we developed our own morals? As a species we realized that we needed to cooperate in order to survive. Whether hunter/gatherers or settling down after farming and animal husbandry we needed to work together for the benefit of the group. This would mean we would have to help each other survive on all levels. Running amok among each other, commiting "immoral" acts would hardly allow this to happen now would it? If one dies then that means one less person to hunt, farm etc. It was for our own benefit that gave us morals I think.

Pretty much my point exactly

Isn't it whenever we achieved that "spark" that made us human that we developed our own morals? As a species we realized that we needed to cooperate in order to surprise. Whether hunter/gatherers or settling down after farming and animal husbandry we needed to work together for the benefit of the group. This would mean we would have to help each other survive on all levels. Running amok among each other, commiting "immoral" acts would hardly allow this to happen now would it? If one dies then that means one less person to hunt, farm etc. It was our own survival that gave us morals I think.
The problem being that survival of the species doesn't figure into evolution, survival of the animal also does not figure into evolution, just surviving long enough to pass on your genes matters. So where does that leave us getting into the societies since we wouldn't care about others in the group unless it directly affected our own chance of begtting children and raising them to the point where they also start begetting children?

However, should we go on that path, we end up with the chicken and the egg. Did biologically devloped morals lead us to go from a loose group (ala our cousins the chimps) to actual societies? Or did forming socieities make us devlop morals in the first place?

We're pack animals, with no innate ability to determine who shares your specific familial genes.

Personally, however, I don't believe that morality is inherently biological. It's one level removed from biology, in that biology causes intelligence, which causes morality to come into being.
Not inate, no, but we can get a pretty good idea about it. Namely by taking a mate and keeping her removed from other men.

Its not a competition of human against human. Its human vs environment.

Whenever you have limited resources you are going to have conflict with the humans around you. It is inevitable.

Put it in perspective:
We moved from hunter-gatherers to agriculture in 120,000 years. In that remaining 10,000 years, we move from simple agricultural villages and writing to being able to explore space and manipulate things on the nanoscale, and our population has grown from a few million to nearly 7 billion...we are moving at a rate so fast that our biological morality is simply unable to manage and we have had to develop new morality to accommodate these changes.

But do you really think our morallity has evolved that much faster?? Do we really have an approriate set of morals for dealing with the situation we are in.. or are we still trying to fit the old round peg through what is rapidly becoming a square hole?

If morals were so flexible why would Religions with such fixed moral framworks be so successful?

If morals were so flexible why would Religions with such fixed moral framworks be so successful?

By being flexible, and editing out the flexibility.

No, they cannot. The fact that something is natural does not mean that it is good.

What does define what is good then?

And why not. Surely if it has been "good enough" for the last few million years then it has a certain degree of goodness about it?

Its not a competition of human against human. Its human vs environment.
Since when? We compete against each other all the bloody time. I've yet to see any driving force in nature that says a species must consider the advantages of the species of the whole and not the individual's genes first. It doesn't work that way.

But do you really think our morallity has evolved that much faster?? Do we really have an approriate set of morals for dealing with the situation we are in.. or are we still trying to fit the old round peg through what is rapidly becoming a square hole?

If morals were so flexible why would Religions with such fixed moral framworks be so successful?it depends.

Morals baised on Social Values are the most flexable.
Morals baised on Religous Values are not quite as flexable but more so than...
Morals baised on Biology is baised on evolutionary/reproductive growth.

I am not sure why it is easier to believe that Morals just sprung out of nowhere fully formed than to imagine that they evolved to benifit our survival....?

What does define what is good then?

Take your pick.

My only point is that it does not necessarily follow. If you want to base your morality around nature, go ahead.

And why not. Surely if it has been "good enough" for the last few million years then it has a certain degree of goodness about it?

It has been "good enough" for a certain purpose - increasing Darwinian fitness.

Personally, that purpose does not move me at all.

it depends.

Morals baised on Social Values are the most flexable.
Morals baised on Religous Values are not quite as flexable but more so than...
Morals baised on Biology is baised on evolutionary/reproductive growth.

but surely society is all about creating a harmonious environment within which we can best reproduce? Or at least form an optimal level of population?

So societies morals are all about basic biology.

Biology determines everything. "Morals" are a ploy by some biological beings to influence the behavior of other biological beings for their own ends. These ends, no matter how much they may argue otherwise, are biological imperatives.

Take your pick.
Personally, that purpose does not move me at all.

Maybe not conciously... but its likely that underneath everything its likely to have a pretty strong driving force..

The problem being that survival of the species doesn't figure into evolution, survival of the animal also does not figure into evolution, just surviving long enough to pass on your genes matters. So where does that leave us getting into the societies since we wouldn't care about others in the group unless it directly affected our own chance of begtting children and raising them to the point where they also start begetting children?

However, should we go on that path, we end up with the chicken and the egg. Did biologically devloped morals lead us to go from a loose group (ala our cousins the chimps) to actual societies? Or did forming socieities make us devlop morals in the first place?

Evolution may have nothing to do with it. Humans coming together for their mutual benefit would require some understanding between the people of the group. Morals would then be established as the group would agree to things that were unacceptable to do for it would go against the success of the group. Because the group matters I think we would care about the success of others then just our own offspring. Their wellbeing would be their wellbeing as well.

So I don't agree with the chicken and the egg analogy. Humans would have to form a society for morals to be neccessary to begin with. Besides, I don't like the idea that I am preprogramed to believe or act in a certain way. I control my own actions. Different societies have different morals anyway, it is not as if we all adhere to one moral code. If our genes are basically the same I don't see how that could occur.

I am not sure why it is easier to believe that Morals just sprung out of nowhere fully formed than to imagine that they evolved to benifit our survival....?
Because sometimes morals do not make an evolutionary sense?

Personally I think it's a very large mixture that doesn't really have a source.

Evolution may have nothing to do with it. Humans coming together for their mutual benefit would require some understanding between the people of the group. Morals would then be established as the group would agree to things that were unacceptable to do for it would go against the success of the group. Because the group matters I think we would care about the success of others then just our own offspring. Their wellbeing would be their wellbeing as well.
Why come together as a group when what you're trying to do is have babies? That's the drive after all. You want YOUR genes, not mine, to keep going.

So I don't agree with the chicken and the egg analogy. Humans would have to form a society for morals to be neccessary to begin with. Besides, I don't like the idea that I am preprogramed to believe or act in a certain way. I control my own actions. Different societies have different morals anyway, it is not as if we all adhere to one moral code. If our genes are basically the same I don't see how that could occur.
Just because you don't like it...

In any case, this is not saying that morals are something that is an instint, but that they may have developed due to evolutionary advantage. Our brains, thumbs, and language were also devloped the same way, they gave us tremendous advantage over everything else on the planet (noted by our being able to argue this over the Internet), but what we choose to do with them is still up to us.

Same idea.

Since when? We compete against each other all the bloody time. I've yet to see any driving force in nature that says a species must consider the advantages of the species of the whole and not the individual's genes first. It doesn't work that way.

Of course we compete against each other all the time.

But those competitions are all pretty much on the micro level.

When was the last time you ate a person?

You don't.. (well not generally) you chose to eat other species first.

Here is an example from "nature"

Bees will die protecting the hive.

If you take a worker bee from one hive and place it in another hive it will go to work for that hive... even if they are completely unrelated.. but the same species.

Of course we compete against each other all the time.

But those competitions are all pretty much on the micro level.

When was the last time you ate a person?

You don't.. (well not generally) you chose to eat other species first.

Here is an example from "nature"

Bees will die protecting the hive.

If you take a worker bee from one hive and place it in another hive it will go to work for that hive... even if they are completely unrelated.. but the same species.
Then why do new alphas usually kill the offspring of the old alpha as soon as they get in? Wouldn't make more sense, if evolution geared us to species survival, do keep them around for more genetic avalability?

And wars with millions dead hardly count as a microlevel.

Why come together as a group when what you're trying to do is have babies? That's the drive after all. You want YOUR genes, not mine, to keep going.

You can't pass on yourself to your offspring if you don't get your basic neccessities first. You will care more for your own family of course as they are the assurance that you will pass on yourself. But humans work together as a group for a reason. Their survival. Also as a group you can collectively protect all the children, make it easier to keep them alive. So it is mutually beneficial. You help me survive to pass on my genes and I do the same for you. If this wasn't important then we wouldn't have bothered to band together.

Why come together as a group when what you're trying to do is have babies? That's the drive after all. You want YOUR genes, not mine, to keep going.


See thats what a lot of people get from "survival of the fittest" but its just not the case.

If it is a choice between my kid and yours then sure my kid should come first. But biologically I would rather that both children survive, yours AND mine as we share a great deal of genetic material.. even if we are "completely unrelated".

If it is a chice between your baby and a dog surviving the choice should be easy.

That is the way it works in nature.

Its not me vs other human genes until you get right down to the really low level. All the big decisions are humans vs the rest....

But do you really think our morallity has evolved that much faster?? Do we really have an approriate set of morals for dealing with the situation we are in.. or are we still trying to fit the old round peg through what is rapidly becoming a square hole?

I think to a degree, yes; however, we do constantly face the challenge of keeping up with technological evolution because in many ways that is a process which is developing independent of society and is in fact developing much faster than the society which supports it. In some ways, it's taken on a "mind of its own" and has long since escaped our control, which means we have to adapt to these changes in order to benefit from the vast good technology does and avoid the great potential harm or even existential risks.

I mean, look at the aftermath of Hiroshima to see that in action; we realized the capability of those weapons and were able to, within a generation, make it virtually established that those weapons were not going to be used because of their effects. During the Cold War, we developed them as protection against others, but things like the test-ban or non-proliferation treaties have greatly stopped the deployment of these weapons as well as reduced the stockpiles worldwide.

Other things like the development of organizations like the United Nations or the EU are other signs of moral change, especially considering both of them are less than a century old; even though they are not perfect, they have been capable of achieving ends that previously might have been solved through war. The EU itself, with a variety of cultures working together in a generally coherent manner is significant because only a century ago, most of the nations were tearing at each others' throats in arms-races and wars and now have been able to function as peaceful democratic states for over 50 years.


If morals were so flexible why would Religions with such fixed moral framworks be so successful?

Well, because many of our problems still fit those moral frameworks, and I imagine they always will as long as there are human beings interacting with one another. Some things just don't change, even with changing cultures and technology.

but surely society is all about creating a harmonious environment within which we can best reproduce? Or at least form an optimal level of population?

So societies morals are all about basic biology.

no, society morals are about Social welfare.

Biology is nature and it tends to be cold and ruthless.

Healing the sick. that's not a biological value, but a social/Religous one.
Sharing? again a socal/religous value.

leaving those afflicted with medical disorders to die? that is a biological moral.

You can't pass on yourself to your offspring if you don't get your basic neccessities first. You will care more for your own family of course as they are the assurance that you will pass on yourself. But humans work together as a group for a reason. Their survival. Also as a group you can collectively protect all the children, make it easier to keep them alive. So it is mutually beneficial. You help me survive to pass on my genes and I do the same for you. If this wasn't important then we wouldn't have bothered to band together.
So socicety then was something that evoluved for our survival and since we needed morals to do so...

but surely society is all about creating a harmonious environment within which we can best reproduce? Or at least form an optimal level of population?

Well, the problem is that technology has greatly changed our reproductive environment. Initially, it led to a population explosion thanks to things like agriculture, medicine, and sanitation and now is starting to slow our growth rate as the economic development that technology brings reduces birthrates and causes us to marry later, and later marriage is a lot less desirable in evolutionary terms.

Now, extended lifespan does figure in to this by reducing the need to have as many kids since the population is productive for longer, but that is still a product of technology rather than biology.

Effectively, the noosphere is altering our biological drives. Technology is creating an increasingly optimal reproductive environment, but it's simultaneously slowing our birth-rate to a point where it may approach replacement or even dip below replacement.

See thats what a lot of people get from "survival of the fittest" but its just not the case.

If it is a choice between my kid and yours then sure my kid should come first. But biologically I would rather that both children survive, yours AND mine as we share a great deal of genetic material.. even if we are "completely unrelated".
See, I love this, both you and Utracia admit that I'm right, and then give me a "Yes, but"! Read what you have just written, sure, my kid comes first. THAT'S the drive. Your kid DOES come first. You would save YOUR kid, NOT mine if push came to shove.

That is the way it works in nature.

Its not me vs other human genes until you get right down to the really low level. All the big decisions are humans vs the rest....
Prove it then.

To give you some reference:

The human genome project:

They don't have to sequence the genetic material from every person on the planet.... you know why.. because I have exactly.. I repeat EXACTLY the same genes as you.. every single last one of them. Sure I have different versions of them.. but they are the same genes. Thats why you can tell the difference between any human and any other animal. (sure in some cases the gap is slightly smaller but not by much)

If you look at a chimp they share about 98%... rabbits less.. fish... even less... plants .. even less still... bacteria.. less

noticing a pattern here?

What would you care more about..
a person or a rabbit
a rabbit or a carrot?
A carrot or the disease growing on it?

Biology urges you to care for other humans because it helps the genes to reproduce.. the more of them there are the more successful they are..

Thats the harshness of nature

Morals are designed to keep society functioning. What could be better for survival of our genes that a functioning society??

there are of course limits to population.. an optimal level where if you exceed it then you all starve to death cause you eat all the food etc.. so if you really are talking about optimal survival the reproduction will be curtailed at some points...

but surely society is all about creating a harmonious environment within which we can best reproduce?

No, a just society is about guaranteeing maximal freedom and happiness to its members.

Quite likely, that involves creating an environment where there are certain barriers to reproduction.

if Biology defines morals, then Genetic disorders would be encouraged to be removed from the gene pool.

once a child reaches biological adulthood (puberty) they would no longer be the responsiblity of the parents.

Materialistically, if you cannot afford it... tough.

if you cannot work due to disability, there should be no assistance unless it's willingly given by another person.
Sounds awfully Nazisitic.

So socicety then was something that evoluved for our survival and since we needed morals to do so...

I do not think you need morals when you first form the society. It is the morals that come after that keep the society together. I do not think you have to have any kind of code to join a group. It would be pure self interest that would proceed everything at first. This though only works at the beginning. Any longterm society, some kind of rules would be neccessary to prevent infighting. So morals would be developed to keep chaos from occuring.

To give you some reference:

The human genome project:

They don't have to sequence the genetic material from every person on the planet.... you know why.. because I have exactly.. I repeat EXACTLY the same genes as you.. every single last one of them. Sure I have different versions of them.. but they are the same genes. Thats why you can tell the difference between any human and any other animal. (sure in some cases the gap is slightly smaller but not by much)

If you look at a chimp they share about 98%... rabbits less.. fish... even less... plants .. even less still... bacteria.. less

noticing a pattern here?

What would you care more about..
a person or a rabbit
a rabbit or a carrot?
A carrot or the disease growing on it?

Biology urges you to care for other humans because it helps the genes to reproduce.. the more of them there are the more successful they are..

Thats the harshness of nature

Morals are designed to keep society functioning. What could be better for survival of our genes that a functioning society??

there are of course limits to population.. an optimal level where if you exceed it then you all starve to death cause you eat all the food etc.. so if you really are talking about optimal survival the reproduction will be curtailed at some points...
Then why do we kill each other? Why do care far more about our own children than the children of others? Surely if we wanted ALL children to survive, why do we compeat for your own child's sake for everything? If it really didn't matter because our genes say we want the species to survive, then it shouldn't matter whose child a particular child was, but it matters a very great deal.

Blood is thicker than water after all.

And again, in nature, the killing of other's children is quite the norm, especially for our closest cousins.

I do not think you need morals when you first form the society. It is the morals that come after that keep the society together. I do not think you have to have any kind of code to join a group. It would be pure self interest that would proceed everything at first. This though only works at the beginning. Any longterm society, some kind of rules would be neccessary to prevent infighting. So morals would be developed to keep chaos from occuring.
Then why follow the rules when it makes more sense to cheat?

Then why follow the rules when it makes more sense to cheat?

Who doesn't cheat?

Who doesn't cheat?
Well, if everyone was cheating all the time, there would hardly be any rules, now would there?

Then why do we kill each other? Why do care far more about our own children than the children of others? Surely if we wanted ALL children to survive, why do we compeat for your own child's sake for everything? If it really didn't matter because our genes say we want the species to survive, then it shouldn't matter whose child a particular child was, but it matters a very great deal

Well, here's a good question: If your child is born with a serious and possibly terminal genetic disease that is treatable, do you treat them?

Then why follow the rules when it makes more sense to cheat?

The society learns that cooperation will earn you more success then if you try to harm the others in your group. Especially when humans settle down and begin farming, they know that everyone working is needed to ensure the survival of all.

Then of course, you get a leader who will make sure the people stay in line. :)

Well, here's a good question: If your child is born with a serious and possibly terminal genetic disease that is treatable, do you treat them?
Yes.

Then why do we kill each other? Why do care far more about our own children than the children of others? Surely if we wanted ALL children to survive, why do we compeat for your own child's sake for everything? If it really didn't matter because our genes say we want the species to survive, then it shouldn't matter whose child a particular child was, but it matters a very great deal.

We do not care for outsiders from our own group. Outsiders mean competition for the limited resources that you have. Not good at all. Our genes may want our species to survive but I think it is better to say that our genes want us personally to survive. Other humans taking resources will be a threat to this goal. Killing other humans will be a way to make sure you live to have your own offspring. So your group will of course work together to make sure that this collective goal is kept. To make sure that they will survive and to pass on their genes.

The society learns that cooperation will earn you more success then if you try to harm the others in your group. Especially when humans settle down and begin farming, they know that everyone working is needed to ensure the survival of all.

Then of course, you get a leader who will make sure the people stay in line. :)
Have you every heard of the prisoner's delema? It actually addresses this issue nicely.

We do not care for outsiders from our own group. Outsiders mean competition for the limited resources that you have. Not good at all. Our genes may want our species to survive but I think it is better to say that our genes want us personally to survive. Other humans taking resources will be a threat to this goal. Killing other humans will be a way to make sure you live to have your own offspring.
Exactly. Our genes do not care about the species surviving, and it's iffy about personally surviving after you actually have kids (Think about how quickly after we reach sexual peak that our bodies start to break down).

Yes.

So would I...and that's why I tend to feel morality comes from somewhere other than just biology and gene propagation.

Also, your money might have been able to save ten genetically healthier children in Africa or Asia for example, and if we were strictly operating in terms of humanity vs. nature we should be predisposed to that option rather than trying to save our genetically flawed and resource-inefficient offspring.

So would I...and that's why I tend to feel morality comes from somewhere other than just biology and gene propagation.

Also, your money might have been able to save ten genetically healthier children in Africa or Asia for example, and if we were strictly operating in terms of humanity vs. nature we should be predisposed to that option rather than trying to save our genetically flawed and resource-inefficient offspring.
And that is why I agree, morals were not, at least fully, biologically driven. There's too many questions about why we do something that actually makes no sense without even thinking about it sometimes.

Have you every heard of the prisoner's delema? It actually addresses this issue nicely.

Sure. But they should realize that attempting to steal for themselves will only help them in the short term. But then where will they be? Exiled from the group most likely, now must fend for himself. But if he follows the rules, then he will have the protection of the group and will benefit from the labor of the group.

Then why follow the rules when it makes more sense to cheat?Because people eventually figure out who the cheaters are and stop cooperating with them. It happens among other primates. The monkey who constantly breaks the rules, the others stop cooperating with.

Sure. But they should realize that attempting to steal for themselves will only help them in the short term. But then where will they be? Exiled from the group most likely, now must fend for himself. But if he follows the rules, then he will have the protection of the group and will benefit from the labor of the group.
That however assumes one gets caught, whereas the prisoner's delema states that one would not be punished if they cheat.

And humans have a tendency to not cheat, even when we know we wouldn't get caught.

Because people eventually figure out who the cheaters are and stop cooperating with them. It happens among other primates. The monkey who constantly breaks the rules, the others stop cooperating with.

or joins in. and if enough breaks the rules, the rules then change.

That however assumes one gets caught, whereas the prisoner's delema states that one would not be punished if they cheat.

And humans have a tendency to not cheat, even when we know we wouldn't get caught.

I really don't see how the individual would see the risk being worth it. Sure, he might get away with it. But over and over again? Such people aren't going to make it in these societies I think. Laziness isn't really a quality for survival. And that is basically what cheating is, being lazy. Besides, I fail to see how anyone could cheat in any meaningful way in such a society. You work as hard as anyone else or you don't eat. Perhaps steal food after harvest? Like I said, short term gain and a risk that really makes it seem not to be worth it. But then every society has its idiots so I suppose it would be natural selection to cast out such people.

okThere is a common idea that religion defines morals. I was however struck by how similar morals tend to be across religions. So it got me to thinking that perhaps morals had a more basic level.

What if morals were determined both individually and as a society by our biology?
How would they look then?

One of the original basic tenets of evolutionary theory was “survival of the fittest”. This is so often misrepresented on so many levels. However if you look at it on a gene by gene level rather than on an individual person level a lot of behavioural characteristics become a lot more understandable.

Would morals be different given the sole objective of promoting replication of particular genes?

how about i dont chop off your head cause i dissagree with you..i think thats a good place to start.
seems pretty simple.

i say ban religion..seeing we are all big on the gov telling us how to live...

may as well ban the religious idiouts...cept the chopping head folks..cause they got a legit gripe.

lol

So “moral” #1 might be: Preserve the life of humans

Given that humans share a much greater proportion of your genes than other creatures a good survival plan for your genes would be to make sure as many of you fellow humans survive as possible.

From moral #1 would come basic rules like:
Don’t hurt people (as wounding people will reduce their survival rate)
Don’t kill people (pretty obvious one)

It’s a start  so where to from here…

One problem is a lot of morals revolve around material possessions and I am having trouble working them into the model. Anyone have any good ideas as to how that might work?

ok



how about i dont chop off your head cause i dissagree with you..i think thats a good place to start.
seems pretty simple.

i say ban religion..seeing we are all big on the gov telling us how to live...

may as well ban the religious idiouts...cept the chopping head folks..cause they got a legit gripe.

lol

So “moral” #1 might be: Preserve the life of humans

Given that humans share a much greater proportion of your genes than other creatures a good survival plan for your genes would be to make sure as many of you fellow humans survive as possible.

From moral #1 would come basic rules like:
Don’t hurt people (as wounding people will reduce their survival rate)
Don’t kill people (pretty obvious one)

It’s a start  so where to from here…

One problem is a lot of morals revolve around material possessions and I am having trouble working them into the model. Anyone have any good ideas as to how that might work?[/QUOTE]

I really don't see how the individual would see the risk being worth it. Sure, he might get away with it. But over and over again? Such people aren't going to make it in these societies I think. Laziness isn't really a quality for survival. And that is basically what cheating is, being lazy. Besides, I fail to see how anyone could cheat in any meaningful way in such a society. You work as hard as anyone else or you don't eat. Perhaps steal food after harvest? Like I said, short term gain and a risk that really makes it seem not to be worth it. But then every society has its idiots so I suppose it would be natural selection to cast out such people.
But, people do cheat all the time, repeatedly (Yes, I know this contradicts what I said above, but humans are just full of contradictions, ain't we?).

But, people do cheat all the time, repeatedly (Yes, I know this contradicts what I said above, but humans are just full of contradictions, ain't we?).

One can't help that there are some who are simply criminals. You will always get this type, no way around it. But the vast majority of people will follow the rules of the society and will reap the benefits of the collaboration. Together the accomplish more then they ever would seperately. Dealing with a little graft is something we must all deal with. It doesn't mean the entire idea of working for the benefit of all is flawed because of a few criminals.

Its a percentage thing.

Cheating is advantagous to the individual... thats true

But if everyone cheats then its disadvantagious to the group as a whole.

Its a fine balance.

And just in case you don't think that kind of thing can be controlled by biology.

Cosider the vole :)


There are 2 varieties of vole. The mountain vole and the plains vole.

The plains voles form social groups and pair bond for life.

The mountain voles on the other hand are promiscuous and live mostly solitary lives.

There is a hormone that is produced after sex called vasopresin that makes you feel good. (also after urinating)

Plains voles have receptors for this hormone so after sex they feel good which gets associated with the vole they were having sex with.. hence pair bonding.

Mountain voles have the same receptors but they happen to be in different parts of the brain due to very slightly altered development. They do not get the signal from the vasopresin. Hence they don't care about the other vole they just had sex with.

If you block the receptors in the plains voles they suddenly become promiscuos. No more pair bonding.

So the difference in complex social behaviour between these 2 very closely related species comes down to a few changes to the way a gene is expressed... (not even the gene itself).

you can read about it here (http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/September/erseptember.7/9_7_99voles.html)(though details are shady I can't link to the nature article itself)

Incedently humans have one of the most varied promotors for vasopresin receptors of any species yet studied....

There is a common idea that religion defines morals. I was however struck by how similar morals tend to be across religions. So it got me to thinking that perhaps morals had a more basic level.

What if morals were determined both individually and as a society by our biology?
How would they look then?

One of the original basic tenets of evolutionary theory was “survival of the fittest”. This is so often misrepresented on so many levels. However if you look at it on a gene by gene level rather than on an individual person level a lot of behavioural characteristics become a lot more understandable.

Would morals be different given the sole objective of promoting replication of particular genes?

So “moral” #1 might be: Preserve the life of humans

Given that humans share a much greater proportion of your genes than other creatures a good survival plan for your genes would be to make sure as many of you fellow humans survive as possible.

From moral #1 would come basic rules like:
Don’t hurt people (as wounding people will reduce their survival rate)
Don’t kill people (pretty obvious one)

It’s a start  so where to from here…

One problem is a lot of morals revolve around material possessions and I am having trouble working them into the model. Anyone have any good ideas as to how that might work?

They can give us our morals, as I think "Moral #1" is the main moral that humans operate on, however, anytime you behave in a moral way because you are genetically predetermined to do so, you are not actually a moral creature, but a naturalistic, amoral one.

If you are just arguing that we should behave in ways that are most beneficial to our species, I don't see any reason why that is more or less valid than other moral codes. It is, in fact very similar to the rationale behind natural rightists, who argue that all humans must act rationally in their own self-interest to survive, and therefore self-ownership and self-determination become natural rights.

Because sometimes morals do not make an evolutionary sense?

Personally I think it's a very large mixture that doesn't really have a source.

Morals and altruism make perfect sense when you take gene-centered view of evolution. If there is a mutual protection between two genetically similar creatures, while there may be no more chance of the individual surviving, there is a much greater chance of the gene surviving.

Take mothers and children, for example. It the obligation of mother to child not a moral one? Does that not provide great evolutionary benefit?

Morals and altruism make perfect sense when you take gene-centered view of evolution. If there is a mutual protection between two genetically similar creatures, while there may be no more chance of the individual surviving, there is a much greater chance of the gene surviving.

Take mothers and children, for example. It the obligation of mother to child not a moral one? Does that not provide great evolutionary benefit?
I think you're making an incredible leap here. Granted, mothers taking care of their children is an evolutionary advantage in terms of gene survival, but how do you figure it is moral?

Its a percentage thing.

Cheating is advantagous to the individual... thats true

But if everyone cheats then its disadvantagious to the group as a whole.

Its a fine balance.

Cheating is not particular disadvantageous to the whole, it is disadvantageous to the altruists, and therefore the genetic proportions will shift so that cheating is more frequent and natural forces will quickly wipe out the altruists.

So, altruists must have a way of distinguishing cheaters and isolating themselves from them. This means that the altruists must maintain their altruistic relations with family who they know are genetically similar, or with others who maintain a trait (green beard) that is concurrent with altruism.

If you are just arguing that we should behave in ways that are most beneficial to our species, I don't see any reason why that is more or less valid than other moral codes.

I am not really saying that we SHOULD.. like as if its a choice.
I am saying that our moral codes that we live by today could in fact be mostly determined by our biology.

I am not saying that a biologically determined moral code would be different to the ones we live by today.. in fact quite the oppisite.

I was suggesting that the moral codes we live by and that we are so proud of, the things that "set us apart" from other species may in fact just be a natural consequence, formed due to our inate biology and be aimed souly at optimising the promotion of our genes...

Cheating is not particular disadvantageous to the whole, it is disadvantageous to the altruists, and therefore the genetic proportions will shift so that cheating is more frequent and natural forces will quickly wipe out the altruists.

So, altruists must have a way of distinguishing cheaters and isolating themselves from them. This means that the altruists must maintain their altruistic relations with family who they know are genetically similar, or with others who maintain a trait (green beard) that is concurrent with altruism.

I am not sure that this is the case.

Cheaters rely on there being a society to cheat. Cheaters won't do very well without the altruists around for them to cheat off. Hence there is a natural balance of cheaters and altruists. This naturally tends to favour large numbers of altruists supporting a small number of cheaters as this is most likely to be self sustaining.

So I don't think that there necessarily has to be any element of favouring close family for this balance to be reached... especially since the cheaters have probably mated with your relatives meaning saving their offspring may well be to your genetic advantage.

All you really need is for cheating not to be a dominant trait. That way it only appears in a small subsection of the community.

I think you're making an incredible leap here. Granted, mothers taking care of their children is an evolutionary advantage in terms of gene survival, but how do you figure it is moral?

What are the alternatives:

either you figure that morals are determined externally
ie by some deity

Are somehow innate
ie part of our soul

or are determined by our response to our surroundings
ie biological advantage

other... I can't think of any at the moment ( but I am sure some of you will)

I happen to be an aethiest so I was exploring the idea that we don't have a moral soul.. that we weren't handed out morals by some deity.. that they formed organincally as a response to bettering our survival chances.

What are the alternatives:

either you figure that morals are determined externally
ie by some deity

Are somehow innate
ie part of our soul

or are determined by our response to our surroundings
ie biological advantage

other... I can't think of any at the moment ( but I am sure some of you will)

I happen to be an aethiest so I was exploring the idea that we don't have a moral soul.. that we weren't handed out morals by some deity.. that they formed organincally as a response to bettering our survival chances.
How about this, they are a mixture of biological and developed rules?

As I noted, the idea of it being wholly biological leaves a lot of questions. There's a lot of contradictions with a morality that is based upon the drive of me having kids.

How about this, they are a mixture of biological and developed rules?


If they are developing rules why are they developing? Whats the driving force behind it?

I mean unless there is some advantage to them why would they develop?

What other advantages are there to be gained that can be passed on other than your genes?

I mean I guess there are property advantages.

But what is the point of property?

So what is property: food, shelter, transport.
Mostly to make you healthier, fitter, more desirable... more likely to have kids that are healthier, fitter and more desirable?

Unless property is somehow an end unto itself?

i've always thought something simular to the op.
i am a biological being formed via evolution. so in order to better myself and my species. i should do what i can to assist evolution.
however the bible does have usefull tips to help this? funny.
example, the basic one. thou shalt not kill. killing people is counter productive, you might kill somebody that in the future they will be usefull.
i'm not religious. bu if i was going to put the word "god" to use. i would use it this way. god=nature=evolution.

If they are developing rules why are they developing? Whats the driving force behind it?

I mean unless there is some advantage to them why would they develop?

What other advantages are there to be gained that can be passed on other than your genes?

I mean I guess there are property advantages.

But what is the point of property?

So what is property: food, shelter, transport.
Mostly to make you healthier, fitter, more desirable... more likely to have kids that are healthier, fitter and more desirable?

Unless property is somehow an end unto itself?
And being merciful? Justice? Equality? Charity? Those aspects of morality, how do THEY play into it then?

i wouldnt really say i believe in morals in the sense, "one has to do that". more in the sense we should work out what is most productive for our species. and we may call that "right".
not cheating benifits. especially in this age than previous ones. why? becaus eone thing i fear the most. disease. if a partner cheats and gets and sti, then that person infect their partner.

I think you're making an incredible leap here.

Why? If evolution is a matter of competing genes and not competing phenotypes, then it stands to reason that any gene that can benefit itself through altruism will have an advantage in fitness.

Granted, mothers taking care of their children is an evolutionary advantage in terms of gene survival, but how do you figure it is moral?

Then you don't believe there is a moral obligation for a parent to provide for the child?

I am not really saying that we SHOULD.. like as if its a choice.
I am saying that our moral codes that we live by today could in fact be mostly determined by our biology.

I am not saying that a biologically determined moral code would be different to the ones we live by today.. in fact quite the oppisite.

I was suggesting that the moral codes we live by and that we are so proud of, the things that "set us apart" from other species may in fact just be a natural consequence, formed due to our inate biology and be aimed souly at optimising the promotion of our genes...

I think that you are largely correct, but I also think that we are vastly different in the way our culture affects our values and judgement. In other words we internalize far more of our environment than any other species.

Morality, for example, even if a phenotypic expression of a gene, would not be genetically determined. Instead of a gene stating we should feel this or that way, we likely have genetic codes that cause us to form morality through observation.

Take the instance of a moth who lays its eggs on a particular type of leaf. It passes its genes on to its offspring, including a gene that causes the hatching larvae to make a mental imprint of the leaf they were hatched upon. When those larvae reach adult stage and are ready to lay their eggs, they will recall the leaf upon which they were hatched and begin searching out a similar leaf.

Our morality is likely developed like this, in which we develop a very dense web of recognitions of likenesses, imitatable behaviors, and memetic values.

Morals have been defined by the people of a group/society.

I am not sure that this is the case.

Cheaters rely on there being a society to cheat. Cheaters won't do very well without the altruists around for them to cheat off. Hence there is a natural balance of cheaters and altruists. This naturally tends to favour large numbers of altruists supporting a small number of cheaters as this is most likely to be self sustaining.

So I don't think that there necessarily has to be any element of favouring close family for this balance to be reached... especially since the cheaters have probably mated with your relatives meaning saving their offspring may well be to your genetic advantage.

All you really need is for cheating not to be a dominant trait. That way it only appears in a small subsection of the community.

Cheaters will always overwhelm the altruists, as they will have an obvious advantage in Darwinian fitness over the altruists and therefore the allele frequencies will shift heavily to the cheaters.

However, you are correct that there must be a balance, but the balance isn't one of cheaters vs. altruists, but of the ability of cheaters to fool the altruists vs the altruists ability to spot a cheater.

Altruism will only succeed in evolutionary models if the altruists are successful in segregating themselves from the cheaters to the point that the help provided to the altruistic gene is still greater than or equal to the help provided to the cheating gene.

There is a common idea that religion defines morals. I was however struck by how similar morals tend to be across religions. So it got me to thinking that perhaps morals had a more basic level.

What if morals were determined both individually and as a society by our biology?

No, biology cannot define morality for you.

You will have to invent your own moral code, or choose which of the existing moral codes you would like to follow. Biology will not solve this for you.

Biology is simply what is. It does not have moral orientation one way or the other.

Biologically speaking, all humans die. Does this mean that the death of a particular human in a particular situation is "good" or "bad"? Biology cannot answer this for you.

Biologically, some humans die of disease. Does this mean it is "wrong" or "unnatural" for humans to seek to avoid death by disease? Biologically speaking, human beings are inclined to experience physical addiction to certain substances. Does this mean substance addiction is "good" or "moral"?

Sorry, but biology will not provide any shortcuts for you. Your morality is going to be subjective, and you aren't going to find any objective source to give you the "right" answer.

Biology does not determine morality, but it is the source of morality.

A particular moral belief or behaviour is an outcome, it isnt necessarily a cause or purpose in itself.

I think one problem when people discuss evolution is that there is a false assumption that for something to have evolved it must itself be either advantageous or at least neutral, however it is entirely possible for traits to be neither advantageous or neutral, but to persist as the result of being the outcome of other traits that are advantageous.