Evolution of Ethics

[Aspirin99]

It seems fairly common for religious people to feel that the source of their morality is their religion. It's an easy association to make if you don't think about it critically. After all, in church, you are constantly told what is right and what is wrong.

However, I think Richard Dawkins really captures this idea well in the God Delusion and his interview here: http://www.tvo.org/theagenda/video/TAWSPfull051007.swf

Dawkins points out that that- if we got our morals for Christianity, we would follow all ethical examples of the Bible. For example, we would believe slavery was okay. We would think it was fine to kill a rebellious child. We would think it was okay to take the women of a militarily defeated nation and distribute the women among the soldiers for sexual use, etc.

However, what we hear in our churches is the result of a collective agreement among current society on what it right and wrong. This comes from people discussing, debating, passing laws, talking about the affects of laws, revising laws, etc. What society decides is right filters into the churches and becomes the morality that is preached.

If we got our morality from the Bible, our morality would not evolve, as it has with a changing view on slavery and the emancipation of women.

Where did our sense of ethics come from? Anyone who's taken psychology 101 knows the story of training rats to press a button to get food, but when pressing that button causes their neighboring rat to receive an electrical shock, the rat will forgo food for some time. This shows a sense of empathy, the root of morality.

One person who is researching the evolution of ethics is Sarah Brosnan of Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. She did a study with capuchin monkeys in which they trained the monkeys to trade tokens for food. If one monkey trades for a cucumber and then sees her neighbor trade the same token for a juicy grape, the first monkey will throw the cucumber from the cage in protest. There were several iterations of the test done to prove whether or not the behavior was the result of a feeling of unfairness, and it was concluded to be the case.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030920/fob5.asp

Evolutionary wise, the thought is that this trait would ensure that a species got its fair share of the food compared to the effort put into getting the food.

This appreciation of fairness could be seed from which our sense of ethics grew.

[stan2reason]

This is, to me, one of the most fascinating topics in evolutionary biology. I'm certainly not an evolutionary biologist so I should probably leave it to the experts but I'd like to expand on this a bit. It seems to me, that there is a pretty strong evolutionary pressure for morality and ethics.

Natural selection dictates that traits that enhance our survivability and hence our likelihood of reproducing perpetuate from generation to generation. It follows then that genetic mutations that led to brain development favoring less aggression and openness to cooperation in early hominids could dramatically enhance both survivability and the likelihood of progeny. Another way to think of this is to find supporting examples in nature. Many species evolved to work in a group. Inherent in group behavior is a sharing of duty/risk and subsequent sharing of reward. Competition still exists within the group in the form of mating behavior but the group functions as a unit and in some ways individuals put themselves at risk for the benefit of others. We see several great examples of this in the animal kingdom The community protection of young and group hunting both put the individual at risk for the benefit of more than self. This video is not for the squeamish but it illustrates, quite well, group cooperation even in the face of personal risk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

For those that would rather not watch an animal hunting scene this clip shows several lionesses successfully catching a young buffalo. The herd regroups and returns to the attack scene where the calf is still struggling to survive. The group then attacks the lionesses to save the calf.

I'm getting long-winded here but it seems very likely that the early hominids that had brains capable of sharing risk to share rewards soon became the dominant two-leggers. Over generations there would be a huge pressure to continue this trait. It's hard to argue with success. Hominids working together were highly successful--evidenced by us chatting here as the dominant species on the planet. With increased cooperation there was increasing reward and decreasing risk. This trait would become so ingrained that individuals not exhibiting ethical behavior would be shunned or even punished. Once our brains got big enough we could really fine tune this. Our brains have actually evolved to feel pleasure from personal sacrifice for the benefit of others. Nice!

I've not read "The Selfish Gene." Is this what Dawkins talks about in that book?

[David]

That's very true. In fact, Richard Dawkins makes the same observation in "The God Delusion" (an excellent read if you haven't already read it). Basically, he talks about how morality can exist without (ahem) the bible.

He uses the same basic ideas of evolution to show that morality was evolved as well; he also includes an idea called memes--that memes might behave like genes, causing evolutionary changes in our belief systems.

I need the book (which isn't handy right now) to give more specific examples, but, it is an interesting idea that might very well explain a lot of morality--without the need for the bible and it's, uh, shaky moral footing.

[stan2reason]

I must read Dawkins. I've seen a good number of his YouTube interviews but haven't read him yet. Of the current literary atheists I've only read Harris. I think Dawkins' background in biology must provide a great perspective.

[formerfundie]

There's a good article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html) in the washington post about the biological basis for morality. quoting from the article, "many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species."

[stan2reason]

Great article, thanks for sharing it.

[Hugh]

Originally morality would have evolved from selfish purposes. An example used by Dawkins in The Selfish Gene is that there is a flock of birds in a field making a lot of noise and moving about a lot. One of these birds sees a hawk flying overhead which would be attracted to the noise and will if it notices, hunt one of the birds in the flock.
The bird that notices the eagle calls out a warning to the rest of the flock, loud enough for all to hear, and all of the flock is still.

This seems like a totally selfless act by the bird, by calling out loud enough for the flock to hear the hawk would be more attracted to that bird. However this isn't actually altruistic but completely selfish. If the bird didn't call out then the hawk might notice the rest of the flock and the bird would still be in danger. By calling out, the bird endangers itself for a second but with the whole flock be still and silent the hawk will not notice any of them thus placing itself in less danger.

Also in The Selfish Gene there is a chapter about attitudes that an animal can have when deciding whether to help out another animal can have that is well worth reading.

[stan2reason]

Interesting. I think the behavior has to be selfish at its core to fit with natural selection. The trait has to increase the likelihood that the organism will produce progeny. The creature "accepts" some risk if the payoff is in its favor. The buffalo in the video put themselves at risk individually for a herd-mate's calf. The risk is reduced because they're working as a large group but there's no doubt that the risk is greater than getting the hell out of there. The buffalo that puts herself at risk for another's calf benefits in the same way should her calf become endangered--she helps to ensure the survival of her progeny.

Does Dawkins feel that we have transcended selfish altruism? Does altruism exist today without selfish motivations? I need to pick up this book.

[David]

Interesting. I think the behavior has to be selfish at its core to fit with natural selection. The trait has to increase the likelihood that the organism will produce progeny. The creature "accepts" some risk if the payoff is in its favor. The buffalo in the video put themselves at risk individually for a herd-mate's calf. The risk is reduced because they're working as a large group but there's no doubt that the risk is greater than getting the hell out of there. The buffalo that puts herself at risk for another's calf benefits in the same way should her calf become endangered--she helps to ensure the survival of her progeny.

Does Dawkins feel that we have transcended selfish altruism? Does altruism exist today without selfish motivations? I need to pick up this book.
Feel free to click the link to go directly to Amazon.com - and the God Delusion. Please note, if you use this link, you will help support gnawed.com :)

Get The God Delusion Here!

[stan2reason]

If my wife gives me permission to buy yet another book you can count on me to use the link.

I seem to be on a shorter leash than most.;)

[ionerice]

Most Judeo-Christians are not aware of the fact that the moral codes found in the Old Testament was hijacked and borrowed from other cultures. Many of the 613 laws that were instituted actually came from the Hammurabi Code of Babylon an at least 8 of the Ten Commandment were borrowed from the Egyptians and can be found in their funeral text. They can be found in the document that’s now known as the Egyptian book of the Dead.

Can you lead a moral life without religion? The answer is most definitely Yes? The Pagans did it many years before the religious folks decided to use morals as a lightening Rod and added a bunch of stupid penalties and curses.

[OldChurchGuy]

Most Judeo-Christians are not aware of the fact that the moral codes found in the Old Testament was hijacked and borrowed from other cultures. Many of the 613 laws that were instituted actually came from the Hammurabi Code of Babylon an at least 8 of the Ten Commandment were borrowed from the Egyptians and can be found in their funeral text. They can be found in the document that’s now known as the Egyptian book of the Dead.

Can you lead a moral life without religion? The answer is most definitely Yes? The Pagans did it many years before the religious folks decided to use morals as a lightening Rod and added a bunch of stupid penalties and curses.


I suppose it is comforting to be among a minority of people that understand that many of the moral codes in the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament) were borrowed from other cultures. My understanding of the Hebrew Laws is they initially centered around the question "What do we need to do to stay on the good side of this God?". This question may very well have come after a group of people successfully crossed the Sea of Reeds (NOT the Red Sea as is mistranslated in various Bibles).

The ten commandments come about and then, over time, a number of "what if" or "what about" questions arose which are addressed in Exodus, Numbers, and especially Leviticus.

My belief is that the laws were expanded over time as people got into situations or thought of hypothetical situations and sought answers so they could stay on God's good side.

So, do I believe that morality/ethics is evolutionary? It makes sense as I am not aware that Judaism or Christianity has a monopoly on ethical behavior. Does that mean that God does not exist? For me, God does exist, but as I have said before, the belief is purely subjective based on my interpretation of various personal experiences. There is no way I can prove the existense of God nor do I feel obligated to do so.

Enough preaching.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

[psychomonkey62]

Most Judeo-Christians are not aware of the fact that the moral codes found in the Old Testament was hijacked and borrowed from other cultures. Many of the 613 laws that were instituted actually came from the Hammurabi Code of Babylon an at least 8 of the Ten Commandment were borrowed from the Egyptians and can be found in their funeral text. They can be found in the document that’s now known as the Egyptian book of the Dead.



More proof that it seems these laws are common sense. MANY different cultures that developed independently have shared certain laws and beliefs. Did they all share a religion? Definitely not.

And it seems that many of these Christian and Jewish laws that weren't taken from other cultures are the ones considered outdated and inapplicable.