There are two main elements in the process of evolution. First is mutation, a small chance that a generation will be genetically different from the previous. Also there is natural selection, some individuals will be better suited to reproduce therefore passing their genes more readily on to the next generation. This process also applies to the passing down of learned behaviors as well. Richard Dawkins calls these learned behaviors "memes" (more about memes here). A meme that allows an individual or group to reproduce more readily is more likely spread more quickly and be maintained longer. The meme that will be discussed here is the one we call morality.
Since morality is a meme and memes are spread through communication we see that morals are different in different groups. The more restricted the comunication one group has with another the more differences we can expect to observe in their morals.
Natural selection tells us that the morals that most increase the chance for reproduction are those that are most probable to be kept. You can no more abandon your morality than you could your sexual desires. Both morality and sexual desire are major forces in our ability to reproduce so succesfully. Obviously natural selection favors those who protect their own needs above all, but, without others to reproduce with nothing will be passed on at all. So it can be said that morality is a natural way for all living beings to protect their own genetic line.
There is much more to be said about the evolution of morality and morality today. A book that explores this and many other aspects of the gene-centered view of evolution is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (1976).
Your comments and questions are greatly appeciated.
3 comments:
hey gents, I may be dropping by occasionally... keep it up.
a couple passing thoughts:
JackD: I just stared at that graphic for several minutes and it means nothing to me. It's a mess. What's the vertical axis? You could do better than that.
So, what's the point, Jack? We have nature and it's ugly? And...
JonD: Hi [Jack invited me; I'm not exactly a random neutral observer]. Nice to "meet" you. Enjoyed your comments. Just this:
"Since morality is a meme..." is a logical antecedent left unproven. I'm not willing to take that one on, er, faith. There are some morals that show up in different memetic alleles [like infanticide] but some that have been proven to be hard-wired [such as genes coding for altruistic behavior, etc]. Claiming that all morality comes from memetic inheritance strikes me as either a stretch or just plain wrong.[additionally, "Morality" is a vast, broad, nearly all-inclusive word that you'd do well to define, I think.]
I think you guys should collaborate on a "statement of design" or some such document for this blog so readers such as myself can better understand what the purpose of the posts are. Both of you said things, but to what end? Is there a main topic? Is this a debate, a juxtaposition, or is it just a couple guys writing random things about random topics?
Anyway, I only say so much because I think you guys are on to a good thing. Keep it up!
"...The idea of a reward system based on good deeds that gives one reason to be a decent human being is insulting." - Isaac Asimov
This drawing from the notion that everyone is inherently good. Yet if we were all inherently good, would there still be men raping boys that trust them most? Or meaningless murderers? I reluctantly believe so.
Along with the saying "rules are meant to be broken", there is also the fact that rules are set in motion by someone committing an act that brings out a need for said rules. i.e. No wearing red or blue to a southern California high school because of gang affiliations. or take child pornography(well don't really take it, just as an example) I don't believe there was a rule stating that you cannot take and distribute photographs of nude children when Niepce took the first photograph.
Either way you look at it, the saying "rules are meant to be broken" ties in, more often than not. The saying doesn't literally mean that people wrote rules so that others might carry out the act in question. But rather that as per human nature, we are instinctively curious to see what it would be like. Just as telling a child not to touch the hot stove will most times lead to a burned hand, there will always be people who do what they are told not to do. Yet would these "rebels" have ever carried out, or even known of the forbidden acts were they not made aware of via "rules"?
Let's conduct an experiment: I say let there be a law that prohibits people from running. I wonder, how many obese people there would in a year? Or make it illegal to recycle, would the world finally start becoming a cleaner place?
Anyway, in conclusion, as much as I would like to believe that people are inherently good, there is always going to be a small percentage that are bad natured. Would they be bad if there were never any rules to break? I don't know, but I believe so.
According to Sartre, man is defined by the decisions he's made, not an inherent "good" or "evil". Each person is in full control of their morality...not to say that there aren't other factors that come into it (be it biological, society, etc), but we are beings with the ability to reason, and when it comes down to it, we are what we've decided to be.
That's not to say that there is a clear and defined "right" and "wrong" that we have to decide from. Morality is much more complex than black and white rules/laws...therefor, laws and morality cannot be synonymous. There's sssooo much more to explore on this, but that's it for me for now.
On a side note, I disagree with Pete. I think more progress would be made with this blog by not defining it prematurely.
Post a Comment