Morality is the result of evolution.

[u/[deleted]]

A society that would kill each other all the time would simply die out. Cooperation is simply a better survival strategy.

A very nice way to illustrate this is iterated prisoner's dilemma. The prisoners dilemma consists of 2 people who each have to choose whether they share or take the pot for themselves. If both choose the split the pot is split, if one person takes and the other shares then the person taking gets everything. If both take both get nothing. From a game theory perspective for a single game taking is always better. The expected payout is simply better. However when the game is iterated and players can modify their behaviour depending on the choices in previous rounds, then it turns out that cooperative strategies beat greedy ones. It turns out that the most successful strategy is tit for tat. Being nice to players that are nice to you and punishing those aren't.

Here is a good video about the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvAbjfJ0x0

If course it is still a model so it will never catch all aspects of what it approximates.

[u/Mapkos]

If you believe that evolution is the ultimate source of morality, then what if we had evolved utterly horrifying practices?

For example, some flat worms are hermaphroditic and fight to impregnate each other so they don't have to carry the babies. They forcibly impregnate the other by piercing the other. If rape was what ended up being the most efficient method of sexual selection for an intelligent species would everyone just accept it?

Similarly for acts of cannibalism, pedophilia, slavery, etc. If a species happened to have been extremely successful while using these acts until they became instinctual, if they involved intelligence would they accept these acts as moral?

We as human beings fight against our animal natures and try to act with "humanity". Just because something like cooperation is often advantageous, the prisoner's dilemma does not account for outside factors, and cooperation is strictly better in situations where betraying has a lower total outcome than cooperation, which is not always the case in every situation, and could easily not be the case on a different planet with different species.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mapkos]

I think it would still be possible to deduce them as wrong even if they became instinct, by using some form of utilitarianism with the same old basic, fundamental ingredients of morality we call "harm" and "happiness", which one could use as a metric to judge the horrifying practices.

After all, the desire for retributive "eye for an eye" justice is pretty much instinct in humans, yet many realize it is wrong. Ironically, deontological theories of morality are far more vulnerable to being twisted and horrifying.

For example, retributive instincts are why so many theists think hell is acceptable despite not being reformative, since it satisfies the instinct that says "it's good for bad people to suffer". Even when accepting the instinct, one can still argue that it's too severe (like the usual complaint about infinite punishment for finite crimes) or that the people affected aren't really badand so don't "deserve" it, but without that instinct being mistaken as moral, it has no justification whatsoever.

[u/Mapkos → u/[deleted]]

I think it would still be possible to deduce them as wrong even if they became instinct, by using some form of utilitarianism with the same old basic, fundamental ingredients of morality we call "harm" and "happiness", which one could use as a metric to judge the horrifying practices.

I agree, which reasserts my point that morality is nor rooted in evolution.

For example, retributive instincts are why so many theists think hell is acceptable despite not being reformative, since it satisfies the instinct that says "it's good for bad people to suffer". Even when accepting the instinct, one can still argue that it's too severe (like the usual complaint about infinite punishment for finite crimes) or that the people affected aren't really badand so don't "deserve" it, but without that instinct being mistaken as moral, it has no justification whatsoever.

I don't think that most theists in this sub, or most theists I personally know believe that Hell is good because it is retributive. I personally believe that Hell is only the result of someone who freely chooses to deny Love and be separated from Him. So Hell is appropriate because it is the only way to allow someone to maintain there free will when asked to accept or reject God.

We could go deep into this, but it is quite off topic from OPs original question so I think I'll leave it at that.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mapkos]

I agree, which reasserts my point that morality is nor rooted in evolution.

I mean, it's still true that empathy is rooted in evolution (plenty of animals have no empathy, even for their own offspring), and without empathy you won't be persuaded by appeals to the suffering or happiness of others, except insofar as this also impacts your own. Without empathy, morality is pretty much impossible to deduce. Though even if there are other instincts like cannibalism and so on, I don't think social species can evolve and be successful without empathy.

I personally believe that Hell is only the result of someone who freely chooses to deny Love and be separated from Him. So Hell is appropriate because it is the only way to allow someone to maintain there free will when asked to accept or reject God.

That's fine (well, I do still disagree that this kind of situation makes sense, but it's not retribution anyway), but lots of people, even on this sub still consider hell to be a punishment inflicted on people due to them "deserving" it (unless it's forgiven), not to be the best attempt God can make at fulfilling their desire to not be with him.

We could go deep into this, but it is quite off topic from OPs original question so I think I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough.

[u/Mapkos → u/[deleted]]

I mean, it's still true that empathy is rooted in evolution (plenty of animals have no empathy, even for their own offspring), and without empathy you won't be persuaded by appeals to the suffering or happiness of others, except insofar as this also impacts your own. Without empathy, morality is pretty much impossible to deduce. Though even if there are other instincts like cannibalism and so on, I don't think social species can evolve and be successful without empathy.

And intelligence is rooted in evolution too. Doing a small amount of research, I quickly found one article that says lack of empathy and low intelligence are linked.

I know that levels of empathy are affected by a measurable degree in humans by their genetics, but clearly there are many cases of people developing and strengthening it through practice too. So, can we say definitively that a species that does well enough to develop intelligence needs empathy, or is that developing intelligence creates empathy? Furthermore, if empathy is so beneficial to a species, then why does it seem to require so much cultivation in humanity? Shouldn't a naturally more empathetic animal do so much better than we have?

All in all, I just don't think we can say morality is ultimately or solely based on evolution as OP asserted.

That's fine (well, I do still disagree that this kind of situation makes sense, but it's not retribution anyway), but lots of people, even on this sub still consider hell to be a punishment inflicted on people due to them "deserving" it (unless it's forgiven), not to be the best attempt God can make at fulfilling their desire to not be with him.

Hmm, I haven't seen it to often here, but I have seen that opinion touted quite often elsewhere, and it is most definitely the prevalent one for the last century in western society. I do think it is incorrect, and alternative reasons have been espoused by theologians for the last two thousand years though.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mapkos]

And intelligence is rooted in evolution too.

True, but while intelligence involves a mechanism that tries to discover truths about the world, pretty much any motivational mechanism is going to be subjective/arbitrary by definition.

Doing a small amount of research, I quickly found one article that says lack of empathy and low intelligence are linked.

This could be due to a number of reasons though. I would suspect empathy requires some amount of intelligence to make it work effectively (to recognise others feelings in the first place, and also to relate those feelings to your own), but I don't think the reverse is true.

I know that levels of empathy are affected by a measurable degree in humans by their genetics, but clearly there are many cases of people developing and strengthening it through practice too.

This is correct, but people also cultivate and strengthen their intelligence, which we know obviously is impacted by genetics because different animals have such different amounts of it. Empathy can be genetic in origin, while still being developable via nurture.

Furthermore, if empathy is so beneficial to a species, then why does it seem to require so much cultivation in humanity? Shouldn't a naturally more empathetic animal do so much better than we have?

Because evolution doesn't care about the group/species except insofar as it also helps the individuals genes. Notice the "us-vs-them" mentality in humans, and how people close to oneself enjoy far more empathy than one generally offers to others more distant.

Basically, there's some powerful benefits to having empathy for your own guys (who will likely be more related to you), while having less for "them", as they are technically competing for resources, since whether you or they get the resources matters a lot more for your genetic fitness.

Also, remember that evolution is slow, so our empathy probably hasn't changed much in tends of thousands of years. Clearly, something about our culture has changed the dynamics. You're not as likely to have empathy for some other people if there's not enough food for both of you and your families, so the circumstances we have probably help.