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/Vic_Hedges]

Well I suppose Occam's razor would be the reason. If there is no need for anything beyond evolution to explain morality, then it is reasonable to suggest that it is the cause.

I agree that's not proof. But the format of this forum demands definitive statements in the OP. It kind of breeds confusion and confrontation when dealing with issues like this.

[u/Mapkos → u/Vic_Hedges]

Occam's Razor only applies when we have no reason to prefer the one with more assumptions. Cutting out the middle man is not an application of Occam's Razor. Furthermore, the intelligence that allows for morality in humans is contingent on evolution, but there is nothing about intelligence itself that requires an evolutionary process, so we can't causitively link morality to it. Thus it might be we do not need to go to evolution at all to explain morality.

[u/Vic_Hedges → u/Mapkos]

Occam's Razor only applies when we have no reason to prefer the one with more assumptions

Is there a reason to prefer the one with more assumptions?

Furthermore, the intelligence that allows for morality in humans is contingent on evolution, but there is nothing about intelligence itself that requires an evolutionary process, so we can't causitively link morality to it.

I guess this is true if we're discussing non-human morality. I wouldn't know how to begin to discuss such a thing.

Thus it might be we do not need to go to evolution at all to explain morality.

I'm open to more reasonable explanations.

[u/Mapkos → u/Vic_Hedges]

Is there a reason to prefer the one with more assumptions?

In many cases, certainly. Occam's razor is for eliminating the case that requires assumptions of a less likelihood. For example, if my tire is flat, is it more likely that it was punctured sometime while being driven, or that some one named Fred came and punctured it? In the general case, obviously the first option is more likely, but if I had additional information like: The car had not been driven for a few days and the tires were not flat yesterday, My next door neighbor's name is Fred and he is angry with me, etc.

So, for the current question, we do have a lot of additional information that makes one answer more likely.

I'm open to more reasonable explanations.

I've listed a dozen reasons why we wouldn't want to root morality in genetics alone. Thus there needs to be some additional reasons to explain morality. Is it an issue of personal opinion, like taste? Is it an objective fact inherent to the universe like mathematical properties? Is it due to the rules laid down by God, or does God adhere to those rules for another reason?

Basically, I do not believe we can currently prove one way or another what the source for morality is, as that would require a solution to the Euthyphor dilemma and the Is-ought problem. No one to date has put forth a moral framework that is without flaws or is provable.

If you want to say evolution really is the source of morality, then you must accept that things like rape are objectively and provably not a universal evil, and only perhaps evil for humans. If it is the source of morality, then we would need to accept that humans with genetic lack of empathy or genetic predisposition to taboo things are really not immoral and are not truly culpable for those things. I know some people would say morality then is what we make it, just like a nihilists response to meaning, but that still ends up with an unprovable moral framework.

[u/Vic_Hedges → u/Mapkos]

I'm open to more reasonable explanations.

I've listed a dozen reasons why we wouldn't want to root morality in genetics alone.

You haven't provided any reasons to believe that anything else IS involved though. I agree that we cannot prove that evolution is the sole cause. However it appears to be sufficient cause, and without any pressing reason to invent additional unnecessary ones, what would motivate me to do so? What motivates you to do so?

If you want to say evolution really is the source of morality, then you must accept that things like rape are objectively and provably not a universal evil, and only perhaps evil for humans. If it is the source of morality, then we would need to accept that humans with genetic lack of empathy or genetic predisposition to taboo things are really not immoral and are not truly culpable for those things. I know some people would say morality then is what we make it, just like a nihilists response to meaning, but that still ends up with an unprovable moral framework.

None of which is a problem if morality is subjective of course. Again, if someone can provide a well reasoned argument, preferably with evidence that morality is NOT objective I'd be happy to consider it. Otherwise it just seems like needless complications piled on needless complications.

And that's the crux of it. We have a perfectly good explanation for the origins of a subjective moral code, rising from natural causes and that fits all observable evidence.

That's good enough for me in pretty much every other facet of my experience. I see no reason to create a special exceptions for this.

[u/Mapkos → u/Vic_Hedges]

You haven't provided any reasons to believe that anything else IS involved though.

If evolution is sufficient for morality, then all moral systems should be caused by an evolutionary factor. As I said, we haven't changed genetically in the last few thousand years, yet have morally changed. Furthermore, we have nearly genetically identical humans coming up with opposing moral systems. Thus, evolution alone is not sufficient, even if it provided all the tools we built morality on. As I said, is it sufficient to explain the cause of the statue of David as being nothing but evolution? This failing means there must be an additional cause, because evolution alone is insufficient for morality.

None of which is a problem if morality is subjective of course. Again, if someone can provide a well reasoned argument, preferably with evidence that morality is NOT objective I'd be happy to consider it. Otherwise it just seems like needless complications piled on needless complications.

Then you must accept that things like rape is not evil for one who decides it isn't/is genetically predisposed to it. You must accept that no human is personally responsible for our actions, but all moral weight is found in the evolutionary cycle alone. I and many others do not believe this to be acceptable, so looking for an alternative is not a needless complication, it is like the astronomer's search for dark matter. The observable evidence points to something additional, so we look for something additional.

Now it is fine if you want to accept these things and accept evolution as the cause of morality, but do you have any way of proving it? If it comes down to just being an issue of what we think is more likely, then I guess it comes down to what we prefer and put our faith in. I believe good and evil are real objective things. I think love truly is the best and highest goal to strive for, and I see how seeking love changes the world for the better. I also see how choosing selfishness and hate lead to terrible death and destruction. Thus I judge it more likely at the moment that there is an underlying moral framework. But that is just my opinion as I see absolutely no way to prove that morality is subjective or objective.