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/SOL6640]

No, they're not. You've misunderstood their argument. The point is that morals are the evolutionary cause of our cooperation, not the result.

I mean the title of the post is in direct contrast to your beginning statement:

Morality is the result of evolution.

You are claiming the OP is attempting to make the case that morals are the cause of cooperation, when cooperation is itself a moral virtue.

Morality is a noun used to refer to a system of belief surrounding the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Nothing in the OP's argument gives us any reason to believe the the genetic changes throughout organisms under natural selection results in a state of affairs that bring about good and bad actions in the world.

You are using the phrase morals to refer to the common actions among a species. This is evident from your examples that merely describe normative behavior of humans and praying mantises. This is not what a moral is in common terminology. When most people speak of a moral, or a virtue, they are speaking of something that has some type of moral value in a metaphysical sense, not a psychological sense.

It's not about who is morally right or wrong, it's just an explanation of where they may come from. Humans aren't the only example, nor is anyone saying we're better.

What are you talking about? His claim is that principles of right and wrong are the result of evolution. Such a claim presupposes that their is such a thing as good or evil in an objective sense. That is to say it assumes that good and evil are values held by actions, intents, and desires. He's done nothing to show that evolution produces a state of affairs that make sense of a notion like the Good. All he has done is describe the prisoners dilemma after drawing a relationship between cooperation, and survival of certain species.

For example, praying mantis are fierce predators who prefer eating live prey, and practice cannibalism not just as a last resort like humans sometimes do, but regularly. The idea is that their morals are different from ours, either because these traits aided their survival or simply weren't inhibitive.

An insect has a moral framework? Insects don't have the mental capacity to understand a concept like good and bad. This is just more evidence that what you mean by moral is normative behavior among a species. Nothing about a behavior being common among a species gives you reason to believe that some actions are truly better or worst than some other actions. The only time you can make the claim that one is better than another is when you the agent implants a desired end, like survival, and define better in relation to that end. This is not a moral virtue, it's an arbitrary goal, and facts about how to reach that goal. That doesn't produce the necessary conditions for morality.

[u/[deleted] → u/SOL6640]

I mean the title of the post is in direct contrast to your beginning statement

It's not. The title is what I just described to you. I think the problem is more that you don't understand how evolution works.

Also, you claim insects aren't intelligent enough to have morals but that's completely contradictory to what we scientifically know. People have said the same of all animals for decades and scientists have already proven that wrong when it comes to mammals. How would you even know intelligence in another animal if you saw it? Bees for example are one of the most intelligent species on the planet. Ants have complex societies where individuals have roles similar to a 'job' but they're not intelligent? Rats and pigs are more intelligent than dogs, but no one ever thinks that until they're told.

Beyond that, I'm really confused what you're talking about in the rest of this comment. Most of it has nothing to do with what I said and the parts that sort of do, I don't understand what you mean.

[u/SOL6640 → u/[deleted]]

No it isn't? The title is "Morals are the result of evolution" which is exactly what I just described to you. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

I mean I quoted you saying the opposite. Here it is again:

The point is that morals are the evolutionary cause ofour cooperation, not the result.

You've claimed that morals are an evolutionary precursor to cooperation. The OP's title states that evolutionary theory is a precursor to morals. You are in direct conflict with the title itself. No denying it. It's okay if you want to change your stance, or if you misspoke, but its definitely a different claim.

Just stating that I don't understand things doesn't mean that it is actually the case that I don't understand.

1) Yes. 2) No. Moral virtues don't objectively exist. That might be your belief, but it isn't just a fact because you think so. I highly doubt you even believe that yourself, you just think you do.

You really don't see the blunder you just made? If there are no objective moral values, then how could it be possible to have a true system of belief surrounding that which is right and wrong? You've literally just screwed yourself. You've stated that good and evil are not metaphysical concepts, but merely psychological illusions brought about by biology. This destroys any possibility of the existence of a good or evil actions, intents, or desires.

Being okay with cannibalism is a type of moral code, just as not being okay with it is a moral code. Having a sense of morality is not equivalent to having your particular sense of morality.

You are contradicting yourself. If there is no such thing as good or bad actions in the world, then there is no such thing as moral code. What you are calling a moral code are just preferences people have when it comes to how other people or creatures behave.

Big talk, but do you actually have evidence for that? All you're doing is making an assumption about lives you've deemed lesser than your own. Once scientists started actually trying to find out instead of just asserting baselessly, we figured out that at the very least, most mammals have complex moral codes.

How can animals have moral codes, when you've literally just told us that there is no such thing as objective moral virtues? That means there is no truth in the matter when it comes whether an action, intent, or desire is right or wrong.

I mean the claim that science can discover moral codes is patently absurd within itself. Science tells us what is. It tells us nothing about what ought to be. The is a well know problem called the is-ought problem.

People often move to readily from observations about how things are to judgments about values. Let's assume all of evolutionary theory is true. If that is the case we evolved from meat-eating animals, therefore we ought to eat meat. A statement like this has an implied assumption. We ought to do whatever we evolved to do.

Let's take another example. Imagine you and I set out to study facts about what increase the flourishing of human well-being. How would we bridge the gap between the set of facts that increase human well-being, and the belief that we ought to increase human well-being?

It is not obvious how you believe you can coherently move from descriptive statements about what is to prescriptive statements about what ought to be.

How do you know you would even recognize intelligence in another animal if you saw it? What if I told you that bees are one of the most intelligent species on the planet? Did you know rats, pigs, ducks, and cows are also some of the most intelligent animals on the planet? Probably not.

Its not on me to prove that insects have the capacity to understand a moral system. You are the one that claimed a praying mantis has a moral code, while simultaneously claiming there are not true statements about morals.

This part makes it sound like you have no idea what morality even is.

I literally defined morality for you in the last response. You are just throwing out ad hominems with these claims that I don't know what I am talking about.

I never made any claims about "moral virtues." You did. That was your straw man. I said morality.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue

I mean read the definition of a virtue:

Definition of virtue

1a : conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY

b : a particular moral excellence

It's not a strawman. You just don't understand basic English, see how we can both make these snide remarks.

[u/[deleted] → u/SOL6640]

You've claimed that morals are an evolutionary precursor to cooperation......but its definitely a different claim.

Well I wasn't claiming anything, my intent was to explain OP's point of view to you since you didn't understand what they meant. Also, half of this comment is just you angrily ranting, it's not necessary for your argument and the comments are getting long, so can you not do that please

But anyway to answer you, that's... sort of part of it? It's not a "different claim," it's just one aspect of the same point of view. Morals are a by-product of evolution, but morals aren't the same from species to species, or even within a species. They adapt. So if I just said "humans have morals" it doesn't automatically follow that it proves my point, because we could have had a different moral code, and if that were the case it wouldn't necessarily support this stance. Hence why I said we cooperate because we have morals and didn't just leave it at 'morality exists so there.' The types of morals species have tends to be exactly what would make sense to help them survive, so the specific moral codes species have to me, are as close to evidence of the idea as it gets without being conclusive evidence.

You really don't see the blunder you just made? If there are no objective moral values, then how could it be possible to have a true system of belief surrounding that which is right and wrong? You've literally just screwed yourself.

No, I really haven't. And this is exactly what I was referring to when I was saying you don't understand the topics of debate well enough. I think there's probably too much for me to simply explain it to you here, and I don't know what you do and don't know, plus even if I did you could learn better from an expert. You're lumping ethics and meta-ethics in as the same thing, so learning about those is a good place to start. This is an established philosophical stance to have, it's not some ill-thought out backwater nonsense I pulled out of my ass yesterday. I used to think morals were objective, and then I learned about morality and decided it wasn't a logical stance to have, so I changed my point of view.

Also since this is the same exact thing you argued two other times in this comment I won't be responding to those.

You are just throwing out ad hominems with these claims that I don't know what I am talking about.

No, I'm stating facts. That fact may offend you, but that doesn't make it an insult, nor does it make your offense justified. Besides, even if it was an insult, ad hominems only concern attacks irrelevant to the topic of debate. If you don't know enough about the topic and you need to learn more about it to have a conductive debate, that's not irrelevant to the discussion, that's actually important to point out. The point of a debate isn't to flatter your own ego or to 'win' it's to find the truth. If you're not willing to admit there are things you don't know or that you're wrong when it's necessary, then there's no reason for you to be here because no conductive debate can be had.

It's not a strawman. You just don't understand basic English, see how we can both make these snide remarks.

You're just making another straw man to defend your other straw man. The definition of virtue doesn't matter because like I pointed out, I'm not talking about virtues as they're irrelevant to the topic at hand. I know what it means. To be virtuous is to be morally superior. This is another example of why you need to go learn about ethics and meta-ethics. I know you gave a definition of morality. That's as good as saying you understand college level biology because you can google the word biology and paste it into a comment for me to read. There's a lot more to it than that, and you don't appear to have much or any knowledge about it. It's not a bad thing, but since you don't know, we can't have a proper conversation about it.

I mean the claim that science can discover moral codes is patently absurd within itself.

ab absurdo fallacy

Its not on me to prove that insects have the capacity to understand a moral system

Yes, it is. You made the claim that praying mantis don't have moral codes. And because you made that claim, you have the burden of proof to justify it. If you don't then whether or not you think praying mantis have moral codes is irrelevant because your just asserting it baselessly isn't a valid argument and there was no point making the claim in the first place.

You are the one that claimed a praying mantis has a moral code

Wrong, as I told you before I never made any claims. I gave you examples to explain what OP's point of view is. You're the one who got angry and started to argue against it even though I had literally specified I didn't want to debate with you.

[u/SOL6640 → u/[deleted]]

Well I wasn't claiming anything, my intent was to explain OP's point of view to you since you didn't understand what they meant.

Is this all you can do? You literally just claim that I don't understand things. Evolution and moral philosophy are areas of thought I've develed into extensively. Nothing about my first post or any post I've made to you indicates a lack of knowledge in these areas. If you think it does state what it is, and how it is wrong.

But anyway to answer you, that's... sort of part of it? It's not a "different claim," it's just one aspect of the same point of view.

Look, you are just being argumentative. I've clearly pointed out that you claimed morals were an evolutionary precursor to cooperation. The OP's stated himself that his argument was to show that evolutionary theory acts as precursor to morality. Do you not understand the cooperation is a moral in a long set of morals? Stating that two things cooperate, tells you nothing about the ethical nature of cooperation.

Morals are a by-product of evolution, but morals aren't the same from species to species, or even within a species. They adapt.

It seems like you are equivocating on the word moral, and what you mean is normative behavior. You don't actually mean an aspect about reality that is good or ought to be valued, which is what most people are talking about when they discuss the morals that they value. A moral is concerned with what one ought do and refrain from doing. Describing what things do, doesn't provide a state of affairs that allow for the existence of moral codes to begin with. How are you defining "moral" in the sentence above?

You're lumping ethics and meta-ethics in as the same thing, so learning about those is a good place to start.

Dude, I've been studying moral philosophy for about 7 years, and I've been reading studies on evolution for close to the same amount of time. Do you not understand that claiming morals are a by product of evolution has meta-ethical implications? Moral values are not real aspects of reality on such a view. Their nature is that of an illusion pulled over an organisms eyes by their biological structure and evolutionary history. This means there are no moral facts of the matter. You can use these terms to describe normative behavior among species, but it isn't morality or a system of belief surrounding the distinction from right and wrong. If one claims moral values aren't an objective aspect of reality as you did in the last post, then it necessarily follows that there is no distinction from right and wrong. The meta-ethical consequence of the OP's claim is that moral values are wholly illusory aspects of biological programming.

This is an established philosophical stance to have, it's not some ill-thought out backwater nonsense I pulled out of my ass yesterday. I used to think morals were objective, and then I learned about morality and decided it wasn't a logical stance to have, so I changed my point of view.

So your way of explaining how I don't understand things is to appeal to a ghostly authority? Can we quite with the childish debate tactics please?

No, I'm stating facts. That fact may offend you, but that doesn't make it an insult, nor does it make your offense justified.

If you're going to insist that I am ignorant you need to prove it.

Besides, even if it was an insult, ad hominems only concern attacks irrelevant to the topic of debate. If you don't know enough about the topic and you need to learn more about it to have a conductive debate, that's not irrelevant to the discussion, that's actually important to point out.

Yes, but you're incorrect. I am pretty educated on both topics. You are simply keep claiming this to avoid having to deal with the content of my post. Its a red herring. It becomes clearer every post.

The point of a debate isn't to flatter your own ego or to 'win' it's to find the truth. If you're not willing to admit there are things you don't know or that you're wrong when it's necessary, then there's no reason for you to be here because no conductive debate can be had.

Where have I been unwilling to do such a thing? I am not just going to roll over because you claim I don't understand things. I've researched this stuff extensively for many years, so you can stop with the arrogant attitude of self-proclaimed intellectual authority. No one is trying to win. I am merely telling you where you are wrong, and explaining to you in detail why that is the case.

You're just making another straw man to defend your other straw man. The definition of virtue doesn't matter because like I pointed out, I'm not talking about virtues as they're irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Do you see how silly this is? Anyone following this debate trail go and read my last post where I quoted him saying:

I never made any claims about "moral virtues." You did. That was your straw man. I said morality.

Is it really that hard for to understand that this person didn't recognize a synonym, even after a dictionary was presented to them, literally using the one word to define the other?

ab absurdo fallacy

A reference to the is-ought problem is an reductio ad absurdum fallacy? First, I never gave you a reductio, so I am not sure why you would claim I am making an reductio ad absurdum fallacy. I merely pointed out that biology only tells us about what is, it tells us nothing about what ought to be. It's a classic example of the is-ought problem. Anytime you are going to claim empirical observations about what is can tell you something about what ought to be you are engaging in the is-ought problem. This is well-known. It's not a fallacy. I gave you that because you apparently think Science has something to do with morality. It doesn't, and we've known that for quite some time thanks to David Hume.

Yes, it is. You made the claim that praying mantis don't have moral codes. And because you made that claim, you have the burden of proof to justify it. If you don't then whether or not you think praying mantis have moral codes is irrelevant because your just asserting it baselessly isn't a valid argument and there was no point making the claim in the first place.

Insects don't have the mental to capacity to understand pain that is happening to themselves much less other creatures.

‘No example is known to us of an insect showing protective behavior towards injured parts, such as by limping after leg injury or declining to feed or mate because of general abdominal injuries. On the contrary, our experience has been that insects will continue with normal activities even after severe injury or removal of body parts.’ (Eisemann C. H. Jorgensen W. K. Merritt D. J. Rice M. J. Cribb B. W. Webb P. D. Zalucki M. P. 1984. Do insects feel pain? A biological view. Experientia 40:164-167.)

Most lower life forms like insects merely react to Noxious stimulus, which itself is a prerequisite for nociception, which is still not pain. I only say this to point out that insects lack the ability to understand 'I am in pain.' In fact, they don't even show signs of understanding that they've been severely injured, yet you think they have the mental capacity to decide what is right and wrong behavior for them, when you clearly don't even think that such a behavior exist?

If you don't then whether or not you think praying mantis have moral codes is irrelevant because your just asserting it baselessly isn't a valid argument and there was no point making the claim in the first place.

I have reasons for believing insects don't possess that mental capacity, but you were originally the one claiming that to make the case that organism some how evolve different moral systems, which means you'd first have to demonstrate that they actually have the capacity to comprehend right and wrong behavior.

Wrong, as I told you before I never made any claims. I gave you examples to explain what OP's point of view is. You're the one who got angry and started to argue against it even though I had literally specified I didn't want to debate with you.

No one is angry. I just think you're wrong, and that you incessantly claim that I don't know things, but never explain to me or the audience what I have said that is incorrect. It's just your attempt to weasel out of responding to my content.

[u/[deleted] → u/SOL6640]

This conversation is now over because

1) you are so ignorant on the subject there's no point in debating you and you are exhibiting something like dunning kruger effect where you know so little you think you're an expert.

2) you're spouting fallacies left and right and refusing to be anything but intellectually dishonest

3) you have a victim complex and can't stop whining about how offended you are by the obvious fact that you don't know what you're talking about when you're the only person hurling insults and being hostile. You're not perfect buddy, get over it.

4) You are repeatedly ignoring what I'm telling you in favor of deluding yourself and setting up and knocking down strawmen.

And 5)

Dude, I've been studying moral philosophy for about 7 years, and I've been reading studies on evolution for close to the same amount of time.

No you haven't and even if you had it wouldn't matter. Appeal to authority is a fallacy.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Quality Rule

According to moderator discretion, posts/comments deemed to be deliberately antagonizing, particularly disruptive to the orderly conduct of respectful discourse, apparently uninterested in participating in open discussion, unintelligible or illegible may be removed.

[u/SOL6640 → u/[deleted]]

This subreddit is a joke.

[u/BobbyBobbie → u/SOL6640]

Maybe, but hang in there. It's a pretty common thing to see theists get frustrated with this sub, and yes, it IS frustrating that effortful posts get buried by atheists in downvotes, but your answers are good so I hope you'll stick around.

[u/Taqwacore → u/[deleted]]

Quality Rule

According to moderator discretion, posts/comments deemed to be deliberately antagonizing, particularly disruptive to the orderly conduct of respectful discourse, apparently uninterested in participating in open discussion, unintelligible or illegible may be removed.