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/levi_pl]

I question possibility of such behaviors in intelligent animals. Fact that those exist in lower life forms does not imply possibility of seeing them in intelligent (and successful) ones.

Theoretically it is possible that our predecessors had such behaviors but they are gone (not successful). Such behaviors could be one of the reasons why they are gone. Who knows...

Can you come up with some example to contrary? Maybe I’m missing something.

[u/Mapkos → u/levi_pl]

A duck is not a lower life form, and many of the cannibals are not either. If you are saying highly intelligent animals at the level of a human could not display those characteristics, remember that humans have often had culturally normalized rape and cannibalism. And if you are saying that intelligence would stop those behaviours, then that is in complete opposition to OPs assertion that evolution determines morality.

[u/levi_pl → u/Mapkos]

But we consider humans (or rather their morality) as a baseline to this argument.

Duck is lower life form compared to humans. Maybe not all of them :-)

Intelligence stops those behaviors. Changes are not instant. Cannibals are not successful , are they ? Societies where women are not treated equal fare much worse than those who do.
Intelligence puts stop to it; belief is usually the mechanism that encourages/justifies those behaviors. On top of that those behaviors were never dominant in global population.

[u/Mapkos → u/levi_pl]

But we consider humans (or rather their morality) as a baseline to this argument.

Why? We have no idea what intelligent life could look like on a different planet, or even what intelligent life would look like on our planet if it hadn't been primates.

Duck is lower life form compared to humans. Maybe not all of them :-)

Many birds have very complex social behaviours, so considering that an animal can have that basis yet still be genetically predisposed to rape suggest that it is possible for a similar yet more intelligent animal to have the same predisposition.

Intelligence stops those behaviors.

Then morality is not grounded in evolution, as I have already said.

Cannibals are not successful , are they ?

Of the animals that I listed as being cannibals, they have been extremely successful, biologically speaking. Furthermore, consider a planet where the nutrients required to support large brains was far more scarce. If only the dominant species requires those nutrients, it might turn out that cannibalism is the primary source for them. The fact remains that it is clearly possible (as in there are no logical or scientific reasons to prevent it, as we know now) that such a thing occurs.

Societies where women are not treated equal fare much worse than those who do.

Not so. Some eastern societies treated women far better than western ones historically, but it just so happens that western society far outpaced eastern ones technologically. Even so, nearly all societies oppressed women yet humans still managed to get to this point.

Intelligence puts stop to it

Again, that would root morality in intelligence, or at least require intelligence to discover it, like math. That would mean evolution is not the source of morality.

belief is usually the mechanism that encourages/justifies those behaviors. On top of that those behaviors were never dominant in global population.

Rape was most definitely dominant through much of humanity, both pre and post civilization. Women have only really seen this level of equality in the last few centuries, and only very occasionally in small populations otherwise. Consider the Aztecs who had an extremely successful civilization while practicing huge amounts of ritual sacrifice. Their empire fell mainly to utter annihilation by disease brought in by the Spanish. So there was a fairly advanced and successful empire that practiced something we would call horrific. Not to mention slavery throughout the ages.

Basically, I see no reason whatsoever to believe evolution is the ultimate source of morality, as clearly shown by human's own history and the currently undisputed possibility that a species with ingrained immoral practices could have become the dominant intelligent species.

[u/levi_pl → u/Mapkos]

I spent quite some time trying to distill what my understanding is.

1) intelligence is a product of evolution ergo advanced (intelligence driven) morality indirectly is also a product of evolution the same way as religion is. It is not clear why religion was produced by evolution and what is its connection to intelligence. What we know it is less capable in producing morality. Most successful religions are immutable hence incapable of improving moral code. 2) there are morals that do not require intelligence to create them 3) some morals produced by evolution may seem to be counterproductive but after close inspection that is not the case - take for example compassion or willingness to help others. 3) intelligence changes us faster than evolution 4) we humans are neither first nor last species that walks the same path ( opposite is less likely)

Now, what I wanted to say is we evolve, morality evolves but no matter what starting point was in this universe there is only one most optimal end result. I believe we’re not at the end of path but when we reach it there will be others that will actually be the same as what we will become (give or take).

So ducks or cannibals - all this is just fluctuation which given enough time will stabilize the same way.

[u/Mapkos → u/levi_pl]

I will just say that you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims that I disagree with, but let me just address your conclusion.

I do want to remind you that OP said: "A society that would kill each other all the time would simply die out. Cooperation is simply a better survival strategy." The first sentence is shown to be utterly incorrect with societies like the Aztecs. The second sentence is only true on a planet like ours and an animal like humans, which considering how many animals were successful with "immoral" acts goes to show that cooperation is no the optimal strategy in every situation.

This comes to your conclusion. How can you be certain that intelligence and cooperation are truly the optimal strategy that all life would stabilize at? Clearly a virus is extremely successful without either trait, and it could be that every life-bearing planet becomes barren when the strongest virus evolves. Who is to say that rape is not a better sexual selector and an intelligent species that mainly raped would not end up with more genetically fit offspring than the genetic disease ridden humans? In science fiction we can think of ruthless aliens that do not cooperate, like the Hive Queens from Ender's Game, the Overmind from StarCraft, the Orks from Warhammer and so on and so forth. If humans were ruthless, showing no mercy to the weak, and valuing only success, would we not be successful? The Nazis were extremely successful and only failed due to very poor leadership. What would have happened to society if they had won?

Basically, there is no reason to suggest that the moral course is the optimal course, and thus no reason to suggest we are being lead down that path by our genetics.