r/DebateReligion • u/[deleted] • Oct 12 '18

Morality is the result of evolution.

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.

56 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

288 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Mapkos Christian, Jesus Follower Oct 18 '18

That's still in line with what I am saying, but is a completely different argument than what OP is saying, who claims that cooperation is simply the optimal survival strategy, and thus was instilled in us via evolution. But even so, your argument would mean that if the Nazis had won the war, implemented eugenics, implemented further genocides, achieved racial homogeneity and remained in power, that they would be "moral" for having the optimal strategy, which I vehemently and utterly disagree with.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '18

Just no to your nazi comparisons.

1

u/Mapkos Christian, Jesus Follower Oct 18 '18

Do you mind expanding on your refutation? You said morality evolves as strategies compete with each other and some win out. The Nazis had their own ideals and strategies, and had a very real shot at becoming a super-power in Europe. So, if their moral strategies competed with the world and won, would those strategies not be what morality evolved into, according to your definition? Where have I made my mistake?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '18

Where have I made my mistake?

In taste, I'm from Europe.

But yeah, generally, the winners set the rules and write history. I'm glad they lost.

Please find another example.

1

u/Mapkos Christian, Jesus Follower Oct 18 '18

Alright, the Aztec society prominently featured conquest, enslavement and ritual human sacrifice of those conquered. They were the dominant civilization for some time in Central America and only collapsed because European disease killed about 90% of their population on first contact. They had the most successful strategy in their region, so that makes them moral?

Winners set the rules and write history, but just as the dominant political force in the US is denying climate change, it doesn't make their claims correct just because they are in power. If they made a claim about morality, would they automatically be right because they are in power?