Morality and Ethics

[hortysir]

How do they fit into evolution?
Sympathy? Empathy?
Love?


Were they not there once, and slowly evolved???

 

[strollingbones]

i dont think there was much morality or ethics when people were just trying to survive.....as people were able to evolve and give themselves the luxury of morality and ethics occurs when people have more time to ponder their place in the greater unit....

most people operate under external containment ....perhaps true evolution is the development of internal containment?

 

[hortysir]

hmmmmm.......?????????

 

[strollingbones]

okay first man...primitive..did not have the time to ponder morality due to the harsh conditions that required a continual struggle just to survive..morality and ethics are developed as people have the luxury of having extra time and are having an easier time surviving

 

[Foxfyre]

Sympathy.
Empathy.
Love.
Concern for unrelated species even when we have never interacted with them.
Appreciation for beauty, majesty, awesomeness
Concepts of time and space
Imagination
Reverence
Courage
Integrity
Ethics
Sense of right and wrong

None of that can be addressed or explained through evolution.

 

[hortysir]

okay first man...primitive..did not have the time to ponder morality due to the harsh conditions that required a continual struggle just to survive..morality and ethics are developed as people have the luxury of having extra time and are having an easier time surviving

Sounds more like learned behavior, or training, rather than evolution

 

[sparky]

most dogs have higher moral standards than humans imho....

 

[Wiseacre]

Even before the rise of civilization, one could argue that hunter-gatherer groups were more likely to succeed and pass on their genes if they were more cohesive. Early religion may have contributed towards keeping the members of a tribe more connected; love, sympathy, loyalty, etc., these things may have been partly responsible for a group's survival over other groups who were less motivated to help each other. Some believe that prehistory was a very violent time with a lot of warfare going on for territory and females. So a group's togetherness could have played a role in contributing to the genetic pool. No way to prove it one way or another, at least not yet.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even before the rise of civilization, one could argue that hunter-gatherer groups were more likely to succeed and pass on their genes if they were more cohesive. Early religion may have contributed towards keeping the members of a tribe more connected; love, sympathy, loyalty, etc., these things may have been partly responsible for a group's survival over other groups who were less motivated to help each other. Some believe that prehistory was a very violent time with a lot of warfare going on for territory and females. So a group's togetherness could have played a role in contributing to the genetic pool. No way to prove it one way or another, at least not yet.

The instiinct for survival can rationally be a factor in natural selection.

But I don't see how evolution played a part in the items on my list. I am open to be convinced that i'm wrong about that.

 

[Wiseacre]

Even before the rise of civilization, one could argue that hunter-gatherer groups were more likely to succeed and pass on their genes if they were more cohesive. Early religion may have contributed towards keeping the members of a tribe more connected; love, sympathy, loyalty, etc., these things may have been partly responsible for a group's survival over other groups who were less motivated to help each other. Some believe that prehistory was a very violent time with a lot of warfare going on for territory and females. So a group's togetherness could have played a role in contributing to the genetic pool. No way to prove it one way or another, at least not yet.

The instiinct for survival can rationally be a factor in natural selection.

But I don't see how evolution played a part in the items on my list. I am open to be convinced that i'm wrong about that.

Let's start with love. Suppose a man and a woman have baby, say 20,000 years ago. What are the odds of that baby surviving with no love shown to it. If the parents' love for their child does not exceed they instinct for self preservation, the kid is not as likely to make it to adulthood and keep the genetic line going. One might postulate that without love the human species might not have made it out of the trees.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Sympathy.
Empathy.
Love.
Concern for unrelated species even when we have never interacted with them.
Appreciation for beauty, majesty, awesomeness
Concepts of time and space
Imagination
Reverence
Courage
Integrity
Ethics
Sense of right and wrong

None of that can be addressed or explained through evolution.

All of them can be explained by family.

A man loves his mother and protects her.
A woman loves her man and nurses his wounds.
A man loves his son and teaches him.
A family cares for their own.

All can be explained by evolution. The families that care are better equipped to survive and continue evolving.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKW3eJTCWyw]YouTube - ‪Like Humans Do‬‏[/ame]

 

[AVG-JOE]

Another aspect that must be considered when pondering the evolution of man and human society is that genetically speaking, all humans are remarkably close to each other and we're incredibly young as a species, separated as individuals only by just over 2000 generations. Gives new meaning to the term "Brother".

In short, integrity and compassion are qualities that increase the chances of successful competition. Unfortunately, so are greed and psychopathic selfishness. The survival of traits both good and bad that enhance the ability to compete are basically proof of evolution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sympathy.
Empathy.
Love.
Concern for unrelated species even when we have never interacted with them.
Appreciation for beauty, majesty, awesomeness
Concepts of time and space
Imagination
Reverence
Courage
Integrity
Ethics
Sense of right and wrong

None of that can be addressed or explained through evolution.

It can't be explained because we don't understand those things completely yet. They are complex higher brain functions that science doesn't completely understand yet.

As human evolved, our brains evolved - they became larger and more complex. The emotions you list came from something in there - some evolution of the brain functions in the affection you see cats and dogs display.

 

[whitehall]

The genetic need to preserve the species is absolute in nature. In humans it envolved into the protection of women and children and later tribes. You might call it the evolution of "morality".

 

[Foxfyre]

Even before the rise of civilization, one could argue that hunter-gatherer groups were more likely to succeed and pass on their genes if they were more cohesive. Early religion may have contributed towards keeping the members of a tribe more connected; love, sympathy, loyalty, etc., these things may have been partly responsible for a group's survival over other groups who were less motivated to help each other. Some believe that prehistory was a very violent time with a lot of warfare going on for territory and females. So a group's togetherness could have played a role in contributing to the genetic pool. No way to prove it one way or another, at least not yet.

The instiinct for survival can rationally be a factor in natural selection.

But I don't see how evolution played a part in the items on my list. I am open to be convinced that i'm wrong about that.

Let's start with love. Suppose a man and a woman have baby, say 20,000 years ago. What are the odds of that baby surviving with no love shown to it. If the parents' love for their child does not exceed they instinct for self preservation, the kid is not as likely to make it to adulthood and keep the genetic line going. One might postulate that without love the human species might not have made it out of the trees.

And yet baby turtles and numerous other reptiles and all species of fish, if they survive the environment they are born into, survive quite handily without their parents giving them a second thought. Except for humans, mammals separated from their young quickly forget about them and won't recognize them or care about them after a lengthy separation.

Nor is there any evidence or clue that any species other than human gives a flying fig about any other species or even their own species that they don't interact with.

I think that 'love' as a component of survival, as well as the other things on my list, have to be considered as more likely not part of the process of random natural selection.

 

[strollingbones]

when a baby is born...the mother releases hormones that cause her to 'bond' with the child

that begins the emotion of protection or love...a physical hormone becomes the beginning of emotions...

humans are built for survival...simple as that

 

[strollingbones]

okay first man...primitive..did not have the time to ponder morality due to the harsh conditions that required a continual struggle just to survive..morality and ethics are developed as people have the luxury of having extra time and are having an easier time surviving

Sounds more like learned behavior, or training, rather than evolution

what is evolution but learned behavior being given from one generation to another

 

[konradv]

Even before the rise of civilization, one could argue that hunter-gatherer groups were more likely to succeed and pass on their genes if they were more cohesive. Early religion may have contributed towards keeping the members of a tribe more connected; love, sympathy, loyalty, etc., these things may have been partly responsible for a group's survival over other groups who were less motivated to help each other. Some believe that prehistory was a very violent time with a lot of warfare going on for territory and females. So a group's togetherness could have played a role in contributing to the genetic pool. No way to prove it one way or another, at least not yet.

The instiinct for survival can rationally be a factor in natural selection.

But I don't see how evolution played a part in the items on my list. I am open to be convinced that i'm wrong about that.

The short answer is that the people that displayed those traits had more friends and lovers and with their support were able to pass on their genes more readily. It's evolution in the sense that over time the brain becomes rewired to push those traits to the forefront. Unfortunately some also prospered by sheer might and thus other less desirable traits also survived.

 

[Wiseacre]

The instiinct for survival can rationally be a factor in natural selection.

But I don't see how evolution played a part in the items on my list. I am open to be convinced that i'm wrong about that.

Let's start with love. Suppose a man and a woman have baby, say 20,000 years ago. What are the odds of that baby surviving with no love shown to it. If the parents' love for their child does not exceed they instinct for self preservation, the kid is not as likely to make it to adulthood and keep the genetic line going. One might postulate that without love the human species might not have made it out of the trees.

And yet baby turtles and numerous other reptiles and all species of fish, if they survive the environment they are born into, survive quite handily without their parents giving them a second thought. Except for humans, mammals separated from their young quickly forget about them and won't recognize them or care about them after a lengthy separation.

Nor is there any evidence or clue that any species other than human gives a flying fig about any other species or even their own species that they don't interact with.

I think that 'love' as a component of survival, as well as the other things on my list, have to be considered as more likely not part of the process of random natural selection.

Many species propagate through sheer numbers, no need for caregiving. 99% of your offspring don't make it, but the 1% that survive is enough to keep the species going.

Other species, with less numbers have to rear their young. Just about all of these boot the kids out after a year or two, maybe less, so the bond of love is not as strong and indeed cannot be or the requirement to part ways might become a problem.

But humans, we need several years to grow up enough to be self supporting. [LOL, some never make it, but that's another story.] Gotta be some strong enotional bonds to support and defend the little buggers that long, which might be termed as love. For those whose bonding is not as strong, the chances of their young surviving to procreate might be reduced. As Bones is saying in his/her? post, it's a hormonal thing, and those with insufficient hormones got weeded out of the gene pool. Up until civilization got going anyway.

 

[hortysir]

Sympathy.
Empathy.
Love.
Concern for unrelated species even when we have never interacted with them.
Appreciation for beauty, majesty, awesomeness
Concepts of time and space
Imagination
Reverence
Courage
Integrity
Ethics
Sense of right and wrong

None of that can be addressed or explained through evolution.

It can't be explained because we don't understand those things completely yet. They are complex higher brain functions that science doesn't completely understand yet.

As human evolved, our brains evolved - they became larger and more complex. The emotions you list came from something in there - some evolution of the brain functions in the affection you see cats and dogs display.

Thank you for having the fortitude to admit to not having all the answers when it comes to the subject of human emotions.

I'm sure someone will be along, soon enough, to give their answer as an absolute truth.