First off, evolution is a monotonic process. That is, the tiger is a superior predator compared to its ancestor. If it weren't, the tiger would have gone extinct and its predecessor would still be around. Human morality, that set of culturally agreed upon norms of good and evil, comes in ebbs and flows. In the time of Caligula, everything was up for grabs. In the Victorian era, they weren't. In Weimar Germany they were. In 1950s America they weren't. Now they are. That doesn't sound like evolution to me.
Second, how would evolutionary morality actually work? Males of all species are designed to try to mate with as many females as possible in order to propagate their genes. Millenia of the ebbs and flows described above have shown that if you define good and evil from the point of view of the children, then traditional marriage is superior to hooking up. Is that where we are now? If morality was evolutionary, wouldn't you expect to see a gradual increase in marriage rates instead of this?
 |
| Illegitimacy rates in the US. Why would an inferior trait become more common? |
The illegitimacy rate shows more than just an inferior trait taking hold, it shows how the conflict between individual evolutionary behaviors and collective evolutionary behaviors is resolved in favor of the individual. The rise in illegitimacy is exactly what you'd expect to see in a culture where, for a variety of reasons, males were no longer forced to marry the mothers of their children. The species and community have no real sway at all, it's the primal instincts of the male that win out.
In short, morality doesn't behave at all like an evolutionary trait. Height, on the other hand, does.
 |
| This is how you'd expect an evolutionary trait to behave. |
3 comments:
I think your problem is summed up in this statement:
" the tiger is a superior predator compared to its ancestor. If it weren't, the tiger would have gone extinct and its predecessor would still be around. "
This is something that a lot of people believe about evolution. It is also wrong.
The thing that is important to evolution is the ability of the tiger to successfully raise offspring that are also able to reproduce. That may be related to the ability of the tiger to kill prey, but if the tiger is putting all of its capabilities into being a better predator, then it is likely not taking as much care of its offspring, and so they end up ill-prepared to deal with the world. So the greatest hunter dies out without issue because it didn't pay attention to its offspring. Meanwhile, the tiger that is a good enough hunter to get by, but that puts more effort into seeing to it that its cubs are protected, adequately fed, and well trained to look after themselves in turn, ends up having descendants that continue the tiger line into the future.
I think you need to go back through your arguments, and always keep that in mind: evolutionary success depends entirely on *offspring that are themselves successful at reproduction*. It doesn't matter if you have ten million offspring if none of them grow up to reproduce themselves. It doesn't matter if you are the greatest at life activity "X" if that activity doesn't include successfully reproducing. But even just a few offspring, who all grow up to have offspring of their own, is enough to keep you and your descendants in the running.
So, for example: As you have said yourself, many times; children are more successful if they are raised by both of their parents, and are less likely to go to jail, or to live the kind of life that is likely to get them killed, like crime or drug addiction. This is because the two parents together can make sure that their kids are better prepared for life than a single parent can. The children of married parents are therefore more likely to grow up in a way that they will also be able to have children. You also say that getting married and staying married is a moral good. The thing is, the one follows directly from the other. The action that we say is "good" is also the one that, given our particular characteristics, is reproductively successful. Therefore the good behavior is the behavior that is selected for in the evolutionary process. This works out all through human culture if you actually consider "will a particular behavior make people more successful at raising children who will also have children?"
Great response as usual, Tim.
I get it, but I don't think that deals with the fundamental problem. Evolutionary processes find success and move on from there. You don't see birds evolving back into lizards, which is, in effect, what you have here.
What you suggest is what was documented in Lynne Cheney's book, "Blue Skies, No Fences," where she describes growing up in Wyoming in the 50s. (40s?) Sure, there were girls who slept around and got pregnant, but they were classified as skanks and their children did poorly. Smart people avoided that behavior. In her era, your statement below was true.
Therefore the good behavior is the behavior that is selected for in the evolutionary process. This works out all through human culture if you actually consider "will a particular behavior make people more successful at raising children who will also have children?"
Not only is it not true now, it's not even close. You don't get to 75% illegitimacy in blacks and 41% overall after multiple generations of experience if evolution is the guiding principle. The mechanism for evolution working in this case would be to see the failure and avoid it as Lynne Cheney wrote. Well, that worked in her time, but in ours it simply doesn't matter at all.
In short, your means of enforcing moral evolution has dissolved. Having children in 2016 America is trivially simple. Suggesting that offspring that are themselves successful at reproduction is going to be your lever for bringing about evolutionary change in morals is hopeless. Oakland will become Mogadishu first. Unless the US as a whole becomes Somalia and poverty and violence prevent the offspring from reproducing, there doesn't seem to be any motive force driving moral evolution.
"Great response as usual, Tim."
.
Post a Comment