This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
Yes, (just not consciously) it's called Evolutionary Morality (that refers to a system of development) or evolution of morals. It's also a little bit of both.
Morals started as evolutionary but cultural morality continues it (as well as a mix of other traits.)
[quote]It's not alone, though. Evolutionary theory also sheds light on sexual morality, in particular our attitudes toward incest. The logic is simple: Because kin share so many genes, they are more likely than non-kin to share deleterious recessive genes, and thus the offspring of incestuous liaisons are likely to have low fitness - often they don't survive, and if they do, they often don't reproduce. As a result, any heritable psychological or behavioural trait that lessened the chances of incestuous mating would have a good chance of being selected. Consistent with this reasoning, the avoidance of incest is widespread in the animal kingdom and, once again, we're no exception to this general rule.
We see, then, that some of our basic moral inclinations and impulses make very good sense in evolutionary terms. This does not imply, however, that morality as a whole is an evolutionary product. An immediate and very reasonable criticism of the adaptation hypothesis is that human moral codes vary a great deal between different cultures and subcultures (although not as much as people sometimes think).[/quote]
[quote]However, there are at least two reasons to think morality bears the imprint of our evolutionary history. The first comes from observations of a class of individuals that psychologists all too often ignore: other animals. Nonhuman animals obviously don't reason explicitly about right and wrong, but they do exhibit some aspects of human morality. Rather than being locked into an eternal war of all-against-all, many animals display tendencies that we count among our most noble: They cooperate; they help one another; they share resources; they love their offspring. For those who doubt that human morality has evolutionary underpinnings, the existence of these ‘noble' traits in other animals poses a serious challenge. When speaking of other species, we inevitably explain these traits in evolutionary terms. No one would want to explain the fact that female dogs love and care for their puppies as an arbitrary product of canine culture, for example. Given that we accept an evolutionary explanation for this behaviour in other species, it seems tenuous to argue that the same behaviour in human beings is entirely a product of a completely different cause: learning or culture. In principle, it is possible. However, we should have a strong reason to make this exception. Without such a reason, our default assumption should be that we are continuous with the rest of nature and thus that the behaviour has an evolutionary origin.[/quote]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
Interestingly speaking of morals, there was a curious case of a Siberian tiger who sought revenge. Apparently they have SUPER good memories and will remember you for a long time if they choose to.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1698987,00.html
[quote]"That tiger could have been surrounded by 10,000 people," says Dave Salmoni, the Animal Planet network's predator expert, who spent years training big cats; but if the animal has a mission, "it will avoid all of those people and just to go to those three people." Says Salmoni, "There's nothing more focused than a tiger who wants to kill something." The thing is, though, it's not easy to prompt such enmity: "To get a tiger to want to fight you is pretty hard," says Salmoni. "Tigers don't like to fight. They hunt to kill and eat. That's it." Unlike lions, which grow up in groups and are used to sparring, tigers are solitary animals, responsible for their own food and survival, Salmoni says. They will take the risk to fight only "if they feel they have to."[/quote]
[quote]"Any animal that can be trained can remember, and if you can remember, you can hold a grudge," says Salmoni. If a 6-ft.-tall man once threw rocks at a puppy, that puppy could be conditioned to believe, later in life, that another 6-ft.-tall man is a threat, and may attack him.[/quote]
Morals started as evolutionary but cultural morality continues it (as well as a mix of other traits.)
[quote]It's not alone, though. Evolutionary theory also sheds light on sexual morality, in particular our attitudes toward incest. The logic is simple: Because kin share so many genes, they are more likely than non-kin to share deleterious recessive genes, and thus the offspring of incestuous liaisons are likely to have low fitness - often they don't survive, and if they do, they often don't reproduce. As a result, any heritable psychological or behavioural trait that lessened the chances of incestuous mating would have a good chance of being selected. Consistent with this reasoning, the avoidance of incest is widespread in the animal kingdom and, once again, we're no exception to this general rule.
We see, then, that some of our basic moral inclinations and impulses make very good sense in evolutionary terms. This does not imply, however, that morality as a whole is an evolutionary product. An immediate and very reasonable criticism of the adaptation hypothesis is that human moral codes vary a great deal between different cultures and subcultures (although not as much as people sometimes think).[/quote]
[quote]However, there are at least two reasons to think morality bears the imprint of our evolutionary history. The first comes from observations of a class of individuals that psychologists all too often ignore: other animals. Nonhuman animals obviously don't reason explicitly about right and wrong, but they do exhibit some aspects of human morality. Rather than being locked into an eternal war of all-against-all, many animals display tendencies that we count among our most noble: They cooperate; they help one another; they share resources; they love their offspring. For those who doubt that human morality has evolutionary underpinnings, the existence of these ‘noble' traits in other animals poses a serious challenge. When speaking of other species, we inevitably explain these traits in evolutionary terms. No one would want to explain the fact that female dogs love and care for their puppies as an arbitrary product of canine culture, for example. Given that we accept an evolutionary explanation for this behaviour in other species, it seems tenuous to argue that the same behaviour in human beings is entirely a product of a completely different cause: learning or culture. In principle, it is possible. However, we should have a strong reason to make this exception. Without such a reason, our default assumption should be that we are continuous with the rest of nature and thus that the behaviour has an evolutionary origin.[/quote]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
Interestingly speaking of morals, there was a curious case of a Siberian tiger who sought revenge. Apparently they have SUPER good memories and will remember you for a long time if they choose to.
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1698987,00.html
[quote]"That tiger could have been surrounded by 10,000 people," says Dave Salmoni, the Animal Planet network's predator expert, who spent years training big cats; but if the animal has a mission, "it will avoid all of those people and just to go to those three people." Says Salmoni, "There's nothing more focused than a tiger who wants to kill something." The thing is, though, it's not easy to prompt such enmity: "To get a tiger to want to fight you is pretty hard," says Salmoni. "Tigers don't like to fight. They hunt to kill and eat. That's it." Unlike lions, which grow up in groups and are used to sparring, tigers are solitary animals, responsible for their own food and survival, Salmoni says. They will take the risk to fight only "if they feel they have to."[/quote]
[quote]"Any animal that can be trained can remember, and if you can remember, you can hold a grudge," says Salmoni. If a 6-ft.-tall man once threw rocks at a puppy, that puppy could be conditioned to believe, later in life, that another 6-ft.-tall man is a threat, and may attack him.[/quote]
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger [quote]The logic is simple: Because kin share so many genes, they are more likely than non-kin to share deleterious recessive genes, and thus the offspring of incestuous liaisons are likely to have low fitness - often they don't survive, and if they do, they often don't reproduce. As a result, any heritable psychological or behavioural trait that lessened the chances of incestuous mating would have a good chance of being selected. Consistent with this reasoning, the avoidance of incest is widespread in the animal kingdom and, once again, we're no exception to this general rule.
[/quote]
The fact that incest was often practiced in our history until the christian scriptures were written, and the fact that many animals do not at all avoid incest disproves the theory of how it's somehow an evolutionary instinct to avoid incest. I've known many dog breeders and the children do have sex with each other if left alone.
[/quote]
The fact that incest was often practiced in our history until the christian scriptures were written, and the fact that many animals do not at all avoid incest disproves the theory of how it's somehow an evolutionary instinct to avoid incest. I've known many dog breeders and the children do have sex with each other if left alone.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@MartinTheFirst So in your point of view it stopped because the scriptures were written? I suppose Christians have never engaged in that behavior. At least read the article. I'm not going to get into a "everything was immoral and then the bible was written" argument with you.
The thing is the vast majority of people don't want to engage in that even if some do because we have recessive genes and it ruins our genetics. The article recognizes that evolution doesn't explain all morals but it did speed it along.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
[quote]The first step is to draw a clear distinction between our morally-relevant evolved dispositions and our shared moral code. The latter does not have a direct evolutionary origin. It is a cultural product, and is the outcome of many different factors. Let's now consider some of the most important of these. First, to some degree, our moral codes are simply reflections of our evolved human nature. A good example relates to incest. Many cultures (though not all) have formal moral rules proscribing incest. It is tempting to ask: If our aversion to incest has an evolutionary origin, why would we need a moral injunction against it? But this question raises a possibility: Maybe we don't need a moral injunction against incest. The vast majority of people just don't want to engage in this form of sexual expression; they feel an acute and pronounced disgust at the prospect. So, in this instance at least, formalized morality may simply embody or reflect people's values, values they would have anyway.[/quote]
The thing is the vast majority of people don't want to engage in that even if some do because we have recessive genes and it ruins our genetics. The article recognizes that evolution doesn't explain all morals but it did speed it along.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
[quote]The first step is to draw a clear distinction between our morally-relevant evolved dispositions and our shared moral code. The latter does not have a direct evolutionary origin. It is a cultural product, and is the outcome of many different factors. Let's now consider some of the most important of these. First, to some degree, our moral codes are simply reflections of our evolved human nature. A good example relates to incest. Many cultures (though not all) have formal moral rules proscribing incest. It is tempting to ask: If our aversion to incest has an evolutionary origin, why would we need a moral injunction against it? But this question raises a possibility: Maybe we don't need a moral injunction against incest. The vast majority of people just don't want to engage in this form of sexual expression; they feel an acute and pronounced disgust at the prospect. So, in this instance at least, formalized morality may simply embody or reflect people's values, values they would have anyway.[/quote]
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger Yes exactly, prior to the scriptures the thought of incest being wrong was not even in people's minds. This is shown how the most powerful and smartest people back in the day (kings and queens often) such as in egypt would engage in incest. Once the scriptures were popularized, only then did people truly incorporate the thought that it is wrong, and then we happened to find out why it is genetically wrong 2000-1500 years after it became a popular belief.
I'm just saying that there's nothing evolutionary about animals and humans avoiding incest... because that's simply not the case. Animals do not avoid incest. Humans did not avoid incest.
I'm just saying that there's nothing evolutionary about animals and humans avoiding incest... because that's simply not the case. Animals do not avoid incest. Humans did not avoid incest.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@MartinTheFirst Arguing that you know what it was like before biblical times because 2,000 year old people that you didn't even know told you in text is a little ridiculous, just my opinion.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@MartinTheFirst lmao come on dude, you can’t be serious with this stuff. It’s an almost universal taboo.
Royalty, including those in Christian times, often skirted the rules because there were certain practical and political considerations.
Royalty, including those in Christian times, often skirted the rules because there were certain practical and political considerations.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@SatanBurger i know what it was like before jesus christ because scientific history knows what it was like before jesus christ... ive been to school, I've been educated in history.
Read up on it.
Read up on it.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@QuixoticSoul That would be an incorrect assumption. Read up on it.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@MartinTheFirst bro, you ever hear the story of Oedipus? Look up the dates...
ButterFly2023 · 18-21, M
The westermarck effect seems to real in my experience but I'm not sure it's universal. I'm disinclined to discuss my personal observations of the girls at HS who got pregnant at 14 to their current boyfriend and what they seem to have in common. Evolution is always going to choose what works and that's what survives.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@MartinTheFirst he didn’t tear out his eyeballs because he thought it was an ok or socially acceptable thing to have done. In fact the idea was so awful that he felt compelled to punish himself horrifically.
Jesus didn’t invent the prohibition of incest. Hell, he was born in an empire that already banned the practice, and where politicians would use accusations thereof to disenfranchise their opponents.
And it doesn’t just predate Jesus, which was relatively recent thing anyhow. We see it all the way to before recorded history. We also see exceptions, particularly among royalties of various cultures and periods.
At this point, most anthropologists believe that there is a strong biological component at work.
Jesus didn’t invent the prohibition of incest. Hell, he was born in an empire that already banned the practice, and where politicians would use accusations thereof to disenfranchise their opponents.
And it doesn’t just predate Jesus, which was relatively recent thing anyhow. We see it all the way to before recorded history. We also see exceptions, particularly among royalties of various cultures and periods.
At this point, most anthropologists believe that there is a strong biological component at work.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@QuixoticSoul [quote]A messenger gives the news that Oedipus considered killing himself and having his body thrown to wild beasts, but then he felt that his crime deserved something worse due to the suffering Thebes has been going through. He decided to find a slow death for himself. He wanted a punishment where he would neither "join the number of the dead nor dwell among the living". The messenger goes on to explain how Oedipus tore out his eyes with his hands.[/quote]
Now why would Oedipus feel guilt?
Could it be because of his crime where he [b]murdered[/b] his father to then marry his own [b]father's wife[/b]? Did the betrayal and murder make him feel guilt? Yeah, I think that's much more likely than him doing it because he thought it was... "socially wrong". Especially after the fact that he clearly wanted to commit incest.
[sep][sep]
[big]Disproving your point[/big]
However, now [b]why did Oedipus tear out his eyes, factually?[/b] Well let's read the story shall we...
[quote]Oedipus came to the door in a fury, asking for a sword and cursing Jocasta. He finally hurled himself at the bedroom door and burst through it, where he saw Jocasta hanging from a noose. Seeing this, Oedipus sobbed and embraced Jocasta. He then took the gold pins that held her robes and, with them, stabbed out his eyes. [/quote]
SO Oedipus didn't actually stab out his eyes at all because he was feeling guilt over his actions, but he did it because the love of his life has taken her life. Clearly suggesting that it was so horrible to his eyes that she had died that he no more wanted to see. It's a bit like how in the Bible, kings would tear their garments in pieces in an act of frustration, just a bit more dramatic.
[sep][sep]
You're really reaching for material here mate; and through doing so you're also spreading misinformation... it doesn't check out. You told me to read something, I thought you had at least read it before I did.
Now why would Oedipus feel guilt?
Could it be because of his crime where he [b]murdered[/b] his father to then marry his own [b]father's wife[/b]? Did the betrayal and murder make him feel guilt? Yeah, I think that's much more likely than him doing it because he thought it was... "socially wrong". Especially after the fact that he clearly wanted to commit incest.
[sep][sep]
[big]Disproving your point[/big]
However, now [b]why did Oedipus tear out his eyes, factually?[/b] Well let's read the story shall we...
[quote]Oedipus came to the door in a fury, asking for a sword and cursing Jocasta. He finally hurled himself at the bedroom door and burst through it, where he saw Jocasta hanging from a noose. Seeing this, Oedipus sobbed and embraced Jocasta. He then took the gold pins that held her robes and, with them, stabbed out his eyes. [/quote]
SO Oedipus didn't actually stab out his eyes at all because he was feeling guilt over his actions, but he did it because the love of his life has taken her life. Clearly suggesting that it was so horrible to his eyes that she had died that he no more wanted to see. It's a bit like how in the Bible, kings would tear their garments in pieces in an act of frustration, just a bit more dramatic.
[sep][sep]
You're really reaching for material here mate; and through doing so you're also spreading misinformation... it doesn't check out. You told me to read something, I thought you had at least read it before I did.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@MartinTheFirst Hey, I've been away from SW for a while but this deserves a response. I'm glad you read the play, it is a seminal work of Western literature. And the motivations of the characters are indeed complex, and one of the great things about well-made fiction is that we can still argue over the details. I think your analysis of Oedipus's motivations is fairly incomplete, but then again so was mine - after all he did commit two of the great universal taboos of human cultures, not just one.
But one thing nobody is arguing about is that incest was considered shameful in ancient Greece, on moral and religious grounds. Themes along those lines are scattered in the play, including the central revelation from a prophet of the gods.
"I say that without knowing it you are living in shameful intimacy with your nearest and dearest. You do not see the evil in which you live."
As an aside, in some versions of the story, Jocasta doesn't kill herself, but instead lives on in disgrace. Oedipus still scoops out the ole eyeballs though.
But one thing nobody is arguing about is that incest was considered shameful in ancient Greece, on moral and religious grounds. Themes along those lines are scattered in the play, including the central revelation from a prophet of the gods.
"I say that without knowing it you are living in shameful intimacy with your nearest and dearest. You do not see the evil in which you live."
As an aside, in some versions of the story, Jocasta doesn't kill herself, but instead lives on in disgrace. Oedipus still scoops out the ole eyeballs though.
MartinTheFirst · 26-30, M
@QuixoticSoul When reading it I just see how it's shameful in their eyes the way he got there, not that he was with his mother. He did horrible things.