Could ethics be the mental icing on an evolutionary cake ?

fresco-I think that you are "on" to something. I have believed, for a long time, that all the ills of the world come down to two words, control and power. Whether it is the nasty boss who berates his staff, to the sociopath who will commit heinous acts to achieve what he wants, to the serial killer who kills for pleasure, to the dictator who tortures and murders people, there is one thing in common.

The "normal" individual (if there is such a thing) has a good, solid control of himself. He can relate to other perople as equals, even though he may hold a position of authority. He is secure within himself, and does not need to feign mastery thru the subjugation of others.

Going down the scale, you have the neurotics, the co-dependents who need to have control over another person or persons in order to release their anxiety.

An on and on it goes, 'til you get to the Hitlers and Stalins of the world, who are not satisfied until they are in control of may people. If you think about it, the power of life and death over people is the ultimate in control.

Do I think that this propensity is genetic? Yes, to a great extent. Yes, I do believe that there are "bad seeds" who are genetically programmed towards evil. I do not think though, that genetics are the total story. For some, the propensity for evil is possibly as fixed as his eye color. For most though, it is the predisposition towards evil, coupled with a noxious environmental mileau that will lead a human being towards a life of infamy.

Phoenix and Fresco

The only aspect that I would like to touch on is the origin of the moral or ethical code. I strongly believe this is determined at the basic sub-set of society(the tribal level). For example: cannibalism and murder of another tribe is ethical in some tribes.

I'd point out that the concepts mentioned aren't limited to theist thought. There are many athiests that believe that we, as hunmans, have achieved a level of intellect where we can over-ride any natural tendencies..

But... Steven Pinker of MIT's Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences does a great lecture in this area. In that lecture he challanges the 3 most widely held human psychological theories: the blank slate (the mind has no innate structure), the noble savage (people are naturally good), and the ghost in the machine (behavior is not caused by physical events).

The lecture description reads: "The beliefs are thought to undergird indispensable moral values, and challenges to the beliefs are therefore thought to challenge the values. If the mind has innate structure, then different people (or races, classes, or sexes) could have different innate structures, justifying discrimination and oppression. If evils such as rape, greed, or prejudice are innate, that would make them natural and hence good, or at best unchangeable, making attempts at social change futile. If behavior is caused by physical events in the brain, people could not be held responsible for their actions, unleashing endless Twinkie defenses. And if our values and choices are mere reflexes of an evolutionarily shaped, genetically programmed brain, they would be shams and life would be stripped of meaning and purpose. I show that the fears are based on non-sequiturs. Egalitarianism is the moral decision to ignore group statistics in judging individuals, not an empirical claim about sameness. The naturalistic fallacy (natural = good) is a fallacy. Responsibility is a moral policy about consequences of behavior, and is no more undermined by genetic or evolutionary explanations of behavior than it is by environmental ones. And the meaning and purpose that people ascribe to life are not compromised by explanations of the ascribing process."

fresco

"Evil" is possibly my least favorite word, though I admit it is a handy one which can be put to a myriad of uses - anything from describing your mother in law's cooking to rousing the rabble who are less likely to think anything amiss when one has designs on control of Iraqui oil fields.

There's nothing from Phoenix or perception I disagree with, but I think fishin and Pinker have the best analytical tool in understanding this one.

fishin and blatham

Without further exposition of the Pinker views I agree that "meaning and purpose of life" from an individual's viewpoint seems to be undermined by the evolutionary approach which is epitomised by the concept of "the selfish gene".

Without wanting to refute what anyone has already said-----I would tend to go with the blank slate theory except in those individuals who are not capable of feeling remorse. In the blank slate theory is the implication that behavior is learned from observation, ie., way back someone observed the brutality of watching someone having their throat cut-----they may have said to themselves---Gee I wouldn't want that done to me and then adding, that is not right. Thus perhaps the beginning of the development of a need for a code of conduct. This I would classify as an application of an observation into a concept. That concept would be a result of the self saying-----I've got to prevent that from happening to me at some later date because the self is mainly interested in survival.

Regarding the person who shows a lack of remorse, I agree with Phoenix that the genetic template has not included the capability to show remorse in that individual and thus would be considered a "bad seed" because without remorse, evil becomes all powerful.Would anyone agree with this?

Perception

Behaviour genetics mitigates against "the blank state" theory. Perhaps it would be better to consider a "Moral Aquisition Device" in parallel with the celebrated "Language Aquisition Device" advocated by linguists. i.e. We may be genetically wired to pick up the "grammar" of relationships. These rule structures have universal similarities irrespective of cultural nuances and like language competence (as opposed to performance) are not a function of intelligence.

Fresco

I will await responses from other participants and "chew" on this for awhile.)))))))))

Fresco

Wouldn't what you say imply there is some sort of "inate" capability to determine "right from wrong" and it would seem to me that the "universal rules in the application of language" have more to do with a recognized ability to synthesize any language especially when very young because of the evolutionary requirement to learn the language of the "tribe".

Perception

"Right" and "wrong" have no meaning within such a model. We can only assume that "dominance" and "altruism" are both "useful" for evolutionary purposes,and that individual "idiolects" of their relative strengths are a function of socialization.

Fresco and fishin

I'm having a problem with the Pinker quote provided by fishin and I need all your intellectual help. Pinker is supposedly challenging the three primary psychologial theories regarding human behavior.
"the blank slate" -----"the noble savage"------and "the ghost in the machine" theories.

To me he seems to support the "blank slate theory" while seemingly challenging the other two. Help!!!!

Fresco

I interpreted your suggestion of the "Moral Aquisition Device" as being an innate feature that would determine right from wrong.
If that is not what you intended, then what is the "moral aquisition device"?

Perception - That quote is the intro to his lecture and shouldn't be taken as the complete text. I sat through one of his lectures 2 years ago and it ran 4 hours - way to much to list here but he does challenge all 3. I'll see if I can dig up some links to more complete texts.

Edited to add a link to a review of one of Pinker's books:
http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1337125

and also an interview with Pinker:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021030-061203-2602r

Ethics are a very tricky subject indeed, one societies high ethical standard may be anothers death penalty. Therein lies the dilemma, a sticky wicket for sure!

:wink:

Fishin

Thanks for the links, I really want to read the book, "The Blank Slate" by Pinker although I doubt if I ever do. He does seem to have a view that is somewhat consistent with my own----which is rather rare!

I now want to search Google for further info on him.

Fresco

I've seen this comment of yours several times over in Abuzz -- and I am ambivalent about it. There are times when I feel you have hit the nail squarely on the head -- and others where I think you've banged your thumb, so to speak.

I wonder if "evil" is less a function of an act (ganging up on weaklings) or a function of intent and context.

A pod of whales ganging up on weaklings may (on a base level) merely be weeding out the weak in order to strengthen their species. It may be something that is done without thought (a product of instinct).

A similar situation, however, in humans -- particularly where an individual picks on another (obviously weaker) individual -- could conceivably be "evil." If, of course, we could agree on what "evil" is.

If you would, I'd like to hear more about your theory -- with some specificity to the question of whether you think an act can be both evil and not evil -- depending upon the circumstances. (In other words, the act itself is not evil -- but the context can make an act evil)

Also, some comments of what you mean by evil.

I can certainly see envision definitions of "evil" that will almost require that some things be considered evil.

Frank

I think "good" and "evil" in humans basically equate to "selflessness" and "selfishness". However this leads to a problem of definition of "self" as this can be highly identified with group membership , and group dynamics can lead to reinforcement of extremes (martyrdom & genocide respectively).
However these extremes seem to be cognitive elaborations on top of pre-existing instinctive tendencies to proliferate own/own group genes.

Consider now the neurological fact that we appear to have a "pleasure centre" in the brain such that starving animals given the choice of two levers, one for food, and the other for electrical stimulation of the centre will press the latter in preference "even unto death". Weigh this against the objections to the evolutionary hypothesis involving Mother Theresa figures whose altruism takes no part in procreative activity. Surely no-one can deny the potential pleasure involved in alleviating the suffering of others ? And none can deny the "pleasure" sadists appear to derive from their extreme activities. What we may have in both cases may be simple wiring anomalies. The pleasure centre is being unequally accessed by either side of the polarity.

I think "normality" in humans is keeping a balance between atruism and dominance, but that we are all potential extremists within the flux of history.

We are still animals with animal instincts but it is our intellect and/or our genetic programing that can determine the consequences of acts and right from wrong. Ethics are a set of written and unwritten laws of behavior and it's almost impossible to not consider the psychology of an unethical act. I don't believe we have much trouble intellectually deciding what ethics and morals mean to each one of us and I do believe the studies that a sense of good and evil is in a genetic code within each individual when they are born. Sociopathy is still a mystery -- not considered to be a mental disease. If it is proven that sociopaths lack or have a waning gene which predetermines their behavior, what then?

Lightwizard

You and I may have agreed concepts of "right" and "wrong" but they are either cuturally relative or species relative. It can be argued for example that ritual circumcision of infants is a form of assault, obviously opposed by supposedly "moral" theists. Everything from killing to "stealing" can be mitigated by particular circumstances especially "war", so why assume morality is anything more than social expediency ?

As sentient beings we have this continuous dialogue running in our heads between alternative courses of action. The "self" needs to "live with itself" and seeks "objective reassurance" for "correct" choices. Maybe a "dog's life" would not be so bad !