The evolutionary "advantage" of moral behaviour

I have read a few posts on this site where atheists, agnostics etc mention that although they don't believe they behave in a moral way.

I thought that this may pose a few queries by the believers such as "what is the point in morals if there is no religion".

Well I have an answer that satisfies me. FYI I am an atheist.

Moral behaviour is a construct of human society which gives them a profound evolutionary advantage over a society without such behaviour.

We are a social animal for our protection. Existing as a group gives us the best chance of seeing our children grow to maturity - the basic aim of all living things.

Rules must exist to hold such a society together. Well known rules such as Thy shall not kill etc. Without them our supportive and protective society breaks down and it is a much scarier place without them.

Every behaviour trait in all animals must have evolutionary advantage to be viable. Often people consider actions such as charity as contravening this rule. It doesn't. It is a reflection of people's desire to live in a society where charity exists. You see because if charity exists in the society there is a greater chance that the offspring will reach maturity. A caring society.

No god you see, just plain common sense.

And by the way to the previous poster yes it can have everything to do with evolution. An animals social behaviour can be just as important in its survival as its physical characteristics and thus it is open to evolve just as the physical characteristics are.

JJ

It is not a question of our measurement it is a question of whether they live or not.

Having an eye usually gives an animal a better chance of survival because it can see a predator or see its prey. In the muddy amazon this is not so true same at the bottom of the ocean.

An animals social behaviour is not a perception. What you think of it is a perception. Its behaviour is a fact. Saying an animal behaves aggressively is a perception. Because you define aggressive but saying that an animal always eats its mate after copulation is a fact and can be said to be its behaviour.

Thus we must conclude that this behaviour works for the praying mantis (in conjuction with its skill as a hunter, green colouring and sharp claws).

Moral behaviour is a construct of human society which gives them a profound evolutionary advantage over a society without such behaviour.

Moral behaviour is a construct of human society which gives them a profound evolutionary advantage over a society without such behaviour.

Every behaviour trait in all animals must have evolutionary advantage to be viable.

Social behaviour is not a physical process. It is a perception. Accordingly, social behaviour has no effect on the physical process of survival.

In fact, 'survival' is only a physical process or outcome because we measure it physically - by a head-count. But we have already decided what animals are to be admitted into the count. It is therefore circular to say that survival shows which animal behaviour is best suited for survival. The whole 'survival' argument is suspect. All 'survival' is, is a head-count. There are no conclusions to be based on it.

I've always thought that the emotions of compassion and empathy went a long way toward building morality.

But I'm aware of cultures (Maya and Aztec come to mind), where human sacrifice was accepted for generations. Fairness and justice can be rationalized so easily, that a self assessment of morality is very variable between cultures.

Human nature clearly evolved to include rape, genocide, murder and war,

Making the argument that anything in human nature that develops as a result of evolution is "Moral", than you must include these things as moral.

It seems clear to me that morality must include something else.

rosborne979 wrote:

I've always thought that the emotions of compassion and empathy went a long way toward building morality.

But I'm aware of cultures (Maya and Aztec come to mind), where human sacrifice was accepted for generations. Fairness and justice can be rationalized so easily, that a self assessment of morality is very variable between cultures.

Presumably they felt that the sacrifice of some human beings was justified in order to appease the gods and protect the majority, just as our government feels that the deaths of a few thousand American soldiers and uncounted Iraqis will ultimately make the rest of us safer from terrorists, WMDs, Islam, or whatever it is that we are fighting over there.

Morality (or at least ethics) is based on empathy as well as survival. It is unethical to cause unnecessary pain, therefore rape and violence are unethical even where they are legal and/or culturally acceptable.

barnoonan wrote:

Moral behaviour is a construct of human society which gives them a profound evolutionary advantage over a society without such behaviour.

I've always thought that the emotions of compassion and empathy went a long way toward building morality.

But I'm aware of cultures (Maya and Aztec come to mind), where human sacrifice was accepted for generations. Fairness and justice can be rationalized so easily, that a self assessment of morality is very variable between cultures.

The social contract has one flaw: the eventual excesses of the powerful acting 'on behalf of' the weak.