Is Evolution Amoral?

[blobru]

A charge often heard in debates over atheism, and there have been a bunch lately: “evolution is amoral!”

Without God, we’re reduced to the scientific world-view, justice based on Darwinism, survival of the strongest [sic], no mercy, law of the jungle, techno-fascism, etc…

The fallacious mangling of “survival of the fittest” into “survival of the strongest” aside, is it even true in the first place that evolution is amoral?

I’ve never heard the charge countered in a debate. Usually atheists concede the point as irrelevant and respond that there are lots of workable, rational substitutes for divine ethics – so what if evolution is amoral?

The more I think about that however, the less obvious it seems.

Evolution says those best adapted to their environment are likeliest to thrive. In most contexts, the “environment” is beyond the control of the species it affects. But not for humans. Particularly the cultural environment we inhabit. Claim: our cultural environment [c. e.] is nothing more or less than the sum total of our behavior.

If this is so, then every action must contribute to the c. e., and has a part in determining what sort of people will be best adapted to it. Roughly speaking, every act of “kindness” makes the c. e. slightly “kinder” via: those who initiate the kindness, those who benefit from it (directly from charity or indirectly), those who reward it (with a commendation, compliment, smile), and those who emulate the kindness. Similarly, every act of “cruelty” makes the c. e. slightly crueler, and so on. (And to forestall some objections, acts intended to take advantage of a “kinder” c. e. would be balanced by acts of “vigilance”, etc.)

Since the c. e. largely determines what sort of conduct is selected for – what sort of people thrive in it – then the theory of evolution, applied to culture, makes every act moral, with real moral consequence. Your every action becomes a “vote” for the kind of citizen you approve of, the sort of society you want to live in. If you’re offended by such & such, then say so, do something, every act counts! (Corollary: by the ToE, “moral” simply is equivalent to “best adapted”.) Evolution does not free you from morality; on the contrary, it binds you to it, because your behavior helps determine what morality is.

By this argument, there is no need for omniscient oversight of our behavior, as theists contend. No need for the carrot of eternal bliss and the stick of eternal torment. Evolution makes us the creators and custodians of our own ethics. I can’t imagine a more moral system than that (note its conclusions are quite similar to Kant’s categorical imperative “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” and Sartre’s notion of existential ‘authenticity’).

Rebuttal: “Well what guarantee do you have that free-thinking godless people won’t just choose to behave badly?” None. But no system of ethics can guarantee that. Evolutionary ethics merely makes everyone responsible, and trusts in the wisdom and decency of the majority, just like democracy does. Not perfect I know, but as Winston Churchill once said of democracy: “[It] is the worst system of government in the world, except for all the others.”

Is this going too far? It seems at least plausible to me. I’ve never heard or seen evolution defended in moral terms; maybe it should be…

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Seems like a silly question. You might as well ask about other sciences. Is gravity amoral? A Maxwell's Equations amoral? Frankly, yes. Morality is irrelevant to the laws of the universe. "Evolution" does not owe us morality, though we appear to have evolved morality.

 

[Mercutio]

Is aviation pink?

 

[Hokulele]

Blobru, I think a simpler way of putting what you are saying is "Can evolution result in morality? Answer: yes."

As the other posters have pointed out, the wording you used does result in an irrelevancy. If a creationist uses the phrasing used in your OP, just reword and answer.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The theory of evolution is completely amoral, just like the theory of gravity is completely amoral, and just like the germ theory of disease is completely amoral, and just like the theory of thermodynamics is completely amoral, and just like every scientific theory is completely amoral.

No scientific theory tells us the diference between right and wrong.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Is aviation pink?

Not only nominated for TLA, but as a reference quote for god like status in my mind.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Yes Dr. A, the question is too eerily similar to the whole "Is it all arbitrary" buzz slogan the theists are using these days.

 

[Mercutio]

Not only nominated for TLA, but as a reference quote for god like status in my mind.

God-like? Been there, done that. But thanks.

 

[blobru]

Blobru, I think a simpler way of putting what you are saying is "Can evolution result in morality? Answer: yes."

Not just "result in" but "necessitate". Seems to me, I may be wrong, that there is such a strong teleological link between "evolution" and "morality" in the human context that it's not outrageous to suggest evolution necessitates morality (what morality of course is up to us, but we can never avoid our moral role because of the ToE). Theists often argue that evolution frees us from any sort of moral responsibility; I say evolution (applied to human culture) does the opposite: binds us to a notion of moral responsibility more securely than any holy writ ever could. It frustrates me when defenders of atheism (often lumped together, fairly or not, with evolutionists) concede the moral high ground to theists in debates, as if ToE couldn't possibly have any bearing on how we behave and view that behavior, because it's science. I say rational morality is inferred from relevant facts, and ToE applied to culture is the best method we have for discerning those relevant facts.

Simplified:

ToE = survival of the fittest;

fittest = best adapted to environment;

our actions = [cultural] environment;

so our actions, and each citizen's input into those actions, go a long way to determining which citizens will thrive / prosper (maximize chances of survival).

I agree scientific theories are purely predictive / descriptive, while morality is prescriptive. But I think ToE applied to culture, as Dawkins does with memes, should imply a notion of moral responsibility, based on the argument above. Obviously, none of the other theories aforementioned -- gravity, thermodynamics, aerodynamic spectroscopy -- has any application to culture, or relevance to morality.

 

[Herzblut]

Seems to me, I may be wrong, that there is such a strong teleological link between "evolution" and "morality" in the human context

Simplified:

ToE = survival of the fittest;
fittest = best adapted to environment;
our actions = [cultural] environment;

so our actions, and each citizen's input into those actions, go a long way to determining which citizens will thrive / prosper (maximize chances of survival).

..I think ToE applied to culture, as Dawkins does with memes, should imply a notion of moral responsibility, based on the argument above.

Teleology? Survival of the fittest?

I have the sneaky suspicion you are talking about Herbert Spencer and his Social Darwinism. I think that theory is not just wrong but moreover socially dangerous.

It has been used to justify fancy social concepts like imperialism, racism, euthanasia. And finally genocide by the Nazis: Since we are fitter than those weaklings, we just slaughter them ruthlessly. We survive, they don't. But well - that's evolution!

Herzblut

 

[blobru]

The theory of evolution is completely amoral, just like the theory of gravity is completely amoral, and just like the germ theory of disease is completely amoral, and just like the theory of thermodynamics is completely amoral, and just like every scientific theory is completely amoral.

No scientific theory tells us the diference between right and wrong.

I agree no scientific theory has moral content. But it may still have moral value.

The germ theory of disease, part of the practice of medicine. The goal of medicine is to research and cure disease, curing disease (unless your patient is Hitler or something) is doing good, and doing good is moral. So medicine has moral value, if no moral content.

Human culture is the sum of our actions. Viewed through the ToE, it is the environment created by us which determines which behavioral adaptations and traits will be selected for. So it compells us to see our every action as "moral"; i.e., as affecting what sort of people thrive in our culture. It forces us to see ourselves as moral agents in everything we do. It's inseparable from morality. So to counter the theist charge that "evolution is amoral", I might reply "yes" in its scientific content, but "not necessarily" in its applicaton to culture; if anything it ought to carry a lot more "moral" weight than theism nowadays.

 

[Roboramma]

blobru,

It seems like you're saying that the theory of evolution adds another layer to our analysis of the moral implications of our actions. For instance if I help people who are nice to me, I in some small way make it more likely that people will evolve to be nicer in the future.
That's the jist of it, right?

I can sort of see it. On the other hand, it doesn't suggest why I should care (by the time this effect will take on any measurable proportions, I would have been long dead). So I don't see how it's a good response to the creationist's accusation. I still think it's a stupid accusation (for the reasons that you and others made clear) but your point, while possibly valid on its own, is a non sequitur.

 

[blobru]

Teleology? Survival of the fittest?

I have the sneaky suspicion you are talking about Herbert Spencer and his Social Darwinism. I think that theory is not just wrong but moreover socially dangerous.

It has been used to justify fancy social concepts like imperialism, racism, euthanasia. And finally genocide by the Nazis: Since we are fitter than those weaklings, we just slaughter them ruthlessly. We survive, they don't. But well - that's evolution!

Herzblut

Yes the connection's certainly been made before.

But, as far as I can tell, Spencer was an idiot. He substituted "strongest" for "fittest" and built the theory of Social Darwinism upon that serious misunderstanding.

"Fittest" just means "best adapted to the environment". In a cultural environment which selects for charity for example, then individuals who exhibit that behavior should thrive, according to ToE. It's left up to each of us to create by the sum of our activity such a culture, as it seems most of us find it commendable.

 

[blobru]

blobru,

It seems like you're saying that the theory of evolution adds another layer to our analysis of the moral implications of our actions. For instance if I help people who are nice to me, I in some small way make it more likely that people will evolve to be nicer in the future. [my bold]
That's the jist of it, right?

I can sort of see it. On the other hand, it doesn't suggest why I should care (by the time this effect will take on any measurable proportions, I would have been long dead). So I don't see how it's a good response to the creationist's accusation. I still think it's a stupid accusation (for the reasons that you and others made clear) but your point, while possibly valid on its own, is a non sequitur.

Not people will evolve to be nicer in the future (although the legacy of one's "memes" may produce that effect); but people's behavior will evolve to be nicer in the present! -- via memetic emulation, hybridization, and inheritance, which can be instantaneous (memes differ from genes by permitting this sort of 'Lamarckism').

 

[blobru]

Is aviation pink?

Nope, blue with fluffy patches of white.

 

[Roboramma]

Not people will evolve to be nicer in the future (although the legacy of one's "memes" may produce that effect); but people's behavior will evolve to be nicer in the present! -- via memetic emulation, hybridization, and inheritance, which can be instantaneous (memes differ from genes by permitting this sort of 'Lamarckism').

Okay, but now you're venturing outside of the theory of evolution and into memetics. All fine and good, but the two shouldn't be confused.

And memetics (while interesting) is much more speculative.

 

[Roboramma]

"Fittest" just means "best adapted to the environment". In a cultural environment which selects for charity for example, then individuals who exhibit that behavior should thrive, according to ToE. It's left up to each of us to create by the sum of our activity such a culture, as it seems most of us find it commendable.

Two things here: One is that the way to create an environment that selects for charity isn't always obvious. It might not be by being charitable yourself - it's entirely possible that doing so would have a negative impact.
For example in games theory computer simulations of the prisoner's dilema, will have an environment of many different programs "strategies" for playing the game (analogous in this context to human behavioural strategies). An environment full of pure "cooperators" will tend to select not for more cooperators, but for defectors, those that, basically take advantage of the cooperators. And this can end up at a point where the defectors begin to take over. On the other hand strategies like "tit-for-tat" which start out cooperative but punish defection, tend to be stable against defectors - an environment composed mostly of "tit-for-tat", or similar, selects against defectors. And it can actually select for pure cooperators to a certain extent.
My only point being that we might naively think that being "nice" to people will create an environment wherein "niceness" is selected for, but it might actually do the opposite.

My second point is that, given that we can't make simple conclusions from the idea of an environment that selects for moral behaviours, this framing of the problem (of how to create the society that we want) is really no different from most other framings of the problem.
How do we get people to be good? By creating an environment in which it's in their interest to be good, or one in which they are likely to want to be good for other reasons (for instance because of education). The fact that our individual actions contribute to that environment is obvious regardless of whether we apply the insights of the theory of evolution or not.
Now, if we could make some predictions from the theory of evolution (or memetics) about what sort of actions individuals should take in order to create that environment, or what sorts of policies governments should apply, then the point would be valid.
Otherwise, I don't see how the theory of evolution is really adding anything in this way.

I do think it adds to our understanding of why people behave the way they do, where morality comes from, etc. But as to how we should behave? I'm not convinced.*

*Actually that's a simplification - I do think we can get some insights about how we should behave because of some of the information that evolutionary biology adds to our understanding of the world - for instance our close relationship to other primates, but that's different from this discussion, so I'll leave it as a footnote.

 

[Herzblut]

Yes the connection's certainly been made before.

"So what?" - that's what you say? Very interesting.

But, as far as I can tell, Spencer was an idiot. He substituted "strongest" for "fittest" and built the theory of Social Darwinism upon that serious misunderstanding.

No, Spencer actually invented the phrase "survival of the fittest". Darwin never used it.

"Fittest" just means "best adapted to the environment". In a cultural environment which selects for charity for example, then individuals who exhibit that behavior should thrive, according to ToE.

In how far does "survival of the fittest" support the idea of charity?

Herzblut

 

[blobru]

"So what?" - that's what you say? Very interesting.

The connection was made between morality and evolution, where evolution was misunderstood. (Nietzsche also made the connection.)

No, Spencer actually invented the phrase "survival of the fittest". Darwin never used it.

Right, but Spencer's phrase was intended to encapsulate Darwin's theory. "Fittest" for Darwin meant "best adapted"; "fittest" for Spencer meant "strongest"; so Spencer's social philosophy is not based on Darwin's actual theory.

In how far does "survival of the fittest" support the idea of charity?

Since our actions create our cultural environment, and that environment selects for certain behaviors (those behaviors which are fittest more likely to survive), then, since most people find charity commendable, they ought to act, contribute to the culture, in a way that charity will be selected for. [gad, that was a mouthful!]

 

[blobru]

Two things here: One is that the way to create an environment that selects for charity isn't always obvious. It might not be by being charitable yourself - it's entirely possible that doing so would have a negative impact. ... My only point being that we might naively think that being "nice" to people will create an environment wherein "niceness" is selected for, but it might actually do the opposite.

My second point is that, given that we can't make simple conclusions from the idea of an environment that selects for moral behaviours, this framing of the problem (of how to create the society that we want) is really no different from most other framings of the problem.
How do we get people to be good? By creating an environment in which it's in their interest to be good, or one in which they are likely to want to be good for other reasons (for instance because of education). The fact that our individual actions contribute to that environment is obvious regardless of whether we apply the insights of the theory of evolution or not. [my bold]
Now, if we could make some predictions from the theory of evolution (or memetics) about what sort of actions individuals should take in order to create that environment, or what sorts of policies governments should apply, then the point would be valid.
Otherwise, I don't see how the theory of evolution is really adding anything in this way.

I do think it adds to our understanding of why people behave the way they do, where morality comes from, etc. But as to how we should behave? I'm not convinced.* ...

I agree, ToE tells us nothing specifically about morality per se. But applied to culture (and I take your earlier point -- I consider memetics Dawkin's proposed extension of evolution to culture, but it may be best to regard them as separate theories) it does tell us that everything we do is in a sense a "moral" act, since it contributes to the cultural environment wherein behaviors compete for acceptance. That's the sense in which I mean evolution is moral; it forces us to see ourselves as moral agents. I don't think this is obvious to a lot of people, who tend to see themselves and their actions as meaningless within the larger culture (that's why I bolded that part of your quote). In the context of evolution, no action is culturally insignificant, every action has moral import, and apathy is just ignorance and/or laziness. For what a culture determines is moral for better or worse will be based on a consensus of intention and activity; i.e., if you consider a certain action "moral", then better do something to promote it. As for which behaviors select for which other behaviors... well, that's up to the individual's own experience and reasoning, I suppose.