Humans: Are we moral and evolved, or animals with a thin veneer of civilisation?

[cheeba]

When faced with the Actual possibility of death, people will do extreme things. Especially if their children are threatened. I doubt many of us in fhb have ever been in that situation.



While a poor parallel to draw, consider any blockbuster tv show concerning survival. Lost, walking dead etc. We enjoy these shows as they sometimes probe the dark side of our humanity. A common theme in all these shows is how easily man will kill his fellow man in order to better the survival of himself or his kin.

Humanity is Lord of the flies at it's core.

[Shaikar]

The answer to the topic title is "yes", if anything.
I say if anything because "moral and evolved" is horrifically wooly and vague.

[SAI Peregrinus]

The answer to the topic title is "yes", if anything.
I say if anything because "moral and evolved" is horrifically wooly and vague.

Restating the original: Are we ( moral and evolved ) xor ( animals with a thin veneer of civilization ). Which is true? Are both/neither true?
As opposed to: Are we moral and (evolved or animals) with a thin veneer of civilization, or any of the many other ways to misunderstand the question.

So:
Moral and evolved.
Clearly we are evolved. So is every other life form on Earth. So we can consider this part to simply ask if we are moral.

Animals with a thin veneer of civilization.
Clearly we are animals. We have a veneer of civilization, how thick or thin that is is up for debate, and varies by region and circumstances.

I think cheeba touched on an important point above:
"...how easily man will kill his fellow man in order to better the survival of himself or his kin."
Society is an artificial kin group, and the willingness to do terrible things/die for a kin group gets extended to society in extreme cases. Wars, heroism, etc, it's all "save the tribe" instinct. What's interesting is how the perception of what tribe one is in can change. I've known soldiers who have put themselves in danger for their fellow countrymen, yet would get in fights with those same countrymen over liking the "wrong" sports team.

[ValorousBob]

When faced with the Actual possibility of death, people will do extreme things.

I think it's way WAY easier than that to get people to do extreme things. People will do extreme things based on purely societal pressures even if there's little or no physical (pain, injury, death, etc) consequences for them.

[Irrelephant]

Clearly we are evolved. So is every other life form on Earth. So we can consider this part to simply ask if we are moral.

But some life forms are more evolved then others. Key difference in this context is that most animals fail self awareness tests. So imo there is no question if humans are more evolved then animals, we are at the top of evolution on this planet. How big of a margin that lead is and how high we rank overall is another question. We prolly are still total nublets in the grand scheme of things.

[SAI Peregrinus]

Clearly we are evolved. So is every other life form on Earth. So we can consider this part to simply ask if we are moral.

But some life forms are more evolved then others. Key difference in this context is that most animals fail self awareness tests. So imo there is no question if humans are more evolved then animals, we are at the top of evolution on this planet. How big of a margin that lead is and how high we rank overall is another question. We prolly are still total nublets in the grand scheme of things.

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Beings are never "more evolved" or "less evolved", they are only "more fit" or "less fit" for a particular environmental niche. We are quite fit at modifying the environment to suit our needs, but a tapeworm is far more fit for the niche of living in the gut of a mammal than any human.

If by "evolved" one means "evolved to a state where the set of herd/tribe behaviors called 'morality' are inherent" one should say so. The question is ambiguous as stated, and aspects of the debate so far indicate confusion. For example, there was debate over whether environmental factors should be considered. Since the definition of "evolved" must include environmental factors the idea that excluding them could answer the question indicates confusion.

[Irrelephant]

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Beings are never "more evolved" or "less evolved", they are only "more fit" or "less fit" for a particular environmental niche. We are quite fit at modifying the environment to suit our needs, but a tapeworm is far more fit for the niche of living in the gut of a mammal than any human.

If by "evolved" one means "evolved to a state where the set of herd/tribe behaviors called 'morality' are inherent" one should say so. The question is ambiguous as stated, and aspects of the debate so far indicate confusion. For example, there was debate over whether environmental factors should be considered. Since the definition of "evolved" must include environmental factors the idea that excluding them could answer the question indicates confusion.

When it comes to physical evolution you are right, in the context of this thread it is rather meaningless. Looking at the evolution of the mind makes more sense, unless brain == mind for you.

[smagd]

Altruism seems to be the more natural option for a human, as opposed to say monkeys with similar levels of intelligence:

The behavior of the kids, while impressive, was less important than the consequences of that behavior — and that's where you see the real payoff of sharing. In the majority of cases, children who got either instruction or rewards from others or who correctly imitated the moves they observed improved their performance and moved on more successfully to the next stages.

This reflects highly efficient solutions for game threory.

The best deterministic strategy was found to be tit for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest.

Maybe evolving altruism over still existing animal behavior just gave us an edge in conquering the world.

Some of the still existing animal behaviors are maybe just there to balance us becoming couch potatoes... oh wait....

PS: I'm not sure whether I'd rather argue either altruism or animal behavior is more of a result of environmental influences. Maybe it's a case of kids being more likely to be taught how to be civil while the older you get, the more likely a human is to be taught that aggression brings rewards.

[Frug]

So my opinion on this question is that it's a false dichotomy. At our core we're both moral and brutal. I generally hate humans and humanity for the constant stupid and awful shit we do, but I also must admit we span the gamut and sometimes i get all teary eyed at what we do.

I also don't think basic animal behavior is the opposite of morality. The most disgusting, inhuman acts involve higher reasoning with a cold disregard for suffering.

Altruism seems to be the more natural option for a human, as opposed to say monkeys with similar levels of intelligence:

The behavior of the kids, while impressive, was less important than the consequences of that behavior — and that's where you see the real payoff of sharing. In the majority of cases, children who got either instruction or rewards from others or who correctly imitated the moves they observed improved their performance and moved on more successfully to the next stages.

This reflects highly efficient solutions for game threory.

The best deterministic strategy was found to be tit for tat, which Anatol Rapoport developed and entered into the tournament. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC, and won the contest.

Maybe evolving altruism over still existing animal behavior just gave us an edge in conquering the world....

PS: I'm not sure whether I'd rather argue either altruism or animal behavior is more of a result of environmental influences. Maybe it's a case of kids being more likely to be taught how to be civil while the older you get, the more likely a human is to be taught that aggression brings rewards.

Recent studies have looked at altruism in animals and found it to be more prevalent than we thought. Specifically in rats of all creatures. There is a fairly solid biological basis for altruistic behavior. IIRC the best explanation for it is that we are wired to feel suffering when others do (we already know that our brains are wired to mimic the muscle movements of other people when we watch them move, so it's presumably an extension of this system to feel pain and emotion), and we help others in order to alleviate our own discomfort.

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Beings are never "more evolved" or "less evolved", they are only "more fit" or "less fit" for a particular environmental niche. We are quite fit at modifying the environment to suit our needs, but a tapeworm is far more fit for the niche of living in the gut of a mammal than any human.

The implication of what is meant by "more evolved" in this context should be clear. They are talking about evolving higher reasoning/mental faculties. In that respect we are the most evolved creatures on the planet. It's not really important to get technical about the nature of evolution to fit specific tasks.

[Rami]

I have to align with the group who see morality as an extension of group survival structures and an integral part of evolution as a species. Primates and dolphins already show considerable signs of 'pre-morality' behaviour such as reciprocal altruism. It is suggested that Dunbar's number (the maximum amount of relationships one can maintain, set at approximately 100-200) is a key point at which a species will develop moral structures. This is merely to effectively survive in such large groups and I do suspect that our closest rivals in the realms of intelligence will develop more advanced moral systems if they continuously reside in such large social groups (although to date none have).

If anything sets us apart it is our ability to reflect upon ourselves and our society. Not to be mistaken with self-awareness, rather self-inspection. Whether we gained this by 'accident' as the right social and physiological factors were present, or whether this is a next stage in social evolution I'm not sure.

Morality however, is not 'special' in my opinion, it's simply another effective method of group control that we required.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

I think you have to be careful to overlay the idea of 'altruism' on top of animal behaviour. And, for that matter, on top of human behaviour.

The essence of some recent studies into altruistic behaviour in animals, is that it isn't actually altruistic as such, more like calculated behaviour now with the expectancy of greater rewards in the future. I.e., the refrain from taking 'selfish' advantage of another animal now because they have come to expect or know positive rewards from that later on.

Frankly, I think the same holds for humans, as fellow animals as well. Why do most humans care for their children? On the one hand you can argue this is because of pressure from society. I think there's good reason to attribute at least a portion of that behaviour to that. Then there are those who say so that it is done because of special 'mother-child' feelings and the like. I don't personally care much for that argument. And finally there are those that argue that having a child, especially for the mother, is a 9 month investment for the future reward of having offspring ready to take care of you when you are old and feeble. Frankly, I think there's a lot to say for that argument.

Overall though, however you wish to define it, there is, in my view, little evidence for systemic altruism, or humanism, philanthropy etc. in mankind. Mankind is not a noble beast. I believe that at its essence he's quite calculated, and instinctively selfish. The veneer of civilisation just serves to encode and encourage 'noble' behaviour as a means of making co-habitation for large numbers possible. And that changes the calculation. You can argue that that makes (certain types of) society moral and evolved, but not, I think, humanity itself.

[Aramendel]

Both points are wrong. As has already been said, basic animal behavior isn't the opposite of moral behavior or being selfish and valuing your own benefits before anything else. Animal behavior is neutral.

Morality is a purely human construct. This is because it needs intelligence to even exist. Basically, our intelligence can (with an unspecified success rate) override our animal instincts and allow us to act in ways which are very different to animal behavior patterns. But this can go in both directions, positive and negative. The opposite of human moral behavior is human immoral behavior.

If you classify this as "good" and "evil" and ask which side a human leads towards more I would say "good" with a few caveats. It isn't strictly that humans are good, but more that they prefer to create instead to destroy (because it also helps them in the long run). Humans are selfish without a doubt, but they are not always completely selfish. Not because we are noble, but because total selfishness is just as destructive as total altruism. If being totally selfish would give us higher survival rates we would not be social animals, as definatelynotKKassandra points out, but quite literary "lone wolves".

[JForce]

Last 3 posts nailed it.

[Aramendel]

To elaborate more, I think the "Monkeysphere" principle applies.

The closer persons are to us (and I do not mean genetically), the more likely we are "good" to them. Out of pure self interest. Lets say there are no laws - you would be free to go to your neighbors house, dash his brains in and steal his stuff. But even if you had no morals whatsoever you still would hesitate to do it. Because if everyone would do it you would very likely become a victim eventually too. It is in ones own self-interest not to be completely selfish. It is quite simply not beneficial for average joe to be "evil". I believe this is something we know instinctively.

However, this instinct breaks down for larger groups of people. Evolution simply hasn't had time to catch up with our population growth. But it is in the long term still beneficial not to bash in the head from a guy from another city or country or continent. Which is why we have "morals" and laws. When evolution became to slow to adapt our behavior we created our own "mental" evolution, society.

[Rami]

Whilst I agree with your point I don't think we invented morality, rather it's a natural step when, as you say, social groups grow beyond what person-to-person relationships can reliably control.

[Aramendel]

I might have been unclear there - I wouldn't say we "invented" morality either, it is something which evolved - just not biologically, but mentally. It is part of our "mental" evolution.

I wouldn't say it is 100% "natural", though, because it can also be influenced. An example for that would be the increased environmental conscience we have nowadays compared to 50 years ago. Or the woman rights and black equality movements in the 1960s. Those were changed by people who said "Hey, what we are doing isn't okay" and convinced enough people. I would say it is part naturally and part intentionally made.

[Bartholomeus Crane]

I'd be very careful with words like 'morality' in questions like this. Describing something as 'moral', leads to describing something else as 'immoral', and quickly the discussion devolves into 'good', 'evil', 'bad', etc. Those are value judgement from the perspective of societal constructs, and they have very little to do with all of this.

Overall, Humanity, as just any other animal, is trying to achieve the best 'fit' within its 'environment'. Humans are 'pack animals', 'social beasts', 'herd animals', and not without reason, as we're not equipped for a 'lone wolf' existence (no big teeth of claws) and have learned that there is safety in numbers. Much of this is instinctive, some of it is genetic. But the development of our intellectual capacity has outreached our genetic/evolutionary development. Many of the old instincts we still posses, but the social structures have become much more important. This was a natural progression as numbers first increased then exploded. Simply put, the environment changed and humanity adapted to that changed environment.

Now, against that background, is humanity natively moral, i.e. noble, i.e. good? In my opinion, no it isn't. The old selfish instincts remain, but to some extend (and less in some than in others) they are overridden by the realisation that in order to best fit within the environment it is more profitable to exhibit socially acceptable behaviours than otherwise. Note that 'to best fit within the environment' can mean different things to different people as well.

For example, to sire a lot of 'successful' offspring (the original meaning of 'fitness') is an instinctual behavioural trait. For the male of the species it is inherently selfish (requires little or no effort), for the female of the species obviously less so. And so, within both the animal kingdom and within human society you see a lot of social constructs, instinctive or constructive, that pressure towards some sort of balancing out of the effort. Elaborate dances etc. in birds increases the effort on the male bird, and provides the female bird to select the most proper male, thus introducing 'ritual' into the 'selection of the fittest' (as important as survival of the fittest) aspect of the Darwinian dance of life. It is pretty much the same for humans, only, because of a much greater brain capacity these 'rituals' are much more complex.

Note that with an increase in numbers, these rituals have also become more complex and numerous. Which gives pause for thought if you consider the alarming rise in numbers on this earth and what that means, and must mean, for the societal constructs humanity keeps building for itself and their direction.

[Hel OWeen]

Morality is a purely human construct. This is because it needs intelligence to even exist. Basically, our intelligence can (with an unspecified success rate) override our animal instincts and allow us to act in ways which are very different to animal behavior patterns.

I don't think this argument is valid anymore. There has been a greater focus on behavioral studies for animals over the last years, which have lead to some quite surprising results. Those findings include:

* Animals being more intelligent than we "allowed" them to be in the past.
Most impressive study I remember was about Ravens. Those beautyfull birds showed an amazing degree of intelligence. One experiment that showed that these birds "think" rather than act out of instict or simply repeat from memory (i.e. learned by watching parents) was a setup where in order to get hold of some food, the raven had to
- use one little stick to reach another longer stick
- manipulate the longer stick so it became a hook
- use that hook to reach the otherwise unreachable piece of food
That involves some very complex ahead thinking.

Although this isn't the one I saw, it shows the principle (sequential tool usage): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE4BT...eature=related

* Social interactions between groups, which even includes "punishment" for "not well-behaving" (=moraly bad) members of that group

It is my opinion that the (monotheism-stemed) arrogance with which we described us as "the crown of creation" didn't allow animals to have intelligence, regardless of the facts.

[Frug]

Morality is a purely human construct. This is because it needs intelligence to even exist. Basically, our intelligence can (with an unspecified success rate) override our animal instincts and allow us to act in ways which are very different to animal behavior patterns.

I don't think this argument is valid anymore. There has been a greater focus on behavioral studies for animals over the last years, which have lead to some quite surprising results...

Are you claiming that animals being able to use tools and show higher cognitive abilities than semi-autonomous entities implies that they're capable of making moral value judgements?

Even if that was the case, its possibility in some animals doesn't invalidate his argument, which goes beyond those three sentences. There is a distinction between impulsive instinctually driven behavior and behavior governed by higher reasoning. On the off chance that a crow might think to itself "I could steal that shiny tinfoil, but it would be wrong because it's not mine" it doesn't change that the crow needs these faculties which certainly don't exist in all animals...

Unless you actually think they're all that smart.

[Hel OWeen]

Are you claiming that animals being able to use tools and show higher cognitive abilities than semi-autonomous entities implies that they're capable of making moral value judgements?

As already stated, "moral" is a difficult term. Armandel implied that "intelligence" is a mandatory prerequisite for "moral". Animals aren't intelligent, therefore animals aren't moral. I wanted to show that at least the first point isn't as clear any longer as we've led to believe for a long time. "Animals != intelligent" was treated like an axiom and never questioned for a long time. Now that scientists look into the matter, they find that this claim isn't true.

Does that make animals "moral beings"? I don't know and I guess that highly depends on how you define moral. I perhaps need to preface my definition of moral with stating that my view on mankind is basically Hobbes' Man is a wolf to men. All good behavior has its traits in evolutionary advantages gained from them.

As an example of my point of view: You didn't learn from your parents -> you die early -> your genes don't spread. So to not waste time and time again explaining that to every juvenile hothead, create "moral" -> "Thou shalt honor your parents" (translated: "Listen the fuck to their orders!")

Animals (I seem to remember a documentary about apes, although not chimps) have been observed to reward & punish members of their groups for good or bad social behavior. "Social" as in it doesn't benefit the acting animal itself, but the group as a whole. There seem to be norms that should be followed and sanctions for not doing so. Is that already "moral"? I don't know.

Unless you actually think they're all that smart.

To be honest - I don't know. I'm lacking any expertise in that matter. But I'm sure that for a long time (and due to stupid :religion we far overrated "human intelligence" and at the same time and because of the same reasoning underrated animal capabilities.

BTW, found the documentary I saw. Watched it on arte. Unfortunately (for this forum) the video is in German:
Raben - unterschätze Genies (Raven - underestimated geniuses), part 1/4
Part 2/4
Part 3/4
Part 4/4




[Off topic]
In the "Argue with style. Avoid these logical fallacies."-thread, amongst other points, the following principle for a good discussion was posted:

4. The Burden-of-Proof Principle
The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

The problem I (and I'm sure others as well) often face in an international surrounding like here on FHC, that our sources are in a language which at least some of the participants don't speak. For online articles there are at least some translation services available, which give a rough impression of the link posted. For videos/other media, that's not possible.