Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Is Morality Nothing More than an Evolutionary Strategy?

  1. #1
    Moderator Resist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    49
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    280
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    98
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    296
    Thanked in
    154 Posts

    Is Morality Nothing More than an Evolutionary Strategy?

    Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, April 1995

    The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Robert Wright, Pantheon Books, 1994, 466 pp.

    Sociobiology, the discipline named after E. O. Wilson’s 1975 book of that name, claims that evolution can explain not only human biology but human behavior. It was a decisive departure from the view that has dominated social science for most of this century: that there is essentially no such thing as “human nature,” and that behavior is determined by environment.

    A view so utterly and obviously wrong prevailed only with the help of radical egalitarianism. Since sociobiology was an open attack on the foundations of egalitarianism, it had to be driven underground amidst accusations of racism and sexism. Happily, as Robert Wright explains in The Moral Animal, it has been quietly thriving even while its practitioners cover their tracks by calling themselves evolutionary psychologists or Darwinian anthropologists rather than sociobiologists. Mr. Wright’s book is an illuminating survey of recent work in the field, with a particular concentration on theories about the origin of moral values.

    The Moral Animal- Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Robert Wright
    The Primacy of Evolution

    “If psychologists want to understand the processes that shape the human mind, they must understand the process that shaped the human species,” writes Mr. Wright. This restatement of the premise of sociobiology—that behavior has genetic and evolutionary origins—has received strong confirmation in recent studies described in these pages (see, especially, Aug., 1993 and Dec., 1994). Behavior, just like physiology, appears to be the result of millions of years of random experiments, in which only the useful results were kept.

    Evolution can be most easily understood at the level of the gene, not the group or the individual. A tree or a man or a virus can then be seen as a vehicle for carrying genetic information into the next generation. It is only genetic information that is potentially immortal; evolution operates for its benefit, and only indirectly for that of the organisms that carry it. The entire living universe can therefore be understood as a vast battlefield, in which organisms engage in constant struggle in the service of the genes they carry. A gene that confers a physical or behavioral advantage that helps its carriers survive and reproduce ensures the gene’s survival; one that confers no advantage comes to a dead end when its carrier dies or fails to reproduce.

    As Mr. Wright explains, it is evolution that has done most of the “thinking” in nature. Bees do not build combs of hexagonal cells because every bee determines for itself that this is a good idea. Evolutionary theory holds that building honey combs is something that bees stumbled upon only after endless generations of trial and error. The mutation that produced this useful behavior spread through the population because it helped its carriers survive and reproduce.

    All animal behavior can be explained this way. Squirrels store nuts for the winter because genes that make squirrels store nuts help squirrels survive. Evolution has done the “thinking;” squirrels just store the nuts.

    Though many people refuse even to consider the possibility, human behavior is likewise the result of countless generations of trial and error that have produced very sophisticated strategies for keeping genes in circulation. Although humans are self-conscious in a way that no other animal is, they are often no more aware than bees or squirrels of the evolutionary “thinking” that underlies their behavior.

    For example, men think they “want” children, but, as Mr. Wright explains, evolution designed the process for the benefit of genes, not men. Men have sex because they are driven by their genes to do so. Most of the time they are not thinking about children at all; they just want sex. They then find that they love the little bundle that appears nine months later. Both the sex-seeking and the carrier’s love for its children are powerful strategies the genes have designed to ensure that new copies of themselves are first made, and then loved and looked after until the new carrier can make yet more copies.

    Whether the carrier is happy or sad about any of this is of no concern to the genes, which, of course, have no consciousness whatever. The entire process is the result of an infinite number of accidents, in which survival is the final criterion—not because survival itself is in any sense good, but only because it is the criterion that keeps genes, and therefore behavior, in circulation.

    The Battle of the Sexes

    Sociobiological analysis particularly illuminates human sexual behavior. Although both sexes can be seen as packages of genes looking for opportunities to make more packages of themselves, biological differences between men and women ensure that they view sex in radically different ways. In Mr. Wright’s view, they might as well be two different species that view the other merely as sources of reproductive resources.

    For men, every act of copulation, including rape, is one more chance for their genes to be reproduced. Sex has virtually no debilitating or time-consuming consequences, so men can be expected to have evolved an omnivorous interest in copulating with any and every fertile woman. (They can also be expected to have little interest in having sex with old, infertile women, since that is a reproductive waste of time.)

    For women, sex is a much more serious undertaking. While the number of children a promiscuous man can have is practically unlimited, a woman can usually have no more than a dozen. Reproduction also ties her down to a brood of very demanding young in a process that is much more likely to be successful if she can persuade a man to stick around and help. Women have therefore evolved to be much more choosy about sex partners. Their instincts are to seek commitment rather than recreational sex, because in the environment in which they evolved, sex without a man’s commitment could leave them all alone with small mouths to feed. Ancient proto-human females that were casual about sex partners probably froze or starved to death along with their children—which snuffed out the casualness along with the genes that caused it.

    Mr. Wright reports that someone has bothered to test the obvious: When an attractive woman approached men on a college campus and offered to have immediate sex, three fourths of her prospects agreed. Not one woman agreed to a similar offer from an attractive man.

    Consciously or not, men cloak their short-term sexual interests in the appearance of long-term attachment. As Mr. Wright puts it, “natural selection may favor males that are good at deceiving females about their future devotion and favor females that are good at spotting deception.”

    Infidelity has different genetic consequences for men and women. From an evolutionary point of view, there is no greater fool than the cuckold, who lavishes paternal care on a little package of genes not his own. This accounts for the great ferocity with which men punish female infidelity; they have a deep, evolutionary revulsion for it.

    Women can be expected to have a somewhat greater tolerance for male philandering because it can never leave them looking after a child they think is their own but is not. Women are much more threatened by the prospect of mates deserting them and caring for babies they may have with other women.

    It is probably male revulsion for the consequences of cuckoldry that explains why, in every society, women who are sexually loose are alluring short-term prospects but not thought to be good marriage material. Mr. Wright explains that the “Madonna-whore” message encoded in male genes may be something like this:

    If you find a woman who appears genetically suitable for investment, start spending lots of time with her. If she seems quite taken by you, and yet remains sexually aloof, stick with her. If, on the other hand, she seems eager for sex right away, then by all means oblige her. But if the sex does come that easily, you might want to shift from investment mode into exploitation mode. Her eagerness could mean she’ll always be an easy seduction—not a desirable quality in a wife.

    Feminists and liberals are likely to say that contraception has changed all this, and, of course, it can change the consequences of sex. However, the instincts that drive men and women are, in the short term, immutable. Any attempt to build society on assumptions that ignore them will only sow confusion and misery.

    The Moral Animal

    Mr. Wright casts evolutionary light on a great many interesting questions—who benefits from monogamy, why people make friends, the purpose of righteous indignation, why hierarchy is inevitable—but perhaps the most interesting question is why people sometimes behave morally.

    When animals sacrifice their own interests for those of others biologists call it altruism. The sacrifice of parents for children is easily explained: it promotes the parents’ genes. There is even genetic utility in dying for one’s kin, if this saves enough lives and enough copies of shared genes.

    But what about altruism directed towards non-kin? As Mr. Wright explains, for some time evolutionists thought in terms of group selection. When there was a battle between bands of hunter-gatherers, the group that had members willing to take risks to save the group was more likely to rout a band whose members operated every-man-for-himself. Lately, the more common view is that stranger altruism probably evolved like virtually all other behavior: in the service of the individual and his genes. Sacrifice and cooperation that arose for the benefit of kin groups slowly broadened to include non-kin.

    The reason is that for almost all individuals, cooperation is more beneficial than constant competition and exploitation because cooperation so often leaves both parties better off than they were before. A job that is impossible for one man is often easy for two or three; all are better off in a system based on seeking and returning favors.

    In Mr. Wright’s view, what passes for morality is still very much in the service of the genes. From an evolutionary point of view, helpfulness to others is a kind of bargain-hunting, in which a man’s willingness to cooperate is instinctively calibrated to the likelihood and usefulness of the pay-back. As Mr. Wright points out, people tend to be indulgent towards those who are in positions to help us and more demanding of those who are not.

    Even feelings of guilt are evolutionarily useful. They remind us that we owe favors that could be profitably returned. Guilt is also the prompting that keeps us doing the things that maintain our reputation. Reputation affects status, which translates into ability to secure mates and provide for children.

    Mr. Wright points out that stranger altruism is different from kin altruism in a very important way. Kin altruism must be real sacrifice in order to benefit the right genes, but the mere appearance of stranger altruism may be enough to elicit favors in return. For example, it does little genetic good to pretend to have made great sacrifices for one’s own children if they died anyway. However, a carefully constructed—though false-reputation for helping neighbors can be very useful. Thus, human beings probably have an instinctive desire to keep their reputations clean and they are often willing to make real sacrifices to do it. It would appear, therefore, that man is by nature cooperative but only when there is something in it for him. He is also entirely capable of theft and double-cross when he thinks he can get away with it.

    Although Mr. Wright only hints at this, as the different human groups evolved they probably developed different instinctual levels of cooperation. As Prof. Levin explains elsewhere in this issue, tropical Africa was probably not an environment in which cooperation was as crucial to survival as it was in colder climates. When groups that appear to have different levels of cooperation come into contact, friction is inevitable.

    That morality may be instinctual has other provocative implications. It may be that the sense of mutual obligation that all men feel, and to which many transcendental moralists appeal as proof of the existence of God or of objective morality, is just one more gene-propagating device like lust and hunger. Mr. Wright suggests that humans may have made a fetish out of what appears to be altruism but is really just another self-serving genetic strategy. If bees had a religion they might worship the hexagon, believing that an evolutionary accident had mystical powers.

    Mr. Wright makes a strong case for his view. After all, one of the functions of the human mind is to devise rationalizations that throw a moral cover over selfish behavior. Once humans gained a certain level of self-consciousness, it became useful to encourage others to believe in a transcendent moral authority that had the power to punish sinners who were beyond the reach of human retribution. If everyone believed in it, everyone benefited from the moral behavior that ensued. Even non-believers had reason to encourage others to believe, since they benefited from society’s standards but could violate them privately.

    If genes are at the root of behavior that has always been thought to be in the service of a higher power, eliminating the higher power eliminates free will. If man is a mere product of evolution just as animals are, the only sources of all his actions must be genes and environment. The illusion of free will arises from the fact that men are often no more able than bees or squirrels to fathom their own genetic predispositions, and from the diffuse and subtle way environment and the memory of past environments act upon the mind.

    As Mr. Wright points out, if all human actions are the inevitable products of heredity and environment, neither blame nor praise are justified, because men are no more capable than animals of choosing vice or virtue. Paradoxically, punishment and praise are still vital parts of the environment because they are essential for training humans just as they are for training animals.

    Sentimental Liberalism

    Since Mr. Wright is a senior editor of The New Republic, his environment probably conspired with his genes to reduce him, in the end, to advocating a morality of universal brotherhood that he admits runs directly counter to everything he says about human nature. He says that even if there is no transcendent power that directs us to do so, we should try to love all humans, no matter how alien, just as we love ourselves. Along with a breezy, gee-whiz style and some unnecessary digressions into the private life of Charles Darwin, this sudden retreat into the arms of universalism detracts from an otherwise absorbing book.

    Mr. Wright rejects out of hand the obvious form of conscious morality that can be derived from the trial-and-error morality that evolution appears to have produced. Until welfare threw the process into reverse, evolution had a clear, upward direction. A firm believer in evolution like Mr. Wright should have no trouble embracing a morality that directs our species towards ever-greater achievements, variety, and capabilities. As he points out, it has taken only about 5,000 generations of dogs to breed Saint Bernards and Chihuahuas from the ancestral wolf. Social policies are breeding policies, and evolutionists have few excuses for pretending otherwise.

    The Jesuit philosopher and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin understood this more than 40 years ago:

    So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indisputable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed.

    The great, self-destructive irony is that in the very era when the evolutionary process that formed our species is more widely studied and accepted than ever before, governments are sabotaging that process. Mr. Wright’s book is a fascinating summary of current thinking in sociobiology but his conclusions are part of the intellectual atmosphere that drove it underground.
    https://www.amren.com/news/2019/03/m...robert-wright/

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Resist For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,809
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,390
    Thanked in
    1,272 Posts
    Though many people refuse even to consider the possibility, human behavior is likewise the result of countless generations of trial and error that have produced very sophisticated strategies for keeping genes in circulation. Although humans are self-conscious in a way that no other animal is, they are often no more aware than bees or squirrels of the evolutionary “thinking” that underlies their behavior.

    For example, men think they “want” children, but, as Mr. Wright explains, evolution designed the process for the benefit of genes, not men. Men have sex because they are driven by their genes to do so. Most of the time they are not thinking about children at all; they just want sex. They then find that they love the little bundle that appears nine months later. Both the sex-seeking and the carrier’s love for its children are powerful strategies the genes have designed to ensure that new copies of themselves are first made, and then loved and looked after until the new carrier can make yet more copies.

    Whether the carrier is happy or sad about any of this is of no concern to the genes, which, of course, have no consciousness whatever. The entire process is the result of an infinite number of accidents, in which survival is the final criterion—not because survival itself is in any sense good, but only because it is the criterion that keeps genes, and therefore behavior, in circulation.
    This is a point I've repeatedly tried to make on this forum. All the young, single males who are obsessed with procreating should, if their testosterone levels were normal, be talking about ****ing women. Procreation would at some stage be the natural product of this, but instead they consider sex as a purely biological function rather than as a source of pleasure which (paradoxically) is the very type of behaviour that deters potential partners! Hel, I don't even know how you're supposed to get an erection whilst thinking about babies

    As for all I read about 'morality', this leaves me stone cold! There's common decency of course, which is a separate issue altogether, but show me someone who showcases their morality all the time and I'll show you someone with sexual problems. The same goes for all the biblical BS, which is another useful cover, but nature isn't interested in this any more than I am and nature will always triumph over these man-made concepts ... it's a no-contest!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Elizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Germany, France
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    759
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    698
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    721
    Thanked in
    353 Posts
    Wow that is a long post. I can't read it right now. I'm too tired. But I want to say that morality is something one is born with. You either have it or you don't. I think some of those who don't have it try to have it by following a religion that tells them how to behave. I was born with morality.

  6. #4
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,809
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,390
    Thanked in
    1,272 Posts
    I was born with morality.
    Are you sure about this?

  7. #5
    Senior Member schwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    2 Minutes Ago @ 04:07 PM
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of Creator God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Location
    Rogue River
    Gender
    Age
    83
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    817
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    746
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    972
    Thanked in
    474 Posts
    Nobody is born with morality. One's morality is shaped from child on by the culture surroundings.........religion, politics, schools, friends..........

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to schwab For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Elizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Germany, France
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    759
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    698
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    721
    Thanked in
    353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    Are you sure about this?

    Yes.

  10. #7
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Elizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Germany, France
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    759
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    698
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    721
    Thanked in
    353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by schwab View Post
    Nobody is born with morality. One's morality is shaped from child on by the culture surroundings.........religion, politics, schools, friends..........

    I disagree. I believe some people are born with morality and knowing right from wrong, and some people just don't have it and don't care. There are people who are "raised right" yet have no morals and are a disappointment to their parents.

  11. #8
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,809
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,390
    Thanked in
    1,272 Posts
    Well, I accept that we're all born innocent but I think our set of moral values takes a good while to acquire.

    I don't see how anyone can have them right from birth, in the same way as nobody is born a Nationalist or a Communist.

    These things have no meaning whatsoever to newborn babies and you couldn't possibly describe how you behaved 'morally' at that early age.

    In any case, Elizabeth, you (like the rest of us) would have virtually no recollection of the first couple of years of your life.

  12. #9
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Elizabeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    European American
    Ancestry
    United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Germany, France
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Folkish Heathen
    Posts
    759
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    698
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    721
    Thanked in
    353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    Well, I accept that we're all born innocent but I think our set of moral values takes a good while to acquire.

    I don't see how anyone can have them right from birth, in the same way as nobody is born a Nationalist or a Communist.

    For example:
    I am a natural Nationalist. I was raised by a Communist/socialist and I always leaned Nationalist.

    Simple things like my saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes even though it wasn't said to me growing up.

  13. #10
    Senior Member SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    4 Minutes Ago @ 04:05 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    4,809
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,440
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,390
    Thanked in
    1,272 Posts
    Yes, but you only 'leaned Nationalist' from the first time you recall doing so and this would have been after several years.

    There's no way you were born a Nationalist (..which I'm beginning to think you didn't mean literally, so apologies if I'm being pedantic here).

    Anyway, something will have surely triggered it, even if it wasn't your parents. It may even have been a reaction against them.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: Saturday, July 20th, 2019, 07:22 AM
  2. New Moslem Strategy: Convert to Christianism
    By Reginleif in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, May 28th, 2016, 12:02 AM
  3. According to MARO Strategy, Should Gaddafi Be Struck ?
    By Lothringen in forum Politics & Geopolitics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011, 02:36 PM
  4. European Economic Strategy in the Crisis
    By Carl in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, October 12th, 2008, 07:02 PM
  5. Creativity's Strategy For White Victory
    By Demigorgona in forum Comparative Religion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, September 16th, 2004, 01:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •