Morality of apes

[gary_s]

There is a discussion regarding morality in the Christian section and it inevitably becomes a topic of debate over the source of morality and whether morality is an evolution trait. Has anyone else here read about the morality of apes? There is research in this area that is fascinating. If apes have morality that is comparative to humans, then what does this say about the evolutionary idea?

[Moonwood the Hare]

An important work to read on this is The Ethical Primate by Mary Midgley. She explores the way the moral nature of human beings arises from the context of our evolutionary past and some of the interplay between our cultural and genetic history in developing out ethical nature. I would certainly expect there to be some kind of link between our ethical nature and our origins but it would surely be a mistake to see that as purely genetic.

[PlunderBunny]

Morality is obviously not - directly - a purely genetic outcome. A peoples' moral behavior is defined over years and years of sociological influences which a purely biological approach can't directly explain.

I believe the real question is how much of any moral system can be explained through biology, and whether or not a God or evolution is responsible for the sociologically influenced aspects of morality.

[Moonwood the Hare]

whether or not a God or evolution is responsible for the sociologically influenced aspects of morality.

These are not alternatives, surely.

[PlunderBunny]

I believe the real question is how much of any moral system can be explained through biology, and whether or not a God or evolution is responsible for the sociologically influenced aspects of morality.

These are not alternatives, surely.

How are they not?

Are you speaking as to how God may have guided or set evolution into motion? Because that is a different question entirely than what I was trying to put forth.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Are you speaking as to how God may have guided or set evolution into motion? Because that is a different question entirely than what I was trying to put forth.

Well I wasn't talking about how or setting up any kind of God of the Gaps idea just pointing out that the question of whether something came from God is not related to the process that brought it into being except in the case of supernatural interventions and I don't think thee is any need to posit supernatural interventions in the genetic evolutionary process. But I was not sure if you were setting those up as alternatives. In terms of genetic and cultural evolution and how that relates to the emergence of ethics there are several options. Firstly a process of genetic evolution could produce a creature with no moral inclinations but with a tendency to live in groups and morality could arise through social processes because of the need to live in groups. Secondly morality could arise as a result of the need to preserve the species, so called evolutionary altruism, and post genetic evolutionary developments could add nothing significant to that basic urge. But in fact both of these look unlikely and it just makes sense that there is some overlap between cultural development and genetic development so that although there are some analogues in the behaviour of apes or even trees there are specifically human features because of both the size of our brains and the corresponding complexity of our culture. A creature with a brain as large as ours needs to be born in a less developed state and so have fewer instincts and more learned behaviours and hence the cultural aspects of our morality are going to go well beyond the genetic altruism we find in even our closest relatives.

My Christian understanding would be that at some stage in that cultural history God stepped in and entered into a spiritual relationship with human beings but religion may have been developing long before that.

[gary_s]

Morality is obviously not - directly - a purely genetic outcome. A peoples' moral behavior is defined over years and years of sociological influences which a purely biological approach can't directly explain.

Why not? Social behavior itself is probably an evolutionary development. If you consider it from the perspective of individual behavior, morality is no different than tool making or climbing trees. These are behaviors that could have survival advantages and thus could be evolutionary.

I believe the real question is how much of any moral system can be explained through biology, and whether or not a God or evolution is responsible for the sociologically influenced aspects of morality.

A "moral system" is just a human model that describes behaviors. The behaviors can exist without the people or apes or whatever having any understanding of the entire scope of moral behavior.

[Keep The Reason]

Morality is obviously not - directly - a purely genetic outcome. A peoples' moral behavior is defined over years and years of sociological influences which a purely biological approach can't directly explain.

I believe the real question is how much of any moral system can be explained through biology, and whether or not a God or evolution is responsible for the sociologically influenced aspects of morality.

I don't know precisely what you mean by "directly" here, but I'd like to see a moral system demonstrated that is not directly supported by genetics at a foundational level or, for that matter, at a chemical level too I suppose.

Though the chemicals that make up rocks and gases don't seem to develop moral systems, whereas the chemicals that make up genetics has done so in at least one instance we know of.

[PlunderBunny]

Well I wasn't talking about how or setting up any kind of God of the Gaps idea just pointing out that the question of whether something came from God is not related to the process that brought it into being except in the case of supernatural interventions and I don't think thee is any need to posit supernatural interventions in the genetic evolutionary process.

I was speaking more to an 'after the fact' sort of supernatural intervention, which is why I thought it acceptable to place God and evolutionary biology as alternatives in that situation.

No, whether or not something came from God isn't related to the process, I'd argue it IS the process.

But I was not sure if you were setting those up as alternatives. In terms of genetic and cultural evolution and how that relates to the emergence of ethics there are several options. Firstly a process of genetic evolution could produce a creature with no moral inclinations but with a tendency to live in groups and morality could arise through social processes because of the need to live in groups. Secondly morality could arise as a result of the need to preserve the species, so called evolutionary altruism, and post genetic evolutionary developments could add nothing significant to that basic urge. But in fact both of these look unlikely and it just makes sense that there is some overlap between cultural development and genetic development so that although there are some analogues in the behaviour of apes or even trees there are specifically human features because of both the size of our brains and the corresponding complexity of our culture. A creature with a brain as large as ours needs to be born in a less developed state and so have fewer instincts and more learned behaviours and hence the cultural aspects of our morality are going to go well beyond the genetic altruism we find in even our closest relatives.

My Christian understanding would be that at some stage in that cultural history God stepped in and entered into a spiritual relationship with human beings but religion may have been developing long before that.

This was sort of the point of my question. I agree that there must be a sort of dualism between genetic and cultural development to sufficiently explain any sort of moral system. However, I was merely asking how much of any such system can be explained genetically and how much of it is sociologically developed, and whether or not that cultural development is more a product of biology or - as you put it - a spiritual connection with God.

[PlunderBunny]

Why not? Social behavior itself is probably an evolutionary development. If you consider it from the perspective of individual behavior, morality is no different than tool making or climbing trees. These are behaviors that could have survival advantages and thus could be evolutionary.

It certainly is different than making a tool or climbing a tree. Firstly, those both are incredibly similiar every time you do them. Secondly, they both produce nothing but an objectively useful outcome.

That aside, I agree that social behavior is most likely a product of biological evolution, but I would call that a more indirect relationship between morality and genetics.

A "moral system" is just a human model that describes behaviors. The behaviors can exist without the people or apes or whatever having any understanding of the entire scope of moral behavior.

I agree, but I'm not sure how it applies.

[PlunderBunny]

I don't know precisely what you mean by "directly" here, but I'd like to see a moral system demonstrated that is not directly supported by genetics at a foundational level or, for that matter, at a chemical level too I suppose.

Though the chemicals that make up rocks and gases don't seem to develop moral systems, whereas the chemicals that make up genetics has done so in at least one instance we know of.

What I mean by 'directly' is that you can't look at the biological development or genetic makeup of any person or thing and then conclude how that person or thing will behave in regards to morality.

As to a moral system that is not directly supported by genetics:

Morality directly from a spiritual connection with God.

[gary_s]

It certainly is different than making a tool or climbing a tree. Firstly, those both are incredibly similiar every time you do them. Secondly, they both produce nothing but an objectively useful outcome.

That aside, I agree that social behavior is most likely a product of biological evolution, but I would call that a more indirect relationship between morality and genetics.

You should read Our Inner Ape, by Frans de Waal. It could change the way you view social and moral behavior. I don't think it's so different than tool making. Behaviors have repeatable results as well, which would explain selection for those traits. Aggressive posturing usually causes weaker opponents to back away, which is rewarded by more food or more females, just one example.

[PlunderBunny]

You should read Our Inner Ape, by Frans de Waal. It could change the way you view social and moral behavior. I don't think it's so different than tool making. Behaviors have repeatable results as well, which would explain selection for those traits. Aggressive posturing usually causes weaker opponents to back away, which is rewarded by more food or more females, just one example.

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but I'll try my best to respond.

Yes, some behaviors have repeatable results, and I think the ones that do would fall under the category of 'morality from biology (genetics)'. But I don't think that can account for all of a societies behaviors, and I don't think all behaviors have repeatable results. Human behavior and morality have changed drastically over time periods where no significant evolutionary advances have taken place that could cause such stark transitions.

Aggressive posturing usually causes weaker opponents to back away, but not always. When it comes to morality and behavior there is such a vast variance of responses and actions that I don't think it can fairly be compared to 'making a tool', which can have the same result every time. Obviously we develop certain behaviors as survival tools, but we also develop many behaviors that we change and adapt over time based on social interactions and what we consider moral or not.

I think I'm a little confused as to your point; what exactly are you saying?

[Keep The Reason]

As to a moral system that is not directly supported by genetics:

Morality directly from a spiritual connection with God.

Hunh? I am unaware of any such a thing. Has anyone been able to demonstrate or support this type of thing?

[mitchellmckain]

Yeah I can see it. The morality of apes could describe the morality of some people - some right here in this forum even. That indeed seems to be the only morality (one based on self interest and biological needs/impulses only) that some people even want to believe in.