If We Are Merely Animals, Why Not Act Like Them?

[zacb]

You could argue from a consequentialist view point, but what if it is more consequential to your short term evolution in order to do something that may harm your long term prospects? I guess what I am asking is what makes social mores (morals) "moral"? Just because we grew up with them? In some cases that is true. But why not kill, rape, and rob? Why not kill or rob like other animals do? What makes something "wrong"? And why do almost all of us, without exception, have that feeling in us? I am not saying I have the answers, but to me, it just seems odd that empathy could evolve, when most of our history has been antithetical to that ideal. Maybe there are other theories besides darwinianism, but I just don't buy we all came from little blobs. Either we are waste, and we should not prosecute those who kill, or we should consider everything sacred. Any thoughts?

Now I am not arguing against micro evolution, but more macro evolution.

[fschmidt]

http://www.biblicjudaism.org/Human-Evolution-tp17.html

[zacb]

I pretty much agree with this. I just don't think we came from amoeba or such. Maybe I am misunderstanding. Basically, that is what I meant by micro evolution, that basically we can inherit within our species, but not from without (with a few exceptions). I pretty much have come to that conclusion.

[HouseMD]

Human survival is dependent upon complex social structures. It's the whole reason we have these huge brains of ours. Without empathy, kindness, and the ability to share resources with one another, complex societies could not function. But why, you might say, should society have evolved at all? Well, humans take forever to gestate. A lone pair of humans would easily be outcompeted by a tribe. There probably were human groups that did not have empathy to the degree that we currently do, but their groups and social structures were not as fit as our ancestors, and thus they died off.

Just imagine it this way- if you have a group of people that murder one another, steal from each other, and do not work together that goes to tribal war against a group that cares for their wounded, shares equipment and knowledge, and ensures each member of the tribe is adequately fed, who do you think wins? We are the descendants of those victors.

[Teal Lantern]

You could argue from a consequentialist view point, but what if it is more consequential to your short term evolution in order to do something that may harm your long term prospects? I guess what I am asking is what makes social mores (morals) "moral"? Just because we grew up with them? In some cases that is true. But why not kill, rape, and rob? Why not kill or rob like other animals do? What makes something "wrong"? And why do almost all of us, without exception, have that feeling in us? I am not saying I have the answers, but to me, it just seems odd that empathy could evolve, when most of our history has been antithetical to that ideal. Maybe there are other theories besides darwinianism, but I just don't buy we all came from little blobs. Either we are waste, and we should not prosecute those who kill, or we should consider everything sacred. Any thoughts?

Now I am not arguing against micro evolution, but more macro evolution.

The consequences are what matter.
A society that protects life and property will produce and distribute more prosperity than one which does not.
A society that doesn't will lose out and be overtaken by one that does.

Why not kill or rob like other animals do?

(So, you're moving to Detroit, then? )

Would you prefer to raise a family or operate a business in a lawless society over one in which robbing, etc. was punished?
Why should a stronger man work to earn when he can just take zacb's food, wife, and daughters?
How much are you willing to build, when some thug with a weapon can just take it from you?

[zacb]

I never said that I wanted to live in environments like that. I guess what I am getting at is that to me, it seems empathy goes beyond evolution, and more like it was implanted if you will. So basically, I am arguing against macro evolution. To me, if a distant ancient relative was in immediate danger of going hungry, and he had not realized "morals", then he would have "for his survival" killed others for their food if he did not know of the proper place to find food. But it appears to me that morals, at least some basic things, are imprinted on everyone. Did evolution do that? What if someone did not realize the long term consequences of their actions since they did not evolve yet? I am not saying I have all the answers, but it appears to me that both intelligent design and macro evolution (inter specie evolution) appear to be just as absurd (not that I don't have my opinion). What makes us so special that we recognize morals, yet animals don't per se?

[HouseMD]

I never said that I wanted to live in environments like that. I guess what I am getting at is that to me, it seems empathy goes beyond evolution, and more like it was implanted if you will. So basically, I am arguing against macro evolution. To me, if a distant ancient relative was in immediate danger of going hungry, and he had not realized "morals", then he would have "for his survival" killed others for their food if he did not know of the proper place to find food. But it appears to me that morals, at least some basic things, are imprinted on everyone. Did evolution do that? What if someone did not realize the long term consequences of their actions since they did not evolve yet? I am not saying I have all the answers, but it appears to me that both intelligent design and macro evolution (inter specie evolution) appear to be just as absurd (not that I don't have my opinion). What makes us so special that we recognize morals, yet animals don't per se?

It probably all started with a small tribe that worked with one another a little more often than their peers. Sharing food with the infirm perhaps. Their sick members might have done better than other tribes due to this, allowing them to produce more offspring and their tribe to more effectively compete for resources. They would have become fruitful and multiplied, as it were, wiping out their neighbors. Then a subgroup of them might have thought, "killing our leader every time he gets sick just so some new guy can take over just isn't working. It tears apart the tribe every time it happens. Lets try something different." And so they stopped murdering one another. This left more strong, capable males in the tribe, and they effectively wiped out the tribes that were still mauling one another regularly. Occasionally someone might be born that objected to this new order, and killed someone anyway. They would then be slain themselves, which, over time, mostly removed people with such aggressive tendencies toward their tribemates from society. We had always separated ourselves into groups, "us" and "them", as looking out for those in your own tribe ensured better propagation of your genes. The next step was to preferentially protect those within our tribe against the harm we would do to those that were outside of it.

If you get heavily into genetics, it is very hard to argue that evolution did not happen. There is just too much of us in each animal and vice versa. And the family lines for entire branches of evolution are just so clear. Plus look at comparative vertebrate embryology-a snake, a human, and a chicken all start from the same mold, then cleave to become what they are through complex enzymatic mechanisms.

I believe there is a God, and that evolution is his greatest work of all. I think of the Old Testament as the best attempt God could make at explaining creation to a primitive, pre-science culture. Surely he would have related it to us quite differently if he were to do so today.

[Teal Lantern]

What makes us so special that we recognize morals, yet animals don't per se?

A little evolution, a lot of trial and error, and the ability to pass down complex information about what does and doesn't work.
Aesop, Exodus, or Brothers Grimm will teach you many of the same things about human nature.
Calling it "morals" is simply putting a higher order label on long-term & short-term 'action vs consequences'.

if a distant ancient relative was in immediate danger of going hungry, and he had not realized "morals", then he would have "for his survival" killed others for their food if he did not know of the proper place to find food.

Your current fellow humans are nine missed meals away from cooking you.
That they haven't done so is less of a moral issue and more a matter of abundant and tastier alternatives.

[Halwick]

Have you been to the Philippines or Thailand or any poor country lately? Or how about a war-ravaged country? For some reason, those circumstances brings out the "animal" in us.

During wartime situations or extreme poverty environment, conventional morality (as we know it and within the context of accepted ethics standards) is suspended for the sake of surviving.

Here's an example: 1937 Nanking, China. During that wartime situation, the Japanese acted like brutal barbarians and committed horrible atrocities against the Chinese people there.

Yet under normal (peacetime) circumstances, we know the Japanese to be very polite, courteous, conscientious, and gentle.

[Moretorque]

We do , we are just an ape grafted with technology.