Morality comes from evolution, not God

There are lots of reasons to reject religion. Here at the Church of the Churchless we've been pointing them out since 2004, proudly deconverting people from blind faith and dogma one non-soul at a time.

One of those reasons is that contrary to what fundamentalists believe, morality, judging what is right and wrong, doesn't come from God or some other supernatural source. It's the result of evolution. 

Browsing through an old issue of Scientific American that I found languishing in a drawer of magazines, a special September 2018 issue about The Science of Being Human included an article by Michael Tomasello titled "How We Learned to Put Our Fate in One Another's Hands: The Origins of Morality."

Here's how the article was summarized in the In Brief section.

Seeds of human morality were planted some 400,000 years ago, when individuals began to collaborate in hunting-and-gathering exploits. Cooperative interaction cultivated respect and fairness for other group members. Later, growing population sizes cemented a sense of collective group identity that fostered a set of cultural practices and social norms. 

Here's a scan of an illustration in the article that shows how morality evolved. You also can download the PDF file.
Download Evolution of Modern Human Morality PDF

These excerpts from the article provide a good overview of it.

If evolution is about survival of the fittest, how did humans ever become moral creatures? If evolution is each individual maximizing their own fitness, how did humans come to feel that they really ought to help others and be fair to them?

There have traditionally been two answers to such questions. 

First, it makes sense for individuals to help their kin, with whom they share genes, a process known as inclusive fitness. Second, situations of reciprocity can arise in which I scratch your back and you scratch mine and we both benefit in the long run.

But morality is not just about being nice to kin in the manner that bees and ants cooperate in acts of inclusive fitness. And reciprocity is a risky proposition because at any point one individual can benefit and go home, leaving the other in the lurch.

Moreover, neither of these traditional explanations gets at what is arguably the essence of human morality -- the sense of obligation that human beings feel toward one another.

Recently a new approach to looking at the problem of morality has come to the fore.

The key insight is a recognition that individuals who live in a social group in which everyone depends on everyone else for their survival and well-being operate with a special kind of logic. In this logic of interdependence, as we may call it, if I depend on you, then it is in my interest to help ensure your well-being.

More generally, if we all depend on one another, then we must all take care of one another.

How did this situation come about? The answer has to do with the particular circumstances that forced humans into ever more cooperative ways of life, especially when they are acquiring food and other basic resources.

...Early humans needed new options. One alternative involved scavenging carcasses killed by other animals. But then, according to an account from anthropologist Mary C. Stiner of the University of Arizona, some early humans -- the best guess is Homo heidelbergensis some 400,000 years ago -- began obtaining most of their food through active collaboration in which individuals formed joint goals to work together in hunting and gathering.

Indeed, the collaboration became obligate (compulsory) in that it was essential to their survival. Individuals became interdependent with one another in immediate and urgent ways to obtain their daily sustenance.

An essential part of the process of obligate collaborative foraging involved partner choice. Individuals who were cognitively or otherwise incompetent at collaboration -- those incapable of forming joint goals or communicating effectively with others -- were not chosen as partners and so went without food.

Likewise, individuals who were socially or morally uncooperative in their interactions with others -- for example, those who tried to hog all the spoils -- were also shunned as partners and so doomed. The upshot: strong and active social selection emerged for competent and motivated individuals who cooperated well with others.

...In choosing a partner for a collaborative effort, early humans wanted to pick an individual who would live up to an expected role and divide the spoils fairly.

....Anyone who deviated from what was expected and wanted to stay in good cooperative standing would willingly engage in an act of self-condemnation -- internalized psychologically as a sense of guilt. A "we is greater than me" morality emerged. During a collaboration, the joint "we" operated beyond the selfish individual level to regulate the actions of the collaborative partners "I" and "you."

...In my 2016 book A Natural History of Human Morality, I proceed from the assumption that a major part of the explanation for human moral psychology comes from processes of evolution by means of natural selection.

More important, though, the selecting is done not by the physical environment but rather by the social environment. 

In contrast to evolutionary approaches that base their arguments on reciprocity and the managing of one's reputation in the community, I emphasize that early human individuals understood that moral norms made them both judger and judged.

The immediate concern for any individual was not just for what "they" think of me but rather for what "we," including "I," think of me. The essence of this account is thus a kind of "we is greater than me" psychological orientation, which gives moral notions their special powers of legitimacy in personal decision making.

The challenge in the contemporary world stems from an understanding that humans' biological adaptations for cooperation and morality are geared mainly  toward small group life or cultural groups that are internally homogeneous -- with out-groups not being part of the moral community.

Since the rise of agriculture some 10,000 years ago, human societies have consisted of individuals from diverse political, ethnic and religious lines.

As a consequence, it becomes less clear who constitutes a "we" and who is in the out-group. The resulting potential for divisiveness leads to both internal social tensions within a society and, at the level of nations, to outright war -- the ultimate example of in- and out-group conflicts. 

But if we are to solve our largest challenges as a species, which threaten all human societies alike, we had best be prepared to think of all humanity as a "we."

Comments

[UM]

To be functional for man made rules, humans have to believe that there is a divine ruler and the rules issued bu another fellow human being, have a divine origin.

If not ...

They will start and go on to have disputes ...of the kind

"Who do YOU think YOU are, that YOU can etctecetc"

Authority, if no longer accepted but disputed, will turn society either in chaos or totalitarian rule..

To accept authority only if it fits ones conditions is laying the axe at the root of democracy.

Some employees from the university once started to go for a skii holiday. First 2 and later a couple of 6. From the vey start the originator would say: "this year we are going to that resort, stay in that hotel and you have to contribute so much Euro."
For years they had much fun together and there was never a word about where to go, where to stay or how much to attribute.... nobody had a second thought about the one organizing these holidays.
Then, one day one of the members suggested his son to take with them and that too went as before, at least it seemed so as next year he started his barrage of "why this and why that and why do we have to go where HE wants us to go etc etc.
That was the end of freely accepted authority ... and ... their pleasure ... they never skied together again.

That is how it works

[True Spartan]

Darwinian Evolution? I am very upset because we have been repeatedly succumbing to logical fallacies. Theory of evolution is just a theory, not an axiom.
We cannot construct a reasoning structure on weak foundations, not even a typepad blog about science.

I suggest to read this excellent textbook by Michael Denton
"Evolution. Still a theory in crisis" [Discovery Institute Press, 2016]

“Of all the books that have been critical of Darwinian evolution in recent years, Michael
Denton’s Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis stands out for doing more than simply
compiling the full range of evidence—from cosmology through all of biology to the
origins of human language—that goes against a blind, incrementalist view of the
development of life. To be sure, Denton does that very well. But the book’s real triumph is
to frame this criticism in terms of an alternative paradigm, one indebted to Darwin’s great rival Richard Owen. This proposed new paradigm is founded on the idea of discrete biological forms, or ‘types,’ which have the standing of natural laws. Denton is
consistently clear and scrupulous about how the evidence bears on neo-Darwinism vis-à-vis what might be called his ‘neo-Owenism.’ All told, Evolution is the one book that I
would recommend to any student or lay person who wants to think in positive, scientific
terms out of Darwin’s black box.”

- Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Professor of Social
Epistemology, University of Warwick, UK, and author
of Science vs. Religion and Dissent over Descent

“Darwinists often deflect trenchant criticisms by kicking the can down the road. In ten or
twenty years science will surely show their theory is correct, they say. Now thirty years
after his groundbreaking book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton calls their
bluff. Not only hasn’t Darwinism overcome its challenges, severe new problems have
made the crisis much worse.”
- Michael Behe, PhD, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, and author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution

[Appreciative Reader]

That was fascinating. The idea that morality, like so much else, is merely a matter of evolution.

Not that that’s a new idea at all. But it was great to have someone who clearly knows what they’re talking about clearly explain some of the actual details of how that works.

----------

Food for thought, absolutely. Like I said, not a new idea; but still, thinking about these things kind of boggles the mind.

For one thing: Is it that our morality, our sense of right and wrong, is somehow embedded on to our genetic code, then? Because that is how evolution actually works, after all, via genes, via DNA. Is it, then, that one’s propensity to be honest, one’s propensity towards helping others, one’s instincts against hurting others, these are somehow genetically hardwired into us? If not, then how would this actually work?

For another: One does know that morality isn’t absolute, but in practice, then, how might morality play out? One’s uncompromising insistence on honesty, for instance, or for not hurting someone else unless provoked: if one realizes that these are simply a matter of evolution, and that there’s nothing absolutely wrong or right about them (other than to the extent there is clear inter-subjective agreement over them in society at large): does that mean that one is ill advised to stick to a personal morality, that isn’t outright illegal or outright taboo, that turns out to be not beneficial to one?

-----------

Just thinking aloud, as far as those questions. That’s questioning, as in wondering, as in thinking things out; and not questioning, as in doubting the veracity of this understanding of morality!

Which latter qualification I put in there, to make it absolutely clear that such questions do not, at all, open the door even an inch for those who are inclined towards a God-mandated morality. Because regardless even of what might, for the sake of argument, be beneficient and what might not necessarily be that, what’s true remains true, and what isn’t true remains fictive.

[UM]

@ AR

Quite a while ago, I read somewhere that in New Guinea, when there was a dispute between tribes they went to war. Not just an war where you try to kill as much enemies as you can ... no ... it was more or less and "ceremonial war"

As soon as the first blood was to be seen, the war was over and the winner was the tribe that caused the wound.

Why?
Well very simple. The tribes in those areas are very small and vital young men that were needed to keep the tribe alive, were understandable a precious commodity. So no tribe had any interest in killing or be killed.

As often saif. Humans can recreate their own original natural habitat, where everything they needed for survival was available without their making it available.

If these circumstances change and humans have to adapt to the new situation they always find ways to do so ... clothing and housing but also fire and agriculture etc are just some of these adaptations.

These adaptations are not only material but also .. let us call it that way ... mental.
Culture, is such an adaptation and so is religion, politics, economics etc.

So moral, can be called an mental evolutionary adaptation.

Not that it is ... hahahaha

P.S.
In my family many words that are used here freely and frequently as if they "cost nothing" ...were never used and did not even arise in the minds of the members.

But that doesn't mean that some activities of the members of my family could be qualified by outsiders as being "moral"

We how ever would never say that we did a thing out of morality.

[Jebidah Bush]

Morality has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is a natural law of the universe and it’s not a nice one - it’s about survival of the fittest - dog eat dog - nature red in tooth and claw - it has nothing at all to do with manmade notions of good or bad or morality.

Morality is often dependent on cultural norms and even an individuals morality may change drastically depending on where on the good chain they sit. Stealing from others may be bad, but not if you’re starving.

[UM]

@ JB

Imagine for a moment that you have to live from now on alone on an island; an island where there are no predators, poisonous creatures, climate that does force you the make fire and shelter and plenty of fruits etc to eat.

Think what will happen with the content of your mind, your social and cultural condition.

Most if not all of what is there in you mental make up, will soon lose its meaning and value ... what remains is the natural being

You will also realise that whatever you knew, whatever value and meaning you attributed before, was related to other human beings.

These words, like love, respect and moral etc are all related to the interaction with human beings.

First was the natural man and only later he developed culture as a means to survive with in the company of others.

In nature everything is born, lives and dies and everything that is born, is born with the inborn drive to stay alive.

Whatever is done is related to surviving as a natural being ... even the cultural creation of an creator.

Sitting alone on that island, enjoying your food etc there will be now question as to how it all came to be .. you will be there and that is it.

Humans will never find an answer as to how this universe came into being

[UM]

and ...

Culture is an artificial copy of nature.

Whatever natural beings exist and do, is also done in culture.
Whatever the natural man does in nature, the cultural man does in culture .. survive.
In nature the natural man lives on killing and the remaining life energy of that what is killed, serves as his "food"
In culture the same is done, nobody gives, all take what they want.

If you think the predators, the snakes, scorpions and the harsh climatological circumstances are alone ti be found in nature ... you are wrong

There is no giving in the world

[UM]

and .. for those that do not understand.

Find the filmed last hour of the late dictator of Romania Ceausescu and his wife.

In a split second his cultural meaning is taken away from him. He tries to remind the people of that meaning but now he is cultural naked, powerless.

If you find it look at the expression on the mans face,... he just can't believe what is going on to be true as he had completely merged in the cultural dictator he happened to be

Look at his face and shiver ... hahaha

and we ... we are in thew same position.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, UM.

That was interesting, the New Guineans' "moral" and largely bloodless wars. Agreed, that does look like morality arrived at by necessity (even if not necessarily by evolution per se).

-----

Tangentially related sidebar:

That reminded me of how wars used to played out in ancient times, apparently. Both these are legends, but the Trojan war apparently had the warriors fight all day, and then retire back to their respective camps at sundown; and likewise in the epic war in the Mahabharata as well, which latter war apparently had, in addition, very finely drawn up rules of engagment, and rules of honor.

(Although in the case of the Mahabharata war, many of those finely drawn rules of honor did end up being violated by both parties. And in the case of the Trojan war, victory was arrived at by base deceit, and what followed was entirely out-of-the-rules-book slaughter of the entire city, if I remember correctly. So that those rules weren't really observed there. But the point is they had those rules, that they started out taking seriously.)

Likewise, I guess, those rules of chivalry in medeival times as well.

[UM]

@ AR

We humans want to survive ... in whatever situation you can label.

The political elite
The general
the soldier.

Killing and be killed for an abstract goal the like of Honor, flag, democracy and whjatever other abstract goal you can imagine, when analized are all an matter of survival.

The tree wants to survive.
Even the rock and the building.
So do the animals
An the universe as an whole.

Do you realy think [rethorical asked] humans are an exemption to that rule?

By social cultural, conditioning we have come to believe that we are apart from nature and culture is our "nature" ... but ... we are not

We do not know why the crow exists, why he is black, why he makes that "lovely" sound etc etc etc ... we can name it and describe what we name ... but we do not know what it is.

If we do not know what the crow is all about what do human think they know about themselves?!

The make themselves believe they know, and fight among themselves about what is right and wrong so that in doing so they do not have to look in the mirror and admit that they do not know ... and ... can not know.

We are doomed to go through life not knowing what it is all about.

You write her, but who is the writer, where does that stream of words originates?

The only solace is coffee .... hahaha

[Roger]

Morality is the set of guiding principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad behavior, that are promoted within a specific period of history and culture.

Ethics are the defining system of moral principles in which there are three possible schools:

1. Virtue Ethics (a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy).

2. Consequentialist Ethics (a theory that suggests an action is good or bad depending on its outcome. An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good, while an action that causes more harm than benefit is not).

3. Duty-Based Ethics (a theory that suggests actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules).

Food for Thought:

Nothing I say is ever right or wrong.

Everything I say is based on what I have arrived at evidentially to be the most plausible current

functional understanding, and thus “present it” in such an order that it can be challenged and refuted, in order that I learn something new.