Well, technically both are evolution, since both involve inherited variation and differential replicative success. Culture is part of biological evolution. For one thing, culture is an aspect of biology—not part of geology—and also, culture and DNA co-evolve.
So, whether you like to admit it or not, your ethics are a product of biological evolution.
I’m not going to argue about the definition of the word “evolution”. When I suggested Phil was looking to evolution for moral guidance I was specifically thinking of biological evolution. I should have been more explicit.
My point was that biological evolution is actually horrifyingly immoral, and should not be looked to as a guide or inspiration for morality in human affairs.
So, whether you like to admit it or not, your ethics are a product of biological evolution.
I have never denied it. But my ethics aren’t good because of the process that coughed them up. They are good in spite of that process.
I don’t see much of an alternative to concluding that evolution repeatedly produces moral systems among big-brained animals. That the whole reproduction-variation-selection cycle is responsible for creating human morality—in just the same way that it is responsible for all other problems of adaptive fit in the universe.
If you want to argue that some other process is responsible, then I think you need to look carefully at whatever that proposed process is, and ask yourself whether there is, in fact, a population of entities, with variation and selection.
Also, if you are thinking of cultural evolution as somehow not “biological”, then I reckon you need to reconsider that as well. Humans are not the only animals that exhibit cultural transmission. It is a widespread phenomenon in biology. We just do it a bit better than most. Cultural evolution is biological in nature, by the definition of the term “biology”.
Evolution has produced moral agents more than once
This is a fair point, though the warm fuzzy factor on that sort of thing is so high I’d advise taking it all with a grain of salt unless you’ve gone over the details yourself. You’re certainly right that other animals besides humans exhibit altruism and other behaviors that we would consider moral. I don’t know of any animal other than humans thinks about morality though. Are there other animals that keep track of immoral behavior in others? (not a rhetorical question).
Now having said all that, I need to point out that you’ve still entirely missed my point. Lets say evolution really did invent full-scale human morality twice. So what. It invented eyes twice too. Just because it can invent eyes doesn’t mean it can see, and just because it invented morality doesn’t make it moral. When somebody tries to justify a choice by saying “evolution does X, therefore X is right”, that’s an error. I’m not sure that’s what Phil was saying, but it sounded close enough to set off alarm bells in my head.
If you want to argue that some other process is responsible
I don’t. Whatever dolphins do or or don’t do, evolution invented it.
Also, if you are thinking of cultural evolution as somehow not “biological”, then I reckon you need to reconsider that as well.
You’re mincing words. Yea, it’s biological, and it’s also physical, because when you get down to it we’re all made of quarks. Cultural evolution is not, however, the same process as biological evolution. I trust it is obvious enough to you and everyone here what concepts the words “cultural evolution” and “biological evolution” refer to, and that they are not in fact the same thing.
Dawkins argues that nature is red in tooth-and-claw—and thus represents a poor source of moral guidance. However, my view is that this conception of nature has been rather exploded by subsequent authors—such as Robert Wright with Non-Zero. Nature is actually rather cooperation-friendly. It looks like a quite reasonable source of moral guidance to me—since it came up with humans. Of course, it is not itself moral. It is not even an agent, let alone a moral agent.
The proposed idea is not that “cultural evolution” and “biological evolution” are the same thing.
The idea is that these concepts are nested as follows:
(physical(biological(cultural))).
They are not disjoint, like this:
(physical) (biological) (cultural).
I don’t think non-cultural evolution is a particularly useful natural category—but if you really want to have a name for it, perhaps consider “nuclear evolution”—since most non-cultural inheritance is on the cellular level. However please don’t refer to it as “biological evolution”: that is just wrong.
It looks like a quite reasonable source of moral guidance to me—since it came up with humans.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
I don’t think non-cultural evolution is a particularly useful natural category
It the thing that designed the DNA of all life on earth. It’s useful to be able to talk about That Thing That Designed Life without people randomly bursting in saying that whatever you said about evolution is wrong because cultural evolution is a counterexample. Nobody was talking about cultural evolution, and it just isn’t relevant to this discussion.
However please don’t refer to it as “biological evolution”: that is just wrong.
I’m getting a bit tired of debating semantics with you. You can call it fig pudding for all I care.
The idea that non-cultural evolution is responsible for all the earth’s DNA seems like a fundamental misconception to me. In particular, our DNA is the product of gene-meme co-evolution—and something similar is probably true of many other animals. Evolution is responsible for the planet’s DNA, not some cut-down version of evolution that excludes cultural inheritance. However, I observe that you don’t seem very interested in this discussion—which is fine.
Well, technically both are evolution, since both involve inherited variation and differential replicative success. Culture is part of biological evolution. For one thing, culture is an aspect of biology—not part of geology—and also, culture and DNA co-evolve.
So, whether you like to admit it or not, your ethics are a product of biological evolution.
I’m not going to argue about the definition of the word “evolution”. When I suggested Phil was looking to evolution for moral guidance I was specifically thinking of biological evolution. I should have been more explicit.
My point was that biological evolution is actually horrifyingly immoral, and should not be looked to as a guide or inspiration for morality in human affairs.
I have never denied it. But my ethics aren’t good because of the process that coughed them up. They are good in spite of that process.
Evolution has produced moral agents more than once—for example, see:
http://www.assortedscribbles.com/posts/PopScience/Dolphins_saving_people:_dolphins_and_altruism
I don’t see much of an alternative to concluding that evolution repeatedly produces moral systems among big-brained animals. That the whole reproduction-variation-selection cycle is responsible for creating human morality—in just the same way that it is responsible for all other problems of adaptive fit in the universe.
If you want to argue that some other process is responsible, then I think you need to look carefully at whatever that proposed process is, and ask yourself whether there is, in fact, a population of entities, with variation and selection.
Also, if you are thinking of cultural evolution as somehow not “biological”, then I reckon you need to reconsider that as well. Humans are not the only animals that exhibit cultural transmission. It is a widespread phenomenon in biology. We just do it a bit better than most. Cultural evolution is biological in nature, by the definition of the term “biology”.
This is a fair point, though the warm fuzzy factor on that sort of thing is so high I’d advise taking it all with a grain of salt unless you’ve gone over the details yourself. You’re certainly right that other animals besides humans exhibit altruism and other behaviors that we would consider moral. I don’t know of any animal other than humans thinks about morality though. Are there other animals that keep track of immoral behavior in others? (not a rhetorical question).
Now having said all that, I need to point out that you’ve still entirely missed my point. Lets say evolution really did invent full-scale human morality twice. So what. It invented eyes twice too. Just because it can invent eyes doesn’t mean it can see, and just because it invented morality doesn’t make it moral. When somebody tries to justify a choice by saying “evolution does X, therefore X is right”, that’s an error. I’m not sure that’s what Phil was saying, but it sounded close enough to set off alarm bells in my head.
I don’t. Whatever dolphins do or or don’t do, evolution invented it.
You’re mincing words. Yea, it’s biological, and it’s also physical, because when you get down to it we’re all made of quarks. Cultural evolution is not, however, the same process as biological evolution. I trust it is obvious enough to you and everyone here what concepts the words “cultural evolution” and “biological evolution” refer to, and that they are not in fact the same thing.
Dawkins argues that nature is red in tooth-and-claw—and thus represents a poor source of moral guidance. However, my view is that this conception of nature has been rather exploded by subsequent authors—such as Robert Wright with Non-Zero. Nature is actually rather cooperation-friendly. It looks like a quite reasonable source of moral guidance to me—since it came up with humans.
Of course, it is not itself moral. It is not even an agent, let alone a moral agent.
The proposed idea is not that “cultural evolution” and “biological evolution” are the same thing.
The idea is that these concepts are nested as follows:
(physical(biological(cultural))).
They are not disjoint, like this:
(physical) (biological) (cultural).
I don’t think non-cultural evolution is a particularly useful natural category—but if you really want to have a name for it, perhaps consider “nuclear evolution”—since most non-cultural inheritance is on the cellular level. However please don’t refer to it as “biological evolution”: that is just wrong.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
It the thing that designed the DNA of all life on earth. It’s useful to be able to talk about That Thing That Designed Life without people randomly bursting in saying that whatever you said about evolution is wrong because cultural evolution is a counterexample. Nobody was talking about cultural evolution, and it just isn’t relevant to this discussion.
I’m getting a bit tired of debating semantics with you. You can call it fig pudding for all I care.
The idea that non-cultural evolution is responsible for all the earth’s DNA seems like a fundamental misconception to me. In particular, our DNA is the product of gene-meme co-evolution—and something similar is probably true of many other animals. Evolution is responsible for the planet’s DNA, not some cut-down version of evolution that excludes cultural inheritance. However, I observe that you don’t seem very interested in this discussion—which is fine.