Morality, Equality and Evolutionary Biology
What do good people do? What do moral people do (on available evidence in America, they don't have gay sex and definitely don't vote Democrat)? The answers to these will involve a laundry list starting with the ten comandments and on to a variety of other things. But do these things deliver evolutionary success? If not, then was Moses (and by association God) trying to bring mankind to an end (don't make out with your neighbours wife is definitely an evolutionary loser).
On a more serious note - is there a disconnect between biology and morality. Biology tell us that genes have one single objective in life - to make maximum copies of themselves. Study of evolution tells us that genes which are spread the widest increase the chances of their survival. By extension it means creatures that have sex with the maximum number of partners increase their chances of propagating their genes. That in modern times is called adultery/polgamy and is morally repugnant, denounced in most places and is illegal in some. So is our morality altering the vital recipe of survival which may well be programmed into our genes.
Charles Darwin said that evolution would be the bible of a Devil's chaplain (don't remember the exact quote, but Richard Dawkins inspired by that wrote a book called - The Devil's Chaplain). Over generations evolution has involved exploitation, cannibalism, rape, polygamous relationships and every other conceivable moral evil. Success in Natural Selection involved ruthlessness and selfishness over generations and millenia. It is by means of such pathetically immoral actions that I write this sitting in a Boeing 737, 28000 feet above earth.
We are all different and there is a truckload of evidence that our differences are not skin deep. Intelligence and every other skill we have is programmed in our genes (for further details read Steven Pinker, in my opinion the smartest man in the world). If intelligence is an inherited trait (not all intelligent men produce intelligent children and vice versa), then our current focus on meritcracy gives an advantage to intelligent children. This advantage may potentially make them richer more successful or in simple terms better off than the rest. As our genes are selfish and they try to increase chances of success of the progeny, it will make it very attractive for intelligent people to mate with other intelligent people. Which might lead to a situation, that the intelligent people mate amongst themselves and produce an intelligent lot of people and not so intelligent ones do the same amongst themselves producing a not so intelligent lot, don't we end up creating a caste system. The intelligent ones are Brahmins and the not so intelligent ones form the other castes. Was Manu right when propounded the Manusmriti?
I am not really well read on biology, but whatever I read convinces me that natural and moral are independent variables. But then if I let what is not natural determine how I lead my life, then does it do justice to Copernicus, Gallileo and other who risked their lives to ensure that the natural won the war over the divinely ordained? And by doing so am I not increasing the chances of my being an evolutionary loser.
Economics can to an extent determine why I choose to be an evolutionary loser. It will tell me that we live in a rule based society, where the violation of rules has a cost associated with it. So if I jump a red light I might risked dying in an accident and if I make out with my neighbours wife, there is a fair chance that he might shoot me. So in both the situations I would take the less risky option and give my genes a fair chance to propagate themselves (dead men don't mate) and thus not jump a red light and not make out with my neighbours wife. And more importantly if the rules don't exist, there would be chaos and that would reduce everyone's chance of propagating their genes. It is reasonable and logical to buy this explanation.
But this determines my behaviour in a rule based system but doesn't determine the rules (which in this case are determining my behaviour). The rules by whomsoever and whenever they were framed definitely make me an evolutionary loser (it is because of the rules, that I might die, or be neutered in some countries, when I spread my seed around without consent).
I think the reconnect between morality and biology can be established by the fact that genetics are probabilistic in nature (I might have a hundreds of recessive genes which if dominant would have made me Einstein and since they are not dominant I spend my time doing silly things like write this). Whoever/whatever determines the choice of the genes express themselves (I have no clue, excepting that some people might want to call that God) is beyond my control. So maybe morality is just my way of ensuring that progeny - even if they are not bright enough or are plain stupid and incapable of surviving in a Darwinian world - do so in an orderly, just and fair world. Maybe the genes aren't just cut throat winners of darwinian battles but slightly more contemplative strategists who hedge their bets in the big bad world.
On a more serious note - is there a disconnect between biology and morality. Biology tell us that genes have one single objective in life - to make maximum copies of themselves. Study of evolution tells us that genes which are spread the widest increase the chances of their survival. By extension it means creatures that have sex with the maximum number of partners increase their chances of propagating their genes. That in modern times is called adultery/polgamy and is morally repugnant, denounced in most places and is illegal in some. So is our morality altering the vital recipe of survival which may well be programmed into our genes.
Charles Darwin said that evolution would be the bible of a Devil's chaplain (don't remember the exact quote, but Richard Dawkins inspired by that wrote a book called - The Devil's Chaplain). Over generations evolution has involved exploitation, cannibalism, rape, polygamous relationships and every other conceivable moral evil. Success in Natural Selection involved ruthlessness and selfishness over generations and millenia. It is by means of such pathetically immoral actions that I write this sitting in a Boeing 737, 28000 feet above earth.
We are all different and there is a truckload of evidence that our differences are not skin deep. Intelligence and every other skill we have is programmed in our genes (for further details read Steven Pinker, in my opinion the smartest man in the world). If intelligence is an inherited trait (not all intelligent men produce intelligent children and vice versa), then our current focus on meritcracy gives an advantage to intelligent children. This advantage may potentially make them richer more successful or in simple terms better off than the rest. As our genes are selfish and they try to increase chances of success of the progeny, it will make it very attractive for intelligent people to mate with other intelligent people. Which might lead to a situation, that the intelligent people mate amongst themselves and produce an intelligent lot of people and not so intelligent ones do the same amongst themselves producing a not so intelligent lot, don't we end up creating a caste system. The intelligent ones are Brahmins and the not so intelligent ones form the other castes. Was Manu right when propounded the Manusmriti?
I am not really well read on biology, but whatever I read convinces me that natural and moral are independent variables. But then if I let what is not natural determine how I lead my life, then does it do justice to Copernicus, Gallileo and other who risked their lives to ensure that the natural won the war over the divinely ordained? And by doing so am I not increasing the chances of my being an evolutionary loser.
Economics can to an extent determine why I choose to be an evolutionary loser. It will tell me that we live in a rule based society, where the violation of rules has a cost associated with it. So if I jump a red light I might risked dying in an accident and if I make out with my neighbours wife, there is a fair chance that he might shoot me. So in both the situations I would take the less risky option and give my genes a fair chance to propagate themselves (dead men don't mate) and thus not jump a red light and not make out with my neighbours wife. And more importantly if the rules don't exist, there would be chaos and that would reduce everyone's chance of propagating their genes. It is reasonable and logical to buy this explanation.
But this determines my behaviour in a rule based system but doesn't determine the rules (which in this case are determining my behaviour). The rules by whomsoever and whenever they were framed definitely make me an evolutionary loser (it is because of the rules, that I might die, or be neutered in some countries, when I spread my seed around without consent).
I think the reconnect between morality and biology can be established by the fact that genetics are probabilistic in nature (I might have a hundreds of recessive genes which if dominant would have made me Einstein and since they are not dominant I spend my time doing silly things like write this). Whoever/whatever determines the choice of the genes express themselves (I have no clue, excepting that some people might want to call that God) is beyond my control. So maybe morality is just my way of ensuring that progeny - even if they are not bright enough or are plain stupid and incapable of surviving in a Darwinian world - do so in an orderly, just and fair world. Maybe the genes aren't just cut throat winners of darwinian battles but slightly more contemplative strategists who hedge their bets in the big bad world.
posted by Dinkar at 4:59 PM
0 comments
