Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

On Oct 31, 2006, at 4:29 PM, Rich Blinne wrote:

>
>
> On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are we now confusing morality and religion?
>
> A little bit, but the intersection between the two is so strong you
> cannot really separate them. Even if you can explain morality
> absent religion, you have to explain religious morality because
> while altruism is part of religious morality it is certainly not
> all of it.

If morality can be explained absent religion then why should
religious morality be explained? Or why would there be a problem
explaining religious morality? Altruism is an interesting concept
which may be understood from a Darwinian perspective. So what if the
Biblical concept of altruism is merely a formalization of altruism
having evolved?

>
> Seems that Dawkins accepts that ethical values may spread because
> they are good for us. Back to the original question: Is Dawkins
> denying any role for genetics in morality (and religion) and is
> Hauser denying any role for memetics?
>
> I would answer the former in the affirmative since he classifies
> the Good Samaritan as one of the "misfirings". As for the latter, I
> am not familiar enough with his writings to answer but it seems
> unnecessary to me to have to accept something as flaky as memetics
> once you have some semblance of a genetic component.

Dawkins may see the Good Samaritan as a misfiring but how does that
deny a role for genetics in morality?

>
> What I find interesting in contemplating both of these approaches
> is how they need to twist evolutionary theory to work in this
> context. The following quote from The Origin of Species comes to
> mind:

Are they twisting evolutionary theory? Both seem to consider natural
selection to be a significant player.

>
> Though nature grants long periods of time for the work of natural
> selection, she does not grant an indefinite period; for as all
> organic beings are striving to seize on each place in the economy
> of nature, if any one species does not become modified and improved
> in a corresponding degree with its competitors it will be
> exterminated. Unless favourable variations be inherited by some at
> least of the offspring, nothing can be effected by natural
> selection. [emphasis mine]
>
> Dawkins in his memes denies any real kind of genetic inheritance.
> Natural selection does not work unless the traits are heritable.
> Cooperative behavior can be heritable if the cooperation is along
> the blood lines. Once it is outside of blood lines you get really
> shaky concepts such as Hauser's group fitness. Since evolution
> works so well to explain other traits of life, it is natural that
> people would try to apply it here. In this context, though, it
> fails miserably and betrays a forced fit.
>
>

Dawkins does not necessarily deny any real kind of genetic
inheritance, in fact I presume that he happily accepts that genes
contain our hereditary information. Perhaps you may want to
familarize yourself with Hauser and Dawkins' position before jumping
to any such conclusions.

Hint: Hauser has a website with copies of most if not all of his
papers etc. A good start: EVOLVING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISMS
FOR COOPERATION, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005. 36:499–518

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 20:04:34 2006