Text 311, 136 rader
Skriven 2004-10-03 22:27:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Challenges for Evolut
=================================



Elie Gendolf"
Could altuism be not necessarily advantageous, but is "carried along" or
inseperable from another trait, such as the ability to plan ahead, or
something else? To use a loose analogy, the sickle cell trait is
inseperable from malaria resistance, so it continues. 

Michael Ragland:
That's a creative suggestion. If, as Reason stated altruism and
selfishness are cross purposed and nested within each other and result
in evolutionary oscillations then I don't see "currently" how altruism
can be ultimately evolutionarily adaptive. During the time altruism is
predominant in a society it does confer benefits e.g. the development of
the sickle cell trait to combat malaria but it is not evolutionarily
"advantageous" IMHO. Because those in Africa who had the sickle cell
trait were more likely not to get malaria this abherrent gene evolved as
a protection against malaria. At least that is the conventional
thinking. I think, however, I would indeed find myself in the minority
by stating altruism is not evolutionarily adaptive.

Your question "Could altuism be not necessarily advantageous, but is
"carried along" or inseperable from another trait, such as the ability
to plan ahead, or something else?" is I think scientifically impossible
to answer at the present. Personally, I do think altruism is not
necessarily advantageous and is "carried along" or inseperable from
other traits. But I have no evidence for that other than Reason
apparently quoting or paraphrasing Wilson that altruism and selfishness
are cross purposes and nested within each other and result in
evolutionary oscillations. 

Reason stated, "This oscillation between selfish and altruistic
populations continues until another permutation of traits creates a
balance which allows the two purposes to co-exist without diminishing
each other" and I replied
"I don't think such a permutation of traits has occured. Do you?" The
point I was making is even if there is a permutation of traits which
creates a balance which allows the two purposes to co-exist without
diminishing each other this is a temporary situation and the cycle of
evolutionary oscillation will repeat itself. If this is the case we live
in dangerous times because another cycle of unbridled selfishness in the
right place could spell the end of humanity. We can no longer rely on
the biological rhythmic evolutionary oscillations of altruism and
selfishness.

At a more profound level it gets down to what a human being is. Can
there be love without hate? Peace without war? Wealth without poverty?
Hope without despair? Just like altruism and selfishness these
"qualities" evolutionary oscillate or co-exist and they do seem to be
cross purposed and nested within each other.  

I think our evolution, assuming we survive, will be radically different
in the future than it has previously been. I recently posted an
interview with evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr and he thinks human
evolution has stopped..that there isn't a niche humans haven't filled on
earth, no places of isolation and positive natural selection has largely
disappeared. He mentions eugenics but states for many reasons that is
impossible. But I disagree with Mayr. Darwinian evolution may have
largely stopped but far off future genetic engineering (and other
advancing technologies) offer the hope of directing our own evolution.
The sticky part is who makes those decisions and are they the right
decisions in guiding our evolution.



On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:26:13 +0000 (UTC), ragland37@webtv.net (Michael
Ragland) wrote: 
Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics 
How can a trait that was developed under the pressure of natural
selection explain moral actions that go far beyond reciprocal altruism
or enlightened self-interest? How can, for instance, the action of
Maximilian Kolbe be explained from a biological point of view? (Kolbe
was a German priest who starved himself to death in a concentration camp
to rescue a fellow prisoner.) 
Could not human beings have moved beyond their biological roots and
transcended their evolutionary origins, in which case they would be able
to formulate goals in the pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth that
"have nothing to do directly with survival, and which may at times
militate against survival?" (O'Hear, 1997: 203). 
Morality is universal, whereas biologically useful altruism is
particular favoring the family or the group over others. 'Do not kill'
does not only refer to one's own son, but also to the son of strangers.
How can evolutionary ethics cope with universality? 
Normative ethics aims to be action-guiding. How could humans ever judge
an action to be ensuring long-term survival? (This is a practical rather
than conceptual problem for evolutionary ethics.) 
Hume's 'is-ought' problem still remains a challenge for evolutionary
ethics. How can one move from 'is' (findings from the natural sciences,
including biology and sociobiology) to 'ought'? 
Similarly, despite the length of time that has passed since the
publication of Principia Ethica, the challenge of the 'naturalistic
fallacy' remains. 
Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher's time-scale, a very new
approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between
scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new
ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go. 
Back to Table of Contents
References and Further Reading 
Darwin, Charles (1871, 1930) The Descent of Man, Watts & Co., London.
Fieser, James (2001) Moral Philosophy through the Ages, Mayfield
Publishing Company, Mountain View California), Chapter 12 "Evolutionary
Ethics." 
Hume, David (1740, 1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, Clarendon Press,
Oxford. 
Maxwell, Mary (1984) Human Evolution: A Philosophical Anthropology,
Croom Helm, London. 
Midgley, Mary (1980) Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Methuen,
London. 
O'Hear, Anthony (1997) Beyond Evolution: Human Nature and the Limits of
Evolutionary Explanation, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Ruse, Michael (1995)
Evolutionary Naturalism, Routledge, London. Spencer, Herbert (1874) The
Study of Sociology, Williams & Norgate, London. 
Wilson, Edward O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Woolcock, Peter G. (1999)
"The Case Against Evolutionary Ethics Today," in: Maienschein, Jane and
Ruse, Michael (eds) Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 276-306. Back to Table of Contents 
 Author Information:
Doris Schroeder
Lecturer in Philosophy 
Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy Lancaster
University, Furness College 
Lancaster, LA1 4YG, United Kingdom 
© 2002

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."
 Stephen Hawking
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 10:27:03 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)