Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (reposting)
Message-ID: <2155@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 02:31:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2155
Posted: Sun Jul 21 02:31:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 05:49:16 EDT
References: <1182@pyuxd.UUCP> <800@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1202@pyuxd.UUCP> <2127@pucc-h> <618@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 45
Summary: Environmentally adaptive vs. morality

In article <618@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> Morality is an evolutionarily adaptive trait.  It can be a heuristic for
> optimizing reproductive success.  Just like intelligence.
> 
Not to be blatantly contradictory and knitpicky, but morality is not
evolutionarily adaptive, self-preservation instincts are.  Morality is
the tendency for species (humans) with higher mental capacities to step
outside the realm of instinct and analyze the different instincts on a
rational level.  Just because an instinct for self-preservation will
make it more likely that an organism's genes will get into the gene
pool and hence be reproduced doesn't mean that that is rational or
moral.  If an organism is just a set of chemical reactions taking place,
unless any one given set of reactions is "more valuable" than another,
there is no rational basis for saying that the perpetuation of a species
is a "moral" (i.e. based on a rational premis) issue.  Organisms will
continue to reproduce that trait because it is an adaptive trait, but
that does not make it moral.  In a purely scientific and physical sense,
a species could flourish or become extinct and all that has happened is
that a different set of chemical reactions will be the outcome.

> Your example resolves simply in terms of game theory: kill a relative of
> somebody and you are reducing the genetic fitness of the survivor.  Thus
> it may pay to make standing threats against people who bump off your
> relatives.  Making killing someone immoral is a shorthand that is simpler
> to teach than game theory.
> -- 
> 
That's not really true that killing someone's relatives makes one less
environmentally fit.  Many species of animal fight among the siblings
due to limited resources and a great number of animal, bird, fish etc.
young leave their parents quite soon after being born and never see
their parents again.  They most certainly have nothing to do with
killing their own parents (they aren't capable in almost all cases) and
if their parents die, that's not a trait that could get passed on.

And with humans the argument falls to pieces.  If a person's parents die
he's less likely to have children?  Where did that statistic come from?
And if you're arguing for an instinct lodged in the back of our mind
from ages past, then again, I would point out that as human beings we
have gone beyond instincts in many ways andd such a simple explanation
of why we don't murder wouldn't hold water in any realistic analysis of
what determines behavior.

			Rick Frey  (...ihnp4!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix415)