--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Saying that ethics is entirely driven by evolution is NOT
> the same as saying
> that evolution always results in ethics. Ethics is
> computationally/cognitively expensive to successfully
> implement (because a
> stupid implementation gets exploited to death). There are
> many evolutionary
> niches that won't support that expense and the
> successful entities in those
> niches won't be ethical. Parasites are a
> prototypical/archetypal example of
> such a niche since they tend to degeneratively streamlined
> to the point of
> being stripped down to virtually nothing except that which
> is necessary for
> their parasitism. Effectively, they are single goal
> entities -- the single
> most dangerous type of entity possible.
Works for me. Just wanted to point out that saying "ethics is entirely driven
by evolution" is not enough to communicate with precision what you mean by that.
> OK. How about this . . . . Ethics is that behavior that,
> when shown by you,
> makes me believe that I should facilitate your survival.
> Obviously, it is
> then to your (evolutionary) benefit to behave ethically.
Ethics can't be explained simply by examining interactions between individuals.
It's an emergent dynamic that requires explanation at the group level. It's a
set of culture-wide rules and taboos - how did they get there?
> Matt is decades out of date and needs to catch up on his
> reading.
Really? I must be out of date too then, since I agree with his explanation of
ethics. I haven't read Hauser yet though, so maybe you're right.
> Ethics is *NOT* the result of group selection. The
> *ethical evaluation of a
> given action* is a meme and driven by the same social/group
> forces as any
> other meme. Rational memes when adopted by a group can
> enhance group
> survival but . . . . there are also mechanisms by which
> seemingly irrational
> memes can also enhance survival indirectly in *exactly* the
> same fashion as
> the "seemingly irrational" tail displays of
> peacocks facilitates their group
> survival by identifying the fittest individuals. Note that
> it all depends
> upon circumstances . . . .
>
> Ethics is first and foremost what society wants you to do.
> But, society
> can't be too pushy in it's demands or individuals
> will defect and society
> will break down. So, ethics turns into a matter of
> determining what is the
> behavior that is best for society (and thus the individual)
> without unduly
> burdening the individual (which would promote defection,
> cheating, etc.).
> This behavior clearly differs based upon circumstances but,
> equally clearly,
> should be able to be derived from a reasonably small set of
> rules that
> *will* be context dependent. Marc Hauser has done a lot of
> research and
> human morality seems to be designed exactly that way (in
> terms of how it
> varies across societies as if it is based upon fairly
> simple rules with a
> small number of variables/variable settings. I highly
> recommend his
> writings (and being familiar with them is pretty much a
> necessity if you
> want to have a decent advanced/current scientific
> discussion of ethics and
> morals).
>
> Mark
I fail to see how your above explanation is anything but an elaboration of the
idea that ethics is due to group selection. The following statements all
support it:
- "memes [rational or otherwise] when adopted by a group can enhance group
survival"
- "Ethics is first and foremost what society wants you to do."
- "ethics turns into a matter of determining what is the behavior that is best
for society"
Terren
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=111637683-c8fa51
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
