[Truth To Power]

Evolution may have worked to make us act in selfish, devious, and iniquitous ways, but evolution provides no moral justification for those selfish, devious, and iniquitous acts.

Yes, it does: there is no standard of moral judgment but reproductive success -- i.e., inclusive and ultimate reproductive success.

Consider an ape that kills the offspring of its rival. We do not judge the morality of its behavior, because we know it has merely been shaped by evolution.

Well, WE ARE IN THE EXACT SAME BOAT AS THE APE. It is merely our resistance to that knowledge that makes people think there is some superior standard of morality we can repair to. There isn't. Morality means the standard of ultimate reproductive success, and that's fine, because no other standard is going to survive in any case.

[Truth To Power]

Besides, I though his point was that evolutionary pressures have also worked to make us act in altruistic, self-sacrificing and pro-social ways too.

That is part of the point. The rest is that those behaviors may be no better morally than the selfish and predatory ones. The difference in their moral status is more apparent than real, because we have not been sophisticated enough to understand how "good" behavior is also just as -- or even more -- genetically selfish as the "wicked" behavior ingliz decries.

[Truth To Power]

Evolution may have also worked to make us act in altruistic, self-sacrificing and pro-social ways, but evolution provides no moral justification for those altruistic, self-sacrificing and pro-social acts.

Yes, it does. Just complex, subtle, and indirect justifications we have not yet quite understood. THAT'S WHAT MORAL MEANS.

[Truth To Power]

God is out favour, so they call on Science to justify their nonsensical belief in Natural Rights.

Given time Truth To Power will. They all do. He is a believer.

There is nothing nonsensical about natural rights. They are an observable fact of human nature. Science is just our most effective way of seeking to understand them (and anything else), so in that sense, yes, I "believe in" science in the same sense that I "believe in" grammatical English.

[Truth To Power]

I'm a bit obtuse, so forgive me that-would it be possible to believe in a Libertarian God and derive one's rights from being made in His Image? Not that I do think so.

God is an epistemological wild card: you can use it for anything.

[ingliz]

evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology is not an empirical science. Hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic.

Plotkin, Henry C. (2004). Evolutionary thought in psychology: a brief history.

evolutionary psychology allows us to begin with factual premises about what ought is

Indeed not, but he never claimed that it did.

He has now.

Yes, it does.

there is no standard of moral judgment but reproductive success

A moral society?

1. Niger: 46.12

An immoral society?

224. Monaco: 6.72

Birth rate per annum per 1000 persons (2014 est.), CIA World Fact Book

[Potemkin]

He has now.

Granted.

[Truth To Power]

Evolutionary psychology is not an empirical science. Hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic.

No, that's false. The hypotheses of evolutionary psychology are just extremely difficult to test because the time scale involved is far beyond a typical human lifetime, we do not yet have a solid understanding of how genes influence behavior, and the relationships are probably very complex. However, game theory is able to test some very simple hypotheses in evolutionary psychology. "Extremely difficult to test" is not the same as "untestable."

Plotkin, Henry C. (2004). Evolutionary thought in psychology: a brief history.

Lots of people contrive rationalizations for refusing to know that we are products of evolution.

evolutionary psychology allows us to begin with factual premises about what ought is

Fact: people in all cultures hold some broadly similar basic moral principles. The "Golden Rule" is often identified as one of them. That is not an accident or coincidence.

There are many more such facts.

there is no standard of moral judgment but reproductive success

A moral society?

1. Niger: 46.12

An immoral society?

224. Monaco: 6.72

Birth rate per annum per 1000 persons (2014 est.), CIA World Fact Book

It's too early to tell, and birthrate is not reproductive success: there are millions of extinct invertebrate species that put Niger's birthrate to shame. Duh. And Monaco isn't really a distinct society. It is politically separate from France, but in reality it is French. The fact that it is a retirement community/tax haven for wealthy older people might have something to do with its low birth rate. What's the Vatican's birthrate?

Of course, you have to avoid knowing such facts.

[ingliz]

Reproductive success

Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass on those genes. In practice, this is often a tally of the number of offspring produced by an individual.

Total fertility rate

Niger 6.89

Monaco 1.52

TFR is a more direct measure of the level of fertility than the crude birth rate, since it refers to births per woman.

there are millions of extinct invertebrate species...

Irrelevant.

Monaco... is a retirement community/tax haven for wealthy older people might have something to do with its low birth rate. What's the Vatican's birthrate?

Irrelevant.

there is no standard of moral judgment but reproductive success

[Truth To Power]

Reproductive success

Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass on those genes. In practice, this is often a tally of the number of offspring produced by an individual.

But that's merely a narrow technical definition, and not appropriate for the present context, which concerns the effects of thousands of generations of selection pressure:

"The current trend, however, seems to consider that, like inbreeding, reproductive success takes its signification in the depth of successive generations."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12704711

there are millions of extinct invertebrate species...

Irrelevant.

Nope. Wrong again. It is obviously crucial to the argument. What is really irrelevant is the narrow, one-generation reproductive success of individuals that you are trying to change the subject to. The topic here is how gene frequencies in the entire human population have changed over millions of years in response to selection pressures arising from moral considerations, not how many children Joe Blow has.

Monaco... is a retirement community/tax haven for wealthy older people might have something to do with its low birth rate. What's the Vatican's birthrate?

Irrelevant.

No, it is much more relevant than anything you have said to date, because it proves you are trying to change the subject rather than address the argument.

there is no standard of moral judgment but reproductive success

:)

<yawn> Let me know if you ever decide to say anything relevant.

[ingliz]

The topic here is how gene frequencies in the entire human population have changed over millions of years in response to selection pressures arising from moral considerations

The relation between gene frequency and moral justifiability is non-significant.

"Our results suggest that global variation in moral justifiability is influenced by both genetic variation as well as cultural systems such as TL; however, the relation between S allele frequency and moral justifiability becomes non-significant when accounting for TL. This model is not significant when moral justifiability acts as the mediator between S allele frequency and TL, suggesting that allelic frequency in the serotonin transporter gene is predictive of moral justifiability via the influence of TL rather than allelic frequency predicting TL via judgments of moral justifiability."

The role of culture–gene coevolution in morality judgment: examining the interplay between tightness–looseness and allelic variation of the serotonin transporter gene

Alissa J. Mrazek, Joan Y. Chiao, and Michele J. Gelfand

[Truth To Power]

The topic here is how gene frequencies in the entire human population have changed over millions of years in response to selection pressures arising from moral considerations

The relation between gene frequency and moral justifiability is non-significant.

No, such claims are always going to be false, absurd, and dishonest. Why do you do this to yourself? What you have done here is take a single irrelevant study of a single hypothesized gene-morality relationship, and on that basis have claimed, absurdly, that no such relationship exists. But in fact, YOUR OWN SOURCE proves you wrong:

"...prior research has shown that judgments of moral justifiability are influenced by both cultural (Haidt and Joseph 2006; Rai and Fiske 2011) and genetic factors (Crockett et al. 2008, 2010; Marsh et al. 2011)."

Do you understand what just happened? YOUR OWN SOURCE baldly stated that I am right and you are wrong. I don't know any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you. You foolishly tried to pretend that you were providing a peer-reviewed reference that argued against my position, but it actually showed that my position is well established in the relevant scientific literature, and that your position is known to be factually incorrect.

You have been destroyed. You failed and lost. You are therefore a failure, a loser. Nothing you can possibly say even matters any more, because your intellectual incompetence and/or dishonesty have already been established. You even tried to claim that this weak statement argued against my position:

"Our results suggest that global variation in moral justifiability is influenced by both genetic variation as well as cultural systems such as TL; however, the relation between S allele frequency and moral justifiability becomes non-significant when accounting for TL. This model is not significant when moral justifiability acts as the mediator between S allele frequency and TL, suggesting that allelic frequency in the serotonin transporter gene is predictive of moral justifiability via the influence of TL rather than allelic frequency predicting TL via judgments of moral justifiability."

when it in fact supported me and refuted you. All this is saying is that because the three factors are all related, the significance of a modeled relationship depends on which factor is considered to explain which related factor.

The role of culture–gene coevolution in morality judgment: examining the interplay between tightness–looseness and allelic variation of the serotonin transporter gene

Alissa J. Mrazek, Joan Y. Chiao, and Michele J. Gelfand

Oh, and you do know what you just did, right? You refuted your own claim that evolutionary psychology is not an empirical science.

Stick a fork in yourself, sunshine. You're done.

[ingliz]

judgments of moral justifiability are influenced by...

The paper suggests that gene frequency influences tightness-looseness (TL) of social norms, and not their moral justifiability. Moral justification is a cultural artefact.

This model is not significant when moral justifiability acts as the mediator between S allele frequency and TL, suggesting that allelic frequency in the serotonin transporter gene is predictive of moral justifiability via the influence of TL rather than allelic frequency predicting TL via judgments of moral justifiability."

YOUR OWN SOURCE baldly stated that I am right and you are wrong

No, it did not.

But that aside, didn't you say that the study (The first work to present evidence of the culture–gene coevolution of social attitudes) is irrelevant.

irrelevant study of a single hypothesized gene-morality relationship

You refuted your own claim that evolutionary psychology is not an empirical science.

I think not.

To our knowledge, this is the first work to present evidence of the culture–gene coevolution of social attitudes.

Which would suggest that evolutionary psychology is "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic.

[Truth To Power]

The paper suggests that gene frequency influences tightness-looseness (TL) of social norms, and not their moral justifiability.

No, it does not. That is just another baldly false claim by you. The paper merely suggest that the influence of ONE PARTICULAR gene on moral reasoning is exerted via its effect on TL. It says nothing whatever about the influence of any other gene.

This model is not significant when moral justifiability acts as the mediator between S allele frequency and TL, suggesting that allelic frequency in the serotonin transporter gene is predictive of moral justifiability via the influence of TL rather than allelic frequency predicting TL via judgments of moral justifiability."

YOUR OWN SOURCE baldly stated that I am right and you are wrong

No, it did not.

Yes, it most certainly did. Look up about five lines. Yep. There it is.

But that aside, didn't you say that the study (The first work to present evidence of the culture–gene coevolution of social attitudes) is irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant to your false claim, because it considers only a single gene out of tens of thousands, and considers only its effect on one dimension of morality, not all its potential effects.

irrelevant study of a single hypothesized gene-morality relationship

You refuted your own claim that evolutionary psychology is not an empirical science.

I think not.

You don't seem to realize just how true that is.

To our knowledge, this is the first work to present evidence of the culture–gene coevolution of social attitudes.

Which would suggest that evolutionary psychology is "just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic.

No, it would not. That is nothing but a bald non sequitur on your part.

[ingliz]

Yes, it is irrelevant to your false claim

That Morality is a cultural artefact? The evidence presented supports this hypothesis.

Many cultural differences have no known biological causes or effects. The anthropological record suggests that just about every behaviour that we consider immoral has been an accepted cultural practice somewhere. Of course, a society wouldn't survive very long if it encouraged random killing of next-door neighbors, but societies that encourage murder of people in the next village can endure indefinitely (see Chagnon, 1988, on the Yanamam*).


* Researcher contamination of the findings

Ferguson, Yanomami Warfare, has argued that the Yanomamö became more violent after Chagnon arrived to conduct his research and offered machetes, axes, and shotguns to selected groups to elicit their cooperation.

[Truth To Power]

Yes, it is irrelevant to your false claim

That Morality is a cultural artefact? The evidence presented supports this hypothesis.

No, it doesn't. As already explained in another thread, morality is rather like language: which one you learn depends on where you are brought up, but your capacity to learn it, and some basic semantic and syntactic features, are effectively universal, and hardwired in the human brain.

Many cultural differences have no known biological causes or effects.

True. A lot is simply accident, especially practices that have no particular effect on long-term reproductive success. And no doubt some maladaptive moral norms have survived simply because they are part of cultural package deals that include much better stuff (consider the European superstitions that effectively prohibited bathing until well into the 19th century, or the putative celibacy of Catholic priests). But morality is too consistent across cultures -- consider the universality of the Golden Rule -- for it all to be accidental.

The anthropological record suggests that just about every behaviour that we consider immoral has been an accepted cultural practice somewhere.

Sure; evolution is a work in progress, and deleterious mutations arise all the time. But those practices that almost everyone else considers immoral have almost invariably died out -- often along with their practitioner societies. Consider the societies where close incest within the royal family has been considered moral. Their rulers were soon reduced to idiocy, and they died out from misrule, either through invasion or collapse.

Of course, a society wouldn't survive very long if it encouraged random killing of next-door neighbors,

Indeed. That's what I have been telling you, and only now do you begin to see a glimmer. So, WHY WOULDN'T IT??

Are you going to tell me a "just-so story"??



For different but analogous reasons, societies would not have survived very long if they encouraged taking the fruits of others' labor, forcible enslavement of fellow citizens, or even something so seemingly innocuous as frequent lying.

but societies that encourage murder of people in the next village can endure indefinitely (see Chagnon, 1988, on the Yanamam*).

Oh, but in the modern world, the Yanomamo are protected. In the past, the neighboring villages would have got fed up with people like that, allied in common cause, gone to their village late one night, and exterminated them to a man. There can be little doubt that similar events occurred many, many times in humanity's long prehistory. The fact that such behavior is considered immoral and not tolerated is no accident.

[ingliz]

You have turned your argument on its head and it is still shite.

reproductive success

Status/cultural success leads to biological success.

Data from the Kipsigis of Kenya provides a robust demonstration that wealth enhances a man's reproductive success.

Mulder, On Cultural and Reproductive Success: Kipsigis Evidence

no particular effect on long-term reproductive success

Status/cultural success leads to biological success.

"Demographic data indicates men who have killed have more wives and offspring than those men who have not killed"

N. A. Chagnon

maladaptive moral norms have survived

Maladaptive? The Yanomamö have been murdering each other for 3,500 years.

random killing of next-door neighbors

San Gimignano - 200 years - until the Church put a stop to it.

a "just-so story"

200 years is not 3,500 years.

Their rulers were soon reduced to idiocy, and they died out from misrule, either through invasion or collapse.

Wrong

A king or a pharoah mates with pretty much anybody he wants to. King Rama V of Thailand (1873-1910) sired more than 70 children—some from marriages to half sisters but most with dozens of consorts and concubines. Such a ruler could opt to funnel wealth, security, education, and even political power to many of his children, regardless of the status of the mother. A geneticist would say he was offering his genes many paths to the future.

offering his genes many paths to the future.

The 10th Duke of Buccleuch - a title created in 1663 for the illegitimate son of Charles II - is now Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn.

The fact that such behavior is considered immoral and not tolerated is no accident

Sure; evolution is a work in progress

Evolution is a process that has no goals, no purpose, and no morals.

[Truth To Power]

You have turned your argument on its head and it is still shite.

I have done no such thing. You have merely begun to understand what my argument is.

reproductive success

Status/cultural success leads to biological success.
Data from the Kipsigis of Kenya provides a robust demonstration that wealth enhances a man's reproductive success.

Duh. But wealth does a man's reproductive success no ultimate good if his society is doomed. Being a member of a society that is defeated in war, enslaved, exterminated, etc. is often a bigger evolutionary calamity for the individual than dying without issue, because even if you survive, your prospects are blighted, and many of your close relatives won't make it.

no particular effect on long-term reproductive success

Status/cultural success leads to biological success.

Not when your society perishes.

"Demographic data indicates men who have killed have more wives and offspring than those men who have not killed"
N. A. Chagnon

In pre-modern environments, it takes a certain level of survival fitness to be able to kill an adult male. You see the same sort of thing in many mammal species, especially predators.

maladaptive moral norms have survived

Maladaptive? The Yanomamö have been murdering each other for 3,500 years.

And your evidence that this has affected their overall reproductive success? Remember, evolution has no plan. Something that works in one context might be disastrous in another. We can predict some things, but others have to await the judgment of millennia.

random killing of next-door neighbors

San Gimignano - 200 years - until the Church put a stop to it.

And that church is ALSO part of the millstone slowly grinding out fitter human beings.

a "just-so story"

200 years is not 3,500 years.

Which isn't 3,500,000 years.

Their rulers were soon reduced to idiocy, and they died out from misrule, either through invasion or collapse.

Wrong

No, I am of course factually correct.

A king or a pharoah mates with pretty much anybody he wants to.

Some do. Others have a different moral principle.

GET IT???

King Rama V of Thailand (1873-1910) sired more than 70 children—some from marriages to half sisters but most with dozens of consorts and concubines. Such a ruler could opt to funnel wealth, security, education, and even political power to many of his children, regardless of the status of the mother. A geneticist would say he was offering his genes many paths to the future.

But incest was not his default mating model, and even his half-sisters were genetically diverse, coming from mothers from all over the kingdom, and even elsewhere.

The 10th Duke of Buccleuch - a title created in 1663 for the illegitimate son of Charles II - is now Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn.

Did you erroneously imagine you had a point?

The fact that such behavior is considered immoral and not tolerated is no accident

The Voice of Ignorance...

Sure; evolution is a work in progress

Evolution is a process that has no goals, no purpose, and no morals.

You still don't get it. Evolution has no morals, but we do because evolution has given them to us. We have them only because they have aided our reproductive success. Hello?

[ingliz]

But wealth does a man's reproductive success no ultimate good if his society is doomed.

Odds are all human society is doomed as 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

In pre-modern environments, it takes a certain level of survival fitness to be able to kill an adult male. You see the same sort of thing in many mammal species, especially predators.

Survival fitness?

An analysis of the raiding histories, marital trajectories, and reproductive histories of these men reveals that more aggressive warriors have lower indices of reproductive success than their milder brethren.

No, I am of course factually correct.

Pharoahs ruled Egypt for 2,600 years. The hazards, while real, are not absolute. Even the high rates of genetic overlap generated in the offspring of sibling unions can create more healthy children than sick.

reproductive success

A 2008 study in the journal Science found that marriages between related individuals in Iceland tended to produce more children and grandchildren than those between completely unrelated individuals.

A 1991 study also published in Science found that, in Asian and African populations, marriages between related individuals also produced more offspring.

These are counterintuitive, almost dislikable results.

We have them only because they have aided our reproductive success.

Please explain behaviours, morally acceptable in certain societies, that seem to reduce reproductive success such as homosexuality and suicide?

[Truth To Power]

But wealth does a man's reproductive success no ultimate good if his society is doomed.

Odds are all human society is doomed as 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Evolution is very much a "last man standing" deal.

In pre-modern environments, it takes a certain level of survival fitness to be able to kill an adult male. You see the same sort of thing in many mammal species, especially predators.

Survival fitness?

Yes. Ability to deal successfully with the environment. The same sort of qualities that make a caveman able to kill a rival caveman would also enable him to kill game animals, for example.

An analysis of the raiding histories, marital trajectories, and reproductive histories of these men reveals that more aggressive warriors have lower indices of reproductive success than their milder brethren.

In that environment. The effect of genes on reproductive success is ENTIRELY predicated on adaptiveness to a given environment. Are you really unable to grasp such a fundamental fact of evolution?

No, I am of course factually correct.

Pharoahs ruled Egypt for 2,600 years.

Not the same family of pharaohs. Duh.

The hazards, while real, are not absolute. Even the high rates of genetic overlap generated in the offspring of sibling unions can create more healthy children than sick.

But enough sick ones to affect average reproductive success, a fact confirmed by the evidence of other inbred families.

You clearly don't know anything about how evolution works. Nothing.

reproductive success

A 2008 study in the journal Science found that marriages between related individuals in Iceland tended to produce more children and grandchildren than those between completely unrelated individuals.

A 1991 study also published in Science found that, in Asian and African populations, marriages between related individuals also produced more offspring.

Were you under an erroneous impression that those findings could be relevant?

We have them only because they have aided our reproductive success.

Please explain behaviours, morally acceptable in certain societies, that seem to reduce reproductive success such as homosexuality and suicide?

I'm not omniscient, but there are various ways such relationships could occur. Homosexuality seems to be inherent at a low (but variable) level in all societies, and it is worth noting that a male's chance of being homosexual is strongly related to the number of older brothers he has (and is independent of whether they are homosexual). This indicates something happens when a woman is carrying a male child that predisposes her to have homosexual male offspring subsequently. We don't know how that works, or how it could be positive for her reproductive success in other ways. Maybe the same hormonal shift that increases the chance of having a homosexual male child also increases the fertility of a female child. Suicide is mostly a male phenomenon. Maybe males with suicidal tendencies have a positive effect on the whole community by being braver in battle than heterosexual males. We don't know.

You just claim you do.