I think morality was discovered (not created) through the process of evolution, just as the external world was discovered (not created) through the process of evolution. So even though knowledge of morality and the external world enable us to survive, this does not prove that evolution is the origin of either. Hence I believe that there are some objective moral values, i.e., moral values that are valid and binding regardless of whether anyone believes in them or not, just as there are objective mathematical and logical truths.

Hello,

That evolution is a precursor to morality has been one of the main themes in the fields of evolutionary biology and sociobiology. It is argued that living creatures are inherently social beings, and in particular, human social behaviors involve a myriad of interlocking factors one of which is the development of ethical values. The social intelligence , which is an important construct in the theory of the mind, provides us with a lucid and logical explanation about why morality has evolved as a part of human behavior. In point of fact, human sociality puts a very high premium on evolutionary selection pressures which develop over time and are required for acquiring social intelligence because as social beings humans need to be a part of the social group, and as a result, need to adapt themselves to the targeted group goals and normative values.

Best regards,

R. Biria

No 😀

Are our ethical and moral rules simply a human manifestation of the instinct to survive? Is morality simply a ritualised set of behaviours centered around survival of the group or species?

The question is misleading: there is nothing "simple" about the adaptations, including motivational systems (not "the instinct"), that promote survival and reproduction of either individuals or groups. Presumably the question is designed to imply that explanations of morality and ethics that do not involve survival would be more complex than explanations based on survival. That seems unlikely to me.

When selfish creatures are socially interdependent, some means of managing the needs of all is required, and some of those means will be more reliable than others in assuring survival. More than rules, emotions (such as sympathy, gratitude, sense of obligation, sense of justice, shame, guilt, anger, contempt, disgust and other "moral" emotions) keep humans cooperating most of the time. This fact suggests that there is some structural basis in the mind for morality, that it is not "simply" imposed by society or authority as a set of arbitrary rules. Of course particular rules may differ across societies and over time, but the motivational/emotional system that responds to and uses the rules would appear to be evolutionarily conserved.

If ethics spring from emotions then it follows that they are a product of evolution. Emotions exist in order to ensure the species survives and this clearly applies in many species since affection, anger and fear, to name but three emotions are observed even in non-mammals.

The basic ethics manifested in all civilisations and social systems are grounds for believing that Kant might have been right. The basic 'rules' are far from arbitrary, they are necessary to keep society cohesive and therefore for human survival.

I'm not sure that "ethics spring from emotions"; rather, there appears to be a system of emotions and motivations that function to help regulate social behavior in ways that benefit social groups as well as individuals. Human needs for cognition and understanding also probably underlie the articulation of moral principles and rules. Not simple!

In fact, there is quite a lot that could be teased out of your question. First, you ask: "Are our ethical and moral rules simply a human manifestation of the instinct to survive?" Here you imply a certain conception of morality, i.e., a roughly Kantian one. Second, you ask: " Is morality simply a ritualised set of behaviours centered around survival of the group or species?" Here you imply a roughly Humean view of morality. Of course, these two views are incompatible. If you view morality in the first way, an evolutionary (i.e., mechanical) explanation will be implausible. If you view morality the second way it will be almost inevitable.

On my own view, morality is a necessary product of the universe, the substance of which can be represented formally - in rules, in roughly the same way that gravity can be represented by a formula. I might add that I find evolutionary explanations of the emergence of novelty to be rather hollow. But "natural selection" seems sound. At root, I am a self-organizing system's theorist and, incidentally, so is Kant.

The proposition that 'Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive' is, to say the least, simplistic. One may consider the great classical civilisations of Rome and Greece - the members of the elite (the demos) may have mattered but the majority did not. Enemies in battle were seldom shown mercy. To quote historian Tom Holland, “If you wonder why there is any question of taking in refugees rather than just crucifying them, enslaving them and selling them off, ultimately it is down to the fact the Western Europe became Christian. The notion that there is a moral value to the poor and weak simply did not exist in ancient civilizations.” A similar disregard for the weak was seen in the Social Darwinism of the 1930s. Medicine is an inherently anti-Darwinian venture. The fact that we debate the superiority of one ethical tradition over another suggests a 'gold standard' that they can both be compared agianst.

Western European civilisation embraced slavery and mass murder with all the relish of pagan Rome. Christians had no problem morally justifying slavery until 1865 and to a large extent part of that justification was preservation (survival) of a way of life.

It is indeed a 'simplification' to state that morals spring only from a basic will to survive. Most moral systems are extremely simplistic. Both deontological and utilitarian models adopt simplistic bases. How could a 'categorical imperative' or a greater good theory be complex?

From many standpoints it has already been set clearly enough that morality is not just a salient human feature, but a characterstic that belongs to nearly all huan beings. Hence, we do have much more in coomon with other species, than differences and distances. Morality is one of those comon traits.