Debate: Evolving morality - OpenLearn - Open University

Skip to content

You are here:
Home
History & The Arts
Culture
Philosophy
Debate: Evolving morality

Comments (43) Twitter Share Share

Print

A bronze of Rodin's The Thinker

Jupiter Images

We separated from our Old World monkey cousins some thirty million years ago, and from the chimpanzees some six million years back. The brain has evolved in this period in response to environmental and social changes. The basic impetus is always the same- the individual gene seeks to perpetuate itself.

Genes become associated in body systems and many species enhance their survival with collective living and communication.

About the author

Comments

To comment on this page Sign in or Register.

The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

11 Jul 200813:55

THE EVOLUTION OF MORALITY

We separated from our Old World monkey cousins some thirty million years ago, and from the chimpanzees some six million years back. The brain has evolved in this period in response to environmental and social changes. The basic impetus is always the same- the individual gene seeks to perpetuate itself.

Genes become associated in body systems and many species enhance their survival with collective living and communication. How this imperative to survive and reproduce is met and elaborated is the subject of four books:

G. F. Striedtler
Principles of Brain Evolution
0-87893-82--6 Sinauer Associates 2005.

D. L. Cheney and R. M. Seyforth
Baboon Metaphysics: the Evolution of a Social Mind
978-0-226-10243-6 University of Chicago Press 2007

Franz de Waal
Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved
Princeton University Press, 2007

M. D. Hauser
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
Ecco 2007

Does anyone wish to pursue this topic?

(see also "Reading with Open 2-Non Fiction")

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

18 Feb 200902:12

The last "Unregistered" was Xie_Ming.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

18 Feb 200915:25

The last "Unregistered" was Xie_Ming.

no it wasn't, it was me

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Feb 200901:11

I have been away for some time, and missed the beginning of this thread. I am enraptured with what has passed so far. I do like the back and forth between the scientific and (apparently - it could be a scientist playing devil's advocate, but they wouldn't be trying to side-track the thread) non-scientific viewpoints.

I am not a geneticist, psychologist, or any other -ologist, merely a curious Mechanical Engineer who enjoys philosophical and logical arguments, er, discussions. Therefore, my opinions neccessarily will carry less weight, since they are arrived at without the aid of background knowledge. I decided to add this paragraph in, to put my thoughts in context.

Morality: A measure of the acceptability of actions. (my definition, please correct me if I am in serious error).

For actions to be seen as "good", the group being influenced by those actions should benefit. As environment and circumstances change, it seems obvious to me that the actions which affect a group positively will also change.

Whether and how much these changes are influenced by alterations in environment, or mutations in the genome - I suppopse that is what is being studied at the moment - are best left alone by me.

Concerning the caste system: It may have provided a semi-stable societal heirarchy in the past, but it was always at the expense of one group or another. If you separate society out into separate groups, the separation my be beneficial to society as a whole, but will appear morally reprehensible to those who end up unhappy (which I think would be inevitable in a rigidly enforced Caste system). Therefore, morality will be different for each of the caste systems. In today's society, I think it would be inadvisable to reintroduce class splits. The general move is the integration of all societies, slowly blending the edges of cultures - and hopefullly morals - into a homogeneous whole. It is taking, and will take, a very long time before humanity will come anywhere close to an agreement on what a sensible moral scale could be.

But, I see it happening. In the distant past, Monarchs did just about anything they wanted, and did not seem to suffer the moral outrage of the people, but these days Queen Elizabeth can't keep her cornflakes in tupperware for fear of the nation's outrage. The Queen's cornflakes in tupperware has become morally unacceptable behaviour!

I hope my thoughts are clear enough to comment on. I can't guarantee when I will read this thread again, but if there are any queries, I will endeavour to answer them, and look forward to learning more about how humanity's actions are judged.

Sincerely,

Andrew J Cochran

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Feb 200923:11



Morality: A measure of the acceptability of actions. (my definition, please correct me if I am in serious error).

I'm not sure you can be corrected but this is what the dictionary from the fens had to offer:
"relating to the standards of good or bad behaviour, fairness, honesty, etc. which each person believes in, rather than to laws"

not really the empirical slant that a good engineer looks for?



For actions to be seen as "good", the group being influenced by those actions should benefit.).

Ok but doesn't really hold for humans who don't know what's good for them e.g. ...(you choose).



But, I see it happening. In the distant past, Monarchs did just about anything they wanted, and did not seem to suffer the moral outrage of the people, but these days Queen Elizabeth can't keep her cornflakes in tupperware for fear of the nation's outrage. The Queen's cornflakes in tupperware has become morally unacceptable behaviour!

Where's KAMBIZ when you need them?



I hope my thoughts are clear enough to comment on. I can't guarantee when I will read this thread again, but if there are any queries, I will endeavour to answer them, and look forward to learning more about how humanity's actions are judged.!

My guess is about 31 minutes from when you posted these pearls

Sincerely,

Andrew J Cochran.

maybe morality challenges genius?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Jan 200920:11

Genes become associated in body systems and many species enhance their survival with collective living and communication. How this imperative to survive and reproduce is met and elaborated is the subject of four books:
...
Does anyone wish to pursue this topic?

(see also "Reading with Open 2-Non Fiction")

Genes can only have very indirect effects on the structure of social order and the morality that evolves from it.

Game theory, the logical possibilities and limits on how social interactions can be structured by intentional agents is the primary factor.

Probably out of print but available in downloadable form-

Artificial Morality: Virtuous Robots for Virtual Games
by Peter Danielson

Deals with the very basic level.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

21 Jan 200914:01

Genes can only have very indirect effects on the structure of social order and the morality that evolves from it.

Game theory, the logical possibilities and limits on how social interactions can be structured by intentional agents is the primary factor.

Probably out of print but available in downloadable form-

Artificial Morality: Virtuous Robots for Virtual Games
by Peter Danielson

Deals with the very basic level.

There is one problem with your assertion that game theory holds the key.

Game theory doesn't work, or make sense. The man who invented the theory that everyone's out for themselves was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic! Coincidence? I sincerely doubt it.

In addition when he used volunteers to go through the 'prisoner's dilemma' some people trusted the other person, as some people tend to do in life. His findings didn't add up.

People are complicated. Communism doesn't seem to work as not everyone acts selflessly all the time. Game theory doesn't work as not everyone acts completely selfishly all the time.

Any attempy to boil down human conscienceness to these extremes is doomed to failure. People are not intrinsically logical beings.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Feb 200901:42

There is one problem with your assertion that game theory holds the key.

Game theory doesn't work, or make sense. The man who invented the theory that everyone's out for themselves was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic! Coincidence? I sincerely doubt it.

Dear Sir/Madam,

While I agree that game theory is too simplistic to fully describe and predict human interaction, and it is possible that no theory can fully describe it, I wish to point out the following:

Russell had terrible halitosis, Cantor suffered severe depression studying infinity. Just because someone has a personal problem - be it mental, biological or social - does not automatically invalidate their work. That's how science works. A hypothesis is taken as true until proven false, and even so, can remain true for certain situations (an obvious example is Newton - his laws hold true, even though in the grand scheme of the universe, they are flawed).

Please do not dismiss a whole branch of mathematics based on one mathematicians disorder.

Thanks,

Andrew J Cochran

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

20 Feb 200903:45

Dear Sir/Madam,

While I agree that game theory is too simplistic to fully describe and predict human interaction, and it is possible that no theory can fully describe it, I wish to point out the following:

Russell had terrible halitosis, Cantor suffered severe depression studying infinity. Just because someone has a personal problem - be it mental, biological or social - does not automatically invalidate their work. That's how science works. A hypothesis is taken as true until proven false, and even so, can remain true for certain situations (an obvious example is Newton - his laws hold true, even though in the grand scheme of the universe, they are flawed).

Please do not dismiss a whole branch of mathematics based on one mathematicians disorder.

Thanks,

Andrew J Cochran

____________________________________

The core of the problem is rather that ordinary academics tend to swarm with the latest fad. "Game theory" became a fad for many years and was applied by folk who published without having anything worthwhile to say.

Factor analysis has experienced similar mistreatment.

Now, those who manage to learn a little of it are rushing into genome-wide scans.
We thus get many different putative genetic loci for "schizophrenia" (something that may be twenty different diseases). Instead of trying for a specific disease entity, the philosophers then speak of "schizoid syndromes" and other fuzzy terms that defeat any scientific resolution.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

22 Feb 200917:25

I think morality came into being as a result of gaining a higher consciousness. Although social morality developed as a result of the need to inforce certain positive behaviours in order to have a relatively peaceful, functioning society.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

27 Feb 200921:10

God these threads are beginning to read like a maintenance manual for the Tardis.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

28 Feb 200900:50

God these threads are beginning to read like a maintenance manual for the Tardis.

What are you telling me for? ...I don't exist.

screwdriver, ...just the non-sonic flat-head will do

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

23 Feb 200904:02

This is one person's view:

The word “morality” may refer to any of the following:

(1) the community's relevant factual behavior patterns (its mores);

(2) its socially approved behavior patterns, as sanctified by some widely held rational or religious ideal, whether observed in practice or not (social
morality); or

(3) the moral ideals accepted by each individual as binding on himself and on others, whether or not those others agree (individual morality).

All these, like law, are means of controlling human conduct by setting normative standards; and all three have a constantly changing interaction with each other, as well as with law

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

23 Jan 200917:42

In reviewing some abstracts in this area, I see that the majority do involve game theory.

This article is a particularly clear exposition of the application of game theory to evolutionary development of cooperation and altruism:

Taylor, C. and M. A. Nowak (2007). "Transforming the Dilemma" Evolution 61(10): 2281-2292.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

24 Jan 200912:31

Ed Hagen (2006) has reservations about the application of game theory to culturally-determined human behaviour, for the norms of the culture may dictate behaviour more than would a calculus of individual advantage. Assortment could then explain group genetic success.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

02 Feb 200900:24

I believe it is nurture rather than nature which is the dominant factor. How a person is brought up impresses on their expectations in life, their social interactions, their ability to be alturistic as opposed to self preservation.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

02 Feb 200915:52

Does morality evolve?

"Morality" has been equated with empathy, with principled conduct, with customs and mores, and with altruism. Philosophy thus mixes with biology.

The brain evolves by modification, not by complete innovation. Genes and receptors reflect random chance and natural selection within the social environment of the tribe.

The primatologist Franz de Waal argues (2006) for a continuum in morality among the great apes and humans.

Larry Young (2009) and Zoe Donaldson (2008) see oxytocin and vasopressin receptors as underlying natural variation in social behavior.

To see this in a larger context, see MacLean's Mind and Ideology (2008).

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

04 Feb 200902:34

Does morality evolve?

"Morality" has been equated with empathy, with principled conduct, with customs and mores, and with altruism. Philosophy thus mixes with biology.

The brain evolves by modification, not by complete innovation. Genes and receptors reflect random chance and natural selection within the social environment of the tribe.

The primatologist Franz de Waal argues (2006) for a continuum in morality among the great apes and humans.

Larry Young (2009) and Zoe Donaldson (2008) see oxytocin and vasopressin receptors as underlying natural variation in social behavior.

To see this in a larger context, see MacLean's Mind and Ideology (2008).

Is this a nature nurture argument? If not then why not ask if love evolves? Morality is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is - and that is where God comes in!

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

09 Feb 200902:53

Does morality evolve?

"Morality" has been equated with empathy, with principled conduct, with customs and mores, and with altruism. Philosophy thus mixes with biology.

The brain evolves by modification, not by complete innovation. Genes and receptors reflect random chance and natural selection within the social environment of the tribe.

The primatologist Franz de Waal argues (2006) for a continuum in morality among the great apes and humans.

Larry Young (2009) and Zoe Donaldson (2008) see oxytocin and vasopressin receptors as underlying natural variation in social behavior.

To see this in a larger context, see MacLean's Mind and Ideology (2008).
_____________________________________________

Is this a nature nurture argument? If not then why not ask if love evolves? Morality is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is - and that is where God comes in!

Arguably, "love" is a matter of hormones and conditioning.

Law (the big stick) is not the same as morality.

"God" is a postulated logos of the universe and thus a projected idealism.

A more basic query is to ask whether or not morality evolves ( and whether there is teleology at all or whther there is only a great circular flux.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

09 Feb 200920:19

Is there some confusion in this thread between the mechanisms for interpersonal behaviour that have developed in all social animals and the formulated value systems in human societies which determine what we consider unacceptable or praiseworthy behaviour?

Although our evolutionary heritage provides us with some basic mechanisms with which to respond to one another and which may form the basis of what we consider morality, it is not, of it'self, a value system or moral code.

It is certain, that accepted moral values have changed from age to age and do so from society to society.
Whether or not social morals actually evolve in the strictest sense is another matter.
At the individual level, ones behaviour may well change in differing extremes of circumstance. If then, what one considers to be justified behaviour changes to fit the environment... Well that, at least is adaptation, a primary requisite for evolution.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

10 Feb 200919:36

Is there some confusion in this thread between the mechanisms for interpersonal behaviour that have developed in all social animals and the formulated value systems in human societies which determine what we consider unacceptable or praiseworthy behaviour?

Although our evolutionary heritage provides us with some basic mechanisms with which to respond to one another and which may form the basis of what we consider morality, it is not, of it'self, a value system or moral code.

It is certain, that accepted moral values have changed from age to age and do so from society to society.
Whether or not social morals actually evolve in the strictest sense is another matter.
At the individual level, ones behaviour may well change in differing extremes of circumstance. If then, what one considers to be justified behaviour changes to fit the environment... Well that, at least is adaptation, a primary requisite for evolution.

__________________________

Agreed.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

12 Feb 200917:38

There is indeed a mixing of physical evolution of the primate brain and its manifestations in human behaviour.

This is an important aspect of neuroscience.

As psychology has moved from philosophy into an in-between state nearer science, neuroscience is meansing physical evolution, circuits, receptors and genes as they influence conduct.

The blending of these approaches might yield more understanding- the goal of this thread.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

16 Feb 200917:56

There is indeed a mixing of physical evolution of the primate brain and its manifestations in human behaviour..

Please explain this

As psychology has moved from philosophy into an in-between state nearer science, neuroscience is meansing physical evolution, circuits, receptors and genes as they influence conduct..

Please explain this

The blending of these approaches might yield more understanding- the goal of this thread.

Please explain this

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

17 Feb 200913:24

Please explain this

Please explain this

Please explain this

The change in mental structure, capacities and consequent behaviours from primate through Pleistocene hominids is a fact of evolution.

Such change is quite slow in calendar time.

Today, we are rapidly identifying particular genes associated with particular behavioural abnormalities. Arguably, this will also yield genes and receptors associated with particular normal behaviours.

Current estimates of the genetic effect on behaviour range mostly around 50%. Shared environment has an effect, but general environmental effects have not been identified.

It is early days in these investigations, but, with genome-wide scans for humans, dogs, etc. we will be finding out things quickly.

(For years, it was dogma to discount heredity in social science but animal breeders have always known better).

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

17 Feb 200920:20

The change in mental structure, capacities and consequent behaviours from primate through Pleistocene hominids is a fact of evolution.

Such change is quite slow in calendar time.

Today, we are rapidly identifying particular genes associated with particular behavioural abnormalities. Arguably, this will also yield genes and receptors associated with particular normal behaviours.

Current estimates of the genetic effect on behaviour range mostly around 50%. Shared environment has an effect, but general environmental effects have not been identified.

It is early days in these investigations, but, with genome-wide scans for humans, dogs, etc. we will be finding out things quickly.

(For years, it was dogma to discount heredity in social science but animal breeders have always known better).

_________________________________________

The technique, oversimplified:

(1) take a group who exhibit the trait (probands).
(2) match them as closely as possible with a group who do not exhibit the trait (controls).
(3) do genome-wide scans on both groups.
(4) statistically analyse the differences for significance.
(5) thereby identifying putative causitive genes.

The fly in this ointment is that psychology (and DSM IV) are philosophical in their description of traits. Thus, whether a trait is, in fact, exhibited may be uncertain and a matter of philosophy.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

17 Feb 200923:06

_________________________________________
The technique, oversimplified:
(1) take a group who exhibit the trait (probands).

(2) match them as closely as possible with a group who do not exhibit the trait (controls).

(3) do genome-wide scans on both groups.

(4) statistically analyse the differences for significance.

(5) thereby identifying putative causitive genes.
The fly in this ointment is that psychology (and DSM IV) are philosophical in their description of traits. Thus, whether a trait is, in fact, exhibited may be uncertain and a matter of philosophy.

ok so given that you are stuck with having to draw on philosophy in describing traits, your postulations rely on examining the propencity for morality as being increased with mental capacity?

or are you saying that morality is hard coded in the genome and is increasing as mental capacity increases,

or are you saying that the propencity is in the genome and philosophy explains why it exhibits or not with the consequence that as propencity flourishes the incidence will increase because its "good"?

or...?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

18 Feb 200902:10

ok so given that you are stuck with having to draw on philosophy in describing traits, your postulations rely on examining the propencity for morality as being increased with mental capacity?

or are you saying that morality is hard coded in the genome and is increasing as mental capacity increases,

or are you saying that the propencity is in the genome and philosophy explains why it exhibits or not with the consequence that as propencity flourishes the incidence will increase because its "good"?

or...?

______________________________________________________________

Rather than "saying", I am "exploring".

There is an argument (see references in first posting) that "mirror neurons" and empathy have developed in bonabos and chimps and man and that this is evidence of the evolution of moral social conduct beyond that expressed by animals whose responses are more programmed.

That there has been an evolution of the primate brain, and especially the human brain during the Pleistocene, is unquestioned.

There are extensive studies (mostly with twins) that put the genetic component of behaviour traits equal to or greater than 50%. Similarly, heritability of IQ is put between 50 and 80%.

Arguments exist that altruism can be selected for (and thus be genetic) among close relatives.

But, sociopathy may be heritable on the order of 34%.

My present thinking is that "morality" is both genetic and a matter of shared environment.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

09 Feb 200916:14

Does morality evolve?

"Morality" has been equated with empathy, with principled conduct, with customs and mores, and with altruism. Philosophy thus mixes with biology.

The brain evolves by modification, not by complete innovation. Genes and receptors reflect random chance and natural selection within the social environment of the tribe.

The primatologist Franz de Waal argues (2006) for a continuum in morality among the great apes and humans.

Larry Young (2009) and Zoe Donaldson (2008) see oxytocin and vasopressin receptors as underlying natural variation in social behavior.

To see this in a larger context, see MacLean's Mind and Ideology (2008).
_____________________________________________

Is this a nature nurture argument? If not then why not ask if love evolves? Morality is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is - and that is where God comes in!

Arguably, "love" is a matter of hormones and conditioning.

Law (the big stick) is not the same as morality.

"God" is a postulated logos of the universe and thus a projected idealism.

A more basic query is to ask whether or not morality evolves ( and whether there is teleology at all or whther there is only a great circular flux.

Morality is nothing without god

god is a big stick

Law is nothing without a big stick

Right way wrong way big stick my way

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

07 Feb 200920:22

Is this a nature nurture argument? If not then why not ask if love evolves? Morality is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is - and that is where God comes in!

Ah, but that's not morality, that's realpolitik.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

05 Feb 200910:04

Is this a nature nurture argument? If not then why not ask if love evolves? Morality is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is - and that is where God comes in!

Where did "love" get asked about on this thread?

Since there are also individual and group moralities, etc. it would seem to be a error to equate morality and law.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

07 Feb 200921:03

Where did "love" get asked about on this thread?

Since there are also individual and group moralities, etc. it would seem to be a error to equate morality and law.

Do you believe in lightbulbs?

Morality is all about judgement.

Prove one's judgement is more valid than another's judgement... ...you can't.

So enter stage left (maybe stage right, you choose) god.

Now we have the option of "higher" judgement so now we have a "valid" morality.

You still feel this prerequisite for morality can only be confused with law in error?

Why bother to confuse morality with collective best interest?

Altruism like masochism might not be based on morality?

You are perhaps awkward with love?

Is there no love in morality?

Love and morality are based on judgement.

Morality cannot evolve it is whatever you say/agree/enforce it is.

Morality casts no shadow.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

12 Jul 200821:31

"Primate evolution is implicit in man's brain and behavior. The social structure of baboons facilitates their survival. For example, an established matrilineal class structure exists among females. A lower status among them is not stressful, but the prospect of a change in status is. (Cheney and Seyfarth, 2007). "

Might this mean that the old Catholic idea of fixed occupational classes is a plan for a less-stressful society?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

14 Jul 200820:21

Is it in our genes to have caste systems?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Jan 200920:34

Is it in our genes to have caste systems?

NO, it a possible way of forming a stable society from self-aware individuals.
One of many.

Genes have followed the needs and advantages of any animal that forms social groups. They don't define or set the agenda, that is defined by the logical and logistical possibilities of interactions in a social group, genes merely follow...

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

17 Jul 200820:54

Is it in our genes to have caste systems?

As everyone has different ambitions in life it leads us to be happy at a certain level. This would appear to suggest a built in caste system in so far that if your not happy move on. As soon as someone "settles for" then this puts them in their place, no matter where that place is in society.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

18 Jul 200815:08

That would suggest that the difference is finding a niche within the culture vs. the culture assigning the niche.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

20 Jul 200821:02

That would suggest that the difference is finding a niche within the culture vs. the culture assigning the niche.

only on the surface

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

05 Aug 200818:53

It may or may not be in our genes to have caste systems, they certainly exist, whether they can be explained genetically is interesting.

One point to consider , greater influences on our morality could be the govt, the media, super powers, ie USA, perhaps they exert more influence on more people than anything or anyone else.blackhawk.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

05 Oct 200817:44

External influences ,such as the media, may impact what we think to be moral and may suggest morality to have evolved but is it not possible that humans try to blame external influences for their moral decissions rather than accepting true responsibility for thier ethical choices?

Is it not easier to claim a lack of responsibility for ethical choices due to external influences than to accept certain things may in fact be intrinsically right or wrong?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

14 Nov 200801:47

What about the "Old Catholic" (are you refering to Saul?) and the monkeys?

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

10 Jan 200915:33

If "morality" is based in part on mirror neuron functioning with resultant empathy, to that extent it would be dependent on Darwinian evolution.

I suspect that "morality" is essentially a cultural accomodation of group survival principles.

This came to mind again as I read Illan Pappe's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" (ISBN 978-1-85168-467-0).

This question is this: How could Jews, who had experienced the Holocaust (Shoa) only a few years before, deliberately plan and execute the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land they wanted?

Pappe, who is an historian and professor of political science at Haifa University, posed the question and had no answer. My guess is that, in both cases, the victims were considered to be sub-human. I.e., empathy did not apply.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

17 Jan 200902:35

Some have argued that social customs, traits and outlook behave in a manner similar to Darwinian evolution.

Among the many weakness of this view is that of ideology. Here, there is often a "Designer" at work, together with many "controllers" who benefit from the status, quo or fostered.

Re: The Evolution Of Morality

Archive Comments

19 Jan 200901:23

I think that morality developed primarily as a result of cultural and religious ideals but that caste systems are inherent from our primal origins, i.e. alpha males and famales - and then the rest.

Copyright & revisions

Publication details

Originally published: Friday, 11th July 2008
Last updated on: Friday, 11th July 2008

Copyright information

Body text - Copyrighted: The Open University
Image 'A bronze of Rodin's The Thinker' - Copyrighted: Jupiter Images

Feeds

If you enjoyed this, why not follow a feed to find out when we have new things like it? Choose an RSS feed from the list below. (Don't know what to do with RSS feeds?)
Remember, you can also make your own, personal feed by combining tags from around OpenLearn.

Page Tags

Sign in or create a free account to add tags to your personal tag cloud using:

Ratings

About this site

OpenLearn: free learning from The Open University

Explore with the OU’s experts
Try extracts from course materials
Watch, listen and interact

Sign In Sign Up Help