Earth's evolution contains ethical principles

Quoting Seeker25

Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence.

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought.

Quoting Seeker25

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence.

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature.

As for your practical examples:

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis. Neither does assuming something like censorship is remarkable evolutionarily. I do of course agree that humans and animals need places to live, and that censorship is generally bad. But these examples don't do a very good job of supporting your thesis.

Reply to Seeker25
Let’s grant your thesis that what you’re calling the evolution of the Earth contains important guidance for how humans should behave in order to flourish as a species. Let’s also agree that there are “trends” that can be discovered and used as the basis for that guidance.

Here is what I think you need to argue for:

1. Very few humans give much consideration to the flourishing of the species, and they need reasons – ethical reasons, presumably – why something so abstract should count more than their immediate practical concerns, which may be pursued both successfully and unethically.

2. The trends you’ve isolated are uniformly positive; they can be easily translated into familiar ethical precepts for humans. Isn’t that stacking the deck? Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? If we knew the end of Earth’s story, and it was one in which the positive trends prevailed, we might be justified in putting the current spotlight on them. But for all we know, the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.

Reply to Seeker25 That the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do. Saying otherwise is indulging in the Naturalistic Fallacy (the logical one, not the silly idea that what is natural is good).

Quoting Seeker25

Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify.

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be?

Quoting Seeker25

Thesis

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence.

Firstly, well-written OP — kudos for presenting a cohesive argument. However, I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. It seems to attribute a kind of intentional moral guidance to evolutionary trends, which could be seen as filling the gap left by traditional creation myths. If we look at your Practical Examples, 'evolution' could almost be replaced with 'God' or 'the Creator,' and the text would still resonate, for instance, 'God has endowed us with...'

I don’t mean to imply this as a criticism of personal belief, as I understand you’re presenting this as a secular framework. But I think it's worth questioning whether attributing ethical direction to natural processes risks an overly idealistic optimism. After all, evolutionary processes are not inherently moral; they produce life and diversity, but they also result in competition, predation, and extinction.

It’s a fresh perspective, and I hope these questions don’t come across as too cynical. I just think a pinch of skepticism might help refine this viewpoint and open up further discussion on how we align human ethics with, rather than simply model them on, natural processes.

I would recommend you need to expand your reading. There have been scientific proposals that explore ideas you might find compatible, such as Scientists Propose ‘Law of Nature’ Expanding on Evolution. But evolutionary biology is a very complex subject so don't look for easy answers.

Reply to Seeker25

The word you're looking for is "progress". People used to believe in it.

Quoting Seeker25

Humans have only existed for 0.004% of the Earth’s lifespan. Before formulating principles, it is essential to consider what occurred during the remaining 99.996% of that time.

I take it evolution is a word reserved primarily to describe living things. We could say that the earth evolved from star dust into a fiery ball, but that is metaphor. So before there was life on earth, there was no evolutionary process on earth; evolution happens where living things happen.

Similarly, ethics is a word reserved to describe personal activity. Ethics didn’t exist on earth before people did.

But life and evolution existed before people did. So for ethics to derive from or be bound to evolution, you have to show where ethics lived before people evolved. Life, and for that matter physics, seems to be equal parts generation and decay, hunger and murder before satiation and peace. So it is not clear to me that when ethics arose it was a necessarily related to evolution, just like it is not clear to me that life and evolution arose following a model that could be found in chemistry or physical things that don’t live.

Life is sui generis, arising out of physics/chemistry, but unlike physics/chemistry. With life there arises its own driving forces, namely evolution. Evolution did not arise outside of or before life.
Then humans arose or evolved, and then ethics came to be. Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces, namely good and bad and free agency between them. Just like we can’t look to only chemical reactions to understand “eating” or “reproduction” or “genetic information” found in evolution, we may not be able to look to evolution to explain “murder” and “bad killing versus good killing” in ethics.

Reply to Seeker25 An interesting opening post.

I think it is mistaken to assume evolution is 'good'. I get the gist of what you mean, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"?

There are numerous ways in which this term can be applied and so it is often easy to mistaken one use for another. I think this would be the best place to breakdown into smaller pieces what your interests are and then you will be furnished with the relevant concepts (or perhaps other can assist in providing some for you to adopt or use in opposition to your own views).

GL :)

Quoting Seeker25

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom.

What do you think?

Since I don’t know if you’re knowledgeable of this, it might be of interest to check out an overview of the Gaia Hypothesis, maybe especially when it comes to criticisms of it. There’s no conclusive evidence that it’s a farce but, Cartesian-ly skeptic as most are when it comes to things that don't suit our fancy – and I here include everyone from typical physicalists to typical monotheists - there is also no current conclusive evidence for this hypothesis that would convince the so called “skeptics”.

I’m also not familiar with your general philosophical background on metaphysics, but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving.

If this is so far not off-putting for you, then you might also be interested in C.S. Peirce’s notion of Agapism which can parallel Teilhard’s notion of cosmic evolution in general – both of which can be in general keeping to the former two concepts linked to.

Of one possible concern, all these views can easily be ridiculed as being in some ways teleological – which, as a metaphysical outlook, is grossly unpopular nowadays. (Then again, as the bumper sticker saying goes, Popularity is (or at least can be) a Socially Transmitted Disease.)

I don’t have much to comment on in terms of being pro- or contra- your generalized thesis in the terms you’ve presented. But if you happen to not be familiar with the concepts just specified, the links provided might be of benefit as a relatively easy to read springboard toward further thoughts and ideas.

As to entertaining the notion of "Nature being good” (its evolutionary process included), one here risks being labeled a Nature-worshiper if one did – a deplorable thing to be from the vantage of both physicalists and monotheists alike. Then, to maybe counterbalance this train of thought, there’s a partial lyric one can quote from a song by a former band called Nirvana: “Nature is a whore”. In overview of how I make sense of this quote, it will sustain and support (and in this manner take the side of) those filled with vice just as much as it will those filled with virtue … but this only up to a point, as per an ever increasing global warming that holds the potential to more or less wipe the slate clean of what we, maybe a bit too anthropocentrically, term “sapience”.

Whatever one presumes it to be - good, bad, or just plain ugly in its shear impartiality - I’m certain that Nature, and its evolution via natural selection in general, will persist in being long after we’re all dead and gone to this world. Just as it did long before we appeared.

Quoting Banno

hat the world has evolved in such-and-such a way does not imply what we ought to do.

:up: That's all I had to say, personally.

Reply to Banno :up: :up:

Reply to Seeker25 Here's a topic-adjecent discussion ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/904662

Quoting ToothyMaw

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought.

When we observe animals, we see the results of evolutionary trends in their purest form. They have not been interfered with by intelligent and free beings. When humans appear with our ability to accept or interfere with natural laws, we are faced with a choice: to follow the trends of evolution in pursuit of peaceful coexistence, or to go against them. We are free to choose the desired end. Where will we end up if we go against the trends?

Quoting ToothyMaw

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature.

We, as humans, must accept the existence of a framework, defined by evolutionary trends, that cannot be changed. In our modern world, it is up to us to uncover and understand the circumstances that have shaped our human nature—this is knowledge. However, we can observe the consequences of attempting to go against this framework (such as violence, intolerance of diversity, climate change, etc.). While we, as free beings, have the power to destroy ourselves, we cannot alter the fundamental laws of this framework (ethic principles)

Quoting J

1. Very few humans give much consideration to the flourishing of the species, and they need reasons – ethical reasons, presumably – why something so abstract should count more than their immediate practical concerns, which may be pursued both successfully and unethically

You are right, and it frightens me to think that what you describe reminds me of how our ancestors—the animals—behave: they show little concern for their peers and focused solely on immediate needs. We, as more sophisticated beings, have the capacity to understand and empathize with others. Our ancestors were not endowed with a fully developable consciousness.

Quoting J

2. The trends you’ve isolated are uniformly positive; they can be easily translated into familiar ethical precepts for humans. Isn’t that stacking the deck? Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? If we knew the end of Earth’s story, and it was one in which the positive trends prevailed, we might be justified in putting the current spotlight on them. But for all we know, the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.

It seems to me that your point addresses two different issues:

A. The Problem of Evil: As far as I know, no one has fully explained the existence of evil. In my opinion, most evil arises from human actions that go against evolutionary trends. I have doubts about the second source of evil (such as diseases and the collateral effects of nature), but I believe these could perhaps be explained as deviations from the evolutionary trends.

B.Destructive Trends: You state, “the really significant trends are going to turn out to be the destructive ones.” This, indeed, is a negative point of view, but it can be reframed positively if we recognize that human actions are not the same as evolutionary trends—they are simply the choices of free individuals who may act against long-standing trends. In this context, things begin to make sense. Evolutionary trends are beneficial for humanity, and our goal should be to align our actions with them. I believe we must acknowledge that our freedom is so vast that we have the power to decide how we want our world to end up.

Quoting Banno

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be?

Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts. Humans, through their free will, must decide how they want to proceed—"how things ought to be"—considering what has happened in the past and the far-reaching consequences of their choices. We can easily envision two possible scenarios: one in which humans align their decisions with evolutionary trends, leading to peaceful, balanced, and harmonious development; and another where these trends are opposed, resulting in death, freedom only for those in power, economic and social inequality, slavery, widespread pollution, erasure of beauty, etc.

Quoting Seeker25

Humanity is disoriented and unclear about how to act.

Humanity is not a single entity. It is made up of many individuals who each have their own ideas about how to act.

What is considered "ethical" is highly subjective. Whose definition should be accepted?

Quoting Seeker25

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good

Is the evolution of the great white shark into a more efficient killer a good thing?

Quoting Seeker25

Evolutionary trends are beneficial for humanity,

This is the assumption I'm questioning, at least for purposes of argument. Perhaps you need to say more about what an evolutionary trend is? To avoid begging the question, I think you need to give a description of these trends in value-neutral terms, so we can decide for ourselves whether they must necessarily be beneficial for humanity.

Quoting Wayfarer

However, I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. It seems to attribute a kind of intentional moral guidance to evolutionary trends, which could be seen as filling the gap left by traditional creation myths. If we look at your Practical Examples, 'evolution' could almost be replaced with 'God' or 'the Creator,' and the text would still resonate, for instance, 'God has endowed us with...

My approach is based on facts; in this way, I respect different personal beliefs while also proposing a starting platform (the facts explained by scientists) that can achieve broad consensus, regardless of individual beliefs

Quoting Wayfarer

But I think it's worth questioning whether attributing ethical direction to natural processes risks an overly idealistic optimism. After all, evolutionary processes are not inherently moral; they produce life and diversity, but they also result in competition, predation, and extinction

Of course, it is worth questioning whether attributing ethical content to natural evolution is correct or not. To me, it seems like the most solid foundation we have for ethical principles. What other foundations could be more solid than a trend that has persisted for millions of years?
I would say that competition, predation, and extinction are not primary trends; rather, they are mechanisms that drive evolution.

Quoting Srap Tasmaner

The word you're looking for is "progress". People used to believe in it.

Yes, but progress with important qualifications: peaceful, inclusive for all, respecting human dignity, and without violating the trends of evolution.

Quoting Fire Ologist

So before there was life on earth, there was no evolutionary process on earth; evolution happens where living things happen.

I don’t see it the same way. Scientists explain that when the Earth began to cool, the 118 basic elements that came from the stars started combining to form molecules. One of these was water, while others were organic molecules essential for life. The Earth embarked on an evolutionary process that ultimately led to the emergence of life. I don’t know the causes, but we must stick to the facts. Evolution bagan before life

Quoting Fire Ologist

But life and evolution existed before people did. So for ethics to derive from or be bound to evolution, you have to show where ethics lived before people evolved

Your question about where ethics resided before life is well-posed, but I don’t know the answer—just as I don’t know where intelligence, life, or consciousness were, and yet no one doubts that all three exist. To progress in a complex line of reasoning like this, we cannot demand that everything be perfectly clear. Ultimately, we will need to assess whether the hypothesis makes sense, whether it explains what is happening in the world, and whether we can draw conclusions about how we, and the humanity, ought to act.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Evolution did not arise outside of or before life.
Then humans arose or evolved, and then ethics came to be. Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces

An OP is necessarily limited in length. In a future post, I will explore some topics in greater depth.

Reply to Seeker25 You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be.

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be.

This is a gap in your argument.

Quoting Seeker25

We can easily envision two possible scenarios: one in which humans align their decisions with evolutionary trends, leading to peaceful, balanced, and harmonious development; and another where these trends are opposed, resulting in death, freedom only for those in power, economic and social inequality, slavery, widespread pollution, erasure of beauty, etc.

That comment shows a very deep misapprehension of evolution.

Quoting Banno

You entirely missed the point. Sure, science tells us how things are. It does not tell us how they ought be.

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be.

Since your invoking Hume’s guillotine—short of the “is” of The Good, as per platonic or neoplatonic notions—what then might be rationally used to establish what one ought do or what ought be?

Grunts of “yay” and “boo”? But these too are things that are, rather than rational appraisals of what ought to be—and so this too succumbs to the same problem.

I'm not here intending to argue for The Good, just point out what I so far take to be obvious.

Quoting Seeker25

My approach is based on facts;

Not at all. It's based on sentiment.

Reply to javra That's not germane here. You can see my opinion in other threads.

Quoting Wayfarer

Not at all. It's based on sentiment.

Yep. Scientism as a faith.

Quoting Seeker25

Yes, but progress with important qualifications: peaceful, inclusive for all, respecting human dignity, and without violating the trends of evolution.

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Which is more consistent with evolutionary trends, promoting the benefit of all, or eugenics?

Quoting wonderer1

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Which is more consistent with evolutionary trends, promoting the benefit of all, or eugenics?

Most people seem pretty content with this though. Those who are happy for a night of physical pleasure can get someone/become impregnated. Those, who found their "companion" and want to procreate more life, live on. Most "everyday folk" think this is good. The ones that don't procreate, don't have this pleasure/happiness, according to the happy-parental folk.

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon.

Reply to Seeker25 You should be looped in the above:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/947684

Quoting Banno

?javra
That's not germane here. You can see my opinion in other threads.

Not at all. It's based on sentiment. — Wayfarer

Yep. Scientism as a faith.

If you say so. Still, to make my former point a bit clearer, in the absence of an “is” which grounds our “oughts”, all systems of ethics can be decried as sentimental—this rather than rational. One could for example apply Hume’s guillotine even to virtue ethics: the difference between concrete instantiations of “what virtue is” (which, to be clear, can be as relative as anything else) versus “what virtue ought to be”, the latter so that one might for instance become more virtuous than one currently is. The first will not ground the second, except via sentiment—i.e., except via emotion rather than reason—not when there’s a complete absence of something like The Good being a globally existential “is” toward which one should aspire, in this case so as to gain greater virtue.

Why I brought this up: While the OP poster's arguments are full of gaps in what he has so far written, his general outlook appears to me to lean toward the virtuous, or else to aspire toward it. I want to cut @Seeker25 some slack, and am point out that the argument of Hume’s guillotine to too broad in that it applies to all ethical systems devoid of an ultimate objective Good that existentially is.

I don’t sponsor his arguments so far, but, to try to take his side, here is a trivial example of how evolution and ethics can converge:

Consider three possible types of ice-cream: a) ice-cream comprised of cyanide, b) ice-cream comprised of dirt, and c) ice-cream comprised of nutrients. Type (a), (b), and (c) otherwise all have the same delicious flavor to our tastebuds due to the latest innovations in chemistry. Save for death-yearning folk and their ilk, all will readily deem the consumption of (a) unethical—one would not be virtuous to give it to another so that they might trustingly eat of it, for example. As to those who knowingly choose to eat it, evolution selects against their being, leaving only non-cyanide consuming humans behind. Type (b) is not as bad, for it does not kill. But your and your friends’ indigestion upon eating it will in effect be a reduction of health, and hence of eudemonia (wellbeing). Whereas type (c) will not be unethical to consume whenever the cravings for a moderate amount of ice-cream emerge. All this by way of who we are due to the forces of natural selection which has shaped our current being.

There are certain human behaviors—say the gleeful perpetuation of genocides against the Other, gross misinformation that destroys all trust in what is real, the launching of nuclear weapons in today’s world, etc.—which in many ways parallel ice-cream type (a): they lead to the destruction of life. Other human behaviors, like the addiction to substances, will parallel ice-cream type (b): they will not kill but will reduce general wellbeing. And certain human behaviors can be likened to ice-cream type (c): they will improve wellbeing when acted out in their own proper contexts. Behaviors (a) will be unethical, behaviors (b) will be less than ethical, and behaviors (c) will in its proper contexts be ethical. And all this will be bound to the evolved forms of life that we are and to the very evolutionary constraints that has led to our current being as humans. Yes, there’s competition in nature, and the competition piques our interest generally, but there is far more cooperation in nature which is usually taken for granted in full: for starters, every multicellular organism is a cooperation between individual living beings we call somatic cells. (Place an individual somatic cell in a pastry dish with sufficient required stimulation and nutrients and it will live out its life just fine—I’ve at least been told this is the case for neurons.)

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational. But behind this sentiment there is yet some inkling of convergence between evolution and ethics: the destruction of our species from within or else from without we deem not good and hence unethical (well, most sane people do), and there is little denying that natural selection has selected for this in us humans over eons. But natural selection is not an omnipotent god that determines all aspects of what we do. And if our species does become destroyed, natural selection will continue doing what it has always done: select for life that best conforms to its ever-changing contextual realities, which sapience tends to excel at (at least when its head isn’t buried in a donkey’s behind).

And evolution doesn’t operate on bodily physiology alone; it works on the behaviors of life galore.

Again, this isn’t an argument I will defend tooth and bone, but I do want to cut @Seeker25 some slack here. And preliminarily chopping down his arguments by evoking Hume’s guillotine and thereby decrying it as sentimental is overkill—in that Hume’s guillotine equally applies to all appraisals of ethics which do not incorporate an objective Good that is and that is to be aspired toward.

Reply to Seeker25

I am sympathetic to your instincts and the direction of your argument. But I am mindful of the difficulties. to take simple example, Dinosaurs roamed the earth and dominated the fauna for millions of years, and then rather suddenly died out, and were eventually replaced by mammals. What was their sin? Pride, perhaps?

You might like to look into eco-philosophy a little, not much discussed or represented on this site, unfortunately. Try this maybe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Næss
Lots of links there to follow up if you are interested. One advantage of this kind of approach is that it avoids the separation of human and natural interests.

The judgement that evolution makes is survival or extinction. Easy enough from there to say that survival is good and extinction is bad, (from the pov of life, at least) but you see at once the difficulty - the judgement is always provisional and temporary and may be reversed tomorrow - see dinosaurs above.

The industrial revolution seemed like a good idea at the time, and led to human growth; now, some of us are wondering ...

In emotivist's ethical principle, morality is for emotions, not beliefs or facts. Therefore when you say something is morally good means same thing as saying "boo" or "hooray".

So, which ethical principle were you talking about here?

Reply to 180 Proof I got a ping... Just confirming it was accidentally tagging me rather htan Banno for that quote above your post?

I would like to thank you for your comments and the links you’ve shared, which help me identify weaknesses in my original post (OP) and demand greater precision. The OP is a text meant to outline a topic, but it is not the appropriate document for detailed arguments. I will attempt to address your observations in four posts:

1. Evolution and Trends (this post)
2. Trends and the Ethical Principles derived from them
3. From facts to what ought to be
4. Worldview from this perspective

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting I like sushi

what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"?

Quoting javra

but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving.

Quoting J

Perhaps you need to say more about what an evolutionary trend is?

EVOLUTION AND TRENDS

One of the frequently discussed issues is that my understanding of evolution and trends is not clearly explained.

- Evolution refers to the journey our planet has undergone over 4.6 billion years, from the initial “incandescent ball” to our 21st century.

- Trend refers to the predominant direction or course that a phenomenon or behavior follows over time. Its parameters are duration, magnitude, and volatility.

By trends of evolution, I mean the sequence of events that have consistently followed the same direction throughout Earth’s evolution. I do not consider isolated events, such as the existence of dinosaurs, cosmic cataclysms, or the Neanderthals, to be trends. These phenomena are examples of the volatility within a trend.

I only regard as trends those of enormous magnitude or “force,” such as the tendency toward life or diversity. After the five cosmic cataclysms that wiped out 80-90% of species, life and diversity continued. This suggests that there are trends of enormous magnitude.

Even powerful trends exhibit volatility. Sometimes, a tsunami or an infection wipes out many lives, but this does not negate the existence of the trend. As some of you have noted, there are also destructive events and suffering, and this is true. However, these are not major trends; many are consequences of human actions contrary to evolution, while others are collateral effects. We cannot equate deaths caused by violence (a result of human action) with births (a trend toward life).

I believe there is a distinction between a trend and the mechanisms that enable evolution, such as natural selection or adaptation to the environment.

I have deliberately avoided delving into the deeper causes that might have generated these trends, as this is a matter of personal belief, a domain we must all respect. Setting aside these deeper causes allows people with different beliefs to freely interpret and draw conclusions about the facts explained by science.

Although I have no arguments to prove it, since it involves estimating the future, common sense leads me to believe that these trends will not change. Life will continue, living beings will keep dying, diversity will not give way to homogeneity, and so on. Long-standing, powerful trends are well-established and are unlikely to change.

Quoting Seeker25

Thesis

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence.

Alfred Lord Tennyson's phrase "red in tooth and claw" refers to the savage and merciless conflict in nature, or the struggle to survive in the wild. Darwin postulated that living organisms are perpetually embroiled in a "struggle for existence." For him, struggle and violence drove evolutionary advancement.

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends?

Quoting Agree-to-Disagree

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends?

Quoting Corvus

So, which ethical principle were you talking about here?

Quoting wonderer1

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution.

Quoting ToothyMaw

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis

Quoting J

Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death?

Quoting Wayfarer

I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization.

Quoting Fire Ologist

Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces,

Quoting J

I think you need to give a description of these trends in value-neutral terms, so we can decide for ourselves whether they must necessarily be beneficial for humanity.

[i]SECOND POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST)
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective[/i]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. TRENDS AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM THEM
Below are the main trends observed in evolution, along with some of the ethical principles they implicitly carry.

INCLINATION TOWARD LIFE
Despite the volatility of this trend, marked by epidemics, natural disasters, wars, etc., the Earth has evolved from no living beings to 8 billion people, plus countless animals and plants.

Ethical Principles: Respect for life. Preservation of habitats, both natural and artificial (urban planning). Peace and stability to allow life to thrive. Promotion of health and well-being.

DIVERSITY
Scientists estimate there may be between 8.7 and 10 million species, with many yet to be discovered. Once, Earth was a molten mass devoid of life. Clearly, maintaining diversity is a crucial trend.

Ethical Principles: Respect for the diversity of races, cultures, beliefs, opinions, and sexual orientations. Opposition to persecution or suppression of differing opinions. Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation.

LIFE IS FRAGILE AND EPHEMERAL
Life's brevity is a constant. We participate in evolution for a limited time, and no one is expected to be eternal.

Ethical Principles: Acceptance of death as a natural part of life. Embracing aging without undue attempts to prolong life artificially. Practicing humility over arrogance, recognizing the transience of our existence.

BALANCE
Evolution is a delicate balance that must be maintained. Disruptions can endanger life, as seen with climate change or migration.

Ethical Principles: Humans must address the imbalances they cause: climate change, resource overexploitation, water management, socioeconomic inequalities, balance food and population.

SOCIALIZATION
We’ve evolved from small, isolated tribes to large urban conglomerates. Coexistence is inevitable and must be managed.

Ethical Principles: Promote cooperation and harmonious coexistence. Balance individual rights with those of others. Develop mutual respect and empathy.

MUTUAL DEPENDENCE
Parallel to socialization, we’ve moved from self-sufficiency to total interdependence. Life today depends on the cooperation of countless anonymous individuals.

Ethical Principles: Respect for all humans and recognition of others’ dignity. Defense of others’ rights and sharing resources to sustain those who enable our lives. Prioritizing collective benefit over individual gain.

BEAUTY
Throughout evolution, the universe's manifestations have aligned with human perception, generating an objective beauty that few dispute. Human-created beauty, however, is subjective.

Ethical Principles: Respect and preserve beauty as it fosters peaceful coexistence. Avoid environmental degradation. Promote classical arts and conserve human-made beauty. Protect the planet’s natural splendor.

FREEDOM
A human attribute developed through evolution, partially seen in higher animals but reaching its zenith in humans. Our freedom even allows us to challenge life-giving trends. Yet, power often leads to the suppression of others’ freedoms.

Ethical Principles: No one should usurp another's freedom. Respect others' freedoms. Responsibility in voting, as politicians legislate individual freedoms. Demand regular elections. Ensure a fair judicial system.

INTELLIGENCE
Evolution has fostered intelligence, with signs in higher animals, and now manifests in eight billion human brains worldwide. However, evolution does not provide information for optimal individual intellectual functioning. Knowledge is produced by humans.

Ethical Principles: Organize to create and share knowledge (schools, universities). Knowledge dissemination reduces inequality and promotes adaptation. Developing intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for humanity’s well-being (must be combined with consciousness). Combat fake news as it disrupts intellectual processes.

CONSCIOUSNESS
This attribute allows humans to perceive their surroundings, understand themselves, and decide how to act. Its development is lifelong, setting humans apart from animals and fostering a holistic view of the cosmos, nature, and humanity. It complements and connects all other trends.

Ethical Principles: Educate and promote consciousness to improve awareness of the environment and others' needs. Every conscious being deserves respect, regardless of their limitations or circumstances. Individuals are accountable for their actions. Promote justice. Power should not rest with those lacking the consciousness to understand their environment or others' needs

I don't have a lot of time to dive into what you're saying, but you might find this post of mine links into yours. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Quoting Seeker25

Respect for life

Quoting Seeker25

Promotion of health and well-being.

Quoting Seeker25

Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation.

Which forms of life should we respect?
mammals - (eukaryotes - animals)
birds - (eukaryotes - animals)
fish - (eukaryotes - animals)
reptiles - (eukaryotes - animals)
insects - (eukaryotes - animals)
roundworms (eukaryotes - animals)

monocots - (eukaryotes - plants)
dicots - (eukaryotes - plants)

bakers yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)
fission yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)

giardia protozoa - (eukaryotes)
malaria parasite - (eukaryotes)
red algae - (eukaryotes)
slime molds - (eukaryotes)

cyanobacteria - (bacteria)
thermus / deinococcus - (bacteria)
aquificaceae - (bacteria)
thermotogales - (bacteria)
protrobacteria - (bacteria)
chlamydiales - (bacteria)
GBF / green sulfur bacteria - (bacteria)
spirochaeles - (bacteria)
actinobacteria - (bacteria)
firmicutes - (bacteria)

crenarchaeota - (archaea)
euarchaeota - (archaea)

Health and well-being of which forms of life?

Minimizing confrontation with which forms of life? Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals for human consumption?

Quoting Seeker25

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST)

What do Ethical Principles mean? What is the relationship between ethical principles and trends? Why are they relevant?

[i]THIRD POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends

2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them

3.From facts to how things should be (THIS POST)

4. A worldview from this perspective[/i]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting ToothyMaw

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective.

Quoting Banno

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be?

Quoting Banno

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be.

Quoting schopenhauer1

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon.

Quoting javra

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational.

3.- FROM FACTS TO HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE

Evolution will maintain its tendencies; it has always been so and will continue to be. These tendencies provide the framework within which we must act. As you rightly point out, I must justify how we move from the facts established by science to the realm of "ought."

Tendencies are an easily perceptible reality. To determine how the future ought to be, we must establish values, ethical principles, or ideals.

Several contemporary theories, in my view, justify this transition:

Moral Realism: As I explained in the previous post, ethical values are embedded within the very tendencies of evolution.

Ethical Constructivism: Criteria emerge from social agreements. I am convinced that, among people who have developed their consciousness (those who interpret their environment correctly, have delved into their own selves, and understand their place in the world) there would be a broad consensus, despite differing cultures or beliefs, that one cannot act against the tendencies of evolution. What model of humanity would they consider as a goal? It would probably be one where many of the previously outlined ethical principles converge.

Pragmatism: I believe the goal we should set, as it benefits the greatest number of people, could be defined as follows: the peaceful progress of a diverse and multicultural humanity.

In my opinion, the ethical principles derived from evolution trends remain consistent across all three perspectives.

What I am certain of is that humanity has no future if it acts against the tendencies of evolution. This includes actions such as: killing, destroying beauty, eliminating the diversity of ideas and cultures, prioritizing confrontation over cooperation, allowing power to override individual freedoms, maintaining socioeconomic inequalities, spreading misinformation to hinder intellectual development, and so on.

[i]FOURTH POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective (THIS POST)[/i]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.- A VISION OF THE WORLD FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE

From the previous reflections, it follows that we can view the world from a different and practical perspective, one that allows us to glimpse the current problems of humanity.

In the realm of philosophy, theories are validated by their logic, clarity, coherence, and capacity to explain facts. I believe my thesis meets these criteria.

Although knowledge advances, we are far from understanding the universe, our planet, and life. What is undeniable is that all of this is vastly superior to us and far beyond our comprehension.

What we do know, thanks to science, is how our planet has evolved. These are facts that, once established by science, it is up to humans to interpret and draw conclusions from. It seems obvious, and I think we can agree, that there are very consistent trends, that will not change and which we must necessarily accept. Trends have their own irregularities (volatility)

These trends are beneficial to humanity. If we were to go back 2.5 million years, when humans did not yet exist and no one could interfere with these trends, would we classify any of what was happening as "bad"? I think we would have acknowledged that evolution was yielding positive results, even if there were aspects we didn’t fully understand—such as animals feeding on others or natural phenomena (like a volcanic eruption) ending the lives of some living beings. Personally, I believe that these seemingly incongruent elements are due to the volatility of the trends and do not invalidate the overall goodness of evolution.

A few million years later, humans appeared, endowed with freedom, intelligence, and the ability to develop consciousness. These three attributes are positive, and it seems to me that the trends of evolution continue to be beneficial. However, from the moment we learned to use our freedom, the situation began to deteriorate, leading to our current uncertain era. Even though we have existed for only 0.004% of Earth's life, many believe they can oppose the trends of evolution, imposing their personal criteria and selfishness through force, be it political, economic, religious, media-driven, or otherwise.

A key element in understanding what is happening to us is that, whether we consider evolutionary trends good or not, it is impossible to build a stable world by acting against the evolution. Evidence of this is that when a political regime goes against evolution, it can only sustain itself by imprisoning dissenters, censoring information, and creating a significant repressive system.

Another fundamental concept is that the greatest challenges to evolution, and therefore to the world’s stability, arise when power is combined with unconsciousness (the inability to interpret and empathize with the environment).

To promote change, it is essential to share knowledge and truthful information with all of humanity and encourage the development of individual consciousness.

Humanity will be what we humans decide it to be. If we make the wrong decisions, we may disappear, but the trends of evolution will continue.
_______________________

To those who share, even partially, my thesis, I suggest that we consider the possibility of working together to review and strengthen it. Additionally, we could study what should be done to reverse the situation, a topic on which I have some ideas.

Quoting Seeker25

Moral Realism: As I explained in the previous post, ethical values are embedded within the very tendencies of evolution.

Moral realism is the view that ethical statements are either true or false. It is opposed to such notions as emotivism, which sees them as neither true nor false but as expressions of one's feelings. It is not the view that ethical tendencies are embedded in evolution. See SEP.

Quoting Seeker25

...one cannot act against the tendencies of evolution.

There are, for example, antinatalists in this forum who will say rational considerations show that ending human evolution is a net good. So one might well act against the "tendencies of evolution".

Seems to me that the is/ought distinction remains. You have not provided a way to move from how things are to how things ought to be, apart from your own predilections.

Even supposing that there are such things, why ought we follow evolutionary tendencies?

Quoting Seeker25

Your question about where ethics resided before life is well-posed, but I don’t know the answer—just as I don’t know where intelligence, life, or consciousness were, and yet no one doubts that all three exist.

My question was actually where ethics resided before persons.

You seem to be saying ethics is imbedded in evolution, or more generally, in life.

Looking at earth’s history, we can say chemical reactions were followed by biological reactions, so from physics, we get something new called life.

And we can say that with life came the evolutionary forces, arising when the first RNA behavior moved into DNA behavior (billions of years ago on earth). So life and its evolution were once new, sui generis. Before that time, there was no life and so no evolutionary forces. There was no “eating” to “grow” or “reproduce” in any strict sense of these words before there were a living things, not just chemical things.

Then we can say the evolutionary forces led to a species that contained the human person, and from this species the universe had something new again, called the person. There were new forces again such as “meaningful words” and “ethics” and “immoral actions” and “ought” “self-awareness of logic” and “math science”. These new forces (words) did not exist prior to persons, like eating did not exist prior to life and evolution.

If we want to talk about “eating” or “reproduction” or “sensation” or “growing to adulthood” we have to look at living things, and if we look only to chemical/physical things, we will never see these things at all. (Not in a non-metaphorical, non-post-hoc, strict sense.). Similarly, if we want to talk about “ethics” we have to look at persons; and if we look only at evolutionary activity and/or chemical activity, we will never see “evil” or “morality” or “something that ought not to exist.”

The entire universe is innocent of ethics. Except for wherever a person is. Just like the entire universe contains no evolution, except where life exists.

How life sparked from chemicals - I have no idea.
How persons sparked from life - I have no idea.
How ethics sparked from persons - I have no idea.

But I don’t see how ethics could skip over the personal and spark from life itself.

Thank you, @Banno and @Fire Ologist, for your posts, which I will address together.

As I mention in my profile, my background is in economics, not philosophy. I enjoy the world of philosophy because it helps me to reason correctly. I dedicate time to trying to understand the world and, above all, to seeing if I can contribute to improving it. I seek, with rigor, concepts and procedures that can generate practical actions.

@Banno I have delved deeper into the ideas I had about Moral Realism, read the SEP article, and concluded that you are right: I understand that it is not possible to deduce unequivocally an "ought" from the tendencies of evolution. However, it is not possible to deduce that ethical principles derived from evolution are false. I also mentioned two other theories in defense of my thesis: Ethical Constructivism and Pragmatism. Do these theories (presented in post 3 of 4) justify the claim that the "ought" can be deduced from evolutionary tendencies?

@Fire Ologist I would say that evolution begins long before life appears, specifically, it starts with the Big Bang.

I agree with most of your post and with the idea that ethics manifests with humans. Of course, I also ask myself: how does ethics emerge?

Science explains to us, and we all admit, that an atom contains virtually no matter and is mostly energy (even though we perceive matter), it explains that chemical reactions transformed into biological reactions, that genes contain all the instructions for the development of life, and that intelligence and consciousness emerged. Today, we cannot explain how these significant qualitative leaps occur. I do not know where ethics begins to emerge, just as I do not know where the instructions that eventually end up encoded in genes and enable the development of very complex lives begin to form. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter so much when these events began to occur; rather, what matters is that there is a tendency in evolution that generates them.

Banno and Fire Ologist, I believe that, in the current state of science, if we want to delve into the issues we are discussing, we have a valuable source of information in analysing the reality of evolution and, above all, its tendencies, as these are the real manifestations of what we do not fully understand. We do not know their origin well, nor can we explain the qualitative leaps, but we can observe the direction they take, and it is this direction that matters.

In my world (the world of business and economics) decisions are constantly made without all the necessary information (as it is impossible to have it all), simply because they appear logical. It is only after implementation that their results become clear. This system allows us to move forward, although we make mistakes that must be promptly addressed.

Although it is not a philosophical demonstration either, I believe that the paradigm I propose is logical, coherent, explains what is happening in the world, and indicates the guidelines for how we should act. In summary, it is as follows:

• The Earth evolves according to tendencies that, thanks to science, we know.
• These tendencies are of great magnitude; they will not change on their own, nor can we change them.
• When we act in the same direction as these tendencies, we foster humanity’s positive evolution. When we act against them, we harm it. The benefit or harm is proportional to the power we wield.
• If we want to improve humanity, we must do so without going against these tendencies. We can achieve improvement by appropriately disseminating truthful information and knowledge. At the same time, it is necessary to promote the development of individual consciousness.

Even if it is not a philosophical demonstration, does this paradigm make sense?

Quoting Seeker25

Evolution generates diversity. Silencing, re-educating, or imprisoning those who express a different opinion goes against evolution. We must facilitate the integration of diversity, not reject it.

Consider any organized structure, whether machine or organism, and its functions. In order to conserve that complex function/structure you have to protect is from forces that undermine/degrade/destroy it.

The body is pretty good at keeping out all that diversity which would get in the way of its self-preservation.

The global capitalist paradigm, preceded by state conquest, has done much to eliminate cultural and biological diversity. Why isn't this just another trend of evolution? Any form of complex life that collapses leaves behind space for new diversity. Nature is indifferent to what comes next, even if the long term universal evolutionary trend is increased complexity.

In Hawaii we've constant waves of types of biological epidemics, since new organisms are being introduced all the time. Displacement of species occurs all the time. Right now the Coconut Rhino beetle is pretty much destroying a range of large palms. If we're impartial to species, we could analogize this as a plague which may end up killing a majority of individuals.

The introductions of new molecules (PFAs/PFOs/plastics) to the evolutionary playing field is the generation of new kind of diversity but it comes at the trade-off of current biological function (human health). If we poison ourselves too much, we're forced to evolve by either artificial or natural selection.

Quoting Seeker25

However, it is not possible to deduce that ethical principles derived from evolution are false.

What it tells us is that one cannot derive ethical principles from evolution. If what you are espousing is some combination of pragmatism and constructivism, then say so and stop there, without the pretence that evolution somehow provides your imperative.

Quoting Seeker25

• The Earth evolves

I have trouble right out of the gate. I don't see that evolution occurs outside of life. The earth doesn't evolve.

We can use the word "evolve" metaphorically to describe a change, but it is just metaphor. You need mutation, so you need reproduction, to evolve. You need survival impulses and the death of weak individuals and reproduction of the strong individuals, to evolve. You need the interaction of living things and their environment for evolutionary forces to bring about new adaptations. Without living things, there is no adaptation. The misshapen form of a planet doesn't adapt to gravity and evolve to be spherical.

In fact, evolutionary forces allow trees to defy gravity. So if the unifying forces of gravity were the ethical law of the land, life and evolution, in trees and birds, would be unethical!

Equating all change with evolution, is like equating all destruction with death; and all emergence with birth. It makes for nice poetry and metaphor to speak of the birth of sun, and to see the destruction of a comet that falls into the sun as the death of a shooting star, but we are not talking science anymore, but poetry. You crash a care into a wall and total it. You don't actually kill the car. The car isn't evolving into some other use for the steal it is made of.

And just like we can't use mere physics and gravity and speed to explain how dolphins evolved to be seafaring creatures from land-based creatures, we can't use evolutionary forces too explain how personal interactions have an ethical component to them.

Quoting Seeker25

• The Earth evolves according to tendencies that, thanks to science, we know.
• When we act in the same direction as these tendencies, we foster humanity’s positive evolution.

If ethics is to be discovered in the tendencies of natural world, even absent any persons, in evolution, then all of our human ethical norms become so forced and contrived. Why is it wrong to murder? Because life seeks to beget life and evolution tells us so? No! Life also kills and eats dinner, or males hurt and shun rivals and kill their offspring to prompt new reproduction. Life leads to more miscarriages than births. Sometimes the stronger ones are killed and the weak ones reproduce. From what I can tell, nature and evolution give us no clue as to what is good versus bad, and how one ought to act versus how one has evolved to act.

Ethics is confined to the world that exists between persons. The rest of the universe and all of history before persons is devoid of ethics, innocent of its possible judgment. Since persons evolved to walk the earth, since that time, only persons have discovered a disconnect between how something is and how something ought to be. And we didn't just discover this gap between what is and what ought to be; we made it, when we did what we ought not do. We created the first gap between "is" and "ought". We created the first injustice in nature. We probably started hiding things, leading others to believe something to be the case that actually they ought not believe, because they were hiding the truth that they alone knew. Lies and hiding - words representing nothingness as if it were somethingness - this is the initiation of "ethics." Maybe?

Quoting Seeker25

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence.

I think you have mixed up your cause and effect. It's the other way around. The laws and principals that "regulate" nature gave rise to the diversity of life on earth.

Quoting Seeker25

whereas genocide is simply an act contrary to evolution,

Every genocide ever carried out was done with the express fear that if the "other" were not exterminated, the survival of the exterminating group was threatened. So, if done in the interests of survival, it does seem to fit evolutionary principles.

Quoting Seeker25

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom.

Interesting thought. But I am not sure that I accept your premise that there are things that align, or oppose, or are indifferent to the process of evolution. The theory of evolution merely says that life changes over time. The acts of humans only affect this in so far as they change the environment in which evolution is taking place.

Quoting Nils Loc

The global capitalist paradigm, preceded by state conquest, has done much to eliminate cultural and biological diversity. Why isn't this just another trend of evolution?

I believe we are saying similar things. The difference lies in our perspectives.

I argue that the Earth's evolution (4.6 billion years) follows certain trends, one of which is generating diversity. What you are saying is true, but it doesn't rise to the level of a trend, as it concerns very specific events during the brief period humans have existed (which is just 0.004% of the elapsed time). If we categorize human actions as trends or give them excessive relevance "on a cosmic scale," nothing makes sense.

Let me put it another way: our planet evolves, creating life, beauty, intelligence, freedom, etc. But none of this makes sense if we consider it all to be the seed of its destruction. From my perspective, if we view it differently, everything aligns: evolution produces free and intelligent humans who can choose either to follow certain trends or to challenge them. Our destiny depends on our ability to understand where we are and how we should behave. Hence the importance of recognizing certain references; I suggest the great trends.

Quoting Nils Loc

Nature is indifferent to what comes next, even if the long term universal evolutionary trend is increased complexity.

This makes sense on a conceptual level, and it even seems logical, but the facts prove to be different: nature does indeed lay the groundwork for what comes next (if humans don't manage to destroy it). Whales will continue to be born, the intelligence of future generations will not diminish, if we stop polluting the atmosphere, the climate will recover, natural beauty will continue to exist, and so on. I don't know why, but long standing trends will continue.

Quoting Banno

If what you are espousing is some combination of pragmatism and constructivism, then say so and stop there, without the pretence that evolution somehow provides your imperative.

Agreed: ethical "imperatives" cannot be deduced from evolution. They are merely criteria that humans may choose to ignore. However, we can also consider that they provide insights into how we should behave. It seems to me that all other sources of ethical principles proposed by philosophers are similar in this regard. After all, it is human free will that is ultimately responsible for managing our world.

Quoting Fire Ologist

I have trouble right out of the gate. I don't see that evolution occurs outside of life. The earth doesn't evolve.

Your comment compelled me to delve deeper into the topic: reviewing philosophical concepts, dictionnaire, and ChatGPT. In the end, I think it’s a semantic issue. In this context, evolution means progressing toward more complex structures; thus, evolution has occurred from the Big Bang to today. However, we must distinguish between physical, chemical, and biological evolution. Biological evolution is an emergent process, and the leap from chemical to biological evolution is called abiogenesis, a key element science seeks to understand.

Quoting Fire Ologist

we can't use evolutionary forces too explain how personal interactions have an ethical component to them

I accept that there is no direct relationship between what has happened in evolution and ethical "ought-to-be." Some of you, with a philosophical background, likely know this better, but it seems to me that ethical "ought-to-be" also cannot be deduced from the various sources of ethical principles proposed throughout history.
.
In my view, the long-term trends of evolution are another source of inspiration for establishing ethical principles: they are universal, timeless, flexible, non-coercive, and demand personal reflection. In my opinion, they have some additional characteristics compared to other sources of ethical principles: their origin lies in science, and they won’t change. We are free to accept or reject them. As a mental exercise, we should consider what would happen if we chose to go against them, that is, instead of preserving life, we eliminate it; instead of fostering diversity, we suppress it; instead of protecting beauty, we destroy it; instead of correcting the imbalances we’ve created (ecological, environmental, socioeconomic) we maintain them; and, instead of recognizing others’ dignity, even though we cannot live without them, we despise them. What could be the consequences of this behaviour?

Quoting Fire Ologist

And we didn't just discover this gap between what is and what ought to be; we made it, when we did what we ought not do. We created the first gap between "is" and "ought". We created the first injustice in nature

I think what you're saying is very accurate. This is precisely humanity's problem: we decide based on our own criteria without fully appreciating the magnitude and persistence of the forces (trends) that affect us.

Quoting Seeker25

...we can also consider that they provide insights into how we should behave.

I don't see how. Why should we do as evolution says?

Quoting Banno

Why should we do as evolution says?

Well, there are times when we don't, at least not the initial response, I guess. When we think through that initial reaction that tells us "I should punch him in the head." But then we think about it, and other factors come into play, and we decide it is not a good idea to punch him in the head.

But - I wonder - are not those second and third thoughts a result of our evolution, too?

Quoting Questioner

I think you have mixed up your cause and effect. It's the other way around. The laws and principals that "regulate" nature gave rise to the diversity of life on earth.

Aren’t we saying the same thing? Let me try to put it in different words: Looking at evolutionary trends, it seems there are laws and principles underlying the entirety of evolution, including the nature and diversity of life.

Quoting Questioner

Every genocide ever carried out was done with the express fear that if the "other" were not exterminated, the survival of the exterminating group was threatened. So, if done in the interests of survival, it does seem to fit evolutionary principles.

Many genocides are not a response to aggression; they are initiatives aimed at transforming diversity into uniformity.

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt).

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness? Instead of giving my opinion, I prefer to pose a few questions for reflection:

• How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory?
• How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face?
• How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival?
• How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser?

Responding to aggression to preserve life is one possible reaction. However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends.

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them. Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions.

Quoting Questioner

The theory of evolution merely says that life changes over time. The acts of humans only affect this in so far as they change the environment in which evolution is taking place.

When I say evolution, I am not referring to Darwin's theory but to the complete evolution that has taken place from the initial incandescent ball of our planet to today. Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution.

Quoting Questioner

are not those second and third thoughts a result of our evolution, too?

Then how do we know which to heed -- the first, second, or third thought? Is the idea supposed to be that there is yet another evolutionary capacity that indicates the correct choice among thoughts?

Quoting Seeker25

What do you think?

I think it's completely anti-scientific and shows a gross lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't care about coexistence at all, and balance is something evolution seems to achieve over long time-scales but evolution can create remarkably unbalanced situations over short time-scales.

There's also a lot of question-begging and logical leaps. It's not very compelling.

Quoting Seeker25

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt).

I think I understand you, and I do appreciate your optimistic position. You are suggesting we need to “evolve beyond our evolution.” But when I see a president elected by appealing to the basest instincts of the population, that gives me pause.

We need to move forward on protecting human rights. We need to move forward on protecting the environment. Yes, this requires particular perspectives. How do we get there?

How can we be more like Estonia? – which scored the highest in the world on both the Human Rights Index and as the most environmentally friendly country in the world.

Quoting Seeker25

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness?

Then we are not aware of what is going on around us. And awareness always has to be the first step to solving any problem.

Quoting Seeker25

How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory?

Territorialism is strong in all of us. There’s the person in the parked spot who takes longer to drive out of it because someone is waiting for it (that’s not me). There’s the teenager who doesn’t want you in their room. And we all feel territorial about our homes.

Invading a country shows territorialism, for sure, but there are others factors at play, including the quest for power. And often, there are economic factors to consider. For example, Putin wants Ukraine’s vast natural resources. So, that would be evolutionary driven, too – the need to provide for your group.

Quoting Seeker25

How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face?

A human insensitive to the suffering of others is still human – but with a psychological deficiency – perhaps the area of their brain responsible for empathy never developed properly because it was never stimulated. Perhaps they suffered trauma as a child and that affected their psychological development.

I think it’s a false premise, though, that animals are unaffected by the problems of others in their group. The pack instinct is strong.

Quoting Seeker25

How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival?

They are probably operating on the same instincts.

Quoting Seeker25

How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser?

Well, they are both about power. But feeding is different from naked power.

Quoting Seeker25

However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends.

Aggression is definitely genetically programmed into us. Here’s a video of an angry baby slapping Dad in bed for snoring too loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmZYChLfVqs

Genocide, as I have already explained, is linked to one group believing their survival depends on the extermination of another group.

Quoting Seeker25

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them.

The question is not whether we should “respect” our baser instincts – it’s like respecting gravity – not something to be respected, it just is - but whether we should defy them, whether we should rise above them. The answer is necessarily, yes. This requires awareness, learning, education, and considered thought.

And also, before any lofty goals can be reached, one’s basic needs for food, shelter, safety must be met. Comfortable people rarely fight.

Quoting Seeker25

Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions.

Definitely agree.

Quoting Seeker25

Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution.

Do you mean when power is used for good?

Quoting J

Then how do we know which to heed -- the first, second, or third thought? Is the idea supposed to be that there is yet another evolutionary capacity that indicates the correct choice among thoughts?

Well, the first thought is usually instinctual and made without thought. The more thought we put into, the more considered and reasonable our reaction will be. Our second and third thought will bring other factors to bear, such as consequences, and I'd say consequences are something that is learned.

But - the process of learning does not exist separate from our neurological capability to do so.

Quoting Seeker25

However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends.

There are probably plenty of occasions in evolutionary history where the overgrowth of a species occurs due to some kind of environmental accident, or new adaptation via the mechanism of selection. Entire species, as an energy source for another, become reduced in population, some go extinct.

Oceanographers record the largest predation event ever observed in the ocean

Here 2.5 million cod ate 10.5 million capelin, 4.2 capelin eaten per cod.

Are predatory events acts of "aggression." If capelin populations can recover, does that excuse the fact that 10.5 million individuals were killed?

In value neutral terms, maybe capelin are just transforming into cod here.

You are just cherry picking "trends" that align with some sense of life/diversity conservation. Nature's means of limiting growth may not be fun. They may appear to us as cruel accidents, if we as a unique species have a sense/duty/forsight for limiting gratuitous harm, while maintaining biodiversity.

Reply to J ...and if evolution can explain anything we chose to do, it explains nothing.

Reply to Questioner?

Quoting Questioner

But - the process of learning does not exist separate from our neurological capability to do so.

Yes, but what we're discussing is whether there's also a neurological capability to discriminate true from false, and right from wrong, in the same way we discriminate red from green, or high pitches from low pitches. That would be extremely useful, but given how often we humans are wrong (in both senses), I'd need a lot of convincing. Rather, it seems to me that, while evolution may give us the capacities to think and learn, we require reasons for saying and doing correct things. We have to find those for ourselves, and the method for doing so is entirely different from consulting hard-wired intuitions.

Quoting Banno

and if evolution can explain anything we chose to do, it explains nothing.

I agree, and see I need to backtrack on my comments a bit. What the above observation brings to my mind is our great creative power. The mind can create. We can take two unconnected thoughts, perceptions, or memories, and combine them to make something new. Einstein called this “combinatory play” and he said it is the main element of all productive thought.

And I think our great predictive power works in our favour, too. We are able to imagine alternate possible futures, and then make our decision based on which future we prefer.

Quoting J

whether there's also a neurological capability to discriminate true from false, and right from wrong, in the same way we discriminate red from green, or high pitches from low pitches.

Well put. Clearly, the first two examples are subjectively decided, whereas the last two examples are objectively decided. And a subjective point-of-view can have a thousand things influencing it.

Quoting J

we require reasons for saying and doing correct things

Agree, and this seems to suggest the very human tendency to ask, “Why?”

Quoting J

We have to find those for ourselves, and the method for doing so is entirely different from consulting hard-wired intuitions.

We find no answers outside of our brain, whether it is in the hard-wired or soft-wired parts.

Reply to Seeker25 How does the notion of consent factor into your theory?

Quoting Banno

I don't see how. Why should we do as evolution says?

Why not?

Here are the reasons why I think we should follow these trends:

• They are powerful, and neither will they change, nor can we change them. It is better to accept them and adapt intelligently to the 21st century.

• If we aim to act in accordance with these trends, including using reason to put them into practice, we must behave in ways like those suggested by many philosophers who have addressed ethical principles.

• It is reasonable to have doubts about whether we should follow them or not, but I don't think anyone can prove they are harmful to humanity's future.

Recognizing these trends could be a way to spark some consensus among humanity, as they benefit many, are easy to explain and understand, and naturally encourage compliance. However, we should not expect power structures to contribute, as their interests often diverge from those of humanity

Reply to Seeker25 Candidly, evolution is appealing becasue it offers folk a way to avoid responsibility for their choices.

I do not think there exist any moral principles if an entirely evolutionary account of our development is true. This is because of a distinction - often missed in the moral domain - between appearances and reality. An evolutionary account of our development would include an account of how it was adaptive for us - or rather, our ancestors - to get the impression that some ways of behaving are called for, and others forbidden (and called for and forbidden by some external authority). But that is not an evolutionary account of how morality developed. No. It is an evolutionary account of how it conferred an advantage on our ancestors for reality to 'appear' to them to have a moral aspect to it. No mention is made of morality itself. And so an evolutionary account of our development makes no mention of any real moral principles or values, just the appearance of such things.

To suppose that an evolutonary account of our development somehow vindicates the reality of morality is, I think, every bit as confused as thinking that an evolutionary account of how it people got the impression there was a god or gods vindicates religious beliefs. That is to say, it does not vindicate them at all, but undermines them.

To elaborate further, consider the difference between the size, shape and location of physical things versus their colour. It would have conferred a reproductive advantage on our ancestors to develop faculties of sense that gave them fairly accurate impressions of the size, shape and location of physical things in their immediate environment. Why? Because if you make systematic errors in judgement about those things, then you'll be killed by those physical objects quite rapidly. Your reproductive career will be over before it began.

That account is vindicatory of the impressions of the size, location and shape of things (at least in our immediate environment). That is to say, such an evolutionary account explains why our sight and touch will be fairly accurate in what they tell us about the size, shape and location of things immediately around us.

But now consider colour. Although seeing things as coloured would aid in us being able to perceive their size, shape and location, it wouldn't matter what particular colours things are. What would matter is just that we perceive them to have some colour and that we perceive contrasts. Specific colours would not particularly mater. And thus, an evolutionary account of the development of our faculty of sight would give us reason to think that the actual colour of things in reality may not very reliably match the colours we perceive things to have.....in fact, parsimony would favour us concluding that in reality nothing has any colour at all and that colours are projections of our mind that enable our faculty of sight to work, but are not features of the things we perceive by means of them.

So that's a debunking account of colour: given an evolutionary account of our development, it is more reasonable to suppose colour is not a feature of reality but a projection of our mind.

Thus thought our sight gives us the impression there are coloured, sized, located and shaped things, it is acutally only the size, location and shape that we have reason to think are real features of teh mind-independent objects, not colour.

The impression there are moral principles and moral values is akin to the visual impression of a coloured world. It conferred an advantage on our ancestors to get the impression things were coloured, but not because things are actually coloured, but because that way they could get the impression of the actual size, shape and location of things (features things really have). And likewise, getting the impression there are moral principles conferred an advantage because it encouraged behaviour that was adaptive, rather than because there were actual moral pricniples there to be perceived and whose misperception would kill one.

The problem, as I see it, with this line of reasoning is that it will discredit too much. For everything I have just said about the impression there are moral principles, applies more generally to the impression there are principles of reason. Given an evolutionary account of our development, there is no reason to think there are any such principles in reality that the appearances reflect. Merely being disposed to believe in such things is what would have conferred the reproductive advantage on our ancestors.

But if we conclude that therefore there are no principles of reason in reality, then we are concluding that we have no reason to believe anything.....including that! Yet we only have reason to think an evolutionary account of our development is correct if we in fact have reason to believe it. And if there is in fact reason to believe it, then at least some principles of reason exist. And so something has gone wrong somewhere, it seems to me....though it is not entirely clear where..... The paradoxical situation this creates is that either an entirely evolutionary account of our development is true - in which case we have no reason to believe it is true (for there are no reasons to believe anything under those circumstances), or we have reason to believe an evolutionary account of our development is true, in which case we also have reason to think it is not the whole story, for if it were we wouldn't have any reason to believe it

Quoting Clearbury

I do not think there exist any moral principles if an entirely evolutionary account of our development is true.

Seems to me that that's becasue you pretty much have missed the point.

Quoting Clearbury

And so something has gone wrong somewhere, it seems to me....though it is not entirely clear where.....

Keep going.

There are times when we talk about what is the case. We talk about the meat on the grill, the beer in the cup.

But when the food runs out, after the conversation, it's time to actually do something. And here there is a fundamental difference, becasue we are no longer talking about how things are, but what we are going to do about it.

The direction of the conversation changes from making the words match how things are to making the how things are match the world.

How we are to change the world is a fundamentally different question to what the world is like. If you look for what you ought do out there in the world, of course you will not find an answer. Your hunger is not out there in the world.

We can do whatever we want. But what should we do?

This is what sits behind the is/ought distinction.

Reply to Banno I'm sorry, but I don't think anything you just said addresses anything I said.

Reply to Clearbury The color analogy is a good one.

Quoting Clearbury

I don't think anything you just said addresses anything I said.

Presumably you evolved so as to say that...

Reply to RogueAI Cheers, though I can't really take any credit as others have made it and I too just find it to illustrate the point quite vividly.

I believe it was Locke who first argued that size, shape and location are objective features of things, whereas colour is not (things merely have a disposition to cause colour sensations in us, but the colour isn't there on the object itself). He didn't make an evolutionary argument for that, but I believe he's the first to have suggested that colour is projected onto the world by us, whereas size, shape and location are real features that we perceive (more or less accurately).

Reply to Banno I think that's an open question. Depends on how the paradox is resolved.

Quoting Banno

evolution is appealing becasue it offers folk a way to avoid responsibility for their choices.

Sorry, no, this ignores that evolution gave us reason.

Quoting Clearbury

I think that's an open question. Depends on how the paradox is resolved.

Well, you would think that... it's what you evolved to think.

Quoting Questioner

Sorry, no, this ignores that evolution gave us reason.

Ah, reasons, not causes. Then we might choose to do otherwise than what evolution says?

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

Well, you would think that... it's what you evolved to think.

That's question begging. Whether that's the whole story or not is precisely what the paradox calls into question.

Quoting Clearbury

That's question begging.

I'm not sure how you are using that term.


But the paradox you speak of relies on much the same error you made in thinking that becasue you could not find moral principles lying around like rocks and chairs, they do not exist. Reason is also just not that sort of thing, not "found" but "performed". Sometimes badly.

Quoting Banno

Ah, reasons, not causes. Then we might choose to do otherwise than what evolution says?

I said reason, not reasons. The ability to think things through.

Our evolution did not produce an automaton. It produced a species with enormous imaginative and creative powers. We are a wonder! We are not simple. Evolution produced our ability to choose from an array of choices. Evolution produced our ability to weigh consequences. Evolution produced our ability to question. Evolution produced three pounds of grey matter that rocks.

[b]Reply to Banno By 'question begging' I mean the vice of assuming the truth of that which needed to be demonstrated.

You have strawmanned my argument. I gave, I think, a relatively detailed explanation of why we would have reason to conclude there are no moral principles in reality (just a widespread belief in such things) given an evolutionary account of our development. I did not merely point out that moral principles are not sized, located and shaped things and then conclude on that basis alone that they do not exist (as you're implying). I explained why a disposition to form approximately accurate beliefs about the size location and shape of things would confer a reproductive advantage if there actually are such things, whereas a disposition to form a belief about a moral principle would (depending on its content) confer a reproductive advantage even if the principle did not exist. And it is on that basis that I concluded we would have reason to think the principles themselves did not exist. (On parsimony grounds: if we do not have to posit any actual principles in order to explain how the belief in them would have conferred an advantage, then parsimony tells us not to posit the actual principles, just the beliefs in them...which are now all false, of course).

Note my comparison with religious beliefs. Presumably you agree that an evolutionary account of how adaptive it may have been to believe in God does not provide us with reason to think there actually is a God? it provides us with reason to think God does not exist, as we can explain why people are disposed to believe in God without having to posit God. That's the same argument. An evolutionary account of belief in God implies atheism, not theism; and an evolutionary account of our belief in moral principles implies moral nihilism, not moral realism.

Quoting Questioner

I said reason, not reasons.

Ah, so your reason doesn't give you reasons? Odd.

Quoting Questioner

Evolution produced our ability to choose from an array of choices.

Cheers. so we agree that evolution does not tell us what to do, but ethics is about what we ought choose.

Quoting Clearbury

By 'question begging' I mean the vice of assuming the truth of that which needed to be demonstrated.

Ah, good. So many folk think otherwise these days. what was the truth I presumed?

Quoting Clearbury

You have strawmanned my argument.

I don't think so. You said you could not find moral principles in an evolved world. I pointed out that you are looking int he wrong place.

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

I don't think so. You said you could not find moral principles in an evolved world. I pointed out that you are looking int he wrong place.

As I hope I have now clarified, that was not the argument I made. The point is not about where one looks, for it really does not matter by what mechanism we come to believe in moral principles (the same argument would go through even if moral principles were seen with the eyes). The point is about whether one needs to posit the actual principles in order to be able to explain why a belief in them would confer a reproductive advantage, or whether the belief alone would do the trick.

As for the matter under debate: well I take the paradox that an evolutionary account of our development to present us with is that if we are wholly evolved, then we have no reason to think we are. And so if we have reason to think we are evolved, we also have reason to think that's not the entire story. Whether that's really the situation we find ourselves in is the matter under contention. And so we are not entitled to take it for granted that we are wholly evolved, so long as that assumption generates the dilemma I described.

Quoting Clearbury

The point is about whether one needs to posit the actual principles in order to be able to explain why a belief in them would confer a reproductive advantage, or whether the belief alone would do the trick.

So you have given up on working out what we ought do, and decided that we only do what we evolved to do?
Quoting Clearbury

...I take the paradox that an evolutionary account of our development to present us with is that if we are wholly evolved...

Wholly? As opposed to partially? Or are you again saying we can only do as evolution dictates?

I guess you evolved to say that.

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

So you have given up on working out what we ought do, and decided that we only do what we evolved to do?

No, because it seems premature to conclude that there are no moral principles in reality until the paradox is resolved. Plus I am not sure how i can really reach the conclusion that there are no moral principles without assuming the reality of principles of reason, and those are just as much jeopardized by the evolutionary account as the moral principles are.

Given that at the moment I take this to be puzzling and do not see a clear way to resolve it, I continue to believe in the reality of moral principles.

Quoting Banno

Wholly? As opposed to partially?

Yes, as opposed to partially. An evolutionary account can be true and not the whole story. If we have evidential reason to think that there really are principles of reason given a wholly evolutionary story of our development, then a wholly evolutionary story wins, probably. But if we find that we have no reason to think there are any principles of reason given a wholly evolutionary story of our development, then it doesn't and we have reason to think it's only partial and not the whole story.

Quoting Clearbury

Yes, as opposed to partially.

Ah. teleology.

Reply to Banno Not sure what you mean. If supposing a wholly evolutionary story is correct lands us with a reality bereft of principles of reason - something I am unsure it does, but that it at least seems to do - then exactly what kind of backstory needs to be supposed in order to restore them to the scene remains an open question. We can know that a wholly evolutionary story is false, without having to know what the true whole story is.

Plato thought that moral principles require Forms. I think there are good reasons to resist that view. But if moral principles do require Forms, then that's going to be true of principles of reason more generally. Forms do not feature in an evolutionary story of our development. The 'whole' story would therefore need to include them in some way.

I am not endorsing the Platonic view about the ontology of moral principles and principles of reason more generally, just pointing out that it's a view that does not seem correctly characterized as 'teleological', yet is in the mix and is, perhaps - coherence pending - part of the whole story.

Reply to Clearbury Odd. Seems we haven't cleared up the word "whole". So do you mean "whole" as in evolved to an end point or "whole" as in only evolution serves as an explanation?

Reply to Banno Whole as in 'entire'. What's odd?

Reply to Clearbury Fucksake.

"Wholly evolved" as in having reached an endpoint or "wholly evolved" as in only owing to evolution and nothing else.

I'm losing interest quickly here.

Reply to Banno What a rude person you are. I won't be responding to you again.

Quoting Clearbury

I won't be responding to you again.

Meh. You haven't yet.

@Questioner

We agree on many things, among others, that animal instincts are also within us; we share the same origin. However, humans have additional characteristics: intelligence, freedom, and consciousness.

The world is at a very complicated moment. We should all reflect on the end we might face if we continue this way. When something doesn’t work, we must change our approach. Philosophy should help us organize reason but also draw practical conclusions that shed light on solving today’s problems.
If we do not understand where we are, we cannot know where we should go.

We don’t know the cause, but the truth is that a long evolution following very specific tendencies has led to our appearance on Earth. We are free humans, endowed with intelligence, yet without preexisting knowledge, and with a consciousness that, if we choose, we can develop to perceive our self, our environment, and the role we are meant to adopt.

Whether we like it or not, we must make decisions continuously, thereby shaping our life and our world. What criteria do we use to decide? What our body asks of us? The fake news that reaches our phones? What the leader of our political party, in whom we trust blindly, suggests? What our religion or favourite philosophers tell us? Do we let ourselves be guided by the instincts embedded in our genes that stem from the animal world? It is crucial to reason and strive to agree on criteria for action.

You already know my stance: We have powerful and persistent evolutionary tendencies that influence us, and from them, through reason, we can derive permanent principles to guide our behavior. Our role is to ensure that the trends of evolution are intelligently implemented in our world.

Some of you may disagree, but in that case, you should explain what these ethical principles that humans should accept are, and where they come from. Can philosophy contribute to establishing ethical principles that could be easily explained and accepted by people of different beliefs and cultures?

@Nils Loc

I agree with most of your post; what you say is true.

We both talk about trends, but we don’t assign the same meaning to them. For me, the trends that can give rise to ethical principles are long-term trends that are far above events which, on the time scale we are considering, are not significant.

The fact you mention about cod and capelin, or also whales and plankton, does not undermine the great trend of generating life. From this, we cannot deduce that evolution generates death or destruction, the life of cod, capelin, whales, and plankton continues. In any case, we might deduce an important trend: living beings need to feed, and some do so by eating other animals, a trend that also extends to humans, who feed on cod, chickens, or pigs.


Quoting Nils Loc

You are just cherry picking "trends" that align with some sense of life/diversity conservation. Nature's means of limiting growth may not be fun.

I don’t believe I engage in "cherry-picking" and, since I aim to reason rigorously, I have no objection to delving deeper into the topic of great trends and, if necessary, making corrections. The trends I speak of are sequences of events originating in very remote times, persisting, and many of them "passing through" the plant kingdom, continuing in the animal kingdom, and finally reaching humans.

I think we must distinguish between a trend and the mechanisms that sustain it. "Equilibrium" is, in my view, a constant in evolution. As you rightly say, the mechanisms nature uses to maintain this trend are not fun.

Your comment provides an opportunity to present a good example of what I’m trying to convey:

• Equilibrium, the propensity for life, and freedom are three evolutionary trends which, according to my thesis, shed light on how we should act.
• Human overpopulation is a fact that is destabilizing certain areas of the planet. Since humans must maintain these trends, we need to correct this imbalance.
• The actions we take cannot go against the trends of evolution.
• To solve the problem, we must fully utilize the attributes we’ve been given: intelligence and consciousness.
• Possible actions could include informing the population about the advantages of limiting the number of children, providing free contraceptives, and educating women in sub-Saharan countries (where population growth is highest), among others.
• Actions that cannot be carried out because they violate evolutionary trends (propensity for life and freedom) include sterilization, penalties for exceeding a prescribed number of children, and wars that eliminate individuals.

Animals have their instincts. We can't rely solely on basic instincts; we have more sophisticated tools and must decide how to adapt to and respect the trends in our present world.

Quoting Seeker25

If we do not understand where we are, we cannot know where we should go.

I could not agree more. But the problem is, how do we get them all to listen? Anti-intellectualism has a long and brutal history, from Socrates to Galileo, to the deportation and subsequent murder of Armenian intellectuals (1915) to the mass exterminations of Stalin’s Great Purge (1930s) to China’s cultural revolution (1960s) to the persecution and murder of Navalny in Russia.

Anti-intellectualism is strong in the US, where Evangelicals and Southern Baptists denounce a belief in evolution and climate change as sins. Rejecting the intellectual “elites” may have been the deciding factor costing Harris the election. With Trump elected, we can expect the country to get more regressive, not progressive. The number of book bans in the US has skyrocketed in the last few years, and in “stop-woke” Florida they are teaching that slavery was good for the enslaved person since it taught them “valuable skills.”

In fact, Florida’s new education standards led to this quote from Florida Education Association President Andrew Spar:

“How can our students ever be equipped for the future if they don’t have a full, honest picture of where we’ve come from? Florida’s students deserve a world-class education that equips them to be successful adults who can help heal our nation’s divisions rather than deepen them … Gov. DeSantis is pursuing a political agenda guaranteed to set good people against one another, and in the process, he’s cheating our kids. They deserve the full truth of American history, the good and the bad.”

https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/floridas-new-history-standard-blow-our-students-and-nation

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth?

Quoting Seeker25

Whether we like it or not, we must make decisions continuously, thereby shaping our life and our world. What criteria do we use to decide?

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts.

Quoting Seeker25

• Equilibrium, the propensity for life, and freedom are three evolutionary trends which, according to my thesis, shed light on how we should act.

Stable relationships between species over time may include warfare/conflict or large acts of predation . Eusocial species, like ants, may develop means to distinguish between in-group out-group individuals of their own species and have conflicts on that basis. Sometimes it may be purely down to dietary source creating a pheromone signature.

Chat GPT says that evolutionary equilibrium is compatible with an arms race, such that perennial pattern of territory dispute between species could continually evolve together in a kind of reciprocating balance of adaptations.

The development of the human cognitive capacity probably emerged in part from endless conspecific war, resource/territory conflict. Such resource competitions are ongoing under the rules of a national/global Capitalist paradigm. We sink our savings into the stock market because we want to preserve the 'freedom' it gives us despite ridiculous, excessive and destructive aspect of a lot of consumption, which is about individuals collaborating/competing to acquire resources (economic warfare/game). One might question the ethics of a lot of economic relationships which serve us insofar as one would rather remain ignorant of their unwholesome reality.

Is it ethical to own stock in Coca Cola? Why aren't they just a culturally sanctioned version of harmful drug dealers? Shouldn't we be free to sell coca cola? One person's benefit is another person's harm but such a trade-off is acceptable if we value the freedom at the cost of such consequences.

Quoting Questioner

So, how do we produce “citizens of the world” if they are denied the full truth?

Quoting Questioner

Education. We need an educational system that guides our young people to take into account and acknowledge all of history and all perspectives. And this requires that we overcome the forces (like populism) that keep us mired in our basest instincts.

This is an important question. I have some ideas that need to be checked and refined.

I am deeply convinced that politicians will not solve humanity’s problems. Here’s why:

1. Self-Interest over common good: Many politicians are not genuinely interested in addressing human issues; they pursue their own interests and those of their cronies. Even truly democratic politicians prioritize staying in power, which often conflicts with humanity’s larger needs.

2. Geopolitical constraints: Politicians are bound by geopolitical considerations and cannot act solely based on ethical principles. For example, Biden providing weapons to exterminate Palestinians to secure Jewish votes and support, or the global south supporting Russia’s invasion to counterbalance Western dominance.

3. Erosion of global Institutions: Politicians have rendered crucial global institutions like the UN ineffective. Some actively try to weaken others, such as the EU, and we have yet to see the long-term impact of Trump’s influence on U.S. institutions.

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs.

Could we leverage major evolutionary trends to provoke this change? Maybe, let us think about it.

I am not naive, and I know that what I am about to explain is not easy to achieve. However, I also know that when something does not work, we must imagine actions that, even if they seem utopian at first, can, if well-developed and implemented, help us solve the problems.

There is an enormous source of potential that could ignite this change: the 8 billion intelligent minds spread across the globe. These minds could be mobilized into action if honestly equipped with knowledge, accurate information, and shared human objectives. So, why is basic education still managed by local governments, each imposing its own biases, instead of creating a global standard for basic human education?

Fortunately, we now have tools that didn’t exist a decade ago. We can create worldwide networks, access instant translations in hundreds of languages, and more. These tools offer unprecedented opportunities for collaboration and change.

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change.

Quoting Seeker25

Politicians will not drive the transformative change the world needs.

No, probably not. But, political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not. Only democracies, with representation from free and fair elections, human rights like freedom of association and expression, and the rule of law, allow the free exchange of ideas and their implementation.

And while the worldwide trend over the last couple of centuries has been towards democracy, there has been democratic backsliding. According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy.

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy?

Quoting Seeker25

If a certain consensus could be reached among people from different countries and cultures about what is good or bad for humanity, it could mark the beginning of a collegiate apolitical authority capable of morally censuring actions by governments and other centres of power that go against humanity's interests. If this idea works, millions of people could join in and drive change.

That would be heaven on earth.

Couple questions:

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity?

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power?

Are you advocating for anarchism?

Quoting Clearbury

Plus I am not sure how i can really reach the conclusion that there are no moral principles without assuming the reality of principles of reason, and those are just as much jeopardized by the evolutionary account as the moral principles are.

How is it that you think principles of reason jeopardized by the evolutionary account? What if principles of reason are in accordance with the way the world is. We don't see contradictory realities or things which are neither this nor that. The LNC and the LEM are two central principles of reason. If inductive reason leads to a belief in the evolutionary account, and inductive reasoning is an aid to survival, then how do you see the two as being in conflict or being incompatible?

Reply to Janus Principles of reason seem as jeopardized by an evolutionary account as moral principles are (which are, i take it, just another form of principles of reason anyway), because principles of reason are not part of the physical landscape in which evolutionary forces are operating. Even if they accurately describe that landscape, the fact remains that they are not part of it, and as such all that needs to be posited is the belief in such principles, not the principles themselves.

So to explain why we have the beliefs we do about the sizes and shapes of things in our immediate environment we posit actual sized shaped things in our immediate environment. Being disposed to form approximately accurate beliefs about them would get selected for. So in that case positing the actual existence of what the beliefs are about helps explain why we have them.

But in the case of principles of reason, we do not have to posit the principles themselves, but only the beliefs in them. It is believing in the truth of the law of non-contradiction that helped my father breed more successfully, because by believing in it he would have avoided (for longer) being killed by something shaped and sized. But as it is the shaped and sized thing that would have killed him, not a principle of reason, then we do not have to posit any principles to explain why my father survived and bred.

I don't yet see a way around this. Nothing stops one from supposing that there really are principles of reason, but their actual existence would be pure coincidence given a wholly evolutionary account of our development.

@Nils Loc

I see no contradictions between what you mention, which is true, and what I propose. It might be that competition among living beings is also a tendency in evolution; I’ll think about it.

If the paradigm I propose is correct, then the events that occur in the world should fit within it. As a reminder, I argue that the major trends of evolution are beneficial for humanity and that they form a framework within which human behavior should develop.Let’s see how we can evaluate the facts you present considering these trends.

Competition and the struggle to ensure natural selection have been a constant in the evolution of living beings and, in fact, continue to exist in different forms with humans; competition drives progress. According to my thesis, every evolutionary big trend is good, and I believe competition is beneficial as it advances humanity. However, we must also respect all other trends, such as evolutionary balance, the preservation of life and diversity, the development of intelligence, and so on.

The result of integrating all of this into the proposed paradigm might look, in general terms, as follows:

Competition is good and should be maintained, but it is constrained by the respect owed to other evolutionary trends.

• Respect for life: Competition and progress are incompatible with an arms race.
• Respect for individuals arising from human interdependence: Social protection for those who lose their jobs due to the closure of obsolete activities.
• Maintaining diversity: Competition cannot reduce diversity to a monopoly. Because, when they can, abuse their position.
• Adapting evolutionary trends to contemporary situations through intelligence: A portion of the gains obtained by the winning competitor should be redistributed through taxes.
• Human actions that do not overtly violate major trends: For instance, investing in Coca-Cola stocks or excessive consumption. However, I believe we must develop the consciousness with which we have been endowed, as this very consciousness allows us to avoid excessive consumption or discarding unhealthy products.

These are very complex topics to address in a few lines, but at first glance, I see no contradictions in incorporating your comments into my proposal.

Ethics requires intent. Evolution has intent the way ethics requires. I can't see my way to thinking this could be even a reasonable starting point.

Any cliff notes that can set me right? The thread is muddled and unhelpful in that regard overall.

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. The correctness or incorrectness of that theory is not part of the physical landscape either but is determined by what actually has happened in the physical landscape. About this we have only clues which enable us to tell the story that is the Theory of Evolution.

Likewise, the basic principles of reason, the LNC, the LEM and consistency itself, as I already said, accord with our experience of the physical landscape, so they could be expected to have evolved out of that experience. An animal that can reason and anticipate what might happen would obviously have a survival advantage over one that cannot. I think it is obvious that animals also reason, at least in concrete, if not abstract, ways.

Nothing you have yet said explains why we should think that the fact that reason evolved out of our experience negates its validity. I'm still waiting for that argument. You are yet to be a very clear bury.

Quoting Janus

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason. The correctness or incorrectness of that theory is not part of the physical landscape either but is determined by what actually has happened in the physical landscape. About this we have only clues which enable us to tell the story that is the Theory of Evolution.

There are some things said here which I must question. First of all, understanding the definition of a scientific theory. It is not a "hunch" - but a well-supported set of conclusions supported by evidence. We do not measure scientific theories by their "correctness or incorrectness" but by the weight of the evidence supporting them. The evidence for the theory of evolution could fill a library.

Also, the theory of evolution is not a "story." That term diminishes what we know about evolution. It sounds like something you might believe in, or might not. But evolution does not ask us for faith, it asks us to review the evidence, and then make our own conclusion.

Quoting Janus

An animal that can reason and anticipate what might happen would obviously have a survival advantage over one that cannot. I think it is obvious that animals also reason, at least in concrete, if not abstract, ways.

We are the only animals that understand that sexual intercourse leads to babies. What do you make of that?

Quoting Questioner

The evidence for the theory of evolution could fill a library.

Nothing I said contradicts that.

Quoting Questioner

Also, the theory of evolution is not a "story."

It is a story—a very well supported one. However unlikely it might be, it is not impossible that it is false.

Quoting Questioner

We are the only animals that understand that sexual intercourse leads to babies. What do you make of that?

How could you know that?

Reply to Janus Quoting Janus

Evolution is a theory and as such is not a part of the physical landscape, so it belongs with reason.

That misses the point. The best explanation of why we believe there are reasons to do and believe things is not that there actually are, but that believing in them conferred an evolutionary advantage.

The belief in principles of reason is what confers the advantage, not the actual existence of any.

This is a problem because if there is a reason to believe that the theory of evolution is true, then principles of reason exist.

Thus, if there is a case for an evolutionary account of our development, then it can't be the full story, because if it was the full story then there wouldn't be any cases possible for anything.

Quoting Clearbury

That misses the point. The best explanation of why we believe there are reasons to do and believe things is not that there actually are, but that believing in them conferred an evolutionary advantage.

The belief in principles of reason is what confers the advantage, not the actual existence of any.

Principles of reason don't exist other than as thoughts or sentences. They are merely codifications of what is the general case regarding our experiences. What about the laws of nature? Do you think they exist? Or are they just codifications of observed regularities and invariances?

We don't believe evolution is true on account of principles of reason in any case but on account of the evidence. Principles of reason don't give us any knowledge they just keep us honest in our thinking—that is (if we follow them) stop us from contradicting ourselves, and make sure we are consistent in our thinking.

Quoting Clearbury

Thus, if there is a case for an evolutionary account of our development, then it can't be the full story, because if it was the full story then there wouldn't be any cases possible for anything.

A mere assertion—the argument for it is missing.

Reply to Janus Quoting Janus

Principles of reason don't exist other than as thoughts or sentences.

So if I just 'think' the theory of evolution is true, then that's sufficient for there to be reason to believe it is true?

That's not a defensible theory about what principles of reason are. There's a huge debate over exactly what reality would need to be like in order to contain any, but the view that 'if you think it, it is so' and the view that principles of reason are shaped sized things are not in serious contention. Hence the problem.

Laws of nature are not laws of reason, so it is not clear why you are mentioning them. A law of nature is just a description of a regularity in the natural world. That's not at all what a principle of reason is and so is irrelevant.

There is no evolutionary debunking challenge to laws of nature, for an evolutionary account presupposes that there is a natural world - and a law of nature just describes its behaviour.

Quoting Janus

A mere assertion—the argument for it is missing.

Completely false. I did not 'assert' it. I patiently explained the nature of evolutionary debunking 'arguments' to you. Twice. If you don't think I argued a case, then I see no point in continuing this exchange.

Quoting Clearbury

So if I just 'think' the theory of evolution is true, then that's sufficient for there to be reason to believe it is true?

That's not a defensible theory about what principles of reason are.

We believe the theory of evolution on account of evidence not because we just "think it is true" without any grounds, or on account of principles of reason. If you think otherwise explain to me what principles of reason constitute the basis for believing the TOE.

@Banno
@Janus
@Clearbury
@AmadeusD

FOCUSING THE TOPIC

I am a very recent member of TPF, and I’m not entirely familiar with the customs here, but as the initiator of the OP (Original Post), I believe it’s my responsibility to try to focus the discussion.

We are likely people with diverse academic backgrounds, life experiences, and professional careers. This diversity makes the conversation lively and very interesting, but to avoid getting sidetracked, we should concentrate on the goal of the OP:

• The world is not doing well. We don’t solve the systemic problems.

• Why can’t humanity find ethical principles to guide its behavior and decisions? Do such principles exist? Where are they?

• Could the persistent trends that Earth’s evolution has shown serve as a source from which to derive principles to guide humanity?

• When something is not working, we must make changes. Can we contribute to improving the state of humanity?

My background and experience are in business and economics. Why do I bring these topics to TPF? Because I enjoy philosophy for its conceptual rigor and demand for coherence, as it helps me reflect and, if necessary, adjust my theses.

To attempt to improve the state of humanity, and here lies the main challenge, we must start from theories. However, the effort will be in vain if we cannot propose actions that could be put into practice.

Note: In my opinion, some posts have revealed two misunderstandings regarding trends:

• The trends I consider fundamental are not limited to evolution as Darwin conceived it. At the beginning of our planet, they were physical trends, then chemical, later biological, and finally (I’m not sure what to call it) they transformed into intelligence and consciousness. These trends will continue even if humanity self-destructs.

• Trends affect humans, and we observe them embodied in ourselves, but we are not significant enough to constitute a trend. Humanity has existed for only 0.004% of Earth’s lifespan. If we confuse trends with our actions, it becomes impossible to draw valid conclusions.

Reply to Seeker25 For what it's worth I think that our understanding of evolutionary processes and particularly the way in which our linguistic abilities have enabled us to overcome environmental corrections which would knock back any other species that depleted its resources, and the understanding that this cannot go on forever, should show us how we should proceed if we want to survive as a species, and stop wiping out other species and ecosystems.

As to why we cannot seem to understand this on a global scale and coordinate our efforts to correct our own behavior, I think the answer is extremely complex and multilayered. I don't hold out much hope to be honest. I think the correction will most likely come in the form of war, even nuclear war or terrible pandemics or both, when resource scarcity really begins to bite hard.

Quoting Janus

It is a story—a very well supported one. However unlikely it might be, it is not impossible that it is false.

It is no more a story than atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, or cell theory. Stories come from the imagination. Scientific theories come from evidence.

Quoting Janus

How could you know that?

I read it.

Quoting Questioner

political systems provide the conditions that determine whether progress can be made or not.

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into.

Quoting Questioner

According to a recent report measuring the global state of democracy, the number of countries worldwide moving towards authoritarianism is more than double the number moving towards democracy.

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this. Yet another demonstration of how democracies are being attacked: Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Romania had to invalidate the recent elections because Russia interfered and managed to get the pro-Russian candidate elected, instead of the pro-EU candidate, supported by the majority, who had been defeated.

Quoting Questioner

So what do we do as we watch the world slide into autocracy?

The selfish individuals in power know exactly where they are headed; another part of humanity (the most humble, who suffer) know where they do not want to go. And a large part of educated humanity has reasonable doubts about the direction in which humanity should move, partly because they resist accepting that we are part of something much greater than ourselves and cannot act against it. If we continue like this, it is clear that the selfish individuals in power will end up imposing their criteria.

As I have argued, solutions will not come from governments, nor from supranational institutions that politicians have discredited and will continue to discredit as long as humanity remains uncertain about how to act.

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc. What is important, at first, is to ensure a broad consensus, even if it means giving up some of these elements or refraining from calling them ethical principles.

I am aware that, in defense of humanity, I am treading on unknown ground.

Quoting Questioner

Could the entire world’s population agree on what is good or bad for humanity?

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project, it should be possible for a single idea, well-structured and explained, to unite the wills of a few hundred million citizens worldwide.

Quoting Questioner

What form would this “apolitical authority” take and from where would it derive its power?

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results.

I wonder what would happen if 500 million people insisted that the head of state of country X must step down because he is harming humanity.

I imagine that such an organization should be born affiliated with one of the major global organizations that defend human rights, and later on become independent.

By the way, I'm not advocating for anarchism !!

Quoting Seeker25

I completely agree. The book *Why Nations Fail* by Nobel in economics, Acemoglu, explains that the progress of nations depends on certain conditions, which, in essence, are provided by democracy. I am still reading it, but it seems to me that the conditions for progress identified by Acemoglu align with the framework defined by evolutionary trends, while autocracies, which do not progress, violate that framework. It’s an interesting topic to delve deeper into.

It seems you are saying modern democratic trends are more in line with our evolutionary trends than is autocracy. Yet, for most of human history, rule was by autocracy. We haven’t significantly evolved in the last two hundred years, the time during which we see the rise of the modern democracy (free and fair elections, mass suffrage, executive accountability, political liberties and human rights). I think it is more likely that we overcame some of our baser instincts – tribalism, attraction to the strongman, an “us vs. them” mentality, fear – to accomplish this.

The question becomes – why are we witnessing a regression to those states?

Quoting Seeker25

I am surprised that while democracies are in decline, and according to the Nobel, progress will also be affected, no established power is taking action to counteract this.

To get political for a minute, that is why it is so important that the US, as the world leader in the protection of democracy, not falter with Ukraine.

Quoting Seeker25

Global problems require global solutions, which cannot come from politicized and discredited supranational institutions. I see no other solution than to turn to individuals united around an idea that benefits them and that they can understand: The world must respect the trends of evolution: life, diversity, beauty, freedom, the development of intelligence, balance, etc

Significant change usually originates with the intellectuals and the poets. I posted elsewhere, the first to be persecuted when an autocrat comes to power are the intellectuals and the great thinkers.

Quoting Seeker25

If Trump, by telling many falsehoods, managed to gather 77 million people to his project,

Mostly, he appeals to their baser instincts, and not their rationality.

Quoting Seeker25

Their power has the same justification as the power of citizens in any democratic state, but with three fundamental differences:
A) The scope of the vote is not national but global;
B) Citizens who do not have this right in their own country can also vote;
C) It does not have any of the three traditional powers of a state, only a small structure that honestly receives and distributes relevant information, periodically collects opinions, and informs the world of the results.

You are a visionary! We need more like that.

Quoting Seeker25

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify.

This is a claim you made in your initial post. But the point is that you seem to be confusing the evolution of moral beliefs with the evolution of moral principles themselves. This is a well-known fallacy. That we may have evolved to 'believe' that there are moral principles - moral principles telling us to behave in what turns out to be reproductively advantageous ways - does not show us that there actually are such principles. On the contrary, it implies there are not. It was the mere belief that conferred the advantage - something it would have done regardless of the actual existence of any such moral principles - and so simplicity bids us conclude that the principles themselves do not exist.

Quoting Questioner

It is no more a story than atomic theory, gravity, thermodynamics, or cell theory. Stories come from the imagination. Scientific theories come from evidence.

All theories are stories. some more clearly supported by evidence than others. Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do. This is the creative * abductive reasoning) side of science.

Quoting Questioner

I read it.

Perhaps your critical thinking skills need a honing then.

Quoting Clearbury

does not show us that there actually are such principles.

What do you mean by "actually are such principles". Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them. It doesn't follow that all those actual moral principles are correct.

Quoting Janus

What do you mean by "actually are such principles". Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them. It doesn't follow that all those actual moral principles are correct.

That's like arguing that God must exist otherwise people wouldn't be able to do what they believe God wants them to do!

If someone believes God wants them to reproduce, then they may well reproduce in light of that belief. That doesn't show that God exists.

LIkewise, if someone believes that it is morally right to reproduce (or to behave in ways that will make reproduction more likely), then this may well cause them to reproduce. That isn't evidence that it is morally right to reproduce - it's not evidence there really is a moral principle enjoining such behaviour.

Quoting Janus

Scientific theories come from the imagination, just as other kinds of stories do

No, they don't. Scientific theories are formed as the result of many repeated experiments and the gathering of observations. They are characterized by repeated testing, strong evidence and consensus.

Quoting Janus

abductive reasoning) side of science.

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence.

Quoting Questioner

Abduction still requires observation and measure of the physical existence.

Of course I don't deny the role of observation and measurement and also the existing body of accepted theory. Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements. Some hypotheses that withstand extensive testing then go on to become accepted theory.

Quoting Clearbury

That's like arguing that God must exist otherwise people wouldn't be able to do what they believe God wants them to do!

It's not really like that because God is imagined as an entity that is omniscient and omnibenevolent, and being so can be the guarantor of the truth of moral principles. Moral principles are not the sort of thing that could exist independently of the mind that posit and/or uphold them. Even if moral principles did exist independently of humans what could guarantee their rightness? In any case moral principles undoubtedly exist in human communities as guides for right action.

You seem to be committing some kind of weird category errors.

Reply to Janus Quoting Janus

You seem to be committing some kind of weird category errors

And you seem not to be grasping the point. You said, and I quote Quoting Janus

Of course there are such principles otherwise people would not be able to follow them

That's obviously false. 'Believing' there are such principles enough to explain why a person does as they do. One does not have to suppose that the principles themselves exist. Again, lots of people think they're following God - that doesn't show God to exist.

Quoting Clearbury

That's obviously false. 'Believing' there are such principles enough to explain why a person does as they do.

Such principles are alive in the community, so your restricted notion of their possible existence is inaapropriate. How else could they exist but as guides to action that people either accept or reject?

God may or may not exist but at least he is imagined as the kind of entity that might exist. People have not imagined free-floating moral principles existing, and as I said even if they were thought to exist in some realm they would have no compelling power. It is only on account of God's purported omniscience and omni-benevolence that his revelation of moral principles is thought to be binding.

I don't believe in God myself but that is beside the point.

Quoting Janus

Creative imagination is then required to form an inferential story (hypothesis) out of those observations and measurements.

Thank you, yes. We tend to think of science as a pursuit of analytical thinking, but of course creativity and imagination are required, too. Here’s an interesting quote from Albert Einstein (1929):

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.

https://aeon.co/ideas/science-is-deeply-imaginative-why-is-this-treated-as-a-secret

Reply to Janus A belief in a moral principle is not sufficient for the principle to exist.

We're going in circles here.

If you believe it is right to rape people, that doesn't make the principle 'rape people' exist. It doesn't exist. There is no such principle. Some people may believe there is - but that doesn't make it exist anymore than believing there's a god makes a god exist.

Yet a belief is sufficient to explain behaviour. And from an evolutionary perspective, it was 'beliefs' in moral principles that conferred the reproductive advantage by promoting adaptive behaviour. That doesn't mean the principles themselves exist.

That's precisely why there's a problem here - one known as the 'evolutionary debunking argument' against morality.

Actual moral principles seem entirely dispensable when it comes to explaining why creatures who believed in such principles would enjoy a reproductive advantage over those who did not. And thus the simplest and best explanation of why it is that people today believe in moral principles is not that there actually are some, but that the mere belief in them was adaptive for their ancestors.

I don't believe the evolutionary debuking argument against morality is sound, but we should at least make it clear that it presents a real challenge.

Quoting Clearbury

But the point is that you seem to be confusing the evolution of moral beliefs with the evolution of moral principles themselves. This is a well-known fallacy.

I am interested in refining my reasoning and understanding the reason why you say I am confusing concepts. To do so, I will lay out my reasoning step by step, separating and numbering the concepts, in order you can suggest and justify potential errors.

1. The tendencies of evolution (TE) condition living beings.
-Physically: Tuna will never fly, nor will eagles be able to live underwater.
-Behaviorally: Elephants are social beings, while leopards are solitary beings.
- Range of freedom: humans can behave against TE while animals can't
- Etc.

2. As intelligence evolves, the degree of freedom for animals increases. For example, whales have a greater degree of freedom than crocodiles, but neither surpasses the constraints imposed on them by the TE.

3. It is not defensible to claim that TE does not condition humans. As evolved animals, TE affects us just as it does other animals.

4. What happens is that these tendencies have generated more complex beings (humans) who possess intelligence and freedom. This allows us to accept the TE, adapt them to our time, or go against them, a capacity that animals, bound to follow these tendencies strictly, do not have.

5. To ensure this reasoning does not remain purely theoretical, I recall some very significant TE: Propensity for life, diversity, beauty, fragile and ephemeral life, balance, socialization, mutual dependence, freedom, etc.

6. What are ethical principles (EP)? Fundamental and universal norms that guide human behavior, establishing a common framework for discerning right from wrong.

7. It would make no sense for EP to contradict TE, because TE will not change, nor can we change them, and they condition and frame our lives.

8. Reason and consensus must determine EP which should be the practical application of TE to our era.

Reply to Seeker25 You are coming to conclusions about how people are disposed to behave.

Ethical principles are normative. That is, they prescribe. We can describe them. But what we are describing when we describe an ethical principle, is a prescription, not a description of a disposition.

Something that merely describes human behaviour - or typical human behaviour - is not an ethical principle, for it has no prescriptive force.

For example, it may be that given an evolutionary story about our development we can conclude that most men will be disposed to cheat on their partners when they can get away with it.

That's not a moral principle. This: "You ought not cheat on your partner" is.

Exactly what ontological commitments moral principles come with is a matter of dispute. But there are some things that are agreed. The first is that "people generally cheat on their partners when they can get away with it" is not - not - a moral principle in any sense at all. And thus by simply demonstrating why it might be reasonable to believe humans have certain dispositions, you have not demonstrated that ethical principles exist.
The second agreed upon claim about ethical principles is that believing them does not make them so. That is, to 'believe' that we ought not cheat on our partners is not equivalent to it being true that we oght not cheat on our partners.

The so-called 'evolutionary debunking argument' against morality arises as a result of these truths. For given that it's not sufficient for us to believe an act is wrong to make it so, ethical principles - truly to exist - require something more than mere belief in them. And all an evolutionary account is going to do is explain why it was adaptive for our ancestors to have formed such beliefs. So, the evolutionary account seems able to explain - in a parsimonious way - why it is that humans believe there are moral principles. But it does this without positing any actual moral principles (remembering that 'believing' in a principle is absolutely not sufficient to make it exist). And thus on grounds of simplicity, we should conclude that though humans are disposed to believe in the reality of moral principles, in reality there are none.

That's not a conclusion I draw, but I don't yet see a way to block it.

Quoting Clearbury

that 'believing' in a principle is absolutely not sufficient to make it exist

Quoting Clearbury

And thus on grounds of simplicity, we should conclude that though humans are disposed to believe in the reality of moral principles, in reality there are none.

Isn't an alternative perspective permissible also, that belief is sufficient to bring all kinds of social constructions/facts/actions into existence? The degree to which belief has power as an established norm is relative to the number of people who hold that belief. We don't need necessarily hold to whether moral principles "exist" but whether they have any power to justify/guide action/inaction as codes of convention.

Believing that you and everyone else should stop at a traffic intersection permits a kind of organized reality that wouldn't happen without a consensus.

Your philosophical position is the attempt to either represent a convention/standard or establish one in the way Seeker is trying argue for the adoption of vague principles cherry picked from a picture of evolution.

Reply to Nils Loc Quoting Nils Loc

Isn't an alternative perspective permissible also, that belief is sufficient to bring all kinds of social constructions/facts/actions into existence?

My claim was about moral principles. It is about those that it is beyond serious dispute do not come into being through simply believing in them.

We can describe conventions within a society, but those are not moral principles. Such descriptions will not be normative. ('People in Peru have a tradition of burping after meals' is not a normative statement. "You ought to burp after a meal in Peru because they have a tradition of doing so" is a normative statement.

And they certainly won't be moral principles, as whether the conventions are right or wrong remains an open question.

I am not cherry picking or anything of the sort. I am simply explaining why there's a problem here and why - other things being equal - an evolutionary account seems to threaten the reality of moral principles.

Quoting Clearbury

Agreed: Believing in something does not determine that it is true.

It seems important to me to distinguish between two types of truth. The truth about the physical and natural world is determined by science, which also includes disciplines like sociology, economics, psychology, etc. In matters that are not empirically observable, it is philosophy that seeks to find the truth, primarily through reasoning and coherence.

Agreed: A belief is sufficient to explain a behaviour

[quote="Clearbury;953116"]Ethical principles are normative

I understand that some are, when incorporated into laws, regulations, or codes, while others are not, as they are general guidelines whose application depends on interpretation and consensus.

I will now attempt to align our positions:

We must consider the timescale in which we are operating. When I discuss the great trends of evolution (GTE), I refer to 4.6 billion years. Ethical principles (which do not exist without consciousness) date back, at most, 200,000 years, and very likely less than 50,000 years.

GTE are not beliefs, but realities established by science. These trends affect us and will not change soon. At this point, ethical principles do not come into play.

It is only in the last phase of evolution (less than 0.001% of the elapsed time) that intelligence and consciousness give rise to the formulation of ethical principles. These principles aim to define universal criteria to facilitate human coexistence. Your comments, some of which I agree with, refer to this short period of time.

In the OP’s thesis, I proposed that evolution contained ethical principles. Throughout the debate, I acknowledge that a direct relationship cannot be established between evolutionary trends and ethical principles. I reformulate the proposal as follows:

• Humans must respect and adapt to GTE, because they are powerful, they condition us, we cannot change them, and they will not change.
• It seems absurd for ethical principles to contradict evolutionary trends, that is, to carry within them the seeds of conflict with nature and its tendencies.
• Most ethical principles are guidelines; very few are normative.
• Interpretation is individual. It is up to us whether humanity progresses peacefully or destroys itself.

All this forms a paradigm that, in my view, helps explain what is happening in humanity:

1. Throughout history, there have been multiple attempts to define universal ethical principles. From philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Thomas Aquinas, and Kant to more recent approaches such as Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism, many arrive at similar conclusions, albeit expressed in different words and perspectives. Likewise, organizations like the UN, in its Declaration of Human Rights or principles of sustainability, define similar values.

2. Science has shown that Earth has followed specific GTE, such as the propensity for life, coexistence in diversity, mutual dependence, and freedom. These trends, while subject to some volatility, point in a direction that ethical principles also seek: facilitating coexistence and human development. It is difficult to imagine ethical principles that directly oppose GTE without endangering our survival. It’s easier to publicly explain and propose a behaviour starting from GTE than from philosophers’ theories.

3. Until the emergence of free, intelligent humans (some with power), no one openly challenged these trends. However, certain human behaviours’ (such as starting wars, resisting diversity, or fostering political confrontation) interfere with these trends, hindering their consolidation and putting humanity's peaceful progress at risk. In my opinion, this is the core of the problem.

4. Within this framework, human freedom fits perfectly. It is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it allows for progress and the creation of ethical principles; on the other, it can lead to destruction if we choose to act against GTE and universal ethical principles.

Respecting the great trends of evolution and formulating ethical principles aligned with them constitute a useful paradigm for interpreting humanity’s current challenges. However, the key lies in how we use our freedom: will we employ it to build a peaceful and progressive humanity, or to undermine the very foundations of our survival?

Quoting Seeker25

However, certain human behaviours’ (such as starting wars, resisting diversity, or fostering political confrontation) interfere with these trends, hindering their consolidation and putting humanity's peaceful progress at risk.

How often in history was the motivation for war to acquire resources on one side and to defend those resources on the other. If we go back to the cod eating capelin predatory event, it is a conflict driven by the instinct to eat. Why isn't this tantamount to a kind of war in nature?

Our consumption, the effects of a vast amount of free energy exploitation, is a trade-off we don't easily control as a species anyway.

Folks in my locality are pursuing a solution to slow down another great predatory event of Oryctes rhinoceros, an epidemic of massive horned beetle. The beetle eats the hearts of large palms. I have to inject palm trees with imidicloprid (neonicatinoid) to try and save them. Funnily enough, palm damage almost looks like the palms have been shot up by a gun (burrow holes everywhere). My intuition is that insecticide is bad idea because all pollinators that visit palms (principally honey bees) will be negatively impacted, leading to a further loss in bio diversity. Or we could see this as a kind of new selection pressure which these pollinators will have to overcome. Many insects can successfully gain resistance to insecticides via natural selection, but an empirical picture of what is going on is not gathered by anyone who is fighting to save their palms.

The anthropocene is an age of extinction caused by the human need to conserve and expand itself (in all dimensions we desire to conserve and expand). For nature to even picture itself, as if we could be a steward of control, perhaps required a tremendous level of energy exploitation. The trade-offs and fall out of that event are ongoing.



I've been dragged into war by these magnificent bastards. They are discussing where to find the best palms (anywhere they find them). Luckily our family members do not include species of palms. Are you team palm, or team beetle, or is this a parochial problem which you have no solutions for? How does your GETs help guide my decision and how will it convince my boss to incur a financial loss for a moral cause? If you had an optimal solution, I wouldn't have the power or incentive to implement it anyway.

Reply to Seeker25 I do not see that you've really addressed my point.

This is, I take it, a paradigm example of a non-normative judgement: Jane is disposed to do X.

This, by contrast, is a paradigm example of a normative judgement: Jane is morally obliged to do X.

An evolutionary account of how we have come to be as we are is only going to justify judgements of the first sort, not the second.

In order for it to be true that moral principles exist, then it needs to be the case that some judgements of the second sort are true. But there is simply no reason to think any of them will be if the evolutionary account does no more than describe how we might have come to be disposed to believe in such principles and to make corresponding judgments.

This is precisely why evolutionary accounts of our development are held to present a challenge to the reality of morality. For again, even though there is a dispute over exactly what it would take for moral principles really to exist, there is no dispute that our own beliefs in them are not sufficient to make them exist. And so as the evolutionary account is only going to explain how we have acquired the beliefs - and acquired the beliefs without us having to posit the existence of what they are aboout - it is going to debunk those beliefs.

Moral beliefs rank alongside religious beliefs in being beliefs that we can provide evolutionary explanations for without having to posit their objects. And in both cases, the beliefs are not vindicated, but debunked.

@Nils Loc

I think the problem should be resolved within the following framework of GTE:

• Propensity for Life: Life of any kind, in principle, must be respected. However, this is not an absolute statement, in the sense that certain animals (humans included) sacrifice other animals to feed themselves. Although this has nothing to do with beetles, I find it important to emphasize that higher animals (those that show traces of intelligence) do not kill their peers, and if there are exceptions, they occur because they lack the consciousness to perceive the suffering of others. Killing their own kind in large numbers is something only humans do.

• Balance: Humans must restore lost balances, and the case of the beetles is a local imbalance. I do not know if it stems from climate change, which is an imbalance caused by humans and one that we must correct. Let us not forget socio-economic imbalances, which are far more serious than those involving insects.

• Intelligence allows us to analyse and choose among different solutions, and consciousness enables us to properly perceive the consequences that might arise for other animals or humans.

• Finally, it is freedom that allows us to choose the solution than better fits GTE. If most of our decisions align with the GTE, we will create a better world; otherwise, we may end up destroying ourselves.

I believe that GTE provide us with criteria that guide our decisions. Intelligence and consciousness allow us to seek them out and understand their limits. Often, there are no perfect solutions.

Quoting Clearbury

And so as the evolutionary account is only going to explain how we have acquired the beliefs - and acquired the beliefs without us having to posit the existence of what they are about - it is going to debunk those beliefs.

You know, because I’ve said it a few times, that I’m concerned about the direction the world is heading, and I try to find ideas and methods that could help improve humanity.

Can we extract a practical conclusion from your reasoning for humanity, one that can be easily understood by people? What is the main idea that could help people?

Reply to Seeker25 The point is we seem to have reason to think there are no ethical principles if an evolutionary account of our development is true. I don't draw that conclusion, but it is not clear to me why it's mistaken.