I am cut'n'pasting from two other threads as well -
the Fascist and Mercies ones.

> Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems eminently logical to me that ethics evolved
> in part as a survival 
> mechanism for those that had a physical disadvantage
> and an intellectual 
> advantage.  For instance, a shaman that convinced
> his community that the 
> spirits punished those who killed their spiritual
> leaders would stand a 
> better chance of survival and would increase his
> power within the 
> community.  Thus, imposing ethics upon a community
> becomes not only a 
> means to create order, but also a means for
> intellectuals to thrive.

I think of ethics as shaped by a society with language
and complex social relationships (i.e. us humans),
while what we call morals has some basis in the
evolutionary survival of social animals.  We cannot
choose our basic nature; it is partially determined by
our genes, and heavily influenced by our enveloping 
environment (both pre- and post-natal).  The ancients'
characterization of a personality as being primarily
influenced by one of the 'four humors' - melancholic,
choleric, plegmatic or sanguine - has some validity
when 'genes' are cited instead of 'humors.'  Frex, the
tendency towards "shyness" has a significant genetic
component: "Studies have shown that genetic factors
are significant in predisposing individuals to shyness
and social phobia..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12668354
(Clicking on 'Related articles' yields genetic factors
being researched WRT various behavioral conditions,
from Tourette's to ADHD to autism.)

Alberto posited that "Pumas _could_ have free will
(according to their own limited brain functions)" and
William G asked, "Do you think chimpanzees have free
will? Where is the gene for free will, and how do you
know what has it and what doesn't?"  I think that the
more social and socially complex an animal is, the
more it is likely to exhibit some degree of 'free
will.'  (Admittedly I am leaving out the social
insects, as they seem to have little individual
personality, and some sense of 'self' seems required
for a creature to be able to make a specific choice,
and I'm also not necessarily considering a school of
fish as a social unit -- although there _are_ fish
which exhibit definite social behavior.)

Warren stated that "That's not evolved; the only
reason one would have guilt after rape would be if one
believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a
socially-created phenomenon."  While Bob Z proposed,
"Both of these behaviors [morality and self-sacrifice]
increase the reproductive success of a social animal.
Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol
altruism."  

If one accepts that basic behaviors and the emotions
that underlie them are the result of evolutionary
selection, then genetic factors must play a role in
their existence and continuance.  Without at least
some underlying sense of order/hierarchy, animals
cannot live in social groups.  Anyone with a pet dog
will agree that they _behave_ at times as if they are
sorry, guilty or ashamed -- they have broken pack
rules, and they will even 'ask for forgiveness' by
submitting themselves to the pack leader (you).  They
will also 'forgive' accidental misbehavior on your
part (frex stepping on a tail), but some may not
forgive deliberate cruelty from humans (they've been
bred for pretty forgiving natures, though). Cats, less
social, but still with family structure and a social
pecking order, never act 'guilty' in my experience
(although they will choose to refrain from
humanly-undesired behavior - as long as you're around
to keep an eye on them!), yet can exhibit 'concern' or
'sympathy' if their human is ill.  And they definitely
have a sense of self in that making a stupid (from
their point of view) mistake results in behavior that
appears to show self-disgust or -anger.

One of the most effective* tools in schooling horses
is to allow _them_ to choose how to respond to your
instructions - if they choose correctly, they are
rewarded and praised, while incorrect responses elicit
more work (or rarely outright punishment, for
dangerous behavior such as biting or kicking).  [It is
your job to make sure that the animal is capable of
choosing correctly, i.e. not to set them up for
failure, which requires knowing how they think and
react, and modifying your behavior/demands to what
they _can_ do, not what you _wish_ them to do.]  Yet,
knowing that correction will occur, a horse may choose
to behave "badly" -- and furthermore, will accept
'fair' correction, but rebel at 'unfair'
(disproportionate) punishment!  That seems to me the 
rudiments of free will.
 
*in that it builds partnership, rather than forcing
the animal to do or not do something

We know that mother-love has a neurochemical
component, as does pack-bonding, i.e. has been
selected for evolutionarily; it only seems logical to
me that at least some of the basis for what we call
'morality' is also evolutionarily favored.
Rape is a bizarre case, IMO, as it _does_ favor the
passing on of one male's individual genes (Ghengis!),
yet such behavior may result in the individual's
outcasting also (frex the documented ousting of a
'mean' (bit, hit and forced others excessively) langur
from the troop, and ascendency of a kind and playful
male as alpha).  Infanticide is another twisted
behavior, as frex a conquering lion will do to induce
the lionesses into heat, subsequently impregnating
them.  Was the killing of a broken-backed foal by the
stallion 'murder' or a 'coup de grace'?

Debbi
Melancholic By Genetics, Self-Awaringly Countered By
Free Choice Of Environmental Equinism Maru   :)


                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to