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
