The Maths Of Morality?

[jim360]

An interesting paper on the mathematics of morality in evolution, as the BBC seemed to put it, appears here:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130801/ncomms3193/full/ncomms3193.html

The bbc link is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849

I'm in the process of reading the source paper, though don't expect that I'll be able to make that much of it, although I find the method interesting. One of the typical arguments religionists advance is that Science can't do morality, so regardless of whether or not the specific results of this paper are overturned, the very fact that it exists and that there is a valid mathematical approach to analysing morality is worthy of note.

Not sure if it belongs in Science or R&S -- probably both, really, but in R&S it might provoke more discussion.

[jno]

I don't think it mentions morality, does it? It sounds more like politics: whether you make better progress in competition, or co-operation, with others. Socialism v free-market economics (to put it extremey crudely).

I note that Dawkins is mentioned in passing, but his findings are (the scientists say) not imperilled; so I don't know that this does belong in R&S.

[LazyGun]

I think the moral dimension is related to what is deemed the most effective evolutionary strategy.

But I have read previous papers and had many discussions which support the notion that the best evolutionary strategy is actually altruism - a variant of the "golden rule".

There have been many discussions about comparative morality too - I have seen those with religion argue that our morality is exclusively derived from the teachings of their particular faith, whilst others would contend that we do not need holy books to be moral.

Not sure I would necessarily follow the math behind it, but the key here in the game they are talking about is actually information and communication. In the absence of such communication, self-interest might indeed appear the more sensible evolutionary strategy, but once you factor in communication and information exchange, co-operation becomes markedly more effective.

[naomi24]

//Evolution does not favour selfish people, according to new research.//

Although this could be discussed from a variety of angles, since religion promotes self-interest, your post is relevant here.

[jim360]

Well, that was mainly just me trying to catch people's eyes. However, there is a level at which it is about moral choices: selfishness v. not, albeit in a specific context. In the long run, if you can demonstrate that it is evolutionarily preferable to be not selfish (and so, presumably, more moral), then you have a mechanism by which one particular aspect of morality can emerge naturally. In itself that is surely interesting?

[pixie373]

I haven't looked at the links, as i imagine they'll go over my head. My opinion is that humans are designed to live together and therefore have evolved to be good at teamwork. Everyone has an individual survival instinct, but the good of the group (whether friends/family/work) is paramount. That is why we go along with others' plans, put our children first, use democracy etc.
It is similar to dogs, who live in packs and cats who don't, and their behaviour reflects this.

[LazyGun]

The second link from the BBC is a very approachable summation of the research, pixie.

[pixie373]

Thanks, lazygun. I have skimmed through both now. The BBC one does make more sense to me, although it seems to me to be common sense, rather than any sort of breakthrough.

[LazyGun]

@pixie that seems a pretty fair summary to me :)

[jim360]

Yes, ultimately the results aren't particularly interesting -- and, given that this paper is in response to one released last year that was saying the exact opposite, I wouldn't want to bet against further developments in the field But that the field exists at all is noteworthy -- that there is an approach, embedded in maths, that has the potential to analyse the consequences of moral choices and to evaluate those choices. This in itself goes against the argument that "Science has no morals", or some such.

[LazyGun]

I know Sam Harris is associated with the idea that Science can answer questions of morality with as much authority as religion, or words to that effect, and has been roundly criticised for saying it.

Others will often say that science explains the how, religion explains the why, but i find that argument unconvincing.

So any research that adds to the body of work on the subject is of interest.

[pixie373]

Yes. Psychology is a Science and when i did courses with the Open University, there was a lot of research on morals, with statistics, with analysis, genetics, environment, background etc. That was eighteen years ago and wasn't new then. I think there are too many different variables to accurately measure "morals" and we don't know enough about the brain though. But it's never stopped us trying!

[mibn2cweus]

Science has no moral imperative. Science is simply a tool, a methodology for discovering and determining the nature of the world in which we find ourselves, enabling us to make informed decisions. As with any tool, it is not the tool but the way in which it is used that reflects upon the moral character of the use.

Nor is morality a function of evolution. Morality emerges with the onset of reason and the ability to gauge the value of a given choice, from the resultant actions and consequences which follow. Morality follows from the ability to make informed choices, science being the preferred method for informing us of the nature of the reality determining our options and their consequences.

[goodlife]

That is not a clear demonstration of the dire result of ignoring the teaching that came to be known as the Golden Rule.
Why some argue that the propensity for violence or killing has always been inborn in humans. Supporters of evolution maintain that we come from wild animals and have simply inherited their violent characteristics. Such theories would leave us doomed to an endless cycle of violence from which there is no hope of escape.

The theories mentioned do not explain why in different cultures there are wide variations in frequency and types of violence. They do not indicate why in some cultures responding with violence seems to be the norm, whereas other societies report very little violence, with murder almost nil.

So you see merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts, our record of moral failures is almost immeasurable.

And I see evolution has actually contributed to this problem.

[LazyGun]

@ Goodlife As best I can tell, you do not believe in evolution, so how can it have contributed to any sort of perceived problem?

You misunderstand what evolution actually is, and not for the first time, nor the last.

Evolution does not teach us that because we have evolved from wild animals, we inherit savage tendencies at all.

The difference in cultural attitudes toward killing and defence and offence can be quite profound, but this is cultural conditioning - nurture - that determines this, not some inherent genetic need to kill. And one of the largest influences, historically speaking has been religion - in the western world, the bible - which has been used to justify no end of murders, retributions, first strikes, ethnic cleansing and more.

[naomi24]

Goodlife, //our record of moral failures is almost immeasurable.//

Unlike your record for failed predictions of the end of the world. ;o)

[goodlife]

So simple. Evolution is only a theory. Not a proven fact. The information contained within the DNA of just one of your cells is staggering. It could occupy about a million pages this size! Since DNA is responsible for passing on hereditary information from one generation of cells to the next, it has been called the master plan of all life.

And everything evolved? No.

Many believe in evolution because they have been brain washed into thinking that if you don’t believe in it, you are ignorant. Most believe in evolution because those “so called” intelligent people are believers. When these ones express their atheistic views, many follow their example and do not give God the credit he deserves as the Creator. (Romans 1:20)

[mibn2cweus]

The capacity for intentional purposeful creativity is itself an emergent product of the evolutionary process . . . much as 'god' is a product of the emergent capacity to imagine what is and, no less that which by virtue of the need for means and process, can never be.

[jim360]

The "only a theory" thing is just as meaningless a criticism as it would be to say that Newtonian gravity is "only a theory".

[LazyGun]

@Goodlife Really and truly -you continuing refusal to recognise evolution is the hallmark of a closed mind.

It is not "only a theory" despite how much you attempt to claim it is. The consilience of evidence from many different disciplines of study overwhelmingly proves its case.

This is not, as you attempt to portray it, simply a difference of ideology. This is scientifically corroborated observation, experiment and fact versus some ideologically driven fantasy.

You, and others who believe like you, often attempt to use a strawman version of evolution whenever it suits you. Asserting such a flawed view only serves to make you look increasingly marginalised, increasingly foolish.

God could take credit for evolution; Some people of faith are intelligent enough, educated enough and realistic enough to recognise the science of evolution. These people appropriate evolution as the mechanism by which god spread life across the planet, and accept the creation story for what it is - a myth.

And I am happy enough with that, if thats what they want to think. Your belief dictates that you reject all the scientific evidence in favour of myth, and forces you into intellectually risible rhetorical knots trying to defend your assertions.

It is, frankly, pitiful. But not unexpected, from a religion that says that the faithful should place Jehovah above family and frown upon charitable giving, all the while enjoying the benefits of charitable status.

[Hypognosis]

I read that article last night, jim and I can't say I perceived any sense of "science -does- do morality" in it.

It is still an interesting counterpoint to Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", which I must immediately admit to not reading, though it had an entire Horizon programme about it, back in the days when Horizon programmes still had enough depth to make you feel slightly ignorant.

On the other hand, Dawkins argues that genes selfishly attempt to survive. We think (but cannot yet adequately prove) that genes exist which influence behaviour. Therefore, whilst altruism is a better strategy for survival, the 'behaviour genes' behind it are still being 'selfish'.

Personally, I think not enough thought has been paid to sexual selection factors. Females select their mates to be more powerfully built, more proficient at dominance (hence violent traits have been retained), more acquisitive, more selfish, happy to steal from subordinates and so on. All of which completely subverts altruism, in my opinion.

Morality I perceive to be something which does not emerge until a lot further down the line than the 'feral' stage of human development. Someone, somewhere worked out that bumping off the tribe leader and his cronies every few years was detrimental to stopping the neighbouring tribe from winning all the best food resources. Co-operation was called for and 'moral' behaviours had to be arrived at, theither by trial and error or some creative thought process.

Humans transcend evolution because we go to great lengths to ensure that the young, the sick and the old (the typical victims in the classic predator-prey scenario) are helped to survive. Evolutionary change is what occurs when a species suffers deaths on a massive scale and only the well adapted variants survive. No pressure from the environment = no need to change. Crocodilians being an interesting example.