I've taken a purposeful hiatus from blogging. The final stretch of coursework here at UGA has been stressful, so - like the teeming masses - I had to let go of a few habits I could not afford to keep up.
But now I have something I want to talk about, so I'm back.
Evolution. Now, I have to preface this post by saying that I am not a scientist. I'm a mere observer (and, sometimes, a bad one). But I have become interested in science - evolutionary biology, to be exact - and I'm only in the beginning stages of learning about the principles of EB.
For example, I learned this past weekend that we, in fact, did not evolve from chimpanzees (or any other modern simian) but only share a similar ancestor. In fact, there is another ape (and I will use that term loosely) that is as close a relative to us as the chimp. I. Did. Not. Know. That.
It may sound idiotic that I thought we evolved from chimpanzees. Well, it was. I assumed that, since we share about 98% of our DNA, somehow that translated that in my mind to equating us as evolutionary sons of the similar-looking beings. It is not the case. There was a great genetic divergence about five million years ago, when the first modern-ish hominids began to appear.
But that is all background noise for what interests me today. I've been reading some scientific blogs lately - thankfully written (mostly) in lay terms for idiots like myself - and while perusing a sit today, I found a few facts out that relate to a discussion I had with a couple of friends earlier in the football season. The question is vexing and has stuck in my craw for the last few months.
The question is: if morality did not begin with the proliferation of religion, then where did it come from?
Now, saying that there is an innate morality doesn't make for a good argument. Plus, that's not a satisfying answer. Furthermore, where does that innate morality come from? And so on and so forth.
Well, I have a semi-researched answer to that question, and it has to do with evolution and genetics. Up to this point, the argument has been mostly philosophical. One of the great roadblocks to coming to a conclusion is the question: Where did we get the idea that murder, rape, etc. is not acceptable? A friend of ours argues that, if not for religion (or God, I suppose) we would not possess these supposedly innate tools of society.
However, one of the tenets of the argument is that evolution supports the "survival of the fittest". Most people, including myself until recently, equated the saying with the Business principle context, that survivor = aggressor. Philosophically, it makes sense. The big guy at the end of the bar, with no sense of moral responsibility, clobbers everybody with his pistol. Thus, he ends up with the girl (albeit by raping her, but still).
But that's not necessarily how natural selection works. Look around at all of the emo kids in your town. Not aggro. Empirical evidence, in that respects, disproves the philosophical underpinning of that theory. In the words of Michael Le Page, "On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi."
So, with that thought in mind, I'd like to move to genetic dispersal. I argue that the dispersal of morality occurred over millions of years through the copulation of less aggressive people. Dispositions can be passed down through genetics, and the fittest can mean just about anything, in that context. Over time, people who shared these beliefs became dominant. In that respect, I think the gradual climb to cognitive, "innate" morality is fairly shallow.
In the "where does it come from" question, that's the best answer I can come up with. I don't think morality appeared. Just like the eye and toenail and anger, it evolved. I think. But that's just my hypothesis.
Posts
