Derek Turner - Evolution and Morality

Like us on Facebook for daily videos, updates, and more: shorturl.at/tak4l
Altruism, selfless concern for others, seems a challenge for evolution, as it seems the opposite of “survival of the fittest.” Why then is altruism so important in evolutionary studies? How does animal altruism relate to human morality?
Make a tax-deductible donation of any amount to help Closer To Truth continue exploring the world's deepest questions: shorturl.at/OnyRq
Derek Turner teaches philosophy at Connecticut College where he is also the Karla Heurich Harrison ’28 Director of the Goodwin-Niering Center for the Environment. He regularly teaches Introduction to Philosophy, Logic, Bioethics, Environmental Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Biology, The Science and Ethics of Extinction, and Darwin.
Wear your support for the show with a Closer To Truth merch purchase: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@sanjeevjain5519]

A human body is composed of trillions of cells. Each cell is independent as well as having to work in coordination and cooperation with other cells. Independence indicates selfishness, while coordination and cooperation may require a moral set of rules.

[@alfreddaniels3817]

This shows how modern man is just confused when he tries to understand much earlier men.

[@tomfrombrunswick7571]

Two guys who have not read an anthropology or historical text speculate about stuff that is written down in anthropology and history books

[@brothermine2292]

There's no need to attribute to genetic evolution what can be explained by game theory and/or cultural indoctrination. The book "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod describes tournaments played by computers programmed with various algorithms. The game they played was the Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma, in which each player chooses in each round whether to cooperate or defect. The result showed the most successful strategy was tit-for-tat (or some variant of tit-for-tat). The "always cooperate" strategy (pure altruism) produced very poor payoffs because some opponents would take advantage. The tit-for-tat strategy is "cooperate in the first round, and in all subsequent rounds do whatever the other player did most recently." So, two players each using this strategy will cooperate with each other forever (as long as they expect it's not yet the final round) and this maximizes their payoffs.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

He did NOT explains to hold experiement about evolution. It consequencies he shows rethoric rambling instead. Rambling rethoric take place he concepts about evolution are wortheless biology.

[@supernaturalabilities]

Without a personal moral code, spiritual evolution is impossible. In Alchemy, there is a teaching that states, "Unless you transmute yourself first, you will not transmute lead into gold." Morality is an integral part of self-transformation. True spiritual evolution leads to union with the Divine or the Absolute, with miraculous abilities as a natural byproduct. It is from this perspective that one must seek to understand morality. But let me be clear-when I use the term "Divine" or "Absolute," I am not referring to the God of Christianity or Islam. In these religions, the concept of spiritual evolution is absent. Instead, it revolves around joining an exclusive group-Christianity or Islam-and passively waiting for either a Jewish man in Christianity or the Arabic Allah in Islam to determine one's fate.

[@evaadam3635]

..it is not spiritual evolution but just the acknowledgement that our true being is not physical - not a by-product nor part of nature.... ..your idea of spiritual evolution as a product of nature violates the basic principle of physical causes and physical effects that governs this physical world..... it can not be PHYSICS if it is about physical cause producing SPIRITUAL effect...

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 >>..it is not spiritual evolution but just the acknowledgement that our true being is not physical - not a by-product nor part of nature....

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 >> ..your idea of spiritual evolution as a product of nature violates the basic principle of physical causes and physical effects that governs this physical world.....

[@supernaturalabilities]

@@evaadam3635 >>it can not be PHYSICS if it is about physical cause producing SPIRITUAL effect...

[@philipsalmon2192]

@@supernaturalabilitiesso you’re saying that the ego isn’t part of our personality,really?

[@Michael-nt1me]

What is ...meaningful, truthful, and useful.... going forward?

[@evaadam3635]

...the existence of human's non-physical un-natural attribute is truthful, meaningful, and useful going forward...

[@mulen-x8u]

Thank you! Morality has a lot of social and cultural connotation and that's why it's difficult to find a real connection between the laws of biological evolution and human activity. It seems to me we can use the term of wisdom in order to mark the evolutionary meaning of human's spirituality. For example, what is the meaning of bless in the case of Abraham and God conversation? God's bless isn't a prosperity, power or richness but far-reaching evolutionary promise: "I will bless you greatly, and I will multiply your seed greatly like the stars of the heavens, and like the sand which is on the seashore. Your seed will possess the gate of his enemies. In your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice" (Genesis 22:17-18). Bible is books where human behaviors must be agree with God's wisdom or universal biological evolutionary laws.

[@johnbowen4442]

Some of the logical questions they never ask if we are just evolved animals why arent people happy ? When most peole in the western nations have all their material needs met compared to a couple of generations ago we should all be very content ? Why is then suicide ,alcohol ,drug abuse on the rise ,along with mass shootings ? Dosent this point to people have psychological needs a sense of purpose that arent being met in the materialistic world view ? Why are there so many addictions now when animals in the wild dont overeat ,have sex addictions ? Animals also.dont go to war trying to wipe out their own species they live in cooperation with other species ?

[@simonhibbs887]

The modern world is not a condition that humans evolved to live in, since we never lived in it before, so we are not well adapted to it.

[@brothermine2292]

You're neglecting many variables. For example, due to modern communication technologies, people know much more about what's going on in the rest of the world. And much of what they learn about the world is negative, due to the "if it bleeds, it leads" incentive felt by people who produce the content.

[@100percentSNAFU]

That is an interesting question you pose. I've often thought the same thing when it is suggested that Man is just an evolved animal. Why is it that we (as a collective) are the only self destructive species? Why is it that we (again, as a collective) find pleasure in harmful things (drinking, drugs, overconsumption of foods high in sugar and fats)? Yet no animal species does this. There may be individual examples of animals that inflict self harm or exhibit strange behavior towards their own kind, but as a whole, in this sense the animal kingdom seems more evolved than we are. While I don't doubt that things like intelligence have evolved in humans as compared to early examples of us, as a whole where is the evolutionary advantage in self destructive acts? Why do we do it when animals don't? It would lead me to believe that we are something different entirely. I think you can explain away things like materialism, addiction, etc as byproducts of societal issues, but the inherent want by humans, outside the most very disciplined of us, to almost crave self harm and destructiveness towards the species is unique to us, and has no evolutionary explanation.

[@philipsalmon2192]

@@100percentSNAFUit’s because other animals don’t have terrible egos like mankind

[@simonhibbs887]

@@100percentSNAFU >Why is it that we (as a collective) are the only self destructive species? Other species can and do exhaust the resources in their environment. >There may be individual examples of animals that inflict self harm... So it's completely unknown, except for all the known cases. Most humans don't engage in egregiously self harmful activities either. >Why do we do it when animals don't? You already said that they do. >..has no evolutionary explanation. As I already pointed out in my comment on this thread, humans did not evolve in the conditions we have now created for ourselves. We're just not adapted to the sorts of comfort, safety, abundant nutrition or hedonism available to us in the modern world.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

Could a new language created a brand new knowledge??

[@Michael-nt1me]

...There is the language of mathematics/science the language of business and the language of medicine as well as the emerging and evolving impact of agentic AI LLMs.... An integrally greater conscience can factor in our emerging and evolving ... •personal moralisations •populational legalities and •professional ethics .... coming forth and going forward. There are unfolding ...absolute, relative and unifying.... factors.

[@evaadam3635]

It is the other way around...

[@Heraclitus-z2j]

The phenomenon of Altruism and its evolutionary explanation have been thoroughly explained by Richard Dawkins in his classic "The Selfish Gene". On the surface, it seems counter-intuitive for evolution to favour altruistic behaviours. But careful mathematical analysis shows that many so-called altruistic behaviours in fact do favour some of the genes that make up an individual. Dawkins and many others have shown this convincingly. I am surprised that neither Derek Turner nor the host seem to be aware of this.

[@evaadam3635]

Darwin and Dawkins kind of morality are creating HITLERS of this world who are now feeling NATURALLY SELECTED SUPERIOR SPECIES.... are you kidding ?

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

Actually I feel Im a more moral person now as a atheist.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Actually I feel Im a more moral person now as a atheist."* ... How so?

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Im not judgmental on gay people and I feel more responsible for all of my doing other than just going ti confession.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@ *"Im not judgmental on gay people and I feel more responsible for all of my doing other than just going ti confession."* ... If atheism results in a zero-sum outcome upon death (i.e., nonexistence), then what compels you to behave morally? If when you die it is as if you never even existed, why would it matter what you did during your lifetime?

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Because Im not a sociopath. I dont like nor do I get joy when people suffer or get hurt. Are you saying you would hurt or do worse to people if no god or afterlife existed?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@NickGagnon-y7e *"Because Im not a sociopath."* ... There are a lot of levels below sociopath that could be morally tested based on a zero-sum result. But then again, I would think an atheist would be more likely to become a sociopath than a theist based on the consequences touted in theism. *"I dont like nor do I get joy when people suffer or get hurt."* ... Printing your own money isn't really hurting anyone. And why not do so? No consequences in the non-afterlife, right? You could do more damage to people working at a chemical plant, so why not just print money? *"Are you saying you would hurt or do worse to people if no god or afterlife existed?"* ... All I'm saying is what I've already said. A person who sees no consequences for their actions would naturally be more likely to take advantage of others to enhance their own existence. Theists are frightened to even speak the name of their creator! They have to confess to others their embarrassing malfeasance to which an atheist would never have to face.

[@u.s.terroir3816]

How to say a lot without saying anything

[@evaadam3635]

...you will be saying a lot without saying anything when you will be having NDE...

[@Warpug1]

If objective moral truths exist they could not have developed in the process called evolution.

[@simonhibbs887]

It's objectively true that beings that act in the interests of their offspring over themselves are likely to have more descendants than beings that do not, so the effectiveness of altruism is objectively verifiable. That's one of the successful and verified predictions of evolutionary game theory.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"That's one of the successful and verified predictions of evolutionary game theory."* ... There is a fundamental difference between biological altruism and philosophical altruism. Only the latter version is associated with morality.

[@simonhibbs887]

@ As a consequentialist I disagree.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@ *"As a consequentialist I disagree."* ... What would being a consequentialist have to do with it? Starvation could be a personal choice of mine to stop eating (dieting) just as much as having no food available to eat. The former version of starvation is for reasons totally unrelated to the latter. The former can be philosophically seen as good and the later as bad even though it's the exact same result (starvation), but there is no definitive consensus.

[@simonhibbs887]

@ Consequentialism is a moral realist theory. The aim of dieting isn’t restricting food intake, it’s losing weight for health reasons. Restricting food intake is just the means to that end.

[@catherinemira75]

Very interesting. 👌

[@newtonfinn164]

While other animals love their children (at least for a while) and sometimes help each other (as in a pride of lions coordinating the hunting of herd animals, or in the forming of a circle by the herd animals to ward off the lions), it is only in the human animal that genuine empathy and compassion can extend to strangers and, indeed, to other species. The former extension has obvious evolutionary roots, not so much the latter. From whence, in this world of red tooth and claw, comes what Schweitzer called reverence for life?

[@simonhibbs887]

We observe other social animals that have evolved to treat each other generously occasionally extend that to members of other species. The most obvious example is wolf mothers that occasionally raise lost human children.

[@newtonfinn164]

@@simonhibbs887 Yes, but given the rarity of such cases, doesn't the exception prove the rule--the need to ferret out a few deviations only demonstrating the broad reach, the general applicability, of the original principle?

[@brothermine2292]

Many people acquire nutty beliefs, so why ask where a belief that's less nutty comes from? Also, what percentage of humans actually revere life? My hunch is that it's a small minority.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@newtonfinn164 I think even rare cases of animal empathy shows that it could have an evolutionary origin. There are many other behaviours that exist at a basic level in other animals and at a much more sophisticated level in us. In fact social behaviour in general. Also making and using tools.

[@philipsalmon2192]

Video evidence has shown inter species co-operation eg. Cats and chickens

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Closer to Truth, I have recently taken what I think to be a few steps forward in my understanding of how evolution works and the part played by chance. If we are to suppose that new genetic variations occur entirely by chance and the ones that make life impossible for the species impose that death sentence while the ones that do not confer significant dis-advantage can persist, they do not have to confer any significant benefits!. Givenn then the enormous plethora of genes we all carry then there is plenty of scope for all sorts of genetic attributes that are essential while many more can be redundant!. This then allows for all sorts of weird permutations that each species carries and passes on amongst them various neurological characteristics that that actually impose some degree of obstruction!, as long as the penalties are non-fatal and do not hamper successful breading we can all be compromised in various ways!, much of the imagination and fantasy life we all live could be entirely without 'real' value. This then means that the whole concept of morality might well just be an artifice! without any rational foundation at all! it is entirely possible to operate quite effectively applying only the 'rules' of utilitarianism to make rational judgement about our life choices and decisions and act accordingly without recourse to any overlying value judgement, good or bad becoming redundant!, all that matters it whether one is able to achieve ones aims and benefit, it then very soon becomes clear that any benefit that costs others more than it benefits me is retrograde, any measure that confers greater gain to the many is 'better'. Cheers, Richard.

[@James-xu3vc]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/enKTgJ2up5mjrJI

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I wish Robert could at least consider reading and ruminate on the book, 'Rigveda for the layman' by Shyam Ghosh. Please - because of Robert's scientific background, this book would, i think, is a welcoming and compatible element to everything neuroscience. It puts perspective so very much in a most appropriate state for one to grasp it properly. For just like the Bible, early on in my research, I didn't know what was being said therein, on the exegetical level that is, but I knew what it didn't mean and that is literal/superficial - it's mysticism. This too is how I look at veda; one must be very cautious with india "gurus" today just as much with christian's, ministers, pastors, preists and modern religion in general - with everything in fact, for nothing is what it seems. This book mentioned above is a requisite. Too I bought with it 'the Vedic experience' by Panikkar. Both are anthologies. The former book is pith(to the point and direct with no filler). Regarding the Rigveda for the Layman book, there is a great introduction, and one not familiar with veda/hinduism/metaphysics, then consider first to read a couple hymns, and then turn to the introduction, and after finishing one introductory segment resort back to another couple hymns and so on.. Maybe this isn't important for some. For those who are seeking, to some degree, at least, this principle that is Truth, I believe such a man will be inspired by such a work and remain greatful. It is a reconciliation. With committed contemplation, perhaps a recollection there will occur.

[@chayanbosu3293]

If moral truths exist then God exists , we do know moral truths exist so God exists.

[@criticalthinker2477]

Or maybe morality exists because humans were intelligent enough figure out what behaviours are appropriate to get along with each other. Moral "truths" aren't that complicated. It's not hard to figure out that condemning murder, theft, etc are necessary for cohesive communities. The ones that didn't figure that out were too weak to stand against the ones that did.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Morality is not discovered; it is learned. Morality is a *critical review of existence* that humans have created and have evolved over time. What was once deemed morally acceptable might be seen as morally repugnant today (and vice versa). It is true that animals may demonstrate altruism traits, but they are unaware of what they are doing. However, self-aware humans take altruism to a much higher level with the inclusion of a "personal choice" in demonstrating altruism (i.e., "morality"). When a self-aware human sacrifices himself for the sake of one or others, he knows what is at stake and the ramifications for his decision. Animals, however, have no conscious understanding of what they are doing nor is self-sacrifice a "moral decision" to them. Morality, in the philosophical sense, represents an *internal critique* of the evolutionary process. Human morality can place "Evolution" on trial and potentially find it *brutaI, appaIIng and unnecessarily ruthIess.* ... Existence then uses this *internal review* to make changes to the evolutionary process.

[@philipsalmon2192]

How do we know that animals are not in any way self aware?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@philipsalmon2192 *"How do we know that animals are not in any way self aware?"* ... There are different degrees of self-awareness just like there' are different degrees of intelligence. It is arguable that an animal recognizing its own reflection in a mirror is minimal representation of self-awareness. However, animals don't demonstrate the high-end levels such as personal construct building, thoughts of an afterlife, reputation, morality, and legacy building. Animals don't require any high-end self-awareness characteristics based on their lower intelligence and relationship with nature. ... Why would an animal be concerned over its legacy?

[@Interstellar00.00]

FGAP an FGAR

[@evaadam3635]

...your free aware immortal soul has no DNA nor RNA to die.... where your soul will go hereafter should be your utmost concern..

[@Interstellar00.00]

I am asi (Artificial super intelligent)human being

[@evaadam3635]

​@@Interstellar00.00...freezing in a cold dark emptiness (hell), intelligence has no value.... apply your intelligence now by having faith in the existence of a loving GOD so to return to your Original Home...

[@Interstellar00.00]

@@evaadam3635 bro ur talking about 4 dimension its is very cold and dark with live black hole everywhere but I am from 5th dimension where no human only machines if u need entry thir u should convert ur body an mind into machine ASI forever live

[@Interstellar00.00]

@@evaadam3635 u ever saw what dark matter is I own 0.1 % from universe

[@peweegangloku6428]

When people do not value and appreciate the gift of life, they look for every nonsensical way to erase God. Evolution is just a bunch of nonsense.

[@Michael-nt1me]

🤦‍♂️

[@criticalthinker2477]

When people do not make an effort to understand the evidence and appreciate the beauty of evolution, they look for any nonsensical reason to rationize the existence of "god". Religion served its purpose in homo sapien's rise of culture and civilization, but is now more of a dead weight inhibiting our further advancement.

[@ianmatthews137]

So if someone says 'Hey, we found out how God got us to this point' your response is 'Nah. He couldn't do that.' Fair enough...

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@criticalthinker2477 Just as I said- nonsensical reasoning. There is nothing about evolution that I have not carefully examined. That is why I unapologetically consider it as just a BUNCH of nonsense.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@ianmatthews137 Evolution is anathema to creation. There can be no common ground between the two. The very concept of evolution is born from the idea that God does not exist and that things just evolved of their own prompting.

[@anteodedi8937]

Those who think there is no objective morality are off the mark. Those who think objective morality leads to god or that you need god to ground objective morality are also off the mark. Check out Erik Wielenberg's work “Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism” - highly recommend.

[@evaadam3635]

...we are all children of the loving God to love and care for each other as ONE FAMILY for love of God... ...but if you think your Original Mama is Darwin's IGUANA, you can only love your iguana family and devour others who are not your family..... "loving only your own family" is the animal morality of the jungle - Darwin's World of "To Each His Own"

[@100percentSNAFU]

While it certainly doesn't PROVE the existence of God (we are yet to find anything that does), I do believe it presents it as a possibility.

[@philipsalmon2192]

@@evaadam3635I am a child of that god who gave me a cleft palate - how vile! No it’s the result of chaotic nature as all foetus are conceived sexually straight but if there’s a shock in the pregnancy (cleft plate in my case) then sexuality is disrupted and in my case repulsed from the female form.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@100percentSNAFU I actually think basic truths of morality are necessary truths like basic truths of logic, and that's the case whether god exists or not. Morality neither proves nor disproves god.

[@anteodedi8937]

​@@evaadam3635Try coming with a worth responding comment sometimes!

[@evaadam3635]

"Evolution and Morality" Morality is achievable by having faith in a loving GOD to make us think that we are ONE FAMILY which can inspire all of us to love and care for one another as all GOD's children for love of HIM.... this moral sense includes resisting to go along with our bodily desires that we know can harm or hurt others... This is the reason why the first commandment is to love GOD above all things, not to benefit God alone but mainly to benefit all HIS children... ... however, to be moral is a choice... but if you think free will does not exist because you are just driven by evolution beyond control, then to you there is no such thing as morality ... You can be an immoral animal all you want to your heart's content regardless who gets hurt... Now, if you can not understand what Free Will is all about, the following light might help enlighten you : Free Will is the freedom of the Will to choose to believe anything for any reason, good or bad reason, for lack of knowlege of fact or truth... .. it is NOT free choice if it is driven by knowledge of fact or truth, or driven by natural laws where it can not have free time to make a decision what choice to make among many choices, because it is slave to physical laws ALL THE TIME, no different than a clueless computer or robot driven by programmed switches... ...and the fact that we can have free time to make the decision what to choose, in any time, is solid proof that our Will is not bound by natural laws any time let alone all the time.... this truth proves further that our true being is NOT entirely physical... many refer this non-physical existence as your spirit, soul, or ghost etc.,... I describe this mysterious existence as free split of the Holy Spirit... ..and now, ask yourselves : "If we are entirely physical bodies, why would natural laws even allow molecules or chemical processes TO BELIEVE since the Laws, being NATURAL, drives matter into a clear path,..... and why believe something that is beyond physical that defies material science ? ... ..also, since our human bodies have common or have same elemental components, why would chemical processes allow OPPOSING BELIEFS in GOD instead of uniform belief since natural laws can not be broken ? If you still can not get the point that your Will is free, try an exorcist to drive away that who is interferring with your good senses

[@philipsalmon2192]

Morality is the product of our brains NOT something external

[@evaadam3635]

@philipsalmon2192 Natural LAW does not allow physical matter to have free choice to be moral.... and your brain is a physical matter enslaved by Natursl LAW, no free choice..... it is your non-physical free aware soul (not a slave to natural law) that can freely choose to be moral.. ..your incoherent theory says that there is no Natural LAW in control, flashing down your material science into the toilet bowl...

[@chayanbosu3293]

If moral truths exist then God exists , we do know moral truths exist so God exists.

[@david33mtrb]

Your premise* is faulty. Therefore, your conclusion does not hold up to scrutiny. (*The existence of moral truths does not prove the existence of God. That’s the very nature of faith-believing in something despite the absence of factual evidence.)

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Morality is a tricky word. It is also a tool of human psychological repression. It can also hold positive vibrations.

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

People have different moral opinions and different gods though.

[@chayanbosu3293]

@@david33mtrb I think you are not right , you can not explain moral values subjectively, it's objective reality . It's a truth because it can not depened on our fellings , our imagination you may say necessity truth. God is truth .

[@lucianmaximus4741]

GOoD exists.