by unstopableravens 273 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
never a jw - I don't want to distract from EP's comment above. Please deal with that first.
After that perhaps you could define what you mean by "strong" and "weak" in this context.
The human race maybe strong and numerous, but the average individual is weaker.
EP
Good point. Coackroaches will outlive us too. My statement is valid when I limit the scope, as I should have done. I certainly was thinking of complex organisms with similar characteristics where the main difference is the level of intelligence. Of all the hominidae, humans are better equipped for survival mainly because their higher intelligence. Are there other traits that make us weaker? I don't know, let's wait for the next global catclysm.
Cofty,
Now you are parsing... or carping, or are you playing Socrates here. I will let you have it your way.
Cooperation and compassion certainly have increased the numbers of humans. Numbers alone is a good advantage. Compare 7 billion to 7 spread accross the globe. Under what circumstance is the species stronger, and therefore more likely to survive?
On the other hand, compassion and cooperation has helped the weaker individuals to survive and pass their weak traits to the next generation. The greatest factor driving your medical insurance costs up is coming precisely from our attempts to undermine natural selection at its more basic form (survival of the fittest).
Do we have a net gain or a net loss. Don't know. Time will tell, but I won't be around to see the final results.
Never a JW - I still don't get your point about morality.
You seem to be saying that a "strong" individual could thrive by being amoral at the expense of the group.
Although that idea may appeal to common sense we should no better than to trust our intuition when it comes to science.
You should do some research on the work of Robert Trivers regarding reciprocal altruism, Robert Axelrod and W.D. Hamilton on game theory and especially Maynard Smith on what he called the Evolutionary stable Strategy - ESS.
Morality is the work of natural selection as can be demonstrated by mathematical models.
Edited to add - How are you using the terms "weak" and "strong"?
"amoral"? What s that? Are bacteria killing my cells and undermining my health amoral? Are species whose strong males get to mate with most females amoral for not having a marriage certificate that requires monogamus relationships?
You seem to be saying that a "strong" individual would thrive by being amoral at the expense of the group
Besides not making sense, there seems to be an extrapolation of what I am saying. Where have I hinted "at the expense of the group".
Regarding "weak" and "strong" are used in the only context they can be used, individual/species with traits that make them more or less likely to survive. I don't understand what's so hard to understand.
"amoral"? What s that? Are bacteria killing my cells and undermining my health amoral? - never a jw
Yes.
Amoral is not to be confused with immoral. Amoral means lacking a moral sense. Bacteria are amoral. A normal human who kills or steals is immoral.
Where have I hinted "at the expense of the group" - never a jw
You said it very explicitly in your post 152...
Morality stregthens the group, but weakens the individual. - never a jw
That is why I said, " You seem to be saying that a "strong" individual could thrive by being amoral at the expense of the group ".
In what way does that not make sense? It is a simple restatement of your position.
If an individual rejects the demands of ethics and morality they may thrive temporarily, and it will be at the expense of other individuals in the group that they kill or steal resources from. However it is not an "Evolutionary Stable Strategy" and the genes that promote that behaviour will not thrive in the longer run.
This is why I suggested you research the work of Robert Trivers regarding reciprocal altruism, Robert Axelrod and W.D. Hamilton on game theory and Maynard Smith on ESS.
Morality is a result of natural selection, not " a diversion from natural selection " as you stated.
Sorry if this has been discussed and I have missed it.
Morality is not only a result of higher intelligence, octopii are have highly evolved brains, this appears to be a function of processing sight, yet they do not show morality as such. Morality is more to do with our being able to work with and survive in social groups. To benefit from the group's protection you need to be accepted. If you do not conform to the groups behaviour you will be ouctcast and vulnerable to attack.
Thank you cofty. I messed up big time, shame on me for allowing the subtle difference in spelling to hide from me the big difference in meaning. And yes, I meant that an amoral individual thrives at the expense of other individuals, not necessarily the group, as you suggest.
The tricky part in our discussion is the word morality. If you restrict it to meaning cooperation, I may agree with you about being for the benefit of the survival of the group, but if you extend it to marriage, homosexuality, and a host of other concepts, then that has nothing to do with natural selection and may or may not have any effect on it. I rather remove the word morality altogether from our discussion and rather deal with cooperation.
I will look into the material you are suggesting
I don't understand why never a JW states "Morality weakens the individual"?
but if you extend it to marriage, homosexuality,
These moral constructs are nothing to do evolutionary biology.
