According to evolution selfishness is better than Morality, so why would Morality exist in evolution?

Update:

So now your saying evolution cares about species and not it's self.

Update 2:

Seems like you guys are making stuff up.

71 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    If we simply evolved from animals (from an atheistic evolutionary process) how did we come to be moral creatures? Why are we always talking about professional ethics, and medical ethics, and business ethics, and bioethics, and so forth? And where did true altruism come from (that which is done without any expectation or hope of reward)? The “Oh, we’re just social animals” argument might work better if all we found in humans was reciprocal altruism (I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine).

    Could non-moral, amoral matter combined with time and chance and natural selection be an adequate cause for this? The demands of Darwinian evolution are very simple—survive and pass on your genes. If people are merely products of physical evolution and “survival of the fittest,” why do we sacrifice for each other? Where does courage, dying for a cause, love, dignity, duty, and compassion come from? Why do people sacrifice their hopes and dreams and pleasures and even themselves for others?

    How could over $4.2 billion be raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery? And similar amounts for other large catastrophes.

    And why do we have hospitals? We should let the sick people die; we don’t want them passing on their genes. An atheistic evolutionist who is a medical doctor is really inconsistent. Eugenics is the correct application of that world view (if you don’t know about Eugenics, you need to look it up).

    Why would there be holocaust rescuers like Schindler, the German businessman, who risked his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chambers?

    And how does “survival of the fittest” fit with jumping on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers, or pushing someone out of the way to take the oncoming car yourself, or jumping in front of the gunman to take a bullet for someone else? It’s often the strong who do these things. How can you procreate and pass your genes on to your offspring if you are dead?

    This seems to be the opposite of what evolution would produce—in a struggle for survival and the natural law of “might makes right,” will the existence of a conscience help or hinder survival?

    As John Adam argued: “...according to the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest, a loving human with a conscience is at a great disadvantage and would be unlikely to have survived the evolutionary process” (Why Do We Have A Conscience?).

    I think it fits much better that there is a moral God who placed morals within us. Objective moral values should be foreign to a universe without God—they don’t fit. My conclusion is the same as that of Dr. John Lennox: “The very fact that human being all around the world show a common core of morality is evidence for the truth of the biblical claim that we are moral beings made in the image of God” (The God Delusion Debate).

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • ron h
    Lv 7
    5 months ago

    if you define morality as behaving to keep a species alive, it's pretty easy. Lots of birds, fish and mammals, even ants have some kind of herd instinct for the protection of herd members. Most birds card for their young, many fish do some variety of that and most mammals nurture and protect their young. Morality is looking out for oneself BY cooperating with others.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 months ago

    Morality is a man made concept, and it does not exist in nature or in biology. The word morality comes from the Latin ''Moralis'', which comes from the old Latin ''Mores'' which means Customs. Morality means social norms and customs, it has nothing to do with evolution or biology.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    There are different evolutionary strategies than can work- from what I understand (I’m not a scientist). For example, if there is a sociopath and they’re very charming and won’t let anything get in their way that is good. But on the other hand if you are altruistic and help other people that can get them to like you which is good. So they both work. Also selfish people tend to prey on altruistic people, but if everyone’s selfish then there is no one to prey on. I’ve heard a theory that explains what you’re saying that everyone’s actually selfish they just pretend to be altruistic so they are accepted by others.

    However this doesn’t explain why people are willing to be so nice to other people they are harming themselves. Evolution doesn’t explain everything. I think that humans are unique in that we know the difference between right and wrong so strongly and share it with other people. I hope this made sense!

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 5 months ago

    You obviously do not understand evolution, and you are trying to contend that it is something evil since you see it as a challenge to your self-hypnosis through accepting unproven religion claims. Religion believers are selfish and therefore lack true morality.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    There was a study done on humans and other animals and while many species do cooperate, humans excel via a myriad of social mechanisms. Cooperation at a high level would pave the way to the creation of rules, or morality, to assure the efficient functioning of the social network.

    Consequently, your assertion that evolution is about selfishness requires greater explanation. Perhaps, when several species are in competition for something like food, then it would seem that the species best able to cooperate (perhaps across species lines?) is more likely to be successful.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29361...

  • 5 months ago

    Altruism, what you refer to as "morality," has a clear genetic (i.e., evolutionary) basis in cases of shared kinship. In cases where kinship is not shared, the basis is more controversial, but group selection has been proposed as one answer. But these are technically complex issues that require study. People who are afraid of challenging their religious beliefs should just go with Goddidit.

    Source(s): Ph.D. biologist
    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • susan
    Lv 7
    5 months ago

    Let's define morality as behavior that enables people to live in communities and form a cohesive society.

    When you say that something is "better" for evolution, then you must be talking about natural selection, and the effect over time of natural selection causing a species as a whole to adapt to habitat/ circumstances.

    I think morality would be more beneficial for the evolution of the species, better than selfishness. Survival is made easier by having the support of a strong, cohesive community.

    • peter m
      Lv 6
      5 months agoReport

      possibly those 6 think that although easier survival, a strong, cohesive community means less happiness (& so unlikely).

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    Because evolution and its accompanying philosophies are wrong.

    Notice this Oxford study:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8510711/...

    If morality is subjective, what would prevent the atheist from behaving amorally? And if the atheist behaves morally, where does that come from - is it natural selection? Is it chance that causes moral behavior better than self-interest? If it is the preservation of life that is the main goal of natural selection, why is this goal thwarted by the consistent appearance of self-sacrifice, empathy and, yes, love?

    One answer is that we are actually created in the image of our Creator, who is love. And those qualities will never go away because they are embedded in our nature.

    Notice these scientific articles:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-athe...

    Why would many (yes, not ALL) atheists insist that we don't have free will, when apparently we do, in fact, we can choose to change our lives and live differently? If they don't believe that there is a God who has a profound influence over our lives and minds, then morality would not exist in evolution.

    And yet, it does.

    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-do-atheists-sti...

    Now the Bible:

    Genesis 1:27

    27 And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

    Romans 2:14-16

    14 For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. 16 This will take place in the day when God through Christ Jesus judges the secret things of mankind, according to the good news I declare.

    This is why WE ARE THE EVIDENCE THAT GOD EXISTS.

    • ...Show all comments
    • DopeyDan5 months agoReport

      wobatfreaks, now you really have me thinking, then why send Jesus? It sure seemed he was on earth to allow us a sinful pathway to god, no?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 5 months ago

    For the theist, moral standards depend on the law of God. For the consistent atheist, it can only be evolution – moral quality must be assessed in terms of evolutionary benefit or failure, yet the strange thing is that atheists know that morality actually exists. It is no use comparing the moral standards of the protagonists, for the real question is how atheists can attribute moral awareness to their evolutionary beliefs.

    Here is how Richard Dawkins puts it: [Quote] My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true… Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. [quote ends, The Selfish Gene, p 3, Oxford Uni. Press 1989]

    Yet if atheism is true, there is no moral high ground to occupy. If our world is the product of amoral forces, and if man is simply cosmic flotsam scattered on the shores of time, then there can be nothing good and nothing evil. Right and wrong would be devoid of all meaning. Old atheists like Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre and Camus recognized this and saw that it led logically to nihilism, or, at best, to absurdity.

    Humans uniquely exhibit morality (whether good or bad). Whatever moral judgements we make does not alter the fact that there is a moral domain which shows in individual and societal conscience. But evolutionary theory insists that all kinds of behaviour, good and bad, are simply survival mechanisms in disguise. And how can diametrically opposed moral traits – selfishness and unselfishness – arise and co-exist courtesy of the same evolutionary process? If we had two separate races of men, a selfish race and an altruistic one, Darwinism could explain that in terms of different selective pressures acting on segregated populations. But it cannot explain what all human history has shown – we all have a conscience that tells us when we do wrong – even toddlers display that.

    We can only distinguish good morality from bad morality by appealing to some independent standard. The atheist only has evolutionary advantage as his standard, which continually favours selfishness. So how can Dawkins call it bad and urge altruism as being good? To what standard is he appealing? Hahn and Wiker analysed the matter and concluded that Dawkins standard [Quote] …is actually a pastiche of Christianity as filtered through 19 century liberalism… and its radical extension, via Darwinism, into the farther reaches of 21 century liberalism [quote ends, Answering The New Atheism, p 132] Bereft of moral clothes, evolution’s emperor simply borrows them from someone else.

    Source(s): Culled from chapter 17, Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything, Edgar Andrews, EP Books 2009
    • ...Show all comments
    • Annsan_In_Him
      Lv 7
      5 months agoReport

      That might be the case with your gods, Nin-Em, but I refer to the one Creator of everything. Mankind's morality is subjective, which says a lot about man-made gods.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 months ago

    Exactly and thats where evolution rather fails at the abstract. Such expressions like art music and morality cant be accounted for because they arent necessary for survival and in fact work against it. For example if me and my worst enemy get trapped on an island together and theres barely any resources survival of the fittest tells me to murder him. Or if one of your kids became lame you wouldn't murder him because there is a higher moral telling you not to which supercedes any consideration of survival.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Roberta B
      Lv 6
      5 months agoReport

      No, I have not blocked you, antonius. May I ask, where does the honesty, which is based on making a moral choice, come from?

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.