In Other Words

Ethics: Evolution

This entry regarding ethics continues on from this previous entry. If things are unclear you might want to look there, first.

First off I would like to deal with the comments left on the previous entry.

The first comment was what is help and what is hinder? by Amazonian.

This is a good question. Quite simply what I meant with ‘help’ and ‘hinder’ was what would help and hinder the species that held the beliefs. In this case a belief that helps is one that improves the survival chances for that sub species (i.e. humans) that hold the view (have this Meme), while a belief that hinders is one that reduces the survival chances of that group.

The second comment was Are you trying to draw an analogy of Relativism (in ethics) to Einstein's Theory? In Einstein's world, there is one absolute: The speed of light travelling though a vacuum and not under the influence of any large gravitational bodies. What is the corresponding absolute in the worldview of ethical relativity? by Singapore Serf

Yes, I am drawing a parallel between ethical relativism and Einstein’s theory of Relativity, or rather I am trying to explain how the theory of Relativity inspired me to think of ethical relativity. I have not really thought about if there are any constants in ethical relativity.

So far the only thing that would come close to being a constant would be change. Of course that is wonderfully vague, but I’m going to have to leave it at that until I have given your question a great deal more thought. There might be no absolute constants in ethics.

Thank you both for your questions. I believe that progress can only ever be achieved through discussion.

Since yesterday my theory has evolved. I have looked into some ethical texts for inspiration and comparable theories. The closest I managed to find was something called ‘moral relativism’ (the name, as you probably noticed, is damned close to what I called my concept). Here is how Philosophy: the basics describes moral relativism:

It is uncontroversially true that people in different societies have different customs and different ideas about right and wrong. There is no world consensus on which actions are right and wrong, even though there is a considerable overlap between views on this. If we consider how much moral views have changed both from place to place and from age to age it can be tempting to think that there are no absolute moral facts, but rather that morality is always relative to the society in which you have been brought up.

On such a view, since slavery was morally acceptable to most Ancient Greeks but is not to most Europeans today, slavery was right for the Ancient Greeks but would be wrong for today’s Europeans. This view, known as moral relativism, makes morality simply a description of the values held by a particular society at a particular time.

This is a meta-ethical view about the nature of moral judgements. Moral judgements can only be judged true or false relative to a particular society. There are no absolute moral judgements: they are all relative. Moral relativism contrasts starkly with the view that some actions are absolutely right or wrong.

The book then goes on to discuss and refute a subgroup of moral relativism known as normative relativism, which is basically the idea that since no one moral model is superior to any other, no one model should be allowed to eradicate or even influence another. That is however not important, as my theory doesn’t hold that view anyway.

Alright, so that is moral relativism. What is the difference between that and what I have proposed? Well, to begin with, I don’t think that simply because our ethical model is different from others that we cannot make moral judgements about another group. We can make a moral judgement about the actions of others based on our own ethical model and that moral judgement will hold true within our society, or group.

The big difference between moral relativism and what I dubbed ethical relativity is that I believe that ethical systems can be compared to each other, based on how much they have helped or hindered the group that holds those views. I think, for that reason, that it is important that I make the distinction between moral relativism and ethical relativity clearer, for that reason I am going to rename ethical relativity (i.e. my theory) as Ethical Darwinism.

The relativity is important to understand why different groups have different ethical view points, but it is the survival rate of those that follow a specific ethical model (and therefore the survival chances of that ethical model) that decide how effective that model is.

Ethics – much like claws, teeth, reason and fur – are tools that we use to survive and prosper, as individuals and as groups. It is ethics that creates the rules for how we should interact, or rather the most desirable way that all of us should interact with each other within one group. Different ethical models often lead to conflict, as we end up doing something off hand that is considered disgusting in another culture.

At this point I would like to counter the argument that is bound to come up, which goes ‘but if ethics are so relative, then how come so many ethical views are so similar across the world? For instance, why is everybody against killing and theft?’

Why do almost all plants grow up? Why do almost all animals have four limbs, a head and a body? Why do birds have feathers? Because that is what gave them the best chance for survival. Societies that were pro murder have a significantly lower chance of procreating. Rules against murder are a good mutation.
Ethical systems that say ‘stealing should be admired’ have mutated in a harmful way.

Now the interesting thing is that many people seem to find the idea that ethics could be an evolved trait abhorrent. When I looked up ‘Ethical Darwinism’ on the internet (just to be certain that it was relatively unused) those references that did come up seemed to see it as something bad. The suggested that it was a highly undesirable ethical model. I don’t see why.

Something that has been tried and tested through thousands of years of evolution and tinkering is something I trust far more than something that was simply ordained one day by some higher being. I have never met this higher being, yet I have spent my entire life on this planet and anything that has been through the gauntlet of our minds, especially for thousands of years, is something I admire greatly.

A tool that is constantly being remolded and reforged in the fire of our minds, with only those ideas that make us stronger and better managing to survive, while those ideas that weaken us falling prey to the powerful forces of natural selection.

posted by Symbol @ 16.11.05