Rock: And what if I believe that ethics are heritable (and maybe sometimes strongly genetically heritable) and evolve, and that evolution is about changes occurring in individuals?

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?

As if, Zachriel, there was such a thing as the concept of evolution.

When you say "we" you mean you, yourself, don't you? Because when I talk about evolution we are talking about changes within a lifetime, and both genetic and non-genetic change occurring at any time, within generations (lifetimes) and also extra-generational change.

You're ideas about evolution are certainly interesting, but your ideas are not the only ideas about evolution, and I'm sure Joy (like yours truly) thinks a bit differently about evolution than you do.

My view of evolution is significantly broader (and I know Joy's is too–but not the same as mine), and not just by the inclusion of within-generation change, but also by including (not neglecting) non-genetic change as a (significant) factor in evolution.

(It's a bit of Neo-Darwinian babble to insist that evolution occurs over generations of populations, while excluding the obvious observations of evolution occurring within individuals and within generations (lifetimes). Neo-Darwinists have always had significant problems in articulating their theory to the noncognescenti: Evolution does not occur in individuals but in populations"¦ of individuals. LOL)

"Ethics as a branch of philosophy is not a biologically heritable trait. I would remind you also that evolution concerns genetic changes in populations, not individuals."

And what if I believe that ethics are heritable (and maybe sometimes strongly genetically heritable) and evolve, and that evolution is about changes occurring in individuals?

Insofar as ethical behavior is some subset of all behavior and since there is a genetic component associated with many observed behaviors (I presume all), the ethics could be (I believe is) heritable and consisting of both genetic and non-genetic components (both heritable). I have no problem with evolutionary ethics, the idea that there is a genetic bases for learned ethical behavior (like all other forms of behavior) and that ethics evolve.

The principal problem I see is defining that ethical subset of all behavior. Trivially, it is a socially elicited or enforced conformity of behavioral patterns, with much context sensitivity and many exceptions.

Mark Frank: What about Friar Lawrence?

Christians have explicitly extended the in-group to be all people, or at least all Christians, a radical and counterintuitive ideal. But I don't doubt that even ancient peoples might feel compassion or a sense of fairness as applied to strangers.

I admit my first sentence above is an overstatement, but the principle might still be explanatory for many such effects. In some cases, it may also be one of degrees of separation. God, family, country.

I think you will find it nearly always has to do with the in-group v. out-group.

I am not so sure. What about Friar Lawrence (admittedly he is a disaster in practice, but he does act out of compassion for the lovers and and a hope of stopping the fighting)? What about the Prince who seeks peace and justice? I don't see any in-group or out-group motivation there.

In-group / out-group is incredibly powerful but there are other strong moral motives.

Mark Frank: Compassion; a sense of fair play; keeping promises; all these are moral.

I think you will find it nearly always has to do with the in-group v. out-group. So, it may be quite okay to steal a horse from another tribe, but not your own. Or to kill in battle for the sake of national glory. Don't inform on your crew. Burn the witch. Workers of the world unite! Honor among thieves.

Family. Tribe. City. Nation. We are the World. The definitions of in-group and out-group have changed over time. Greater social complexity has led to an expansion of in-group. The emergence of nationhood is a case in point. Globalization is a later manifestation.

Romeo and his Bros roam the streets of Verona like a neverending Mardi Gras. Someone's going to get hurt. What has become of today's youth!

But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever. (MP3)

Actually, it's a very common idea among groups of young males who rate one another by their sexual exploits.

I see your point. It raises an interesting question. What makes us call one motive moral and another ammoral? Compassion; a sense of fair play; keeping promises; all these are moral. I am not so sure about a youth maintaining his street cred. I think the answer is that "moral" has no simple definition. Like Wittgenstein's "games" it is a word with a number of overlapping criteria none of which are necessary or sufficient.

Mark Frank: You asked me to consider the situation where skilfil cheating was ethical. Remember that we already have non-ethical motivations for skilful cheating, lust etc, and people indeed do cheat skilfully because of it. I interpreted this as having a duty to cheat skilfully (which is a very odd idea).

Actually, it's a very common idea among groups of young males who rate one another by their sexual exploits. However, it is generally not the most successful reproductive strategy, and many eventually bond (Alas poor Romeo! he is already dead; stabbed with a white wench's black eye; shot through the ear with a love-song; the very pin of his heart cleft with the blind bow-boy's butt-shaft) and settle down to raise families. Some end up in shotgun weddings and dabble in cheating, but most of their children are fruits of their monogamous relationships. The rest mostly end up as old hasbeens. Women have a significant long-term incentive to establish lasting relationships.

A study of birds, who often form monogamous couplings, allows an understanding of these relationships without the interference of human culture. Courtship helps establish the credentials of the male to the female. Constant access to the female and watching your chicks grow is a significant advantage. Nevertheless, there is occasional cheating. A variety of strategies are available to limit this, e.g. a male may defend his territory or keep a close eye on his mate.

I find your answer to be very enlightening. It seems to me that the answer is obviously yes. Someone who can skillfully cheat with out any of the physical side effects of gilt would have more offspring. Duh!

….

I can't see how you could deny it. Unless you are just unwilling to concede any point to your opponents

You asked me to consider the situation where skilfil cheating was ethical. Remember that we already have non-ethical motivations for skilful cheating, lust etc, and people indeed do cheat skilfully because of it. I interpreted this as having a duty to cheat skilfully (which is a very odd idea). In this situation you would feel bound to cheat even when there was no advantage to you as an individual. It is really hard to imagine that situation - which is why I said "I don't know". You would probably be inclined to cheat more - because your conscience would not limit you - but there would also be situations where you felt duty to bound to cheat when this was bad for fitness e.g. it was a major distraction from bringing up your own legitimate offspring. I decided that on balance it would probably be bad for fitness - but mostly it is just hard to see how it would work.

I think you interpreted "ethical" as just "not thinking it was wrong". i.e. your basic motive for cheating remains the same but the constraint of conscience is removed. In that case I would think there probably is a slight fitness gain for you as an individual - although not necessarily for your genes which are of course to be found in many other members of the immediate community.

Next question?

fifth monarchy man: Someone who can skillfully cheat with out any of the physical side effects of gilt would have more offspring. Duh!

Cheating always entails a risk of exposure which could be detrimental. And cheating requires the participation of a second person who may have quite different motivations than the male.

People learn when other people are unreliable. Humans, as well as many other animals, have elaborate courtship rituals. In humans, this includes complex societal communications concerning the character of potential mates. It is not an infallible system, but largely serves to substantially reduce successful cheating. And successful monogamy results in children having the benefit of a stable family and tribal community.

fifth monarchy man: the lack of evolutionary change in observed species…

That's is a factually untrue statement. Populations can be shown to evolve over many different time-scales.

fifth monarchy man: I only wish that Darwinists could take the same attitude as cosmologists when faced with evidence that conflicts with their foundational theory.

The Theory of Evolution has been dramatically and continually revised. This process continues.