Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?
First time responding so be gentle with me.... Instincts and morals are not the same thing. Instincts are that momentary urge leftover from cave days and morals are something that we are taught. Do that help or does that just muddy the waters for ya?
William Hamilton advanced the selfish-gene theory as an explanation for altruism (though Dawkins gets more credit for the idea now); that we are altruistic to people who share our genes because it's the genes themselves that are 'attempting' to survive rather than the vessels which house them.Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?
It depends, I think, on how you define a moral system. E.g. For many people it’s part of their religious framework and animals aren’t religious so it seems unlikely that their instincts fall into the same space as that kind of morality.Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?
Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?
Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in?
Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?
Firstly, great thread Wolly.
Conversely, could morality be a kind of evolved instinct? If morality is an output of trials and errors in society, is it possible too that it may have been derived from lessons we earned, including that which we "learned" via our instincts?
.
Instincts are fallible and misleading, holding no wisdom whatever and attempting to drive us in directions which often bear no relation to our conscious thoughts and desires.
This is a straw-man. The thread asks 'are instincts morals?' and the answer is 'no'. Our instincts evolved for very different purposes than our cultural notions of 'morals' or 'ethics'. By definition, therefore, it is also nonsensical to speak of 'animal ethics'.If all instincts are misleading then what is the explanation behind humans and non-human species natural instinct to protect their offspring? What would be the livelihood of survival for an abandoned one month old, or 2 week old bear cubs if the mother dies? There is a fundamental difference in animal ethics vs. human ethics, one is based in instinct and the other in rational thinking.
However, by definition: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (such as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans. The differences in intelligence are clear but so is the fact that a human is still a mammal. The fact that this instinctual behavior can be observed in both human and non-human species undermines the claim that it is always misleading, or that it often does more harm then good. I think it overlooks the possibility that evolution can also be applied to evolution of instinct to compensate for the constant evolution of danger. Changes in laws are a good example, think of how many new laws in regards to cyber crime increased as technology advanced, or laws regarding transgenders. Proof that change is constant. If threats to our safety and survival are constantly evolving, is it not possible that our instincts are evolving to counteract them to survive?
If that's sounds ridiculous, Joe Kenda a retired Colorado Springs Detective solved over 400 homicides using the same intuitive style approach to solve cases that's currently under question in this forum. He states frequently he is using a gut instinct style approach, the evidence always corroborates the assumption in the end of course. However, that gut instinct wasn't off.
I thinik you put your finger on something at the heart of this question Hos. I suspect thathuman ethics has at least some of its distant roots in animal instinct, but goes far beyond that. The more fundamental question is what distinguishes us from other animals. All of human mental capability of course rests on our animal inheritance, and all of it is linked to the instinctive, but we might as well ask if rational thought and logic are based on instinct as well as our morals. They will have originated in that, not least because they have given us a major Darwinian advantage, but morals and rational thought transcent instinct in my view. As @Sidis Coruscatis implies, these are crucially fields in which our conscious engagement is paramount and that places them beyond the instinctive. The fact that their primitive origins lie in the instinctive doesn't mean that they are instincts, any more than the design and use of a car is instinctive.This is a straw-man. The thread asks 'are instincts morals?' and the answer is 'no'. Our instincts evolved for very different purposes than our cultural notions of 'morals' or 'ethics'. By definition, therefore, it is also nonsensical to speak of 'animal ethics'.
This does not mean that instincts aren't very often incredibly useful, or accurate in what they purport to tell us, but still they are not 'morals'; they do not constitute a source of 'wisdom' on ethical questions.
It does not mean, either, that 'ethics' as we understand them don't have an origin in social instincs, or that they can't be used to inform our moral choices.