The Evolution of Morality ~ with DR OLIVER SCOTT CURRY
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- DR OLIVER SCOTT CURRY is a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford. He has tested this theory of ‘morality as cooperation’ by means of a comprehensive cross-cultural survey of moral values.
From our sister channel, Talk Beliefs - MARK meets up with Dr Curry at the London School of Economics Library and asks about how morals, ethics, & altruism could have come about via evolutionary means.
#evolution #morality
00:00 START
00:28 What does your research entail?
02:44 How did you become interested in the subject of morality?
06:13 Did you have a religious upbringing?
07:38 A 'perfect standard'?
11:49 Pushback from the religious?
12:28 A core morality
16:50 Moral relativism
19:50 Upcoming projects
LINK TO ORIGINAL 2018 TALK BELIEFS VIDEO: bit.ly/2MZ9ugP
Thumbnail art by Julio Lacerda @lacerda.julio
linktr.ee/julio.lacerda
LINKS FOR OLIVER SCOTT CURRY
Dr Oliver Scott Curry - The Seven Moral Rules Found All Around The World - Nudgestock 2017 goo.gl/S4xFmi
Website - www.oliverscottcurry.com
Twitter - @Oliver_S_Curry
#evolutionsoup #evolution #paleo #paleontology #paleoartist #Homosapiens #hominid #artwork #Darwin #cave #bone #fossils #Neanderthal #australopithecus #hominin #extinct #animals #science #anthropology #paleoanthropology #genus #species #morals #skull #skulls #naturalselection #morality #paleontology
---------------
SUBSCRIBE to Evolution Soup: bit.ly/2pUOYSb
FOLLOW Evolution Soup Instagram & Twitter! @evolution_soup
SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast! evolutionsoup.buzzsprout.com [RSS feed: feeds.buzzsprout.com/354743.rss]
In association with Talk Beliefs UA-cam Channel: bit.ly/2lA6YOv
DISCLAIMER:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Creative Commons.
Thank you for an excellent interview. I think the "morals" around the treatment of women in different cultures would be a worthwhile project, especially in light of what’s going on in Iran.
Large numbers of women die and are injured each year in the UK where I (Dr. Curry) live. Men are generally expected to respect and support women (and girls), but the reality is much different. The morals (and laws) exist to protect females, but we don't follow them and there are no consequences for men who abuse women. What's the point of morals if no one really follows them?
@@edelgyn2699 : But it isn't "no one." Even if way too many women are hurt, it isn't the majority. The more secure someone is and feels the less likely they are to be antagonistic.
And in the USA.
@@edelgyn2699 There are consequences. Perhaps they are insufficient consequences?
Which makes one wonder, why such abuse happens at all, especially in a country that is well educated, included on morality and equality.
Has there been a decline? If so, why.
People say "Stop doing that." and eventually we catch on.
It's socialization that begins with the family and works it's way out. The more secure people are the further from the family they tend to treat others well. Cooperation tends to produce more benefits in the long-run than antagonism.
The flip side of the Golden Rule is; If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.
Dr. Curry is much too generous. A large fraction of society really, truly, does NOT believe harming other people is wrong. And not just the psychopaths either.
Well his starting point was communism so it's not shocking that his end assumption is folks are intrinsically good.
Yeah, my observations are that about 20% of us carry the rest of population and makes things bearable for the majority. Mostly we are tricky, self-interested nana-grabbing, bum-biting monkeyoids paying lip service to civilisation.
Morality is about the in-group, your tribe. If you start viewing a group of people as the "other" then morals don't apply to them in your eyes.
@@redhidinghood9337 Maybe your morality, barbarian.
@@redhidinghood9337 : The more secure and cooperative people are the less antagonism and conflict they want. Scapegoating has been a useful tool of demagogues to rally frightened insecure people to do bad things.
7:55 "as far as we know.." lol
Ethical moral values are subjective and relative, because they are a social agreement between intelligent entities over to what degree various behaviors are good and/or bad, though when making the subjective and relative decisions to agree on an ethical moral value it would more likely be a good ethical moral value if based upon as objective facts and arguments as possible followed with rational logical debate.
But, just so it is understood how some ethical moral values some might think should be universal are not universal, consider:
There have been social groups which embraced torturing and murdering individuals and large groups of other people of all ages and sex over arbitrary reasons like those other people not following the same religion.
There have been social groups which embraced slavery, including child slavery, including the rape of adults and children, including the torture and murder of slaves who disobeyed too strongly.
There have been social groups which believe humanity is like a virus upon the planet and they actively advocated for causing the extinction of all humans.
There have been social groups which believed joy and happiness was sinful and from children to adults doing anything for pleasure was punishable.
Point being, just within humanity we have different social groups which have agreed upon morals that we cannot imagine how such a group could embrace, yet they did.
However, in seeking to understand ethical moral values, it is important to understand that humans did not invent them. Oh, we invented the words, but what those words mean is something that all intelligent social systems do, all the way down to viruses. If you want to understand the evolution of ethical moral values then you should study it as it has developed from the simplest levels that the simplest intelligent life has through the evolution of increasingly complex intelligent life forms to humans and with that increase in intelligence evolve an increase in complexity of ethical moral values.
Normally, you can easily fit a seat belt around two kids, especially in the back seat. Although, I suppose if it was the front seat and it was a narrow seat, it could be quite uncomfortable.
Sharing a seat belt is not safe.
@@lrvogt1257 Right. But if it was either, or, I'd put the seat belt around both children.
It seems reciprocity will not survive the invention of currency for this species.
I suspect the first moral issue in early humans was cannibalism, and the second was taking care of the elderly. Cannibalism was practiced as recently as World War II, but we have cared for the elderly throughout recorded history.
Cannibalism was still being practiced after ww2 in new guinea, it stopped because of prions infecting people.. see laughing sickness.. they looked after the elderly and then ate them
Some of us have taken care of the elderly, others literally sneak up behind them and crack their skulls with a stick or rock.
30% of Catholics to practice the belief of consuming the literal flesh and blood of Jesus... so there's that.
@@ri3m4nn if jesus is god, then the flesh is god’s- unless you consider us all gods, it wouldn’t be cannibalism it world be - um - interspecies snacking.
Catch up. Cannibalism has been practiced in both ancient prehistoric times around the world to the 21st century. In Papua New Guinea among some few remote superstitious mountain tribes it is the end part of the traditional response to those who succomb to unexplained serious diseases and deaths.
They are believed to have been made ill or died at the hand of evil witches inhabited by demons. The witches can be anyone, even young childen, and must be killed and as much of their bodies eaten as possible so they cannot return to inhabit them to carry out their evil.
Some Birds like the storks have high morality.
Gods cannot provide objective morality anyway. Were it to come from the dictates of some deity, that would make it subjective! And this appears to be what many religious people want: an authoritarian law-giving God, so they don't actually have to deal with the complexities, nuances, and contradictions of actually figuring it out for ourselves.
Except that God isn’t just human, he’s more than human. He’s wiser than us, so He knows what is objectively good and evil. We don’t.
@@petarmilich8684 So "objective morality" is something God merely knows, and thus exists beyond Him, rather than being something He decides? Can't quite wrap my head around that. Seems like He should have the power to decide, rather than just accept whatever objective morality precedes him.
@@petarmilich8684 gawd is much less than humans, humans exists and gawd doesn't
@@markshort9098 Yay! Someone with some damned sense. You sir, are a rare breed
@@TheSeverian Morality _is_ a luxury. Despite that we have the written words of many who have tried to define its parameters, no true moral code has ever been put into practice that we know of. Maybe the notion that we can or should do so is the problem?
Also there's this: most people are terrified of any adult-level decision-making. So following appeals to them. Morality requires at least contemplating one's own guilt in matters generally. Most people would rather gladly sacrifice their Own Children to anyone they think can remove adult-level responsibility from their lives than question authority.
You could take your kid home first in the only seat belt, then go back to the school and take your friend’s kid home.
Morality works in the brain 🧠 in distinct areas. Person with disease of those areas can struggle with a new onset of amoral behavior. Boy that’s interesting isn’t it ? No it’s disgusting. I wish we all cared about people enough to help them keep their morality intact. Oh but we do. But not for the ones who suffer it’s loss ? If you want to know how consciousness matters then help people improve it , oh that’s novel isn’t it ?
It's true that some people lack compassion and or rational thought or just base their behavior on fear and bad information.
Communal selection:
ua-cam.com/video/Z7TwiVul7F0/v-deo.html
Homosexuality is not about sex, it’s about having a family member who will be willing to act as a surrogate parent once the real parents are deceased or are otherwise disabled. I’m convinced it’s a DNA thing.
Isn't interesting that we evolved to have religiosity?
Morality is in apes...
Did it? Not every human got it.
Wow, wise guy invents boiling water🥱
Since morality came from an eternal God, then it did not evolve. And morality is an immaterial concept, so its origin and existence cannot be explained by materialism or evolution.
There is no consistent morality in the Bible "Thou shalt not kill" unless it's for about a hundred petty offenses (see Leviticus) or if you're commanded to slaughter every man, woman and boy in another tribe but keep the girls for yourselves as sex slaves. There is even the threat that if you don't obey, god will make you eat the flesh of your children. (Leviticus 26:29) Clearly a paragon of virtue.
Morality is an emergent property of humans regulating behavior to create society. It's complicated because people with the best of intentions have different needs an goals and can be at cross purposes so some conflict is inevitable.
@@lrvogt1257 You might want to read the whole story. God clearly stated that He would destroy those tribes because of their gross crimes, child sacrifice, etc, etc. Its pretty simple. What goes around comes around. God executed judgement on those tribes through Isreal.
At the same time, God also warned Israel not to get involved in the crimes of those tribes or He would bring the same judgment on them. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
And morality is not an "emergent property". Murder, stealing etc, has always been wrong. And God has always existed, so morality has always existed... long before He created the universe.
@@henryschmit3340 : Oh well ,as long as there's a reason then the absolute objective morality is set aside. Have you read Leviticus? It's absurd, cruel, and insane.
People realized right away that being killed or their children being killed is unwelcome so don't do it to others and they're less likely to do it to you. This doesn't require a god. It's common sense.
Animals in the wild show cooperation, compassion, altruism, and grief with no concept of the supernatural.
Your fantasy world is not objective. There is no evidence any of it is real.
@@lrvogt1257 "...Leviticus..."
You have read the whole thing, and in its wider Biblical context, otherwise you will only ever have a twisted view of it.
"...absolute objective morality.."
Which can only come from God's word. Without that, who gets to decide what objective morality is? History has shown many times what happens when man rejects God's laws and decides for himself what 'objective' morality is, which ends up being the the opposite of objective... it ends up being "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" ...it ends in disaster.
And just borrowing morality from the Bible and claiming the credit doesn't prove it to be man's "objective morality".
@@henryschmit3340 : Go ahead and play with your toy. Just don't expect me to play with it. It's the primitive fantasy of ignorant people.
First of all, civilization is cyclical through four "yugas," as the Hindu writers have explained. Secondly, morality comes from the top down, it doesn't evolve.
If God made us, then He owns us, and has the right to make the rules for us - and because He made us, He knows what’s best for us. And - this is most important of all - we are accountable to Him, worthy of infinite punishment for violating His infinite holiness, and have only one way out, This is to believe that Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, bore the punishment we deserve.
But if no-one made us, then rules are simply conventions from culture or have evolved for survival value, and there is no objective basis for deciding right and wrong. And ultimately we are accountable to no-one but ourselves. For example, Humanist Manifesto II (1973) states: ‘Ethics is autonomous and situational …’ (emphasis in original).
But evolution is a pseudo-intellectual rationalisation for those who want to avoid the idea that they are accountable to their Creator, so they can thus live their lives as they please. And it’s not just creationists who think so - see Morals decline linked to belief in evolution and the articles hyperlinked at the bottom. In fact, this is the whole basis of Daniel Dennett’s book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, an overtly anti-Christian book advocated by many pro-evolutionists, even those who claim they are not anti-God.
It happens to be a fact that Communism and Nazism were evolution-based systems of government , and abortion and euthanasia have also been promoted by anti-Christian evolutionists. Abortion could be rationalized by ‘If you can get rid of spare cats, then why not get rid of spare kids?’, and abortionists often claim that the human embryo is just going through a ‘fish stage’, using those forged embryo diagrams by Haeckel. And the kids who shot their classmates at Columbine High School wore T-shirts with ‘Natural Selection’ (see How to build a bomb - in the Public School System and the further response and explanation Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation), and seemed to target the Christians - a secret well kept by the humanist-dominated media.
If humans are really just rearranged pond scum - the results of survival of the fittest - then what could possibly be the basis for saying that the Columbine killers did wrong? It is a logical fallacy (called the Naturalistic Fallacy) to derive moral codes from science. Morality tells us what people ought to do, while science can at best only tell what people actually do. Science may indicate that if a 20 kg weight is dropped from a height of 100 metres on someone’s head, it would probably kill him; morality is determined by our Creator who declares that murder (intentional killing of innocent humans) is wrong.
It’s important to note that the Bible teaches true women’s liberation, because both men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). The ‘right’ of a woman to kill her unborn baby is hardly liberating - for the woman or the baby. However, evolution provides no moral basis for treating women well - since it provides no basis for morality at all! In fact, it seems to be a well-kept secret that Darwin and the founders of modern evolutionism consistently taught that the alleged physical and mental inferiority of women was strong proof of evolution by natural and sexual selection. This can’t simply be dismissed as just a product of their cultural prejudices - they went out of their way to try to prove female inferiority to bolster evolution. Dr Jonathan Sarfati
First of all god doesn't exist. Second of all you can't communicate with god directly which means you don't know what his actual wanted beliefs are. The bible was changed and modified across the centuries, both unintentionally (from translating across many languages) and intentionally.
@@redhidinghood9337 First of all God does exist, the proof is all around you, (Roman 1:18-25). the Bible has been proved very accurate thru comparing ancient writings and more recent copies, so no it hasn't been changed, unintentionally or intentionally. Everyone can communicate with God, we were created for that reason, we are made in His image so we could communicate, just because you don't want to doesn't mean nobody can.
Citation needed.
@@darlalathan6143 I already told you who said that.
The Bible has it that God put a tree with forbidden fruit that He knew dang well was gonna be eaten by the duo he'd explicitly made without a sense of right and wrong, proceeded to have mankind populate the entire world through hardcore incest (twice) then He turned around and told His favorite people that incest is icky, then had thousands of them kill each other two seconds after telling them killing is bad.