= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Open thread, September 2-8, 2013 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (376)
I can't remember the article where this was stated, but we have instincts for morality because following them made our ancestors more successful. They're their for our benefit, not each others'. It seemed to your ancestors that killing someone and taking their stuff would be a net benefit, and if they didn't have a built-in aversion they'd do it, and they would likely get caught and punished.
"Caught and punished" might be a too-modern take on the problem. I wonder if it's more like "lead to an ongoing and expensive feud".
I believe you're thinking of the ethical injunction sequence. Specifically, the post ethical inhibitions.
Our ancestors generally divided the world into "those like us" and "those unlike us". Killing "those unlike us" and taking their stuff was perfectly fine and even encouraged.
The boundary between "those like us" and "those unlike us" historically varied and has been drawn on the basis of family, tribe, state, religion, race, etc. etc.
This does not actually speak to the utility of such instincts to individuals. Rather, it indicates their utility the gene bundle, by increasing the genes' probability of propagating. A tribe that stole from itself would not get very far through time.
Yeah, but group selection doesn't make a very big difference, as discussed in The Tragedy of Group Selectionism.