Evolution of altruistic cooperation and communication in robot societies

Fascinating how simple processes of variation and selection can explain the evolution of altruism, cooperation as well as cheating.

yes, fascinating.

perhaps you should relay that article to Francis Collins?

Article on Collins and altruism by Gert Korthof.

Personally I see no problem with the idea that moral law evolved but I cannot speak for Collins.

Of course Behe will say that computer simulations of evolution are utterly meaningless (unless their *his* ID-supporting computer simulations),

jeh: Of course Behe will say that computer simulations of evolution are utterly meaningless (unless their *his* ID-supporting computer simulations),

Ichtyic, do you really have to be so annoying. I agree that Collins arguments are flawed. As I said, I do not care really.. But your response is not appreciated,

If you want to keep trolling do it on the bathroom wall.

As I said, I do not care really

oh pathetic.

no wonder so few of the original contributers post here directly any more.

this obviously isn't the place to discuss the SCIENCE involved with evolutionary biology any more.

good luck with your tactical battle.

seriously, you post an article discussing the evolution of altruism, yet feel perfectly happy to avoid debating the fact Collins' argument is directly counter to this?

good luck avoiding that one anywhere you can't control the flow.

Sorry to go off at a tangent but I've got a nit to pick with the linked article at www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm.

I found the sentence "However, contrary to Dawkins' selfish pitiless universe, the actual behaviour of animals towards genetically related individuals can certainly be altruistic and, famously, this has been theoretically derived from Darwinian principles by W. D. Hamilton."

It's been a few years since I read the book but as I remember it a large part of The Selfish Gene is *about* Hamilton's work on altruism, not something that is contradicted by it. What am I missing here, are you playing to popular misconceptions about Dawkins work or is my memory just really bad?

Perhaps they can take an ID perspective and show that it leads to better predictions?

Oh, that's not a prediction you say. Oh really. Well of course neither is any other ID prediction.

It was all snuck in by the programmer I tells you. Intelligent front loading by the intelligent robot designer! That proves that altruism couldn't possibly evolve naturally. Evolution can only produce really mean bad things and everything good must come from God.

Well, I guess I really can't find the code where the front loading happened. But I'm just sure it must be there. Otherwise these results must be legit. Man that programmer must have been really smart to do this and not leave a trace. Oh well, I just know I'm right anyway, even if I have no evidence. It's all an evil "Darwinist" conspiracy.

"Danger, Will Robinson!"

(Well, somebody had to say that.)

I think you mean _Discover_ magazine:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/robots-evolve-and-learn-how-to-lie/

Your Magnenat and Keller URL at the end of your article was broken when I tried to click through just now.

this obviously isn’t the place to discuss the SCIENCE involved with evolutionary biology any more.

Fixed the link to the PDF.

In the trackback to this article, That Humanist gives us some interesting pointers, including the work of Pascal Boyer. Well worth reading through Boyer's extensive collection of papers.

Matt, you're correct. There's a chapter in The Selfish Gene called "Nice guys finish first". In fact, he remarked that the title of his book was misleading and that he might have called it The Cooperative Gene among others.

Discovery Institute/Discover Magazine, what an unfortunate combination.

Matt: It's been a few years since I read the book but as I remember it a large part of The Selfish Gene is *about* Hamilton's work on altruism, not something that is contradicted by it. What am I missing here, are you playing to popular misconceptions about Dawkins work or is my memory just really bad?

What has ID done recently that increases our understanding of how cooperation, cheating and altruism arose?

"What has ID done recently that increases our understanding of how cooperation, cheating and altruism arose?"

Well, they are a shining example of just that.

Stuart Weinstein: "What has ID done recently that increases our understanding of how cooperation, cheating and altruism arose?" Well, they are a shining example of just that.

Ichthyic.

Yeah, I've pretty much given up on pandas thumb. It used to be an interesting place for educated laymen like me to learn and lurk. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I find myself skipping almost every new entry.

paul fcd

Yes, but only because they were designed that way…

What works, works. What doesn't, don't.

Most of the time any predictions are overshadowed by the reality, like this morning's stock market. What is surprising in nowsight is familiar, sometimes boring, in hindsight. That is, when, and immediately after, something happens it has a sense of urgency that is lacking in later recall. This is sometimes offset when later recall, and gleaning through memory, can glibly restate the very genesis of the event.

This particular process is similar to what little I do know of biology and the story of life as we can reasonably say so far. In biochemical processes, and now in lines of code, running bots, it is shown that there are usually more ways to get the job done than the one most recently discovered. We already know that there are many ways to make and inject venom, there are many ways to make a living inside a host, there are many ways to make a buck. Oh, yeah, there are many, many ways to make babies.

Interesting how some common human inclinations, like making an honest living, (or stealing one) have analogs in artificial simulations. Oh, wait. These simulations were based (at least in some part, I assume) on the principles and predictions of genetics derived from the Theory of Evolution. Well, then. This all should come as no surprise.

This is, for some, a source of great awe and surprise, followed later by a sense of belonging, inclusiveness, welcome. They are related to the entire universe on the most intimate level, made of the same stuff, carrying its imprint, giving birth to its great-grandchildren. And one day they will return all of their parts, fundamentally, to the fundament. And rejoin a grand cycle.

Not woo. Just a notion borrowed from others and polished by experience. And wonder. Pedestrian. Common. Everyman.
Everyone wrestles with the miraculous, the numinous. The best bet is to beet feet away from belief and go contemplate a clear, moonless sky.

Give Kids Science Books!

If you were interested in discussing the science, how come that you went for the religious disagreements with Collins?

Hey baby, want to kill all humans?

And we all know that Bender would be one of the robots that would flash food signals next to the poison before wandering over the other way to drink all the alcohol... unless the poison in question *was* alcohol.

:)

Yes, it seems weird to have a post about the science of the evolution of altruistic behaviour, and then cry foul when it's pointed out that Collins has claimed that altruism must have come from God. This sort of study makes it pretty clear that Collins is factually wrong on that point. If people are going to claim that theistic evolution is scientific then it needs to face up to this sort of issue.

In Nature two weeks ago there was a very good paper on the coevolution of choosiness and cooperativity in a population.

The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation p189

John M. McNamara, Zoltan Barta, Lutz Fromhage & Alasdair I. Houston

doi:10.1038/nature06455

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7175/abs/nature06455.html

Has Collins actually made strong statements that altruistic behaviors cannot evolve? Has he made a direct comment on this particular research, or on other actual research directly studying altruistic behavior?

Or has he just made vague statements along the lines that Jesus makes people love each other?

I know that Collins is guilty of publicly endorsing the "anthropic principle" or whatever it's called (*the logically flawed idea that we can know whether or not the universal constants we observe were "improbable" at some prior non-deterministic point in time before they existed, that it would mean anything if they were (even if we could know that), and that we have any clue whether any other combination of constants could have allowed sentient or even human life*).

However, that particular piece of illogic has been accepted by a fair number of brilliant, productive scientists. Unlike creationism, it doesn't deny science (*arguably it denies or at least misunderstands probability theory to some degree, if math is science, I guess*) - doesn't deny the history of the universe or the measurement of the constants.

It's merely a demonstrably wrong religious idea that makes reference to science, but in a non-denying, non-destructive way.

Likewise, if Collins is going around saying that Jesus is one of the reasons that people are sometimes kind to each other, so what?

Has he actually denied scientific explanations for altruism, or altruism research?

For the record, I don't share Collins' religion, but I think it's his own business, and I don't see why he even bothers to layer on illogical arguments.

However, if his illogical arguments are not associated with actual denial or dismissal of any legitimate branch of scientific research, then addressing them does construe a personal religious argument with Collins, rather than a relevant comment on the evolution of altruism.

Has he denied any altruism research, or stated openly that altruism can "only" be brought about by magic? If not, who cares if he thinks that sometimes it's Jesus?

Has Collins actually made strong statements that altruistic behaviors cannot evolve?

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?"

[quote]
I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”
[/quote]

I suppose it might make a difference what it is meant by a "moral sense" and the explanatory power of the evolution of altruism. If altruistic behaviors can evolve, does that basically spell the end of that? For instance, they do say that when selection was on an individual level and people were "unrelated" to each other cheating robots did exist. So its not like altruism is a necessary component of evolution.

One could say that we are altruistic because we evolved that way. Ok. But now what? Why is it that a person cannot say something along the lines of "I've evolved this way to feel that I should be altruistic, however I realize I can benefit myself more if I am not, if I'm a cheater. After all, I'm only around for one generation. Why should I care about my children? I don't even HAVE children!"

Hamlet wrote:

"One could say that we are altruistic because we evolved that way. Ok. But now what?"

Now you determine how and why we evolved that way. You determine the mechanisms, the selective forces and the evolutionary consequences of altruism. You develop hypotheses regarding kin selection and genetic relatedness and you test their predictions in social insects and everything from cellular slime molds to humans.

Showing that the evolution of altruism is possible is only the beginning. This approach has opened up an entire field of science and a new perspective on human behavior. Like all good science, answering one question brings up many more questions and provides more opportunitits for learning and for understanding ourselves.

[quote]
Now you determine how and why we evolved that way. You determine the mechanisms, the selective forces and the evolutionary consequences of altruism. You develop hypotheses regarding kin selection and genetic relatedness and you test their predictions in social insects and everything from cellular slime molds to humans.
[/quote]

None of this tells me why I should be altruistic in the future however.

If it is the case that altruistic feelings and desires are only evolutionary developed mechanisms, "useful delusions" in a way, (They are useful, and the idea of independent existing moral value becomes a delusion), then why should I continue with the delusion? Why should I honor these feelings?

Moreover, why is "cheating" wrong if all morality is, is nothing but evolved, shared, feeling? As I said before, the experiment does show that cheating can, and does, evolve. Does that not make it "moral"?

In the end, no matter the mechanisms involved, to say that morality is nothing more than the result of some evolutionary process, seems to me, to take all the meaning out of morality. It is something that may be useful for a practical result. If I don't share the desire to see that result, why then should I follow that system of "evolved" morality?

harold said: For the record, I don’t share Collins’ religion, but I think it’s his own business ...

If he wanted to keep it his own business that would be fine but obviously he doesn't. He writes books about it, he give interviews, he shouts it from the rooftops. What does anyone expect? Of course reasonable people are going to point out how illogical and superstitious his position is. People go on about how religion is a private matter but religionists themselves don't seem to want to keep it private.

Martin M. -

Let's look at Collins' comments - I put them in italics...his base claim is that science can't address these particular questions

“What is the meaning of life?” Duh, he's right, science can't address this (whether it is a meaningful question is another issue).

“Why am I here?” He's right again, science tells him how he is here, but not "why". (Again, whether it is a meaningful question or not is another issue.)

“Why does mathematics work, anyway?” This question is probably outside the realm of science. This is actually potentially very sticky question, which could generate a great deal of heat and very little light if we got into it. Did pi and e "exist" before they were discovered and so on. At any rate, the point here is that Collins' statement isn't outrageous.

“If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” The FSM, of course, but again, certainly this question is out of the realm of current science.

“Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” Oops, this one is a mistake. Since we know that we exist, of course the constants we measure have to be compatible with our existence, or else our measurements were wrong. The conditional probability that constants we measure will be consistent with our existence, given our existence, is "one". We don't know whether other combinations of constants could have been compatible with "complex life forms", or even if that's a meaningful thing to say.

“Why do humans have a moral sense?” To some degree, of course, scientific investigations of altruistic animal behaviors (humans are a type of animals, please recall) are highly relevant to this question, so Collins is a bit wrong here. But "moral" and "altruistic" are not synonyms. This is pretty weak beer.

“What happens after we die?” I don't believe in an "afterlife" at all, myself, but I think it is defensible to say that this is not a scientific question.

Collins is four out of six in terms of what isn't a scientific question, and his errors are not so egregious.

Again, if he specifically denies the results of valid research into altruism, show me where and I'll be the first to take him to task.

If he doesn't, you're just trying to introduce the following chain of argumentation -

1) Collins is religious.

2) Collins has made some incorrect statements.

3) Therefore we might be able to cast doubt on Collins' individual religious views by focusing on his incorrect statements.

4) One of his incorrect statements is about "morality", which can be paraphrased as being about "altruism"; therefore, he could be said to have made an incorrect statement about altruism research indirectly, even though he didn't mention the research or the words "altruistic behavior" specifically.

5) Therefore a thread on altruism research should focus a lot on Collins' informal (albeit apparently incorrect) statement about "morality".

That's just a rather strained effort to go after Collins' individual religious beliefs.

The claim is not that altruism is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process; the claim is that altruism can be the result of an evolutionary process. See the difference?

Collins is four out of six in terms of what isn’t a scientific question, and his errors are not so egregious.

To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started. The hard part for me was the idea of a personal God, who has an interest in humankind. And the argument that Lewis made there — the one that I think was most surprising, most earth-shattering, and most life-changing — is the argument about the existence of the moral law. How is it that we, and all other members of our species, unique in the animal kingdom, know what's right and what's wrong? In every culture one looks at, that knowledge is there. Where did that come from? I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive. If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me.

That’s pretty explicit. Moral law is not an evolutionary consequence, precisely because altruism does not fit.

Yes, I know. I was just summarizing Collins' position, as I read it in that quote.

If people are going to claim that theistic evolution is scientific then it needs to face up to this sort of issue.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations.

Furthermore, the concept of reciprocal altruism also becomes more relevant in groups, even groups which are not directly related.

The claim is not that altruism is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process; the claim is that altruism can be the result of an evolutionary process. See the difference?

Hamlet wrote:

"None of this tells me why I should be altruistic in the future however."

No, of course not. Biology cannot tell you how to act, it can only help to explain why you act the way you do. You are always free to make your own moral choices.

Then aqain, if you do some calculations you can probably decide whether to save your brother or three of your nephews if the choice arises. The math won't tell you what the moral thing to do is, but it can tell you what the smart thing to do is, at least genetically speaking.

Moreover, why is “cheating” wrong if all morality is, is nothing but evolved, shared, feeling? As I said before, the experiment does show that cheating can, and does, evolve. Does that not make it “moral”?

Hamlet: One could say that we are altruistic because we evolved that way. Ok. But now what? Why is it that a person cannot say something along the lines of "I've evolved this way to feel that I should be altruistic, however I realize I can benefit myself more if I am not, if I'm a cheater. After all, I'm only around for one generation. Why should I care about my children? I don't even HAVE children!"

Biology cannot tell you how to act, it can only help to explain why you act the way you do.

I think evolutionary answer would be that human societies have means to ENFORCE altruism.

Is this right though? I mean, if altruism isn't in fact right, or maybe just neutral, just something that evolution developed, why then should societies "enforce" it?

In general, let me restate what I said before. To say that morality can be, in part, the result of an evolutionary process is a claim that I'm fine with on a philosophical level. To say that morality is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process and has no existence aside from that is something I have a problem with.

To say that morality can be, in part, the result of an evolutionary process is a claim that I’m fine with on a philosophical level. To say that morality is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process and has no existence aside from that is something I have a problem with.

Hamlet: I think evolutionary answer would be that human societies have means to ENFORCE altruism. Is this right though? I mean, if altruism isn't in fact right, or maybe just neutral, just something that evolution developed, why then should societies "enforce" it? In general, let me restate what I said before. To say that morality can be, in part, the result of an evolutionary process is a claim that I'm fine with on a philosophical level. To say that morality is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process and has no existence aside from that is something I have a problem with.

To say that morality is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process and has no existence aside from that is something I have a problem with.

Culture, in general, has a significant evolved component. Language, religion, art, systematized kin relationships, and others, are all human universals and therefore are --in part-- evolved traits. Morality trips people up, I think, because the state of the art in cheating discouragement for milennia has been "Sky Father'll getcha!"

Art has largely been decoupled from religion in the modern world but it's easy to imagine it was not in prehistoric societies. It's simply not so with morality; culures are conservative, and never moreso than when dealing with sex and death, which are morality's ultimate concerns.

CJO: Culture, in general, has a significant evolved component. Language, religion, art, systematized kin relationships, and others, are all human universals and therefore are --in part-- evolved traits. Morality trips people up, I think, because the state of the art in cheating discouragement for milennia has been "Sky Father'll getcha!" Art has largely been decoupled from religion in the modern world but it's easy to imagine it was not in prehistoric societies. It's simply not so with morality; culures are conservative, and never moreso than when dealing with sex and death, which are morality's ultimate concerns.

I’d say that how something arose doesn’t determine the level of importance of the something.

True, but it does tell you a lot about it.

We have, in the past, attributed two qualities to morality. We can compare one moral system to another, and judge one to be better than the other, and we feel that morality is something that can and should be enforced, even necessarily on people who wish to violate it.

If you take away any of these two, I find that morality becomes "do what you want", in a sense. If you take away the ability to compare, yet leave the ability to enforce, you cannot pick what moral system to enforce on an individual. If you cannot enforce morality, (what I mean by that is that the judgement "Such and such is wrong and one should not do it" depends not on subjective interpretation), then it's to each his own and morality becomes yet another subjective, emotional, personal choice.

I find that if one judges morality as purely a set of rules developed as "useful delusions" (of a sort), by culture and evolution, we lose the ability to compare them. It would be like comparing an African elephant to a cobra and saying the cobra is "better".

We could, I suppose give up our right to compare morality. In that case however, we cannot really say that any particular regime was really wrong... we can just say that we find it wrong, and most of morality just becomes "I say its wrong, and I have the guns, so guess what, its wrong".

Morality trips people up, I think, because the state of the art in cheating discouragement for milennia has been “Sky Father’ll getcha!”

Bill,
Yes, I've read about studies similar to what you describe. Fascinating stuff. In my comment regarding Sky Father, I didn't mean to imply that religion was the sole method of discouraging cheating, only that such discouragement is so crucial to a robust set of moral strictures that the Big Guy himself needs to lend a hand.

Francis Collins--"“Why does mathematics work, anyway?”"

Hamlet: I think evolutionary answer would be that human societies have means to ENFORCE altruism. Is this right though? I mean, if altruism isn't in fact right, or maybe just neutral, just something that evolution developed, why then should societies "enforce" it? In general, let me restate what I said before. To say that morality can be, in part, the result of an evolutionary process is a claim that I'm fine with on a philosophical level. To say that morality is nothing but the result of an evolutionary process and has no existence aside from that is something I have a problem with.

Marek 14: So this is another question: Is there a morality valid once and for all? Morality that you could use to judge all ages? I tend to believe that there's not. My reason is that we consider OUR morality the ultimate arbiter. We can't imagine a better morality that the one we live to (if we could, why would we stay with an inferior one?). But everyone in the past did the same thing. The slave-holders considered themselves just and moral people. If we are going to claim that they really weren't, we are exposing ourselves to the possibility of being scorned in the same way by future generations.

Eric Finn: Marek 14, Your argument seems to promote moral relativism.

Marek 14: So this is another question: Is there a morality valid once and for all? Morality that you could use to judge all ages? I tend to believe that there's not. My reason is that we consider OUR morality the ultimate arbiter. We can't imagine a better morality that the one we live to (if we could, why would we stay with an inferior one?). But everyone in the past did the same thing. The slave-holders considered themselves just and moral people. If we are going to claim that they really weren't, we are exposing ourselves to the possibility of being scorned in the same way by future generations.

That kind of cultural relativism might be compatible with an evolutionary process. It might not be compatible with some of the philosophical positions or religions. It may be a frightful idea that there does not exist an absolute truth, or an absolute moral code for humans. The phrase "Might makes right" does have connotations that are regarded as negative. Even then, this principle has been practiced widely in the history, and is still practiced today. As you indicated, the concept of who are "us" and who are "others" is strongly involved. The distinction can be defined based on various factors: tribe, nationality, skin colour, religion, clothing, sexual preferences, dietary preferences, or anything that makes an individual unlike us, i.e. an alien. It is not widely accepted to kill the children, if one marries a spouse with young ones. Lions do that. Does this indicate that lions are "merely animals" and do not know any better? Or, does that indicate, where accepting the "laws of jungle" would lead also us humans to? Or, does that teach us not to confuse the moral codes of two different species. Does this observation favour moral relativism? You may have noticed that I have more questions, than clear-cut answers. Regards Eric

Societies would enforce it because under conditions of general altruism, majority of individuals fare better then otherwise.

Hitler was evil because he caused the death of millions, which, as most people think, he didn’t have right to do.

What if Hitler's actions really would have benefited the "majority"? Or at least, he acted in that way? It's one thing to say "Hitler was an evil mass murdering a-hole"... another entirely to say "He was a decent guy (as he tried to act to have the majority fare better than otherwise), but just wrong".

I have a problem with "pragmatic" morality. Moral codes which judge whether or not an action was "right" or not purely based on its benefit/detriment to a "group".

We consider this appaling now, but it’s just as appaling thought that the trend might reverse in the coming centuries and slavery might be moral again. (Are you going to bet it can’t happen?)

No, I wouldn't bet against it.

So this is another question: Is there a morality valid once and for all? Morality that you could use to judge all ages? I tend to believe that there’s not.

Here is where we disagree. I think.

I think the disagreement may come from the following: You seem (I think) to think that morality is a feeling that we have about an action, not a property of the action itself. Yet, when I see morality used in discourse, it is as if morality is a property of the action. That is, just as a liquid may be acidic or basic, an action may be "good" or "bad". Now, while this may depend on the entire situation the action is in (If I kill someone it may be self-defense, it may be murder... and so on). I find the idea that morality is a feeling we have about the action to "eliminate" morality (in a sense). While we can perhaps, have common agreement to have the same feelings on the same actions, its just a "contract" we have, of sorts.

After all, wouldn’t the slave-holders find us appalingly immoral? Wouldn’t they deplore the sexual permissiveness of our society where noone enforces or even CARES whether a bride is a virgin or not? Wouldn’t they be puzzled by the idea that you can kill a black man and be actually PROSECUTED for it as if he killed a human being?

Of course they would. It seems then we have several possibilities.

The slave-holders were completely right, we are wrong.

We are completely right, and the slave-holders were wrong (say on caring about the virginity of the bride).

Ain't none of us perfect (We both hold some moral beliefs, and some immoral beliefs).

We were both "right" as morality has changed by the situation/times.

We were both "right" as morality is what you make of it.

The last one seems to be moral relativism. The second situational ethics. The third from the last is what I personally believe (and I'll admit, is similar to the Christian idea of mankind being fundamentally "corrupt". We've never quite "gotten it" so to speak). The first two seem to me to be endorsing objective morality, but at the same time, I can't say that either our culture, or the slave holders, were really "completely" right.

One could say that we are altruistic because we evolved that way. Ok. But now what? Why is it that a person cannot say something along the lines of “I’ve evolved this way to feel that I should be altruistic, however I realize I can benefit myself more if I am not, if I’m a cheater. After all, I’m only around for one generation. Why should I care about my children? I don’t even HAVE children!”

I'm pretty sure there are no rational arguments you can make that appeal purely to self-interest, as far as justifying altruism goes. If you can convince someone to do something purely out of self-interest, by definition it's not an altruistic act.

So no, there's no rational, self-interested reason why you should ever sacrifice anything for anyone else if you can help it, but hopefully your brain is already wired to do so anyways. If it's not, I don't know of any argument that can convince a psychopath to be a decent, moral person, and that's basically what it comes down to.

Hamlet: Societies would enforce it because under conditions of general altruism, majority of individuals fare better then otherwise. Hitler was evil because he caused the death of millions, which, as most people think, he didn’t have right to do. What if Hitler's actions really would have benefited the "majority"? Or at least, he acted in that way? It's one thing to say "Hitler was an evil mass murdering a-hole"... another entirely to say "He was a decent guy (as he tried to act to have the majority fare better than otherwise), but just wrong". I have a problem with "pragmatic" morality. Moral codes which judge whether or not an action was "right" or not purely based on its benefit/detriment to a "group".

We consider this appaling now, but it’s just as appaling thought that the trend might reverse in the coming centuries and slavery might be moral again. (Are you going to bet it can’t happen?) No, I wouldn't bet against it. So this is another question: Is there a morality valid once and for all? Morality that you could use to judge all ages? I tend to believe that there’s not. Here is where we disagree. I think. I think the disagreement may come from the following: You seem (I think) to think that morality is a feeling that we have about an action, not a property of the action itself. Yet, when I see morality used in discourse, it is as if morality is a property of the action. That is, just as a liquid may be acidic or basic, an action may be "good" or "bad". Now, while this may depend on the entire situation the action is in (If I kill someone it may be self-defense, it may be murder... and so on). I find the idea that morality is a feeling we have about the action to "eliminate" morality (in a sense). While we can perhaps, have common agreement to have the same feelings on the same actions, its just a "contract" we have, of sorts.

After all, wouldn’t the slave-holders find us appalingly immoral? Wouldn’t they deplore the sexual permissiveness of our society where noone enforces or even CARES whether a bride is a virgin or not? Wouldn’t they be puzzled by the idea that you can kill a black man and be actually PROSECUTED for it as if he killed a human being? Of course they would. It seems then we have several possibilities. The slave-holders were completely right, we are wrong. We are completely right, and the slave-holders were wrong (say on caring about the virginity of the bride). Ain't none of us perfect (We both hold some moral beliefs, and some immoral beliefs). We were both "right" as morality has changed by the situation/times. We were both "right" as morality is what you make of it. The last one seems to be moral relativism. The second situational ethics. The third from the last is what I personally believe (and I'll admit, is similar to the Christian idea of mankind being fundamentally "corrupt". We've never quite "gotten it" so to speak). The first two seem to me to be endorsing objective morality, but at the same time, I can't say that either our culture, or the slave holders, were really "completely" right.

Marek 14: My problem is this: If Hitler would have won - would he still be evil? [...]

The New York Times recently had an excellent article about the function of morality in human society that I think is very apropos to this discussion. Simply put, there appear to be five basic moral functions; the relative combinations of which can describe pretty much all morality-related behavior in human society. And it's not hard to see how each of these five functions could have evolved naturally.

The Moral Instinct

Altair IV --- Thanks for the link!

Altair IV - Yes, very interesting article!

So no, there’s no rational, self-interested reason why you should ever sacrifice anything for anyone else if you can help it, but hopefully your brain is already wired to do so anyways.

So altruism is not rational, but its just biological? Why heed my "wiring"? I may not heed it in other cases, why do we priviledge our "altruism" wiring?

Moreover, it may be that far, far in the future we will have progressed to the point where we can change our "wiring" to however we want. Should we keep altruism?

My problem is this: If Hitler would have won - would he still be evil?

Hitler may not have been perceived as evil had he won. Now, if morality is all in our perception then he would not have in fact, been evil. But then again, if morality is all in our perception, can we really say that ANY moral perception is "wrong"?

And I’d wager that every one of these societies would consider their own code the best possible, and all the other abhorrent.

True. That however, just speaks of our perceptions. Not reality. We know that there is a difference in other cases, why is it that in regards to morality we consider them one in the same?

Could that be a possibility?

That could indeed be a possibility, however I would say that it ends up being the same as moral relativism. Since we cannot compare, we cannot judge and morality just ends up being what an individual person makes of it.

Hamlet: So no, there’s no rational, self-interested reason why you should ever sacrifice anything for anyone else if you can help it, but hopefully your brain is already wired to do so anyways. So altruism is not rational, but its just biological? Why heed my "wiring"? I may not heed it in other cases, why do we priviledge our "altruism" wiring? Moreover, it may be that far, far in the future we will have progressed to the point where we can change our "wiring" to however we want. Should we keep altruism?

Notice how no new information has been added to the robots. The robots are still robots. Evolutionism would require the robots evolve into something higher like human beings or perhaps HAL 9000. This is not evidence of the possibility that humans evolved from monkeys or monkeys evolved from amoebas or amoebas evolved from rocks!