The Formal Moral Argument and Evolution

[xDark_Wormx]

We all have a built in moral gyroscope, guiding us as to right and wrong. I realize there are corner cases where for example some cultures raise individuals to say it is all right to eat other people whereas in Western cultures it is not all right.

But the main point of my thread here is to dissect the possibility that our inherent (or inherited) sense of morals evolved when the survival of the species was not a foregone conclusion, and we evolved the need to depend on each other and help each other to survive, and further more, that the increase today in murders, crime, and other antisocial behaviors is evolving because the species has become in excess, that the individual survival at the expense of others is no longer punitive in the evolutionary sense because there are so damn many of us.

If this is true then we shall see an ever increasing rate of crimes as survival is no longer based on competition with other species and the environment, but in competition with ourselves. This bodes ill for future generations, but at least if we try to understand and verify this issue we may be able to contemplate means to address it. It seems to me that on cursory analysis the only response would be more laws and tighter control of individuals (law enforcement), but this approach is repugnant to me and I hope that our collective research and dissection may bring about other strategies to cope with our inevitable fate of an increasingly dangerous and conversely freedom-restricted future.

Thoughts anyone? Beside the obvious that I am pompous to a tedious degree.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I agree mostly, but I think it's more accurate to say that criminal behavior and violence is not so much caused because we stopped having to depend on each other for survival. It has more to do with us not being able to see just how interdependent we really are.

[xDark_Wormx]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It has more to do with us not being able to see just how interdependent we really are.

You mean that criminals don't see "the big picture" and so prey on their fellow man out of ignorance? This has always been the case throughout history, but what I am getting at is the effect of a successfully large population on its own constituents: take two different landscapes in the United States today: in rural areas there are smaller local populations and in these small towns "everybody knows everybody else". There is a smaller rate of crime per 100,000 than compared to inner cities where every person walking past a pickpocket every five minutes becomes a potential meal ticket. People become the prey of other people.

So in both extremes above the average citizen is ignorant of "the big picture" but in the small setting it is counterproductive to the individual to feed on his neighbors whereas in the large population there is no penalty save law enforcement (if caught, which factors into the criminal's gamble to use crime to survive).

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention my abstract about this whole thread!

The Moral Argument does not prove necessarily that God exists and so thus we explain our morals as being inserted by Him, but rather morals evolved as a survival mechanism. My apologies for putting the cart before the horse!

So our future selves would appear to us in the present as a society guided not by morals of God but by cruelly evolved morals, but morals which work well for a large population.

[Godslayer Jillian]

And that's because urban areas cause alienation; it's impossible to know everyone in a city, so you begin to see other people as either aggregates occupying the same space as you, or competition.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by xDark_Wormx

But the main point of my thread here is to dissect the possibility that our inherent (or inherited) sense of morals evolved when the survival of the species was not a foregone conclusion, and we evolved the need to depend on each other and help each other to survive, and further more, that the increase today in murders, crime, and other antisocial behaviors is evolving because the species has become in excess, that the individual survival at the expense of others is no longer punitive in the evolutionary sense because there are so damn many of us.

If this is true then we shall see an ever increasing rate of crimes as survival is no longer based on competition with other species and the environment, but in competition with ourselves. This bodes ill for future generations, but at least if we try to understand and verify this issue we may be able to contemplate means to address it. It seems to me that on cursory analysis the only response would be more laws and tighter control of individuals (law enforcement), but this approach is repugnant to me and I hope that our collective research and dissection may bring about other strategies to cope with our inevitable fate of an increasingly dangerous and conversely freedom-restricted future.

Thoughts anyone? Beside the obvious that I am pompous to a tedious degree.

If there were other species with civilizations, some with a low, stable crime rate and others with perpetually rising crime rates, and those with less crime went on to survive, while those with more went extinct, then evolution would come into play.

Societies and civilizations can be said to evolve in this manner already, and not so much the species. If a rise in antisocial behavior is detrimental enough (or at all) to cause the downfall of some social entity, then it was doing something wrong. A process of failure is repeated until one entity emerges where the fatal flaw is corrected.

[Utho]

In general I would not contradict you in essence, apart from the "morals of god" part.
Although I think that there are several different factors relevant to the question, you neglected.

For the fact of raised violence in densely populated areas, I´d blame amongst other factors the lack of individual distance added imensly to by the phenomenon of alienation JILLIAN has pointed out.

In my eyes the violent tendency of our species is - indeed - somewhat of an evolutional legacy that has in a way lost the "enemy" it was designed for - and adapted by focussing on (often highly variable) targets within the same species, that may be felt as competition for certain resources.


According to my understanding it seems appropriate to supply the ppl with channels where they are able to vent their emotions under controlled conditions.
S th like giving the stadium to the hools - and selling the tickets.

Stuff kinda like this is already working on the society. - Imagine f. ex. the US without the big sports, out of beer and out of drugs - after one month or so. This would be the a fairly good experiment to check back on the supressed "energy" within the society. - When watched from a safe distance.


I believe there are several "evolutional"/psychological and quite some social issues that make the cause for crime and violence, and it´s not too easy to tell them clearly apart, because they are highly interwoven.

The state has the choice. It may submit to the doctrine of "security" and thus ignore the social issues, which works well for a certain while. Or it may decide to reduce the social troubles - and to offer them ways to direct their "anger" in socially accepted ways.

Morals are a product of social evolution - gods were always only the spoon to feed the message with; to ppl that weren´t able to develope morals without
an appeal to their parent-complex. (He sees your every deed)

Actually I often tend to wonder if ppl that do not embrace at least some morals, may be evolutionally behind. Anatomically normal, but not mentally on the latest "build".

[Saya]

Originally Posted by xDark_Wormx

We all have a built in moral gyroscope, guiding us as to right and wrong. I realize there are corner cases where for example some cultures raise individuals to say it is all right to eat other people whereas in Western cultures it is not all right.

But the main point of my thread here is to dissect the possibility that our inherent (or inherited) sense of morals evolved when the survival of the species was not a foregone conclusion, and we evolved the need to depend on each other and help each other to survive, and further more, that the increase today in murders, crime, and other antisocial behaviors is evolving because the species has become in excess, that the individual survival at the expense of others is no longer punitive in the evolutionary sense because there are so damn many of us.

If this is true then we shall see an ever increasing rate of crimes as survival is no longer based on competition with other species and the environment, but in competition with ourselves. This bodes ill for future generations, but at least if we try to understand and verify this issue we may be able to contemplate means to address it. It seems to me that on cursory analysis the only response would be more laws and tighter control of individuals (law enforcement), but this approach is repugnant to me and I hope that our collective research and dissection may bring about other strategies to cope with our inevitable fate of an increasingly dangerous and conversely freedom-restricted future.

Thoughts anyone? Beside the obvious that I am pompous to a tedious degree.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't violent crime declining in a lot of countries, like America and Canada?

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Saya

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't violent crime declining in a lot of countries, like America and Canada?

Prior to 2007 it had been incrementally rising, and there was a decrease after the 1990's, but decade over decade it continuously rises:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In regards to the main theme, there is still the differential between rural and inner city crime, so even if the crime rate were to decrease due to enhanced law enforcement efforts, more criminals being incarcerated and so cannot commit crimes etc. there is still the difference between the two population extremes.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Prior to 2007 it had been incrementally rising, and there was a decrease after the 1990's, but decade over decade it continuously rises:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In regards to the main theme, there is still the differential between rural and inner city crime, so even if the crime rate were to decrease due to enhanced law enforcement efforts, more criminals being incarcerated and so cannot commit crimes etc. there is still the difference between the two population extremes.

Ah, I see. I was looking at the Canadian Statscan too:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quoti...80717b-eng.htm

And its the same thing, decades ago the crime rate was low, spiked in the nineties and while it has been declining since its still high compared to the sixties.

Urbanization is certainly a key issue, and thats just what you get when there are so many people in such a small space. But also what Jillian said about people being ignorant of our interdependency, I wonder if thats an effect also of the modern life? You might never see the animals you eat, the workers who makes your clothes, the baker who makes your bread, everything is just there in the store to grab and you pay a cashier you don't look at twice. Some places you don't even see your land lord very often, my apartment building has a system where your rent can be taken out of your bank account automatically. Here there is no feeling of need for your neighbours. In a small town there is a better sense of interdependency, nobody particularly likes each other more and not everyone is completely aware of how much they need each other, but isolation gives a sense of "I'm glad they are there".

Also in my home town where everyone knew each other, you knew who were the ones who would commit a crime. We have a problem with a family of pedos, but since we know who they are and what they want everyone knows to stay away from them, the worst they've done was flash themselves to little girls (which everyone is still mad about, they got locked in the mental hospital for a little while and then let out again, and they're always trying to do that kind of shit.)

[viscus]

Urbanization...and a rather individualistically-oriented and capitalist culture. Japan is home to some of the densest, if not the densest, urban regions in the world, and yet crime rates here are a fraction of what they are in the West. That can likely be attributed to more collectively-oriented thinking and a much more egalitarian culture. You don't see extremes in wealth or poverty here like you do in America, everyone is much more middle class.

[SKULHEDFACE]

Cannibalism could fix all of this..

[Jonathan]

Increased enforcement is approaching the problem from the wrong angle.

If you are really interested in getting society to work better, I really believe it is as simple as making opportunities more available.

For the most part, criminals are looking for the path of least resistance. For example, they'll skip a locked car with the windows up, and loot one they can get to easier. By providing people more convenient opportunities to at least meet the minimum requirements of life (food, shelter), a lot of crime would go away.

There are always going to be rare individuals that just want to kick things over, but most people would conduct themselves differently once they had something of their own invested in society.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by viscus

Japan is home to some of the densest, if not the densest, urban regions in the world, and yet crime rates here are a fraction of what they are in the West. That can likely be attributed to more collectively-oriented thinking and a much more egalitarian culture. You don't see extremes in wealth or poverty here like you do in America, everyone is much more middle class.

Japan is an excellent case that highlights what in my opinion is a present day example of a future where law enforcement and loss of individual identity leads to lower crime despite the population density, but at the cost of diversity.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Japan is an excellent case that highlights what in my opinion is a present day example of a future where law enforcement and loss of individual identity leads to lower crime despite the population density, but at the cost of diversity.

Is it the loss of individuality, or the emphasis on "face" - reputation, that can account for the lower crime rate? I'm not really sure we have that parallel here. Embarassment counts for something - over here we read about executives laughing their way to the bank. Japanese people seem to have a tendency to get fixated on their failures to the point of suicide, whether it is a college entrance test or a business collapse.

[HumanePain]

Ah! Good point again, you underscore my one dimensional thinking. Yes, on second thought, there are cyber-goths in Japan and many other subcultures, so yes, it isn't lack of diversity for diversity is there. The decorum you mention must be a significant variable!

[Jonathan]

For a really good wtf-inducing moment, check out some pictures from "Electric Town". Akihabara is weirdness incarnate. I very much want to visit at least once in my life.

It's a tricky subject - when it comes to crime, I think there are basically two types of people - the ones who could be otherwise decent people who made bad decisions, and malicious jerks (the real life equivalent of forum trolls) who just want to wreak havoc because they can.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by HumanePain

Ah! Good point again, you underscore my one dimensional thinking. Yes, on second thought, there are cyber-goths in Japan and many other subcultures, so yes, it isn't lack of diversity for diversity is there. The decorum you mention must be a significant variable!

That's just superficial though, it doesn't reflect any way of thinking really. And I don't think law enforcement has so much to with it as does simply the way people are raised.

My point was that there's more at work than urbanization. Urbanization perhaps simply exacerbates the underlying problems with American society as a whole. I would argue that if everyone was adequately provided for and no one was desperate for anything, crime in America would drop tremendously.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by viscus

That's just superficial though, it doesn't reflect any way of thinking really. And I don't think law enforcement has so much to with it as does simply the way people are raised.

My point was that there's more at work than urbanization. Urbanization perhaps simply exacerbates the underlying problems with American society as a whole. I would argue that if everyone was adequately provided for and no one was desperate for anything, crime in America would drop tremendously.

Oh my! But then we come full circle to the earlier post made regarding poorer countries that have a lower crime rate than in more "Developed" nations. This disproves the theory that if everyone had basic needs met crime would drop.