Ken asked:

On the premise that early homo sapiens tribal cultures preceded the religions of the world, how/ what
shaped the evolution of their moral codes/ ethics, to those of 'civilizations' today?

Has right and wrong evolved as a matter of perspective of culture, religion or the needs for survival of
the species/ tribal groups?

What part has the development of speech (therefore sharing ideas/ thoughts) had on this?

Can one speculate that the pre-speech grunts of early man equate to those of a hierarchical group of
apes who demonstrate a kind of code that maintains order? Or is it reason, the power of speech and
thought? Can only man have religion and does it matter what religion? (back to the earlier point on
evolution from tribal ethics).

It may just be infatuation with your web page, that I have put my spontaneous thoughts down here but
they are the sort of thoughts that I often have. It's hard to bounce ideas off others and get their
thoughts without being accused of killing off conversations with heavy topics etc.

I'm wary of theological types (perhaps unfairly) who may want to convert me and those that have a
literal belief in Genesis. It may be that I just need to read the right books as a novice thinker or am I
just lacking external stimulation or both.

============

You appear to have fallen directly into the 'evolution' trap. This is suggested by use of statements like,
"evolution of moral codes", "evolution of right and wrong", "survival of the species", "the development
of speech" (implying an evolutionary notion), "pre-speech grunts of early man". There also seems to
be an implied notion that Genesis is the only alternative to the Theory of Evolution. One does not
have to be conventionally religious to oppose the evolutionary theory. In fact, one does not have to
subscribe to the often presented notion that unless an alternative to evolution can be supplied we
have to accept the theory. This is a fallacy.

Before the question, "What shaped the evolution of primitive moral codes/ ethics?" can be answered,
it has first to be proved that moral codes/ ethics actually evolved.In fact it is difficult to conceive of an
evolution of morals/ ethics. Consider that humans are born with an innate awareness of right and
wrong, in other words, if it were a fact that right and wrong are absolutes: How do they evolve? How
can they evolve? Is it not the case that moral codes established within societies are dependent upon
the world view established within that society, including a by no means unimportant environmental
factor?

Conception of morality within a primitive society is one thing, and conception of morality in a so called
developed/ civilized society is another, that the primitive concept could evolve into the civilized
concept is a fallacy. In fact, members of a primitive society placed in a position where they could
observe the moral attributes of modern 'civilized' society would probably hurry back into the jungle as
fast as their legs would carry them.

Most concepts within a society are based on the intrinsic political and environmental foundations of
that society, and are strictly pertinent to these conditions. Changing the basic structure of a society is
likely to change its moral code, however, this is not evolution but adaptation. Changes can flow in any
direction, backwards, forwards, side ways, etc., and adaptation follows it, hence moral concepts can
actually reverse to more primitive considerations. Surely, all this is superficial to the inbuilt concept of
right and wrong in the human psyche, i e absolute moral awareness. One case in point, and there are
many, is the atrocious concept of morality entertained in Germany under the control of the Nazi party.
This party created a very special concept of morality within its domain. Wiping out Jewish people,
communists, sexual deviants, the mentally afflicted, the physically handicapped, etc., to produce a
'better' society was seen as highly desirable and very 'right'. We must not overlook the fact that this
was a modern/civilized society. However, observers outside the society saw a very different picture,
and judged it by the basic human intrinsic values of right and wrong. Had the Nazi notion of morality
evolved? Of course not. The Nazi concept of morality was as superficial as any other politically and
environmentally controlled system, and had no more effect on changing absolute morality than any
other man-made political regime.

You mention speech. It seems obvious that speech is essential to humans, and certainly has an
indisputable effect on the progress of humanity. Were there ever pre-speech grunts, as your bias
towards evolution suggests? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Did humans originally exist
in ape cultures? I don't know, but feel that it was unlikely. You see I am biased againstthe Darwin/
Huxley concept of evolution, for which there is little or no proof.

I presume that only 'man' is concerned with religious concepts. Religious awareness in other forms of
animal life seems unlikely. Whether one religion is better than another may depend on its moral
interpretations. Some religions try to obtain their ends by violence, others by passive persuasion.
However, perhaps we should not confuse the common understanding of religion with spiritual
awareness, the concept entertained by Jesus and others. Unfortunately, Jesus and other great
prophets have become hi-jacked by religion.

By all means read the books that take your interest, and try to work out to your own satisfaction which
concepts that you encounter lead you in the direction you would wish to go. If you do not like Genesis
keep away from it. However, you will find it hard to argue against someone who has read it. Ignoring
reading that we do not like can often leave us in a poor position when we come to argue against it.
This is the big difference between knowledge and understanding. You may have knowledge of
Genesis, but the person who has read it will have understanding of Genesis. This difference between
knowledge and understanding is a very important point in epistemology which is often overlooked.

John Brandon

The answer would be 'no'. For one thing, 'evolution' doesn't denote a stately progress towards better.
Consult your own experience. It's not at all guaranteed to be the 'fittest' who survive, except on the
triviality-constructing assumption that what 'fittest' means is just 'those who happen to survive'. On
that assumption, 'the fittest survive' turns out to amount to the value free statement 'the survivors
survive'.

When I say that it is 'value free' I mean that 'the survivors survive' and any equivalent statement
doesn't say anything about what is good, better, best. It is important to add that 'the survivors survive'
isn't at all an interest freetautology: on the contrary, it is a good example of an in interesting
tautology, because the fact that the survivors survive to generate more like them is one important part
of an explanation for the shape and diversity of life on earth. But that the survivors survive doesn't
prove that the survivors are better than the dead morally, aesthetically, intellectually or in any other
way. It just show that they survived. This applies to beliefs as well as to persons.

Now clearly, moral codes which survive, survive. But so what? That something survives is an entirely
separate question from whether it is rightthat it should survive.

So, one might think, to attempt to account for right and wrong in terms of survival is uniquely
misguided. When we think of Right and Wrong, supposing that there is such a thing, we think of
notions with a binding force on all of us, namely that you ought to do right and ought not to do wrong.
But if we take the evolutionary line and talk about rules for behaviour that have survived, then the
mere fact of their survival up to here does nothing to mandate any attitude or response to these rules
on our part. From this it might be deduced that whatever evolutionary sociologists/psychologists are
talking about when they talk about the 'evolution' of right and wrong, it isn't what weare talking about
when we use the words 'right' and 'wrong'.

In sum:

That it is wrong to kill people is notderived from the contingent fact that the rule 'don't kill people'
happens to have survived (on and off). If anything, it is precisely the other way about.

David Robjant

83