I'll guess that you agree that morality or immorality if you will can be both advantageous or disadvantageous. That would seem self evident. So the why must be directed at should morality have been selected out. I can offer you any number of examples along the line of the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak in opposition to natural selection.
We are still social animals, which is the reason it was selected for in the first place.
You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?
Take a look at kin selection.
Why? You'll have to expand on this, I don't follow.
Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.
Not if you consider the reason morals were selected for in the first place.
:-} I like you sharp but you're gonna have to back up these kinds of assertions and you'll have to do better than "reciprocal altruism".
Maybe you're just not expressing yourself clearly enough, but your statement as written is trivially incorrect.
First, you seem to think that "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak" is some sort of contradiction to natural selection, and the reason for this seems to be the common misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the *strongest*" (which it is not) at the *expsense* of the weak (which it is not).
Second, a mother animal sacrificing herself to save her children is certainly an example of "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak", and yet not only is it hardly the "opposition to natural selection" you claim, it is actually a *classic* example of evolutionary "selfishness" -- protecting the perpetuation of one's genes.
Do you have any examples that aren't so vaguely overgeneralized as to be obviously fallacious?
Furthermore, make sure that any new examples you might offer don't fall under the evolutionary instinct of "kin selection". Note also that the instincts of kin selection also apply to sacrificing oneself for other members of a close-knit group, for a variety of reasons.
If you're looking for examples of counter-survival morality, you'd do best looking elsewhere than the variations on "protecting the tribe" which you've been unsuccessfully mining so far.
MNF placemark
Go for it.
"You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?
Comparitive studies of the social structure of other social animals, primarily apes. Dawkin's concept of the 'Selfish Gene' goes a long way towards explaining why we observe altruistic behavior in other animals and humans.
"Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.
Those that do not protect their family can be sure their particular gene set will not survive for long. Those that protect their family have a much better chance of passing on their genes. In most cases this protection will encompass the entire social group. Kin selection is a complex and involved theory that explains among other things: altruistic actions, sibling bonds, sexual promiscuity, and variant degrees of estrus signaling in different ape species.
(At least somebody does ;))
As far as backing up my assertions goes, if I suggest readings to you will you read them?