What is your claim here? That there is no variation in out behaviour? Or perhaps that we do not make choices? If either of these were true, then the question of "what ought we do?" is meaningless, because we just do as evolution dictates. — Banno

My claim is that we are the result of our evolution - but it produced wide spectrums of behavior, emotions, aptitudes, perspectives, intellect, abilities, ways of thinking, etc. etc.

My claim (belief) is that there is not a supernatural cause for our behavior.

There are tons of variation in our behavior - but it all represents genetic activity subject to environmental stimuli. That's one big umbrella.

I am not ready to give up on the question, "What ought we do?"

Because clearly, there are things we should do and things we should not do.

And returning to my main point, the need to belong to the group in deciding what we should do cannot be underestimated.

But you are now choosing whether and how to reply to this post. You remain confronted by choice.

What will you do?

You will choose. — Banno

I'm sorry if I gave the impression we humans have no choice. Of course we have choice.

I return to the story I told earlier about the sons of an alcoholic.

One son became an alcoholic. When asked why, he replied, "My father was an alcoholic."

The other son never drank. When asked why, he replied, "My father was an alcoholic."

How else to explain the difference than by a differing influence between the two sons' genes?

But how is that empathy? — Vera Mont

I didn't equate theory of mind to empathy. I said empathy is one trait that depends on theory of mind.

It doesn't have to be dramatic; people also yawn when they see others doing it; a giggle fit can engulf the entire table. Mirror neurons firing at random. Still not empathy. — Vera Mont

I never said it was. You are the one conflating emotional contagion for empathy.

Whatever. Gods have been used as stop-gap observations for lots of things we didn't know, and are still used as a explanation for misfortune, the weather, altruism and the supremacy of man over all of creation. — Vera Mont

Yes, our belief instinct is strong.

And that is why humans can lie so much more elaborately and sustainably (sometimes an entire lifetime, sometimes even to themselves) than any other species. But false signals, feigning and play-acting are not exclusively human; we inherited the instinct and motivations to preverication from a long line of ancestors. — Vera Mont

This is unconnected to any discussion about theory of mind.

Why should we do as evolution says? — Banno

Well, there are times when we don't, at least not the initial response, I guess. When we think through that initial reaction that tells us "I should punch him in the head." But then we think about it, and other factors come into play, and we decide it is not a good idea to punch him in the head.

But - I wonder - are not those second and third thoughts a result of our evolution, too?

Being able to read thoughts and feelings are very different attributes. Humans discern the thoughts of other humans through choice of words, tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the little 'tells' when we're bluffing or lying. — Vera Mont

cultural mannerisms — Vera Mont

read our emotions — Vera Mont

It has nothing to do with theory; — Vera Mont

No, you’re right, “theory of mind” does not have to do with reading sensory clues, or recognizing emotional states, which is what you are describing. The theory is something we create in our minds about the mental state of another, by making inferences about these sensory clues that we pick up. Because we have a theory of mind, we don’t stop at “He’s sad.” Or “He’s mad.” We take it further and form theories in our minds about what the sensory clues mean > “He’s mad about this….” Or “He’s sad about this …” Or “He wants me to do this …” Or “He doesn’t want me to do this …”

You use your theory of mind every time you make an inference about the mental state of another – like reading a mind. Sometimes, these inferences are correct, and sometimes they are not.

Sneaking in the requirement to "fully understand" makes it exclusively human — Vera Mont

You’re right, it was a poor choice of word, unless it is limited to “our personal understanding.”

(Lol, I’m not trying to be sneaky.)

Like human mobs at a lynching or cattle in a stampede? No, that's not very much like empathy. — Vera Mont

It doesn’t have to be that dramatic. Smiles are contagious.

It's one explanation. And gods are one explanation for why humans exist. We're good at making up explanations, either from fact or fantasy; other animals are not. That's another distinction to add to the list. — Vera Mont

Why humans exist? Or the entire universe?

And when we make up an explanation for existence that involves a supernatural being with specific characteristics – whether we imagine he is a loving god, or a vengeful god, or whatever – we are using our theory of mind to infer what is in the mind of that god.

We can read the thoughts and feelings of a fictional character from the speech and manner of an actor, while the actor himself thinks and feels quite differently. — Vera Mont

Interesting observation. Yes, if the signals sent are false, then your inference about what is in the mind of another will most likely also be false.

Clearly, you have never had a dog console you in grief or ask you anxiously why you are on the ground with your head in the kitchen cabinet. — Vera Mont

Thank you for the opportunity to expand on my answer.

First – I have had dogs comfort me! I always looked on my dogs as my babies.

But the “theory of mind” (and the empathy related to it) I described allows a human to understand what another is thinking or feeling. Rather than empathy, what a dog is experiencing when he responds to your grief is emotional contagion, which is a response to emotions without fully understanding what the other individual is feeling.

Emotional contagion lacks the process of individuation required for empathy – the emotions mirrored are not seen as distinct from the other.

Much has been proposed about "God", usually without reference to all the various conceptions of deity in all the various cultures that invariably project some aspect of their own version of human onto their gods. — Vera Mont

Theory of Mind is not a set of proposals to explain the characteristics specific to any one religion, but rather an explanation for why religion exists at all.

we are animals in so many ways, it doesn't really make sense to say that we are "utterly" different from other species. — Ludwig V

An important way in which humans differ from all other animals is our highly evolved "theory of mind" - a mental capacity that allows us to make inferences about the mental states of others.

We, each of us, have a "theory of mind" about others - We can understand the beliefs, emotions, intentions and thoughts of others. Such a capacity is vital for complex social interactions.

For example, empathy could not exist without a theory of mind.

It has been proposed that religion is a by-product of this mental capacity we call theory of mind, as we evolved to make inferences about what is in the mind of God.

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans. — NOS4A2

No, Jack Smith's immunity filing in the case of The United States v. Donald J. Trump, if nothing else, becomes an important historical document for future historians.

It preserves the words and the deeds of Trump in trying to overturn a legal election.

I have read the entire 165-page filing (it's easily found online), and recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the depth and danger of Trump's corruption and lies.

A variant of the chariot of the passions - Phaedrus? — Banno

Good catch, but an important difference in Phaedrus is vitalism - the existence of the soul - which opens up a whole new category of questions.

The chariot = the soul
The two horses = moral impulses and irrational passions
The charioteer = the intellect

and now you are starting to do ethics... — Banno

But there is nothing else to us, except our evolution.

Becasue it isthe right thing to do... — Banno

Yes.

Evolution does not tell us what we ought do. — Banno

I really like Jonathan Haidt's metaphor of the elephant and the rider. The elephant is our instinctual, emotional self, and our rationality is the rider. The rider steers, but the elephant provides the power for the journey.

If evolution does not tell us what to do, what does?

Yikes, really? We should have continued impregnating 12-year-old girls? — J

Lol, no, that's not what I meant. But boys are attracted to girls, and girls are attracted to boys, and it is a story as old as the species. I see no reason to try to change it.

Consider the likelihood that human males are hard-wired to find girls (and often boys) sexually attractive from puberty on. What would the ethical conclusion be, here? Give in or fight against? — J

Reproduce, baby.

And it might well be that our moral duty is to fight against this supposed hard-wiring. — Banno

I can see no benefit in this. If our greatest source of pleasure is to spend time with those we love, why would we want to cut that out of our lives?

I'm happy to deny that people have an essence. It's an outmoded notion. — Banno

I'm not thinking of any specific philosophical meaning, only that which is at the heart of us.

And that might be a good thing.. — Banno

It's not going to happen overnight.

how things are informs how they ought be, but cannot determine it. Put another way, regardless of how things might actually be, we might desire that they be otherwise, and act accordingly. — Banno

This comes down to to what you believe is the biggest determinant of human behavior - and I don't think we can change the species that we are because we will it.

If we are speaking in terms of identity, then clearly your identity is a function of the brain. The body is merely a support structure to house the brain. The function of the structure we call the brain is to produce the mind, and in the mind we find our identity - all of our motivations, interpretations, perspectives, reactions, inferences, etc.

No where is this more clear than in the case of transgender persons.

Both body and brains are dimorphic. (two possible sexes). Two separate processes produce either.

In the first trimester of fetal development, the body, under the influence of genes, differentiates to male (penis and testes) or female (vagina and ovaries).

In the last trimester of fetal development, the brain, under the influence of genes and hormones, differentiates to male or female.

Usually, these two processes are co-incident, and a cisgender person is born.

But sometimes, the brain develops an opposite sex from the body and a transgender person is born.

Their experience of life is what the brain tells them they are.

It is open to us to ask if we ought remain social. — Banno

I may not have made myself clear. We are neurologically hard-wired to form bonds. This isn't about deciding to be social or not, this is the inherent need to form relationships. It goes all the way back millions of years ago when the first primate mother loved her newborn. (There's research to show all other forms of connection grew from that.)

To deny the need for human bonding is to deny our very essence.

As in, what is it about "ought" that "implies external judgement"? — Banno

Okay, the opposite to "external judgement" is deciding for myself what I should do, and I'm always going to think that what I do is the thing that I should do.

"is it good to do those things which contribute to the group, and keep your place in it secure" is meaningful. — Banno

It's reality. This is the biological basis for behavior.

But, sometimes there is an unreasonable person, and we all know that unreasonableness leads to progress.

But being an outlier does not make them wrong, — Banno

I don't think I have framed my discussion in terms of right and wrong, but just what is.

Why not? — Banno

Well, that would require changing who we are as humans.

Why ought we survive? — Banno

We know no other way.

What is good for the species must be good for the individual? How would that follow? — J

Good question. A species' survival ultimately depends on individual survival, and of course reproduction ... I'm having trouble separating the two.

Take capital punishment, for example. Killing some people might be good for society, or the species, but how is it good for the individuals who are killed? — baker

I was talking about human nature and instincts in general, and the overall scheme.

"You will be killed for your own good, so now be happy with it" ...?? — baker

Sorry, I have no idea how this follows from anything I have said.

Or how about the state and medical professionals offering euthanasia as a "treatment option" ?? — baker

This is an entirely different question.

There are examples of folk who have turned their back on society and walked away. — Banno

They are anomalies. There are always outliers. And we really don't know what made them walk away, what kind of hurt? All studies of mental illness and addiction show that the number one most important contributor to getting well is human support.

The opposite of addiction is connection

Perhaps we ought fight the "hard wiring"... — Banno

Why?

Ought we try to become "the highest level of being human"; or ought we do what is good? — Banno

A couple things come to mind. First, I am having trouble with this word "ought." That implies external judgement, and I am not sure where this comes from.

Second - whether attaining the highest level of being human is the same thing as doing good?

I'd like to first preface my thoughts by saying that I believe "good" is an adjective, not a noun. There is no separate entity or force that we can call the "good." We can only use "good" as a judgement on behavior.

When are we most human? When we are good?

Now, I have already defined what "good behavior" is. It's all those behaviors which contribute to the group, and keep your place in it secure. I am just not sure that this is related to the "level" of humanity you occupy.

We're all human. A great spectrum of behaviors.

doubtful premises like ... "Evolution shows us what is good for the species" — J

Evolution does not show, it produces. And what is good for the individual cannot be divorced from what is good for the species. We are a social animal. There is no way around that.

So if I'm one of the ones it's not true for, then it's OK for me to choose to act selfishly? — J

Good question. But I think selfishness is another one of those traits that requires a party of two or more to be manifested. if you live your life without any consideration of others, that is selfish, even if it only adds up to an act of omission.

Why in the world should I care about what happened millions of years in the past — J

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the process of evolution that occurred over those millions of years made us what we are today.

should I care about "sustaining society" more than I care about looking out for Number 1? — J

I have already provided some insight into that. The simple fact is that most humans do best in society, and to live in isolation or loneliness leads to its own mental stresses. Sure, this is not true for everyone, but for the majority. We are hard-wired to connect.

And "we" don't care if all these peace, safety, and security come at the expense of the other group. — baker

Very interesting observation. In the distant past, survival often depended on fearing "the other." But in a modern society, with all its diversity, that ancient instinct can lead to discrimination, bigotry and racism.

That's when we rely more on our intellect and empathy rather than ancient protective mechanisms.

Why should you or I or anyone else value “sustaining society” more than our own comfort or advantage? — J

We need to take the long view of our evolution, going far back beyond civilization.

I’m going to return to my earlier point that notions of “good’ and “bad” only evolved through social interactions. The universe is neutral. To determine if something is good or bad requires human judgement, and what is being judged is one’s behavior towards another. Does it serve the interests of the group? This is what we are hard-wired for.

Consider the universal virtues of honesty, justice, loyalty or humanity – they can only come to light in relationships between people, or groups. Even creativity requires the artist and the receiver of the art.

There is no such thing as solitary goodness, or badness. Goodness is manifested in co-operation and strengthened relationships, and badness in harm to others.

Now, the question "Why should we?" might be answered by: Because we want to belong to the group. Because we want to live in peace. Because we want safety and security.

Biology can inform ethics without ethics being reducible to biology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Much food for thought. The relationship between ethics and biology. From what you've said, I take it to mean that ethics is something bigger and beyond biology. Then, what else are we?

This reminds me of the story about the two sons of an alcoholic. One son grows up to be an alcoholic. When asked why, he answers, "I watched my father."

The other son grows up and stays completely away from alcohol. When asked why, he says, "I watched my father."

How do we explain the difference between the two sons?

And again, is the goal to achieve "the highest level of being human", or just to do what is right? — Banno

IMO, the highest level of being human is to be your most true, authentic self. This means getting the most in touch with your natural instincts, with your "wild knowing." The question becomes, does this coincide with doing right or doing wrong?

Are we born compassionate, and learn aggression, or are we born aggressive, and learn compassion?

What is our genetic predisposition before the environment makes its mark on us?

Life doesn't suck. As the spirit desires so it has — Gregory

I lost my husband 3 years ago to MS. The last couple years of his life were very difficult. At one point, as he was having a lot of trouble making a transfer, I said to him, "Tired of this life?"

He replied, "No, this life is good. It's this body I am tired of."

Disregarding what lies beyond our control means separating between what we can and cannot control with a will to control (power) — Gregory

Hmmm ... that's not how I see it. For example, sometimes we have to accept things in our life that suck. Things we cannot change. For example, a cancer diagnosis, Now, we might rail against God, and scream at the sky, "Why?"

But there is no answer to that question, "Why?" It was all just a random instance of cells malfunctioning.

You never walked to the car knowing you would get there? Usually changes in routine happen gradually — Gregory

Not always, as my example of getting hit by a bus illustrates. Or, suddenly getting diagnosed with cancer. Or, winning the lottery. Or, reading a good book that changes your perspective on life.

What does control over life mean? — Gregory

This reminds me of stoicism. There are things we control, there are things we do not, and wisdom lies in knowing the difference.

"Freedom is the only worthy goal in life. It is won by disregarding things that lie beyond our control."

There is also the philosophical tradition that to reach the highest level of being human was to live a virtuous life.

That might be so, but it is important not to conclude that what is the right thing to do is what makes you feel good. — Banno

I guess it depends on the person and i am only speaking from my own experience.

But making plans in life implies we can predict the future with some accuracy — Gregory

Making plans speaks to routine, and we do have routine, but routine may be interrupted.

If all is random how do we make decisions by predicting the future? Are you saying we have no control over our lives? — Gregory

We can plan, and make decisions, but we can't predict if a bus is going to hit us tomorrow.

There's this whole big area of reasoning that you are avoiding. — Banno

You're probably right. But the question seems simple. "Should we do good?" Of course, we should do good. I always feel good when I do the right thing. Then I can better respect myself.

But I am also a big believer in the biological basis of behavior, and primitive motivations.

Ought we? — Banno

This question seems moot, since we do. We would have to totally reprogram human brains to get away from that. We would have to be a totally different species!

The point is that "one ought do good" is no more informative than "one ought do what one ought do" or "doing good is good". — Banno

One ought to do good because it contributes to their survival.

How does it ignore human nature — Banno

As mentioned, we operate on a system of rewards an punishments.

how is it akin to "Do this because I said so"? — Banno

It's not giving a reason for doing good.

we ought to do what is good just because it is good. What is good is what we ought do, and what we ought do is what is good. — Banno

This ignores human nature. It's akin to saying, "Do this because I said so."

Humans operate on a system of rewards and punishments. If you do good, there will be rewards. if you do bad, there will be consequences.

There remains the logical gap between what we do and what we ought do. — Banno

The use of the word "ought" implies guidelines externally put on us. So, okay, what guides us? I would say that belonging to the group is our biggest social motivator.

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. — Seeker25

I think you have mixed up your cause and effect. It's the other way around. The laws and principals that "regulate" nature gave rise to the diversity of life on earth.

whereas genocide is simply an act contrary to evolution, — Seeker25

Every genocide ever carried out was done with the express fear that if the "other" were not exterminated, the survival of the exterminating group was threatened. So, if done in the interests of survival, it does seem to fit evolutionary principles.

I am increasingly convinced that everything aligned with the trends of evolution is good, everything that opposes it is bad, and everything else is indifferent. It is precisely in this "indifferent" space that people must exercise their freedom. — Seeker25

Interesting thought. But I am not sure that I accept your premise that there are things that align, or oppose, or are indifferent to the process of evolution. The theory of evolution merely says that life changes over time. The acts of humans only affect this in so far as they change the environment in which evolution is taking place.

My background in biology has me taking the side that says all is random. In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. There are always random events that impinge upon and influence the outcome of any "cause" in producing its "effect."

The Democrats try to get voters to vote in their own interests. They appeal to the voter's rationality (that's why they lost).

The Republicans have to get voters to vote against their own interests. They appeal to emotion (that's why they won).

This is all backed up in a wonderful book I read, by Jonathan Haidt:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

There are different way in which to answer this question.

I'll go to the evolutionary answer. What is the evolutionary advantage of being good? Well, it keeps you as part of the group, and belonging to a group meant the difference between survival and perishing. (Maybe it still does.) A social animal relies on acceptance in the group.

I'll add to that - it feels good to do good.