I got a ping... Just confirming it was accidentally tagging me rather htan Banno for that quote above your post?

I would like to thank you for your comments and the links you’ve shared, which help me identify weaknesses in my original post (OP) and demand greater precision. The OP is a text meant to outline a topic, but it is not the appropriate document for detailed arguments. I will attempt to address your observations in four posts:

1. Evolution and Trends (this post)
2. Trends and the Ethical Principles derived from them
3. From facts to what ought to be
4. Worldview from this perspective

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what exactly are you referring to when you say "evolution"? — I like sushi

but the general outlook you’ve outlined – this along with the Gaia hypothesis – can easily be found in keeping with notions such as that of an Anima Mundi. One in which a pre-Abrahamic notion of Logos pervades all that is – be it living or nonliving. — javra

Perhaps you need to say more about what an evolutionary trend is? — J

EVOLUTION AND TRENDS

One of the frequently discussed issues is that my understanding of evolution and trends is not clearly explained.

- Evolution refers to the journey our planet has undergone over 4.6 billion years, from the initial “incandescent ball” to our 21st century.

- Trend refers to the predominant direction or course that a phenomenon or behavior follows over time. Its parameters are duration, magnitude, and volatility.

By trends of evolution, I mean the sequence of events that have consistently followed the same direction throughout Earth’s evolution. I do not consider isolated events, such as the existence of dinosaurs, cosmic cataclysms, or the Neanderthals, to be trends. These phenomena are examples of the volatility within a trend.

I only regard as trends those of enormous magnitude or “force,” such as the tendency toward life or diversity. After the five cosmic cataclysms that wiped out 80-90% of species, life and diversity continued. This suggests that there are trends of enormous magnitude.

Even powerful trends exhibit volatility. Sometimes, a tsunami or an infection wipes out many lives, but this does not negate the existence of the trend. As some of you have noted, there are also destructive events and suffering, and this is true. However, these are not major trends; many are consequences of human actions contrary to evolution, while others are collateral effects. We cannot equate deaths caused by violence (a result of human action) with births (a trend toward life).

I believe there is a distinction between a trend and the mechanisms that enable evolution, such as natural selection or adaptation to the environment.

I have deliberately avoided delving into the deeper causes that might have generated these trends, as this is a matter of personal belief, a domain we must all respect. Setting aside these deeper causes allows people with different beliefs to freely interpret and draw conclusions about the facts explained by science.

Although I have no arguments to prove it, since it involves estimating the future, common sense leads me to believe that these trends will not change. Life will continue, living beings will keep dying, diversity will not give way to homogeneity, and so on. Long-standing, powerful trends are well-established and are unlikely to change.

Thesis

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. Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence. — Seeker25

Alfred Lord Tennyson's phrase "red in tooth and claw" refers to the savage and merciless conflict in nature, or the struggle to survive in the wild. Darwin postulated that living organisms are perpetually embroiled in a "struggle for existence." For him, struggle and violence drove evolutionary advancement.

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends?

How do these ideas fit in with your belief that we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify within these evolutionary trends? — Agree-to-Disagree

So, which ethical principle were you talking about here? — Corvus

Biological evolution is not inclusive for all. Individuals being weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection is one of the important trends of evolution. — wonderer1

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis — ToothyMaw

Couldn’t we also talk about trends of destruction, suffering, and death? — J

I wonder if the reliance on 'evolutionary principles' here may be leaning into an idealization. — Wayfarer

Ethics, it seems to me, is sui generis, arising through the evolution of human beings but once ethics came to be it created its own driving forces, — Fire Ologist

I think you need to give a description of these trends in value-neutral terms, so we can decide for ourselves whether they must necessarily be beneficial for humanity. — J

SECOND POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST)
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. TRENDS AND ETHICAL PRINCIPLES DERIVED FROM THEM
Below are the main trends observed in evolution, along with some of the ethical principles they implicitly carry.

INCLINATION TOWARD LIFE
Despite the volatility of this trend, marked by epidemics, natural disasters, wars, etc., the Earth has evolved from no living beings to 8 billion people, plus countless animals and plants.

Ethical Principles: Respect for life. Preservation of habitats, both natural and artificial (urban planning). Peace and stability to allow life to thrive. Promotion of health and well-being.

DIVERSITY
Scientists estimate there may be between 8.7 and 10 million species, with many yet to be discovered. Once, Earth was a molten mass devoid of life. Clearly, maintaining diversity is a crucial trend.

Ethical Principles: Respect for the diversity of races, cultures, beliefs, opinions, and sexual orientations. Opposition to persecution or suppression of differing opinions. Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation.

LIFE IS FRAGILE AND EPHEMERAL
Life's brevity is a constant. We participate in evolution for a limited time, and no one is expected to be eternal.

Ethical Principles: Acceptance of death as a natural part of life. Embracing aging without undue attempts to prolong life artificially. Practicing humility over arrogance, recognizing the transience of our existence.

BALANCE
Evolution is a delicate balance that must be maintained. Disruptions can endanger life, as seen with climate change or migration.

Ethical Principles: Humans must address the imbalances they cause: climate change, resource overexploitation, water management, socioeconomic inequalities, balance food and population.

SOCIALIZATION
We’ve evolved from small, isolated tribes to large urban conglomerates. Coexistence is inevitable and must be managed.

Ethical Principles: Promote cooperation and harmonious coexistence. Balance individual rights with those of others. Develop mutual respect and empathy.

MUTUAL DEPENDENCE
Parallel to socialization, we’ve moved from self-sufficiency to total interdependence. Life today depends on the cooperation of countless anonymous individuals.

Ethical Principles: Respect for all humans and recognition of others’ dignity. Defense of others’ rights and sharing resources to sustain those who enable our lives. Prioritizing collective benefit over individual gain.

BEAUTY
Throughout evolution, the universe's manifestations have aligned with human perception, generating an objective beauty that few dispute. Human-created beauty, however, is subjective.

Ethical Principles: Respect and preserve beauty as it fosters peaceful coexistence. Avoid environmental degradation. Promote classical arts and conserve human-made beauty. Protect the planet’s natural splendor.

FREEDOM
A human attribute developed through evolution, partially seen in higher animals but reaching its zenith in humans. Our freedom even allows us to challenge life-giving trends. Yet, power often leads to the suppression of others’ freedoms.

Ethical Principles: No one should usurp another's freedom. Respect others' freedoms. Responsibility in voting, as politicians legislate individual freedoms. Demand regular elections. Ensure a fair judicial system.

INTELLIGENCE
Evolution has fostered intelligence, with signs in higher animals, and now manifests in eight billion human brains worldwide. However, evolution does not provide information for optimal individual intellectual functioning. Knowledge is produced by humans.

Ethical Principles: Organize to create and share knowledge (schools, universities). Knowledge dissemination reduces inequality and promotes adaptation. Developing intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for humanity’s well-being (must be combined with consciousness). Combat fake news as it disrupts intellectual processes.

CONSCIOUSNESS
This attribute allows humans to perceive their surroundings, understand themselves, and decide how to act. Its development is lifelong, setting humans apart from animals and fostering a holistic view of the cosmos, nature, and humanity. It complements and connects all other trends.

Ethical Principles: Educate and promote consciousness to improve awareness of the environment and others' needs. Every conscious being deserves respect, regardless of their limitations or circumstances. Individuals are accountable for their actions. Promote justice. Power should not rest with those lacking the consciousness to understand their environment or others' needs

I don't have a lot of time to dive into what you're saying, but you might find this post of mine links into yours. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Respect for life — Seeker25

Promotion of health and well-being. — Seeker25

Coexistence in diversity, tolerance, and dialogue. Encouraging cooperation and minimizing confrontation. — Seeker25

Which forms of life should we respect?
mammals - (eukaryotes - animals)
birds - (eukaryotes - animals)
fish - (eukaryotes - animals)
reptiles - (eukaryotes - animals)
insects - (eukaryotes - animals)
roundworms (eukaryotes - animals)

monocots - (eukaryotes - plants)
dicots - (eukaryotes - plants)

bakers yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)
fission yeast - (eukaryotes - fungi)

giardia protozoa - (eukaryotes)
malaria parasite - (eukaryotes)
red algae - (eukaryotes)
slime molds - (eukaryotes)

cyanobacteria - (bacteria)
thermus / deinococcus - (bacteria)
aquificaceae - (bacteria)
thermotogales - (bacteria)
protrobacteria - (bacteria)
chlamydiales - (bacteria)
GBF / green sulfur bacteria - (bacteria)
spirochaeles - (bacteria)
actinobacteria - (bacteria)
firmicutes - (bacteria)

crenarchaeota - (archaea)
euarchaeota - (archaea)

Health and well-being of which forms of life?

Minimizing confrontation with which forms of life? Is it okay to raise and slaughter animals for human consumption?

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST) — Seeker25

What do Ethical Principles mean? What is the relationship between ethical principles and trends? Why are they relevant?

THIRD POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends

2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them

3.From facts to how things should be (THIS POST)

4. A worldview from this perspective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. — ToothyMaw

How do you move from how things are to how things ought to be? — Banno

Even if "Science explains how things are and how events have unfolded over the past 4.6 billion years; these are facts" we cannot conclude from that alone how things ought to be. — Banno

I think what needs to be re-evaluated is this mentality itself. Clearly, the most moral thing is to prevent future people who suffer, but this is not following the dictates of evolution. And about these dictates of evolution, that is a complete fallacy (appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy) to think that a sort of "law of nature" (evolution) is something we should act upon. — schopenhauer1

Ok, I thoroughly grant that to claim all this as some sort of definitive grounding for what ethics is and what ought to be would be fully sentimental, rather than rational. — javra

3.- FROM FACTS TO HOW THINGS OUGHT TO BE

Evolution will maintain its tendencies; it has always been so and will continue to be. These tendencies provide the framework within which we must act. As you rightly point out, I must justify how we move from the facts established by science to the realm of "ought."

Tendencies are an easily perceptible reality. To determine how the future ought to be, we must establish values, ethical principles, or ideals.

Several contemporary theories, in my view, justify this transition:

Moral Realism: As I explained in the previous post, ethical values are embedded within the very tendencies of evolution.

Ethical Constructivism: Criteria emerge from social agreements. I am convinced that, among people who have developed their consciousness (those who interpret their environment correctly, have delved into their own selves, and understand their place in the world) there would be a broad consensus, despite differing cultures or beliefs, that one cannot act against the tendencies of evolution. What model of humanity would they consider as a goal? It would probably be one where many of the previously outlined ethical principles converge.

Pragmatism: I believe the goal we should set, as it benefits the greatest number of people, could be defined as follows: the peaceful progress of a diverse and multicultural humanity.

In my opinion, the ethical principles derived from evolution trends remain consistent across all three perspectives.

What I am certain of is that humanity has no future if it acts against the tendencies of evolution. This includes actions such as: killing, destroying beauty, eliminating the diversity of ideas and cultures, prioritizing confrontation over cooperation, allowing power to override individual freedoms, maintaining socioeconomic inequalities, spreading misinformation to hinder intellectual development, and so on.

FOURTH POST OF FOUR

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them
3. From facts to how things should be
4. A worldview from this perspective (THIS POST)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.- A VISION OF THE WORLD FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE

From the previous reflections, it follows that we can view the world from a different and practical perspective, one that allows us to glimpse the current problems of humanity.

In the realm of philosophy, theories are validated by their logic, clarity, coherence, and capacity to explain facts. I believe my thesis meets these criteria.

Although knowledge advances, we are far from understanding the universe, our planet, and life. What is undeniable is that all of this is vastly superior to us and far beyond our comprehension.

What we do know, thanks to science, is how our planet has evolved. These are facts that, once established by science, it is up to humans to interpret and draw conclusions from. It seems obvious, and I think we can agree, that there are very consistent trends, that will not change and which we must necessarily accept. Trends have their own irregularities (volatility)

These trends are beneficial to humanity. If we were to go back 2.5 million years, when humans did not yet exist and no one could interfere with these trends, would we classify any of what was happening as "bad"? I think we would have acknowledged that evolution was yielding positive results, even if there were aspects we didn’t fully understand—such as animals feeding on others or natural phenomena (like a volcanic eruption) ending the lives of some living beings. Personally, I believe that these seemingly incongruent elements are due to the volatility of the trends and do not invalidate the overall goodness of evolution.

A few million years later, humans appeared, endowed with freedom, intelligence, and the ability to develop consciousness. These three attributes are positive, and it seems to me that the trends of evolution continue to be beneficial. However, from the moment we learned to use our freedom, the situation began to deteriorate, leading to our current uncertain era. Even though we have existed for only 0.004% of Earth's life, many believe they can oppose the trends of evolution, imposing their personal criteria and selfishness through force, be it political, economic, religious, media-driven, or otherwise.

A key element in understanding what is happening to us is that, whether we consider evolutionary trends good or not, it is impossible to build a stable world by acting against the evolution. Evidence of this is that when a political regime goes against evolution, it can only sustain itself by imprisoning dissenters, censoring information, and creating a significant repressive system.

Another fundamental concept is that the greatest challenges to evolution, and therefore to the world’s stability, arise when power is combined with unconsciousness (the inability to interpret and empathize with the environment).

To promote change, it is essential to share knowledge and truthful information with all of humanity and encourage the development of individual consciousness.

Humanity will be what we humans decide it to be. If we make the wrong decisions, we may disappear, but the trends of evolution will continue.
_______________________

To those who share, even partially, my thesis, I suggest that we consider the possibility of working together to review and strengthen it. Additionally, we could study what should be done to reverse the situation, a topic on which I have some ideas.

Moral Realism: As I explained in the previous post, ethical values are embedded within the very tendencies of evolution. — Seeker25

Moral realism is the view that ethical statements are either true or false. It is opposed to such notions as emotivism, which sees them as neither true nor false but as expressions of one's feelings. It is not the view that ethical tendencies are embedded in evolution. See SEP.

...one cannot act against the tendencies of evolution. — Seeker25

There are, for example, antinatalists in this forum who will say rational considerations show that ending human evolution is a net good. So one might well act against the "tendencies of evolution".

Seems to me that the is/ought distinction remains. You have not provided a way to move from how things are to how things ought to be, apart from your own predilections.

Even supposing that there are such things, why ought we follow evolutionary tendencies?

Your question about where ethics resided before life is well-posed, but I don’t know the answer—just as I don’t know where intelligence, life, or consciousness were, and yet no one doubts that all three exist. — Seeker25

My question was actually where ethics resided before persons.

You seem to be saying ethics is imbedded in evolution, or more generally, in life.

Looking at earth’s history, we can say chemical reactions were followed by biological reactions, so from physics, we get something new called life.

And we can say that with life came the evolutionary forces, arising when the first RNA behavior moved into DNA behavior (billions of years ago on earth). So life and its evolution were once new, sui generis. Before that time, there was no life and so no evolutionary forces. There was no “eating” to “grow” or “reproduce” in any strict sense of these words before there were a living things, not just chemical things.

Then we can say the evolutionary forces led to a species that contained the human person, and from this species the universe had something new again, called the person. There were new forces again such as “meaningful words” and “ethics” and “immoral actions” and “ought” “self-awareness of logic” and “math science”. These new forces (words) did not exist prior to persons, like eating did not exist prior to life and evolution.

If we want to talk about “eating” or “reproduction” or “sensation” or “growing to adulthood” we have to look at living things, and if we look only to chemical/physical things, we will never see these things at all. (Not in a non-metaphorical, non-post-hoc, strict sense.). Similarly, if we want to talk about “ethics” we have to look at persons; and if we look only at evolutionary activity and/or chemical activity, we will never see “evil” or “morality” or “something that ought not to exist.”

The entire universe is innocent of ethics. Except for wherever a person is. Just like the entire universe contains no evolution, except where life exists.

How life sparked from chemicals - I have no idea.
How persons sparked from life - I have no idea.
How ethics sparked from persons - I have no idea.

But I don’t see how ethics could skip over the personal and spark from life itself.

Thank you, @Banno and @Fire Ologist, for your posts, which I will address together.

As I mention in my profile, my background is in economics, not philosophy. I enjoy the world of philosophy because it helps me to reason correctly. I dedicate time to trying to understand the world and, above all, to seeing if I can contribute to improving it. I seek, with rigor, concepts and procedures that can generate practical actions.

@Banno I have delved deeper into the ideas I had about Moral Realism, read the SEP article, and concluded that you are right: I understand that it is not possible to deduce unequivocally an "ought" from the tendencies of evolution. However, it is not possible to deduce that ethical principles derived from evolution are false. I also mentioned two other theories in defense of my thesis: Ethical Constructivism and Pragmatism. Do these theories (presented in post 3 of 4) justify the claim that the "ought" can be deduced from evolutionary tendencies?

@Fire Ologist I would say that evolution begins long before life appears, specifically, it starts with the Big Bang.

I agree with most of your post and with the idea that ethics manifests with humans. Of course, I also ask myself: how does ethics emerge?

Science explains to us, and we all admit, that an atom contains virtually no matter and is mostly energy (even though we perceive matter), it explains that chemical reactions transformed into biological reactions, that genes contain all the instructions for the development of life, and that intelligence and consciousness emerged. Today, we cannot explain how these significant qualitative leaps occur. I do not know where ethics begins to emerge, just as I do not know where the instructions that eventually end up encoded in genes and enable the development of very complex lives begin to form. In my opinion, it doesn’t matter so much when these events began to occur; rather, what matters is that there is a tendency in evolution that generates them.

Banno and Fire Ologist, I believe that, in the current state of science, if we want to delve into the issues we are discussing, we have a valuable source of information in analysing the reality of evolution and, above all, its tendencies, as these are the real manifestations of what we do not fully understand. We do not know their origin well, nor can we explain the qualitative leaps, but we can observe the direction they take, and it is this direction that matters.

In my world (the world of business and economics) decisions are constantly made without all the necessary information (as it is impossible to have it all), simply because they appear logical. It is only after implementation that their results become clear. This system allows us to move forward, although we make mistakes that must be promptly addressed.

Although it is not a philosophical demonstration either, I believe that the paradigm I propose is logical, coherent, explains what is happening in the world, and indicates the guidelines for how we should act. In summary, it is as follows:

• The Earth evolves according to tendencies that, thanks to science, we know.
• These tendencies are of great magnitude; they will not change on their own, nor can we change them.
• When we act in the same direction as these tendencies, we foster humanity’s positive evolution. When we act against them, we harm it. The benefit or harm is proportional to the power we wield.
• If we want to improve humanity, we must do so without going against these tendencies. We can achieve improvement by appropriately disseminating truthful information and knowledge. At the same time, it is necessary to promote the development of individual consciousness.

Even if it is not a philosophical demonstration, does this paradigm make sense?

Evolution generates diversity. Silencing, re-educating, or imprisoning those who express a different opinion goes against evolution. We must facilitate the integration of diversity, not reject it. — Seeker25

Consider any organized structure, whether machine or organism, and its functions. In order to conserve that complex function/structure you have to protect is from forces that undermine/degrade/destroy it.

The body is pretty good at keeping out all that diversity which would get in the way of its self-preservation.

The global capitalist paradigm, preceded by state conquest, has done much to eliminate cultural and biological diversity. Why isn't this just another trend of evolution? Any form of complex life that collapses leaves behind space for new diversity. Nature is indifferent to what comes next, even if the long term universal evolutionary trend is increased complexity.

In Hawaii we've constant waves of types of biological epidemics, since new organisms are being introduced all the time. Displacement of species occurs all the time. Right now the Coconut Rhino beetle is pretty much destroying a range of large palms. If we're impartial to species, we could analogize this as a plague which may end up killing a majority of individuals.

The introductions of new molecules (PFAs/PFOs/plastics) to the evolutionary playing field is the generation of new kind of diversity but it comes at the trade-off of current biological function (human health). If we poison ourselves too much, we're forced to evolve by either artificial or natural selection.

However, it is not possible to deduce that ethical principles derived from evolution are false. — Seeker25

What it tells us is that one cannot derive ethical principles from evolution. If what you are espousing is some combination of pragmatism and constructivism, then say so and stop there, without the pretence that evolution somehow provides your imperative.

• The Earth evolves — Seeker25

I have trouble right out of the gate. I don't see that evolution occurs outside of life. The earth doesn't evolve.

We can use the word "evolve" metaphorically to describe a change, but it is just metaphor. You need mutation, so you need reproduction, to evolve. You need survival impulses and the death of weak individuals and reproduction of the strong individuals, to evolve. You need the interaction of living things and their environment for evolutionary forces to bring about new adaptations. Without living things, there is no adaptation. The misshapen form of a planet doesn't adapt to gravity and evolve to be spherical.

In fact, evolutionary forces allow trees to defy gravity. So if the unifying forces of gravity were the ethical law of the land, life and evolution, in trees and birds, would be unethical!

Equating all change with evolution, is like equating all destruction with death; and all emergence with birth. It makes for nice poetry and metaphor to speak of the birth of sun, and to see the destruction of a comet that falls into the sun as the death of a shooting star, but we are not talking science anymore, but poetry. You crash a care into a wall and total it. You don't actually kill the car. The car isn't evolving into some other use for the steal it is made of.

And just like we can't use mere physics and gravity and speed to explain how dolphins evolved to be seafaring creatures from land-based creatures, we can't use evolutionary forces too explain how personal interactions have an ethical component to them.

• The Earth evolves according to tendencies that, thanks to science, we know.
• When we act in the same direction as these tendencies, we foster humanity’s positive evolution. — Seeker25

If ethics is to be discovered in the tendencies of natural world, even absent any persons, in evolution, then all of our human ethical norms become so forced and contrived. Why is it wrong to murder? Because life seeks to beget life and evolution tells us so? No! Life also kills and eats dinner, or males hurt and shun rivals and kill their offspring to prompt new reproduction. Life leads to more miscarriages than births. Sometimes the stronger ones are killed and the weak ones reproduce. From what I can tell, nature and evolution give us no clue as to what is good versus bad, and how one ought to act versus how one has evolved to act.

Ethics is confined to the world that exists between persons. The rest of the universe and all of history before persons is devoid of ethics, innocent of its possible judgment. Since persons evolved to walk the earth, since that time, only persons have discovered a disconnect between how something is and how something ought to be. And we didn't just discover this gap between what is and what ought to be; we made it, when we did what we ought not do. We created the first gap between "is" and "ought". We created the first injustice in nature. We probably started hiding things, leading others to believe something to be the case that actually they ought not believe, because they were hiding the truth that they alone knew. Lies and hiding - words representing nothingness as if it were somethingness - this is the initiation of "ethics." Maybe?

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.

The global capitalist paradigm, preceded by state conquest, has done much to eliminate cultural and biological diversity. Why isn't this just another trend of evolution? — Nils Loc

I believe we are saying similar things. The difference lies in our perspectives.

I argue that the Earth's evolution (4.6 billion years) follows certain trends, one of which is generating diversity. What you are saying is true, but it doesn't rise to the level of a trend, as it concerns very specific events during the brief period humans have existed (which is just 0.004% of the elapsed time). If we categorize human actions as trends or give them excessive relevance "on a cosmic scale," nothing makes sense.

Let me put it another way: our planet evolves, creating life, beauty, intelligence, freedom, etc. But none of this makes sense if we consider it all to be the seed of its destruction. From my perspective, if we view it differently, everything aligns: evolution produces free and intelligent humans who can choose either to follow certain trends or to challenge them. Our destiny depends on our ability to understand where we are and how we should behave. Hence the importance of recognizing certain references; I suggest the great trends.

Nature is indifferent to what comes next, even if the long term universal evolutionary trend is increased complexity. — Nils Loc

This makes sense on a conceptual level, and it even seems logical, but the facts prove to be different: nature does indeed lay the groundwork for what comes next (if humans don't manage to destroy it). Whales will continue to be born, the intelligence of future generations will not diminish, if we stop polluting the atmosphere, the climate will recover, natural beauty will continue to exist, and so on. I don't know why, but long standing trends will continue.

If what you are espousing is some combination of pragmatism and constructivism, then say so and stop there, without the pretence that evolution somehow provides your imperative. — Banno

Agreed: ethical "imperatives" cannot be deduced from evolution. They are merely criteria that humans may choose to ignore. However, we can also consider that they provide insights into how we should behave. It seems to me that all other sources of ethical principles proposed by philosophers are similar in this regard. After all, it is human free will that is ultimately responsible for managing our world.

I have trouble right out of the gate. I don't see that evolution occurs outside of life. The earth doesn't evolve. — Fire Ologist

Your comment compelled me to delve deeper into the topic: reviewing philosophical concepts, dictionnaire, and ChatGPT. In the end, I think it’s a semantic issue. In this context, evolution means progressing toward more complex structures; thus, evolution has occurred from the Big Bang to today. However, we must distinguish between physical, chemical, and biological evolution. Biological evolution is an emergent process, and the leap from chemical to biological evolution is called abiogenesis, a key element science seeks to understand.

we can't use evolutionary forces too explain how personal interactions have an ethical component to them — Fire Ologist

I accept that there is no direct relationship between what has happened in evolution and ethical "ought-to-be." Some of you, with a philosophical background, likely know this better, but it seems to me that ethical "ought-to-be" also cannot be deduced from the various sources of ethical principles proposed throughout history.
.
In my view, the long-term trends of evolution are another source of inspiration for establishing ethical principles: they are universal, timeless, flexible, non-coercive, and demand personal reflection. In my opinion, they have some additional characteristics compared to other sources of ethical principles: their origin lies in science, and they won’t change. We are free to accept or reject them. As a mental exercise, we should consider what would happen if we chose to go against them, that is, instead of preserving life, we eliminate it; instead of fostering diversity, we suppress it; instead of protecting beauty, we destroy it; instead of correcting the imbalances we’ve created (ecological, environmental, socioeconomic) we maintain them; and, instead of recognizing others’ dignity, even though we cannot live without them, we despise them. What could be the consequences of this behaviour?

And we didn't just discover this gap between what is and what ought to be; we made it, when we did what we ought not do. We created the first gap between "is" and "ought". We created the first injustice in nature — Fire Ologist

I think what you're saying is very accurate. This is precisely humanity's problem: we decide based on our own criteria without fully appreciating the magnitude and persistence of the forces (trends) that affect us.

...we can also consider that they provide insights into how we should behave. — Seeker25

I don't see how. Why should we do as evolution says?

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?

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. — Questioner

Aren’t we saying the same thing? Let me try to put it in different words: Looking at evolutionary trends, it seems there are laws and principles underlying the entirety of evolution, including the nature and diversity of life.

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. — Questioner

Many genocides are not a response to aggression; they are initiatives aimed at transforming diversity into uniformity.

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt).

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness? Instead of giving my opinion, I prefer to pose a few questions for reflection:

• How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory?
• How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face?
• How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival?
• How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser?

Responding to aggression to preserve life is one possible reaction. However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends.

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them. Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions.

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. — Questioner

When I say evolution, I am not referring to Darwin's theory but to the complete evolution that has taken place from the initial incandescent ball of our planet to today. Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution.

are not those second and third thoughts a result of our evolution, too? — Questioner

Then how do we know which to heed -- the first, second, or third thought? Is the idea supposed to be that there is yet another evolutionary capacity that indicates the correct choice among thoughts?

What do you think? — Seeker25

I think it's completely anti-scientific and shows a gross lack of understanding of evolution. Evolution doesn't care about coexistence at all, and balance is something evolution seems to achieve over long time-scales but evolution can create remarkably unbalanced situations over short time-scales.

There's also a lot of question-begging and logical leaps. It's not very compelling.

Nevertheless, here lies the real problem: humans making decisions contrary to evolutionary trends. A genocide can be the final wrong decision in a chain of errors. What criteria for solutions can be derived from evolutionary trends? We must respect life; the world is diverse, and we must manage that diversity rather than destroy it; we are entirely dependent on one another and must recognize the dignity of others; evolution is balance, imbalances and injustices generate problems. Finally, evolution has endowed us with a consciousness that we must individually develop (the capacity to understand our environment and the role we must adopt). — Seeker25

I think I understand you, and I do appreciate your optimistic position. You are suggesting we need to “evolve beyond our evolution.” But when I see a president elected by appealing to the basest instincts of the population, that gives me pause.

We need to move forward on protecting human rights. We need to move forward on protecting the environment. Yes, this requires particular perspectives. How do we get there?

How can we be more like Estonia? – which scored the highest in the world on both the Human Rights Index and as the most environmentally friendly country in the world.

What happens when, for some reason, we fail to develop our consciousness? — Seeker25

Then we are not aware of what is going on around us. And awareness always has to be the first step to solving any problem.

How is a head of state who threatens or invades a neighbouring country different from an alpha male marking its territory? — Seeker25

Territorialism is strong in all of us. There’s the person in the parked spot who takes longer to drive out of it because someone is waiting for it (that’s not me). There’s the teenager who doesn’t want you in their room. And we all feel territorial about our homes.

Invading a country shows territorialism, for sure, but there are others factors at play, including the quest for power. And often, there are economic factors to consider. For example, Putin wants Ukraine’s vast natural resources. So, that would be evolutionary driven, too – the need to provide for your group.

How is someone insensitive to the suffering of others different from animals, who remain unaffected by the problems others in their species may face? — Seeker25

A human insensitive to the suffering of others is still human – but with a psychological deficiency – perhaps the area of their brain responsible for empathy never developed properly because it was never stimulated. Perhaps they suffered trauma as a child and that affected their psychological development.

I think it’s a false premise, though, that animals are unaffected by the problems of others in their group. The pack instinct is strong.

How is a dictator who clings to power any different from an alpha male that refuses to leave its position until defeated by a younger rival? — Seeker25

They are probably operating on the same instincts.

How is an animal that feeds on the weakest different from a sexual abuser? — Seeker25

Well, they are both about power. But feeding is different from naked power.

However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends. — Seeker25

Aggression is definitely genetically programmed into us. Here’s a video of an angry baby slapping Dad in bed for snoring too loud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmZYChLfVqs

Genocide, as I have already explained, is linked to one group believing their survival depends on the extermination of another group.

Humans must decide whether to respect the powerful trends of evolutions or to challenge them. — Seeker25

The question is not whether we should “respect” our baser instincts – it’s like respecting gravity – not something to be respected, it just is - but whether we should defy them, whether we should rise above them. The answer is necessarily, yes. This requires awareness, learning, education, and considered thought.

And also, before any lofty goals can be reached, one’s basic needs for food, shelter, safety must be met. Comfortable people rarely fight.

Humanity’s progress, or a high risk of self-destruction, depends on our decisions. — Seeker25

Definitely agree.

Many human actions have little significance, but there are others—especially those carried out from positions of power—that challenge the trends of evolution. — Seeker25

Do you mean when power is used for good?

Then how do we know which to heed -- the first, second, or third thought? Is the idea supposed to be that there is yet another evolutionary capacity that indicates the correct choice among thoughts? — J

Well, the first thought is usually instinctual and made without thought. The more thought we put into, the more considered and reasonable our reaction will be. Our second and third thought will bring other factors to bear, such as consequences, and I'd say consequences are something that is learned.

But - the process of learning does not exist separate from our neurological capability to do so.

However, neither aggression nor genocide are responses aligned with evolutionary trends. — Seeker25

There are probably plenty of occasions in evolutionary history where the overgrowth of a species occurs due to some kind of environmental accident, or new adaptation via the mechanism of selection. Entire species, as an energy source for another, become reduced in population, some go extinct.

Oceanographers record the largest predation event ever observed in the ocean

Here 2.5 million cod ate 10.5 million capelin, 4.2 capelin eaten per cod.

Are predatory events acts of "aggression." If capelin populations can recover, does that excuse the fact that 10.5 million individuals were killed?

In value neutral terms, maybe capelin are just transforming into cod here.

You are just cherry picking "trends" that align with some sense of life/diversity conservation. Nature's means of limiting growth may not be fun. They may appear to us as cruel accidents, if we as a unique species have a sense/duty/forsight for limiting gratuitous harm, while maintaining biodiversity.

...and if evolution can explain anything we chose to do, it explains nothing.

?

But - the process of learning does not exist separate from our neurological capability to do so. — Questioner

Yes, but what we're discussing is whether there's also a neurological capability to discriminate true from false, and right from wrong, in the same way we discriminate red from green, or high pitches from low pitches. That would be extremely useful, but given how often we humans are wrong (in both senses), I'd need a lot of convincing. Rather, it seems to me that, while evolution may give us the capacities to think and learn, we require reasons for saying and doing correct things. We have to find those for ourselves, and the method for doing so is entirely different from consulting hard-wired intuitions.

and if evolution can explain anything we chose to do, it explains nothing. — Banno

I agree, and see I need to backtrack on my comments a bit. What the above observation brings to my mind is our great creative power. The mind can create. We can take two unconnected thoughts, perceptions, or memories, and combine them to make something new. Einstein called this “combinatory play” and he said it is the main element of all productive thought.

And I think our great predictive power works in our favour, too. We are able to imagine alternate possible futures, and then make our decision based on which future we prefer.

whether there's also a neurological capability to discriminate true from false, and right from wrong, in the same way we discriminate red from green, or high pitches from low pitches. — J

Well put. Clearly, the first two examples are subjectively decided, whereas the last two examples are objectively decided. And a subjective point-of-view can have a thousand things influencing it.

we require reasons for saying and doing correct things — J

Agree, and this seems to suggest the very human tendency to ask, “Why?”

We have to find those for ourselves, and the method for doing so is entirely different from consulting hard-wired intuitions. — J

We find no answers outside of our brain, whether it is in the hard-wired or soft-wired parts.

How does the notion of consent factor into your theory?