Rats have empathy. Considering their little brains and lack of what the religious would call souls or an understanding of god it's probably more common than you might suppose.
Does morality work without a deity?
- Thread starter thecrazyscot
- Start date
Rats have empathy. Considering their little brains and lack of what the religious would call souls or an understanding of god it's probably more common than you might suppose.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
But we have no reason to believe it would always evolve in a species capable of civilization, right? We just presume so, because it does seem to make a bit of 'common sense'. But without actually running into any of these aliens and examining their culture and evolutionary history, we just don't know.
And even if it were common, you're still bound to get aliens out there who never evolved empathy.
This all again is me saying: "We don't know that aliens out there are going to share similar morality as us, we don't know anything about them". Even if they have empathy, their empathy could be entirely different from ours - all empathy is is being able to imagine yourself in somebody else's shoes.
That's probably a pretty good argument. We can't really imagine an intelligent species without empathy. But by the same token we have to recognize that an alien species is most likely going to be so outside of our frame of reference that we can't even imagine what they'd be like. We aren't even making educated guesses, we're just making guesses.
Philosophically, we can argue that some aspect of empathy would be a prerequisite for the level of cooperative behavior necessary to achieve interstellar spaceflight. And while that might be a logical guess, it's still a guess.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The trick is figuring out the necessary and sufficient conditions for empathy to evolve then seeing how universal they would be (the work of Robert Axelrod would be a good place to start). I would guess that because empathy is so useful in navigating social environments (something intelligent beings surely must do) it is probably neccesary for alien intelligence.
The wildcard is technology. While I find it quite unlikely that an alien intelligence would evolve withou empathy, AI may be a little more probable.
The wildcard is technology. While I find it quite unlikely that an alien intelligence would evolve withou empathy, AI may be a little more probable.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Isn't empathy something to do with mirror neurons?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I have another guess - we are a social species and as such were far more likely to develop empathy than a species that isn't.
Now, I've read examples of non-social alien civilizations in sci-fi, and they seem plausible. That is not enough to say: "That means they exist!", but it seems like there isn't really much in the way of that happening. Most species seem to evolve to be predators or prey for instance, and our own species' socialness AND predatorship seems to be slightly unique in the grand scheme of things.
So assuming there's civilizations out there which did not evolve to be social creatures, but follow a different dynamic - what sort of empathy would they be likely to evolve, if any?
These are fascinating questions - too bad we most likely will never know the answers (in our lifetimes)
That seems like a decent enough assumption, but I think we're just seeing things from our point of view too much. We are the only intelligent species that we know of, capable of civilization anyway, so we see the social aspect of our existence as being crucial. But maybe it isn't.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well one could glean a lot of data by looking at various organisms on Earth. Are there species out there that display intelligent behavior without strong analogues to empathy and morality? I would venture not, but it undoubtedly would be insightful.
Even solitary creatures need to communicate and negotiate territory and resources.
Note how important empathy is. I could not write this post without some implicit idea about the effect it would have on the reader. That itself is a form of empathy.
Even solitary creatures need to communicate and negotiate territory and resources.
Note how important empathy is. I could not write this post without some implicit idea about the effect it would have on the reader. That itself is a form of empathy.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I think there are plenty of predators that are social. Some of the primates for instance. (In fact, orang utans, who are solitary, are decidedly not predators.) Baboons, and chimpanzees are certainly rather predatory and social.
While dogs, lions, wolves, and dolphins are also predatory and social.
Wasps too are predatory and social.
But I guess as a general rule of thumb, prey do tend to be more social than predators if only because many pairs of eyes are a good defence.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Would venture that predators and prey are not as whole significantly more social or less social rather they just tend to have different social systems.
I would suggest that both groups probably have morality/empathy considerations as well.
I would suggest that both groups probably have morality/empathy considerations as well.
poom3619
Ping Pang Poom!
Not being the slowest prey is a good defense 
I believe that humanity wouldn't go anywhere if human is hardcoded to be alone (apathy), But I can't imagine Homo Sapien be completely apathetic as human babies is very vulnerable compared to others species.
It might be possible for a hypothetical individualistic sentient to somehow make a "civilization". But that's venture very far into sci-fi.
I believe that humanity wouldn't go anywhere if human is hardcoded to be alone (apathy), But I can't imagine Homo Sapien be completely apathetic as human babies is very vulnerable compared to others species.
It might be possible for a hypothetical individualistic sentient to somehow make a "civilization". But that's venture very far into sci-fi.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
By "social animals" I just mean that we're more like wolves and bees than the T-rex. We hunt in packs and naturally build hierarchical social structures to live in.
Communication between various members is undoubtedly important whether the intelligent species is social like that, or not.
My initial hypothesis was that such a social species is far more likely to evolve something like empathy, in order to navigate these social structures that have been built up for us to live in, once they're complex enough.
Communication between various members is undoubtedly important whether the intelligent species is social like that, or not.
My initial hypothesis was that such a social species is far more likely to evolve something like empathy, in order to navigate these social structures that have been built up for us to live in, once they're complex enough.
Humans were not "created." Humans evolved, as did every other life form on this planet.
As for whether we're the only life form that contemplates where our morality comes from, who knows?
I think more correct is to say humans were evolved or created through process of evolution. On one hand inteligence and consciousness is understood to be the pinacle of evolution on the other hand human inteligence and consciousness has nothing to do with its conception. We are product of inteligent processes and only in part control of our own selves.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm not sure why you think this, because it's not true.
Well tell me what is it then or how you understand it.
There's no such thing as 'the pinnacle of evolution'. Certainly, the most 'successful' organisms on earth have neither intelligence nor consciousness.
How so? Isnt the complex inteligent self-conscious creature quite obviously the best evolution has achieved so far? Does succes require just mere being? That would be contrary to human nature which constantly strives for development.
