post 11

Evolutionary ethics is the idea that natural selection has implanted in each of us a moral sense and a reason to act good. In accepting this belief, morality would come solely from evolution and is something that happens automatically. It would not come from a divine creator or our own individual reasoning minds. This idea goes against the beliefs of many philosophers. The evolution theory says that organisms evolve in ways to help them survive and adapt. Morality would then merely be something that we adapted because it helped people to thrive and survive.
The thesis of the second web page is that humans use emotions and evolution to make ethical and moral decisions. With the case of flipping a switch to kill one person but save five people use reason and abstract thinking to figure out what the right thing to do is. They contemplate and weigh out their options. Their reason and emotions win in the end and most people will say that they will flip the switch to kill the one person and save the five. With the same idea, when people are in a situation where they can push on person in front of a train to save five people, they most likely will respond quicker and in the opposite to which they had answered earlier. They would not push the one person to save the five. They would let nature take its course and not interfere. Both scenarios have the same reasoning and arguments. The latter however is more of a situation that our ancestors would have had to face. Because of this close contact with the person and the fact that this could be a similar predicament a long time ago, people have evolved and made decisions on how to react in similar situations. People have found that they can make a quick decision. In the other case of the switch, people are not in close contact with the person that will die and that keeps them secluded and not feel attached. This along with the new technology leaves people to ponder and use reason in order to decide what to do. Impersonal decisions were easier to make on reason alone. Personal situations made it more difficult to act on reason and utilitarian ideas. They act on emotions instead. This shows that there is no clear cut way that people always act in when making moral decisions. The situation and the in depth they are with the people makes a difference. For instance would someone save 100 people but let a loved on die? Or would they saved a loved one and let the 100 die?