6 Answers

  1. There are two parts here. Justice is a social construct, a part of human culture, that is, it is probably already beyond the scope of natural selection.

    At the same time, altruism for one's own, which is closely related to xenophobia (fear and hostility to non-ones), is quite common in the living world, precisely as a mechanism for preserving and promoting one's own genes (including through participation in close relatives).�

    By the way, when Big Officials pretend to be the Motherland, they are just trying to pretend to be our close relatives, to cling to this ancient mechanism))�

    Moreover, there is a general biological mechanism for punishing parasites-parasites who try to attach themselves to this altruism-for-their-own, and the punishment, which is fundamental, can go at the expense of harming their own personal interests! I'm not talking about March 26 and Dadin, I'm talking about BACTERIA!) – This is really an evolutionary mechanism; both parasites and activists who give them a cap each exist at all levels of life. – How exactly – it is still better to read A. Markov, “The Birth of complexity”.�

    And when we move from the purely biological level to the biological-social level, I think there are two main things that work here.

    1. The fundamental need for a just world: to believe that the world is just and to maintain this belief is the need to control your life in reality. That is, if the world is fair, then you can try – and lay out straws. Work well – and earn, maybe, even on the “Zhiguli”. And a good pension. And a decent old age. And children to respect – if you are a good parent. Well, you know what I mean…

    A wild, bestial craving, a passion, a demand for justice-this is a demand, a cry, so that your honest investments do not burn down, do not devalue, so that they are not stolen. “Seven Samurai” / “The Magnificent Seven” – vooot…

    And the world, the bastard, is unfair…

    1. Even more interesting. According to Nash's game theory, ” an eye for an eye “(and candy for candy) provides the maximum gain in social dilemmas over long distances. Objectively. Better read Gavin Kennedy's book ” Negotiations. Complete guide”. But, like Markov's, I warn you: it is written in a popular way, but at a fairly adequate level of complexity. You'll have to deal with the bottle. Well, or just seriously.

    So Putin, of course, is a booger, but according to Nash, yes: we must respond to sanctions with counter-sanctions, but also to the step of reconciliation with the same step of reconciliation; – and then the chances of maximizing benefits in an unfriendly confrontation (that is, in such situations) are higher.

  2. JUSTICE is the most important scientific and practical concept that is originally given by Nature (an initial intuitive understanding of the basics) and is optimally implemented even in the animal world (all animals respond to good with good and thus illustrate the principle of fair optimal behavior).

    This concept helps to live, survive, and develop-by making optimal decisions in all tasks of life-which is exactly what natural selection welcomes.

    The great philosopher Confucius recommends-to respond to good with good (justice), to respond to evil with justice, but not with evil (“You need to respond to good with good, and you need to respond to evil with justice”).

  3. I don't claim that what follows is considered an answer.

    Natural selection and justice are not related at all. From the word absolutely.

    You can even say that these are contradictory concepts: primitive society existed in close connection with nature and obeyed natural laws, which consist in the fact that the weak are at best beaten, and at worst fucked or eaten. There is no time for high matters, only instincts and pragmatism.

    I daresay that at first all relationships within the group were built on brute force and authority. Only later did the germs of certain social rules begin to appear, and then they appeared slowly. They somewhat resembled thieves ' concepts: they were established by authoritative leaders, were not recorded anywhere (due to the lack of writing), were distributed only to members of the tribe, and not the fact that they were always fulfilled. The concept of “justice” most likely appeared together with such things as morality, the state, the court and law, that is, at the stage of the formation of civilization. Since at the dawn of its development, human consciousness was syncretic, fused, mythological, religious and mystical, a number of concepts were closely intertwined and were sacralized for greater convenience. This is how sacred power, sacred laws, sacred justice, and sacred judgment came into being. Sacred and infallible, aha…

    I am very interested in the concept of Lewis Henry Morgan, the great American of the 19th century: “savagery – barbarism – civilization”. I have not had the opportunity to fully read his work “Ancient society or a study of the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization”, but I think that there will be an answer to the question of at what stage and how the conceptual apparatus and morality of primitive tribes were formed. Morgan wasn't a desk scientist; he studied the Indians, taking note of every detail. Importantly, he not only studied them, but also tried to protect their interests before the US government. I am looking for a place to buy it in paper form, because it is much more convenient for me to read this way than in electronic form…

    PS If someone throws the address where this book can be ordered exactly as a book – I will be very grateful.

  4. The concept of justice, I think, appeared precisely in the course of natural selection in pack animals. In the wild, the pack had a better chance of surviving with more healthy, well-fed fighters, experienced old teachers, and females who could give birth and raise. From here came mutual assistance and a more or less fair division of prey, rejection of cannibalism almost at the gene level, assistance to the victims, joint education of a new generation and emotional experiences for the dead, which we observe in animals. All this gradually resulted in the concept of justice in intelligent animals-people.

  5. The concept of justice was not formed by natural selection. And it has nothing to do with gene transfer. Just as every human being has an innate need to be loved, so each of us wants to be treated fairly. According to the American statesman Thomas Jefferson, ” [justice] is an instinctive, innate feeling… a part of us, like touch, sight, and hearing.” This is not surprising, since God created us in his own image (Genesis 1: 26). He has given us qualities that reflect his personality, and one of them is justice. Therefore, we have an innate need for justice and we want to live in a world of true justice and righteousness.

  6. I hope that there are no people willing to answer the question according to which the “concept” as a formed mental attitude “helped to betray genes”. Did you study biology in reproduction at school? Well, at least, in squalor, in high school at the practice of parties.

Leave a Reply