If we had a tendency to underestimate the chance of getting caught, I don’t see why evolution couldn’t have just coded in us a correction that raised this estimate. That seems lots simpler than the whole ethical machinery.
Ethics can also code for the degree of “badness” of the behaviour (ie how strongly others would react against it). The relative strength of “do not kill” vs “do not steal” makes no sense in terms of the likelyhood of being caught (killing being safer than stealing), but makes sense when the consequences of being caught are added it.
Also, having some vague sense of shame that your upbringing can then train will allow you to slip into social norms with a minimum of fuss—soldiers will learn the difference between sleeping with a prostitute and tattling on your colleagues, and pastors will learn the opposite lesson. Simply increasing the risk of being caught doesn’t allow this fine distinction.
If we had a tendency to underestimate the chance of getting caught, I don’t see why evolution couldn’t have just coded in us a correction that raised this estimate. That seems lots simpler than the whole ethical machinery.
Ethics can also code for the degree of “badness” of the behaviour (ie how strongly others would react against it). The relative strength of “do not kill” vs “do not steal” makes no sense in terms of the likelyhood of being caught (killing being safer than stealing), but makes sense when the consequences of being caught are added it.
Also, having some vague sense of shame that your upbringing can then train will allow you to slip into social norms with a minimum of fuss—soldiers will learn the difference between sleeping with a prostitute and tattling on your colleagues, and pastors will learn the opposite lesson. Simply increasing the risk of being caught doesn’t allow this fine distinction.