Where our morality comes from

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Interesting in the same way that its interesting that religion has influenced what we eat but has no bearing on what we should eat, from a biological point of view.
I thought it was obvious from where my post went after this, but morality is not what we should. Its what we think we should do. Morality is an instinct, one evolved because it helps us achieve greater harmony in groups. We are born with a morality, a basic idea that there are certain things we should do in certain circumstances, but through our environment and through our upbringing we can learn to act in such a way that sees more long term results, or simply not act moral at all.

I would say there are no solid facts, but there are some fairly innate guidelines. We are born with instincts that have arisen through evolution. Morality is simply one instinct, one which is supposed to help humans function better in groups. How (or whether) we decide to that is up for question, but that doesn't change the fact we are born with those basic instincts.

Because we are humans and human brains are complex enough to override their instincts, for better or worse. And as I said before several times, our instinct for morality is only general, we still need to decide exactly what path is the most beneficial, in the long run.

The parts in bold, to me, are exactly what I think morality consists in. I'm not disagreeing that there is a biological basis for it. But that the indeterminate parts you mention are precisely what makes morality a difficult subject. I think that that cut off point is where biological understanding stops and where discourse begins.

Also, your use of the word innate can be misleading. At least in the, possibly mistaken, way I have understood your use of it.
If we take Chomsky's innate language hypothesis as an example. All this means is that we are predisposed to acquire whatever language we happen to grow up around. We can even create our own languages if we are with other people. In isolation we don't develop a language.

If we apply this type of innateness to morality, all it means is that we acquire the morality we are surrounded with. This could be anything! It doesn't mean we are good or bad, innately, it just means we could be either.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

what about a surgeon? They inflict suffering..

Not random suffering.

albeit short-term and for presumably a longer-term gain.Well, I think that's what "absolute" means -- a belief which is held to be true regardless of the cost.
Is there another meaning?

Once you introduce "costs" you alter the equation. Hence "long-term gain" or the "needs of the many" may come into it. I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

But in terms of rules, something which does not conform to that measure or yardstick is by definition breaking the rule.

It's more correct to think of absolute not as "rigid and inflexible", but "limitless and complete". That is, when a rule is described as "absolute" that means that it is without limits - there is no scenario in which that rule can be limited. "Regardless of costs" is redundant, as "absolute" implies it.

The most elementary example of this is "Thou shalt not kill". Many define it as an absolute, but when you tack on things like, "Except in self-defence", or, "Except when found guilty of murder", then it is no longer absolute.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Not random suffering.

As above, it might be for a long-term gain, but the pain that arises from some treatments can be pretty random at a personal level. Alternatively, and at the level of society, what about the, say, 0.01% adverse reaction rate to certain vaccines?

recedite wrote: »

I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

I see where you're coming from, but that's not an absolute in the sense that religious people tend to understand the term -- of an action that's always wrong, no matter what (though, that said, when you ask religious people to list some moral absolutes, they tend to run away and hide).

Your sense of the term seems to have more to do with how one should assign values to actions, which is the basis of what I'm calling "ethical" behaviour which is roughly the opposite of absolutism.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

I'm not getting that, but that could be just me. I can associate the laws of maths with the term absolute, but not such an arbitrary thing as the human term 'morality'. There's simply no moral law I can think of that is universally agreed upon.

No you're not but I'm expressing it terribly. I'm going to try a slightly different approach.

Suppose no human beings ever discover or invent Pythagoras' theorem, is that theorem true regardless of whether humans discover it or not? Does its proof actually exist somewhere out there in a reality of sorts? Or is it purely a subjective concept of the human mind. I'm one of those people who believes that mathematics exists independent of the human mind. I also like to think Morality exists in a similar fashion. Whether humans discover them or not, or whether they choose to adhere to them, I do believe objective morality as a concept actually exists. Hope this helps.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

The parts in bold, to me, are exactly what I think morality consists in. I'm not disagreeing that there is a biological basis for it. But that the indeterminate parts you mention are precisely what makes morality a difficult subject. I think that that cut off point is where biological understanding stops and where discourse begins.

It seems to be philosophers and theologians who declare that morality is a difficult subject, but I dont see why would be so hard. Simply define what the desired outcome for your morality is and just work towards it. Sure there should always be discourse, but I dont see why morality should be any more difficult to discuss than, say, diet.

18AD wrote: »

Also, your use of the word innate can be misleading. At least in the, possibly mistaken, way I have understood your use of it.

I meant innate in the same way instincts are innate, not in how Chomky uses it in his hypothesis.

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Simply define what the desired outcome for your morality is and just work towards it.

This isn't morality at all. It's just instrumental reason.

The whole point is whether your desired outcomes are right or wrong.

I guess your point is that we can eventually find definitive morality within biology?

I'm just saying that the biological findings are so underdetermined in relation to moral issues we face that they don't really tell us anything substantial about what is right or wrong.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

This isn't morality at all. It's just instrumental reason.

The whole point is whether your desired outcomes are right or wrong.

I guess your point is that we can eventually find definitive morality within biology?

I'm just saying that the biological findings are so underdetermined in relation to moral issues we face that they don't really tell us anything substantial about what is right or wrong.

Right and wrong are subjective terms. Subjective to what we have determined to be the desired outcome of our morality. Whats "wrong" for me (eg persecuting gays) is "right" for someone else (eg certain African states). My argument has always been that morality arises biologically, but the specifics of what to do is decided by people (influenced by environment and education). We all have a biological morality that inclines us to work together and have empathy (to varying degrees). People have different ideas about what that entails. We can determine which ideas are best through scientific testing, rational discourse and logic. Its actually not that hard, but certain groups will tell you otherwise because they need the monopoly on morality in order to assert their control over you (eg religions).

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We can determine which ideas are best through scientific testing, rational discourse and logic.

The whole point of ethics is to determine whether scientific testing is ethical in the first place. So you can't test first, do ethics after. (Well, no the whole point, but as applied to science it does)

Logic has nothing to do with determining whether something is right or wrong. It's about truth values. I guess you could assign truth values to moral statements.

Ethics isn't really my area, so I think I'll desist from further comment as the risk of embarassing myself looms.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

The most elementary example of this is "Thou shalt not kill". Many define it as an absolute, but when you tack on things like, "Except in self-defence", or, "Except when found guilty of murder", then it is no longer absolute.

I would argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment or a rule, based on the moral absolute "don't kill an innocent person". The commandment is bad law, in that it lacks the detailed wording that would have to go into making workable legislation.
We can use ethics do decide what exactly makes a homicide justifiable, and later on we may redefine it differently. The rules may change, as we attempt to live up to the moral absolute.

If I travel to a cannibal infested island, where the local culture says it is OK to kill and eat tourists, that behaviour clearly contravenes the universal moral absolute, whether they accept that locally or not.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

The whole point of ethics is to determine whether scientific testing is ethical in the first place. So you can't test first, do ethics after. (Well, no the whole point, but as applied to science it does)

Not all science leads to ethical questions. Does you think of the ethics before doing maths? I also said before that you use science in morality usually by testing your moral hypotheses by seeing if someone had encountered the situation you are in before, and seeing what outcomes arouse from their choices. Is there an reasoned ethical to that?

18AD wrote: »

Logic has nothing to do with determining whether something is right or wrong. It's about truth values. I guess you could assign truth values to moral statements.

That's a ridiculous statement to make. Whether you have an objective morality given by god, or a subjective morality devised by man, you still apply logic to your hypothesised actions in order to determine which ones will achieve the moral outcome you desire. Even if you are talking in terms of truth values, you would still use logic to determine them.

Andrewf20

recedite wrote: »

I would argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment or a rule, based on the moral absolute "don't kill an innocent person". The commandment is bad law, in that it lacks the detailed wording that would have to go into making workable legislation....

I see this as an example of the problem with words set in a text with no tangible feedback mechanism that we can use to clear up confusion (customer support to ring God for clarification if you like), therefore theres too much room for interpretation as in alot of religious texts. The human mind (a flaw perhaps) seems to vary from person to person, meaning 2 people can see a collection of words and conclude, worst case that they mean opposing things. Considering the big claims of religon and what is at stake here as the doctrine would lead us to believe, I would say that the way the rule of God has been communicated could be improved considerably.

Although its not a rock solid solution, I really like the idea of the golden rule, i.e - dont do to others what I wouldnt want done to myself. I believe morality is innate in us, possibly an evolutionary thing that stems from the fact that looking after others benefits the survival of the species so to speak. Power in numbers - if I help others in need they will reciprocate etc. The Bible for me certainly leaves me baffled at times in relation to moral issues, particulary in relation to its views on homosexuality.

I also feel that a moral action done with the belief in resulting reward in the afterlife is perhaps less noble than a person who does a good deed for the sake of it, who doesnt believe in a divinity.

recedite

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I really like the idea of the golden rule, i.e - dont do to others what I wouldnt want done to myself.

It seems like a good idea at first, but it leaves you open to being exploited by those who are less benevolent. Tit-for-tat, as discussed earlier, is a more refined version.

marty1985

recedite wrote: »

It seems like a good idea at first, but it leaves you open to being exploited by those who are less benevolent. Tit-for-tat, as discussed earlier, is a more refined version.

I shudder to imagine if that were true. The Golden Rule should not be under estimated so easily. It is not for nothing that it is fundamental to Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

recedite

marty1985 wrote: »

The Golden Rule should not be under estimated so easily. It is not for nothing that it is fundamental to Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Golden Rule is universal, that is true. Universally espoused by hypocrites that is, who when it comes down to the practicalities of life, just ignore it.
Like the 19th Century Europeans who colonised with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Or the Dalai Lama, who is disgusted whenever one of his more naive hosts gives him a vegetarian dinner.

marty1985

recedite wrote: »

The Golden Rule is universal, that is true. Universally espoused by hypocrites that is, who when it comes down to the practicalities of life, just ignore it.
Like the 19th Century Europeans who colonised with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Or the Dalai Lama, who is disgusted whenever one of his more naive hosts gives him a vegetarian dinner.

You're right recedite, to say that hypocritical behavior is a bad thing. But you might be missing something important, that is, that the existence of phenomenon is a sign of a good thing.

You can only be guilty of hypocrisy if you aspire - or at least feel you should aspire - to high moral standards. That's why you may proudly say you are guiltless of this failing, and castigate others with a sense of serene assurance, since you or I can hardly be guilty of hypocrisy if we make no pretence of espousing traditional morality in the first place.

This is not intended as a dig against you, as obviously we don't know each other, but if you are guiltless of hypocrisy it may be not that you are above hypocrisy, but beneath it.

The crime of hypocrisy should at least be possible.

recedite

marty1985 wrote: »

if you are guiltless of hypocrisy it may be not that you are above hypocrisy, but beneath it. The crime of hypocrisy should at least be possible.

Marty you seem think that it is a virtue to espouse some completely unworkable moral standard, and then fail miserably to live up to it.

In reality, you and I probably live to a similar moral standard, the only difference being that I am happy with that, but you are made to feel guilty for not doing better.

If we adopted your system, we would end up with some privileged caste of well fed, moneygrabbing, hypocritical paedophiles constantly lecturing us about our sins, and whenever one of them was exposed, they would simply say "but sadly we are all sinners before god because of original sin/free will/any miscellaneous bull$hit".

marty1985

The golden rule is not "my" system - it has roots in cultures as far back as Ancient Egypt and China and in all the major religions that I have already listed as well as every ethical tradition, and has been argued as the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. I am not suggesting you adopt "my" system, nor am I convinced that it is now to be declared "completely unworkable".

Any societies that strongly uphold and produce moral integrity by the same token produce its opposite - hypocrisy. By definition, it can only exist in societies that uphold something "Good". If they put a premium on moral integrity, it is inevitable that they will be charged by their detractors with its converse - hypocrisy. (Our premium is now on something else.) Moral anomie would be a fate worse than hypocrisy, I would imagine.

recedite

in this link chimpanzees show that they are often willing to help out others, even when there is no payback. Of course they are also capable of murdering a member of the group, and commonly have organised warfare against neighbouring tribes, all of which makes their morality quite similar to ours. So they have a morality, but they don't seem to have religion yet.

Muppet Man

I didnt see it mentioned...

"The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris is a great read if you can get your hands on a copy...

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211

Muppet Man

RichieC

recedite wrote: »

in this link chimpanzees show that they are often willing to help out others, even when there is no payback. Of course they are also capable of murdering a member of the group, and commonly have organised warfare against neighbouring tribes, all of which makes their morality quite similar to ours. So they have a morality, but they don't seem to have religion yet.

Maybe they have a monkey god? betcha you didnt think of that!!!

joseph brand

recedite wrote: »

in this link chimpanzees show that they are often willing to help out others, even when there is no payback. Of course they are also capable of murdering a member of the group, and commonly have organised warfare against neighbouring tribes, all of which makes their morality quite similar to ours. So they have a morality, but they don't seem to have religion yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AiCIZ9wM1o

Penguins taking turns on the perimeter of the pack, with their backs to the freezing winds, (-60 deg C, winds 124mph), while the rest huddle together for warmth. They take turns because it's the right thing to do. Survival of the pack. (Around the 2:00 mark)

Why then, do so many of our fellow humans feel the need to be told what to do? NOTHING living on this planet needs guidance on morality. It comes naturally. Unless your brain is wired incorrectly.

Evolution wept.

sbsquarepants

That's not really morality, it's just an evolved survival tactic. Similar types of behaviour can be seen in large groups of all types of animals. There isn't anything, anything i'm aware of anyway, to suggest that penguins posses anysort of moral code. They just don't want to freeze to death....and sure who could blame them!

seamus

joseph brand wrote: »

Why then, do so many of our fellow humans feel the need to be told what to do? NOTHING living on this planet needs guidance on morality. It comes naturally. Unless your brain is wired incorrectly.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not really morality, it's just an evolved survival tactic. Similar types of behaviour can be seen in large groups of all types of animals. There isn't anything, anything i'm aware of anyway, to suggest that penguins posses anysort of moral code. They just don't want to freeze to death....and sure who could blame them!

There's an assumption in many quarters that anything which animals do is pure instinct-driven. Spend ten minutes teaching a dog to sit and you'll know that this is simply incorrect.

So it would be hazardous to claim that the penguins' behaviour is something they know naturally to do, and it's possible that much of the behaviour is learned knowledge. That is, a penguin may not "know" at birth that he has to take his turn at the edge, but he sees it being done and learns that it is something which he must do in order to maintain his place in the community.

Us humans engage in exactly the same thing, except we use language to spread this knowledge across the community.

Mark Hamill

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not really morality, it's just an evolved survival tactic. Similar types of behaviour can be seen in large groups of all types of animals. There isn't anything, anything i'm aware of anyway, to suggest that penguins posses anysort of moral code. They just don't want to freeze to death....and sure who could blame them!

Morality is an evolved survival tactic.

recedite

I wonder if there are individual penguins who dodge their turn at the front.
It would be an interesting topic to study (made quite difficult by the harsh conditions and the fact that they all look the same)

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

I wonder if there are individual penguins who dodge their turn at the front.
It would be an interesting topic to study (made quite difficult by the harsh conditions and the fact that they all look the same)

:pac::D:pac:

joseph brand

recedite wrote: »

I wonder if there are individual penguins who dodge their turn at the front.
It would be an interesting topic to study (made quite difficult by the harsh conditions and the fact that they all look the same)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3gy7o7eEiE

Funny clip of penguin thieves. One honest penguin gathers rocks for a nest. As he goes for his next rock, an unscrupulous penguin waits until his back is turned and steals his rocks. Smart enough to know/ understand that it is easier to let some other penguin do the 'donkey' work!

recedite

Vintage Dawkins video.......
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212

Highlights are ;
1.The students playing "Prisoners Dilemma"- watch the face of the nice guy as he uses The Golden Rule strategy "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and gets played for a sucker.

2. Young Dawkins explains why the trench warfare in WW1 lasted so long after a rational and successful "tit for tat" strategy evolved amongst the troops.

3. Why there is no urgency shown by world leaders to solve global warming and other environmental problems.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Young Dawkins explains why the trench warfare in WW1 lasted so long after a rational and successful "tit for tat" strategy evolved amongst the troops.

That example is taken straight from Robert Alexrod's The Evolution of Cooperation. There's a short summary here.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465021212