In 1998, Edward O. Wilson discussed the biological basis of morality, pointed out that the analysis of its material origins should enable us to fashion a wise ethical consensus, and predicted the dawn of previous science-based moral reasoning. who actually advocates environmentalism
The biological basis of morality should be explored amply by taking up an evolutionary approach. One can sya that Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution
Survival was one of the main aims of the all earlier the populations in which morality originated to help it, because they lived in harsh environments
How much of morality actually is dictated by science as against simple human values?
Is morality a Philosophical fallacy or naturalist fallacy?
Is it true that morality does not need philosophical definitions or metaphysical explanations, but simply constitute ancestral concepts?
Interesting, thanks. Yes it probably has to do with the way the mind developed, back in time humans probably had much less of a sense of morality, right and wrong that they do today. As intelligence increased, so did morality.
I see morality more as a lowest common denominator in behavior, allowing humans coexist (live would be another term, for more meaningful existence) in crowded environment, where they were not supposed to live.
| Crinoid wrote: |
| I see morality more as a lowest common denominator in behavior, allowing humans coexist (live would be another term, for more meaningful existence) in crowded environment, where they were not supposed to live. |
On what basis do you determine that humans are not supposed to live among each other (if that is what you mean by crowded)?
It isn't really the lowest common denominator, actually it is one of the highest considering how it has evolved in history.There are situations in which one can benefit oneself, at the expense of the group or other members in it. An example of this type of situation is stealing money from First Union Trust State Bank. One benefits oneself, but other members of society will have less money and will not be able to trust First Union Trust. Morality is an attempt, created by society, to operationalize what might fall into this category, what would not, and what might be the opposite. Some general aspects of morality may be instinctual, and others may be learned.
Interesting subject here. Here is a excerpt from a story that depicts morality in an altruistic, but rare form.
"A teenager kills another teen and after his conviction the dead boy's mother stands up in court and says, "I'm going to kill you." Then, over the next three years, she visits him in prison, befriends him, and when he's released, asks him to come live with her, and helps him find work. Eventually she adopts him, explaining, "I did not want the boy who could kill my son for no reason to remain alive on this earth. That old boy, he's gone." Through love, she utterly changed that young man, and became the mother he never had. There's no better story illustrating the extremes of good and evil humans face."
...
How would you two analyze what happened?
Pretty much every post here has presumed that morality is a product of intellect. Here are a couple of the quotes that show what i mean: | TBSC wrote: |
| As intelligence increased, so did morality. |
| AFriedman wrote: |
| Morality is an attempt, created by society, to operationalize what might fall into this category, what would not, and what might be the opposite. Some general aspects of morality may be instinctual, and others may be learned. |
This is the default assumption pretty much everyone makes: morality is an artificial construct, created by humans (or imposed on humankind by gods ^_^; ), designed to facilitate social groupings. At the very least they allow for evolutionary concerns to shape some instinctual moral concerns (more altruistic concern for kin than non-kin, revulsion against incest, etc.), but only in a very limited manner.
i'm going to throw down a challenge here. ^_^ i'm going to ask... what if we're all wrong? What if your "highly evolved" morality... has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence? What if this "morality" thing humans developed in order to allow for social groups was not developed at all, and behaving morally is as natural to humans as breathing, and as automatic and unexamined? And furthermore, what if it doesn't even have anything to do with biological drives wired into us by evolution? What if "morality" is not just a way we rationalize choices that increase our fitness?
And what if i could prove it? ^_^
Anyone want to test my challenge? Want to try to show that - option 1 - your moral judgement is rational, or at the very least reasoned (in plain English: that when you make a moral choice, you use your intelligence to weigh the pros and cons, and come up with a choice based on some kind of built-in or taught guideline)? Or - option 2 - want to try to show that your moral judgement is based on evolutionarily-developed instinctual drives?
Any volunteers? ^_^ i'll give you a series of moral choices, ask you to make a choice, then ask you to explain your choice. You shouldn't need more than three or four. We can do it in the thread or over PMs, if you prefer privacy (as long as you agree to share the result - which will be that your morality is guided by a.) reason, b.) biology or c.) something else). I raise my hand as a volunteer
Of course Indi is right. Morality doesn't really make much sense in terms of being something that you think up. It makes much more sense as something biological. You don't learn morality in school.
| Tumbleweed wrote: |
| I raise my hand as a volunteer |
Public or private?
It's not meant to be an embarrassing test, but it does generally catch people with their intellectual pants down, which can be kind of humiliating if it happens publicly, and i'm not into embarrassing people for the hell of it.
Of course, that's assuming i get it to work, too. ^_^
What i'll do is give you a scenario where you will have two choices, and you will have to tell me which choice is "right", morally speaking, and why you think it is.
What it will show (if it works ^_^) is whether you use logic and reasoning to make moral choices, or whether your moral choices are based on your biology and the principles of evolution (innately) to benefit your fitness, or... if it's "something else". | Indi wrote: |
| Tumbleweed wrote: | | I raise my hand as a volunteer |
Public or private?
It's not meant to be an embarrassing test, but it does generally catch people with their intellectual pants down, which can be kind of humiliating if it happens publicly, and i'm not into embarrassing people for the hell of it.
|
Publically or privately, whichever you feel would best illustrate your test, I do however thank you for your "heads up".I don't know a great deal about Wilson's theory. It was touched on briefly during one of my psychology modules, but we didn't look at it in depth. As such, I'm reluctant to comment at the moment until I've read more.
Does anyone have a link to a paper? I've Googled it but can't find anything other than a precis of his work.
i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors.
| Indi wrote: |
i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors. |
Were you using Dennett-type scenarios?I think that morality comes from desire, we all desire things, your natural part of you will try to help someone with something you know you would want unless it actually would hurt yourself in hope that perhaps the other person will help you when you want it or just to satisfy a balance as everyone has to do some good and some evil.
Not that I agree with Kohlberg's reasoning it is just another spin on this subject. I personally believe morals start within, what we call our soul or spirit. It is the compass that points us in the directions that is needed to coexist and thrive.
Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg modified and expanded upon Piaget's work to form a theory that explained the development of moral reasoning. Piaget described a two-stage process of moral development, while Kohlberg theory of moral development outlined six stages within three different levels. Kohlberg extended Piaget’s theory, proposing that moral development is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan.
"Heinz Steals the Drug
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.
The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963)."
Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to the question of whether Heinz was wrong or right, but in the reasoning for the participants decision. The responses were then classified into various stages of reasoning.
| Indi wrote: |
Pretty much every post here has presumed that morality is a product of intellect. Here are a couple of the quotes that show what i mean: | TBSC wrote: | | As intelligence increased, so did morality. |
| AFriedman wrote: | | Morality is an attempt, created by society, to operationalize what might fall into this category, what would not, and what might be the opposite. Some general aspects of morality may be instinctual, and others may be learned. |
This is the default assumption pretty much everyone makes: morality is an artificial construct, created by humans (or imposed on humankind by gods ^_^; ), designed to facilitate social groupings. At the very least they allow for evolutionary concerns to shape some instinctual moral concerns (more altruistic concern for kin than non-kin, revulsion against incest, etc.), but only in a very limited manner.
i'm going to throw down a challenge here. ^_^ i'm going to ask... what if we're all wrong? What if your "highly evolved" morality... has absolutely nothing to do with your intelligence? What if this "morality" thing humans developed in order to allow for social groups was not developed at all, and behaving morally is as natural to humans as breathing, and as automatic and unexamined? And furthermore, what if it doesn't even have anything to do with biological drives wired into us by evolution? What if "morality" is not just a way we rationalize choices that increase our fitness?
And what if i could prove it? ^_^
Anyone want to test my challenge? Want to try to show that - option 1 - your moral judgement is rational, or at the very least reasoned (in plain English: that when you make a moral choice, you use your intelligence to weigh the pros and cons, and come up with a choice based on some kind of built-in or taught guideline)? Or - option 2 - want to try to show that your moral judgement is based on evolutionarily-developed instinctual drives?
Any volunteers? ^_^ i'll give you a series of moral choices, ask you to make a choice, then ask you to explain your choice. You shouldn't need more than three or four. We can do it in the thread or over PMs, if you prefer privacy (as long as you agree to share the result - which will be that your morality is guided by a.) reason, b.) biology or c.) something else). |
Hi Indi. Interesting post and conversation. It seems like intelligence is involved since human morality has seemingly improved and so has intelligence. That seems like a neat test. I'm up for answering some moral choice questions as long as they aren't raunchy or anything...heh heh.
| Indi wrote: |
i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors. |
Oh. Looks like you already completed the test. What is that "something else" that moral choices were based upon or have you determined that yet?
Last edited by MGC77 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 6:39 pm; edited 1 time in total | Indi wrote: |
i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors. |
The questions were geared toward getting an irrational answer, what your morals tell you to do in those situations is an inherently irrational action for rational reasons , given a moral catch 22 situation where someone has to lose it becomes to easy to do wrong in the name of whats right but just because its easy does not make it right, doing whats socially right (good for others) while personally wrong (bad for you ) by using an immoral action is whats acceptable in your culture, could we say that the something else is your culture ?
I based my answers to the test(s) on not on any circumstances taking a life, for myself that is the ultimate moral high ground, if my answers were not based on reason they were based on that simple principle. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors. |
Were you using Dennett-type scenarios? |
Yes, to start. They are great for determining initial parameters. But then i use some really nasty moral quandaries involving babies and Nazis to turn those parameters upside down. ^_^
| pixelwirx wrote: |
| Kohlberg was not interested so much in the answer to the question of whether Heinz was wrong or right, but in the reasoning for the participants decision. The responses were then classified into various stages of reasoning. |
Yes, the test i did (and will do again for any interested person) is based on the same idea, except going a step further. i don't know or care what is right or wrong. i only want to find out what your reasons are for whatever you choose. But i go a step beyond Kohlberg and those who follow his beliefs - after i find out the kind of reasoning you use... i throw you another moral dilemma that shows that you really don't use that kind of reasoning at all.
| MGC77 wrote: |
| Hi Indi. Interesting post and conversation. It seems like intelligence is involved since human morality has seemingly improved and so has intelligence. |
Things are more complicated than that. Recent research (which i am ripping off for my little test) has suggested that we don't really use our intelligence much at all when making a moral decision. What we do is post-hoc rationalization. In other words, we don't think and then choose... we choose and then think, and what we try to do when we think is justify our choice (that was made without any thought at all).
We're very good at it, too. We can justify completely opposite choices without being consciously aware of how weird that is.
| MGC77 wrote: |
| That seems like a neat test. I'm up for answering some moral choice questions as long as they aren't raunchy or anything...heh heh. |
No, no raunchy. ^_^; Actually, raunchiness is a bad way to test moral limits because there is very little morality involved in the actual raunchiness. The reason raunchiness is considered immoral is because of the perceived harm it causes. So a person who thinks an exposed nipple or penis harms people thinks nudity is immoral because of the harm, whereas a person who doesn't think a boob or wang is dangerous does not think nudity is immoral. Even though they seem to disagree, underneath they're both using the same moral "rule" - what harms people is immoral.
| MGC77 wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | i think the first test is complete.
The results were:
Moral choices were neither based on reason (logic), or on biological/evolutionary factors. Moral choices were made based on something else, and then rationalized by arguments of reason or biological/evolutionary factors. |
Oh. Looks like you already completed the test. What is that "something else" that moral choices were based upon or have you determined that yet? |
Oh, anyone that wants to take the test is welcome to. Just say the word.
No one knows what that "something else" is yet. That's cutting-edge research. We can sorta-kinda describe how it works, but we don't know why it works that way, or how it came to be.How does one then explain an absence of morality? When a person takes great joy in hurting others, spontaneously from the time he/she is born? Or did I get it wrong in that morality does not necessarily mean good, but can mean evil as well? And that both are from the same source?
| deanhills wrote: |
| How does one then explain an absence of morality? When a person takes great joy in hurting others, spontaneously from the time he/she is born? Or did I get it wrong in that morality does not necessarily mean good, but can mean evil as well? And that both are from the same source? |
1) Absence of morality - An immoral behaviour? Or compromising moral values subconsciously due to ignorance in the rat race?
2) Can anyone be spantaneously start hurting others from the time s/he is born. Moral behaviour comes as a habit/character rather than genetic I suppose. | deanhills wrote: |
| How does one then explain an absence of morality? When a person takes great joy in hurting others, spontaneously from the time he/she is born? |
Same way one explains absence of sight. Some people are just born with parts not working.
If there is an innate biological moral sense - as the modern evidence indicates - then being born without it is just as possible as being born without the ability to understand language (without the "language acquisition device", as Chomsky calls it), which some types of autistic kids are supposed to be examples of.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Or did I get it wrong in that morality does not necessarily mean good, but can mean evil as well? And that both are from the same source? |
i have no idea what that means. ^_^;An interesting extension of this would be Libet's work on free-will/consciousness. The results of Libet's experiments would suggest that not only is morality post-hoc but conscious decisions themselves may actually be post-hoc rationalisations of unconsciously determined actions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet | Indi wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Or did I get it wrong in that morality does not necessarily mean good, but can mean evil as well? And that both are from the same source? |
i have no idea what that means. ^_^; |
Thanks Indi. Will try and explain it better. Usually when someone is moral, or has morality, I have always thought this belongs to someone who does good deeds. Does not hurt people. Tries to do the right thing.
In the above reference about morality not necessarily meaning good I was wondering aloud that morality can also mean a choice for doing bad deeds. | deanhills wrote: |
Thanks Indi. Will try and explain it better. Usually when someone is moral, or has morality, I have always thought this belongs to someone who does good deeds. Does not hurt people. Tries to do the right thing.
In the above reference about morality not necessarily meaning good I was wondering aloud that morality can also mean a choice for doing bad deeds. |
i'm still not clear on what you're getting at >_< but i will try and make a guess. i suspect that your confusion comes from the talk of deeds, as in good vs. bad deeds. Deeds are a red herring. Deeds are neither moral nor immoral... reasons are. It's not what you do, it's why you do it. Shooting someone is a bad deed if you do it for fun, but a good deed if you do it to stop them from setting off a bomb that will kill thousands of innocents.
It might help if i plot out the roadmap of how our morality apparently works, as far as we understand it so far. When it comes time to make a choice, a number of parts of your brain analyse the situation in different ways and select courses of action. The "moral centre" somehow analyses the choices (we don't know how yet) and assigns a "moral weight" to each choice: this choice is moral, that choice is immoral, and so on. Meanwhile, other parts of your brain use different methods - for example, the hedonistic part of your brain considers each choice and gives them weights on how much pleasure they provide: this choice will lead to pleasure, that choice will lead to pain, and so on. Then something takes all those choices and weights together, and selects a course of action (again, we don't know how yet).
Then our conscious mind is informed of the decision, and it attempts to generate a rational excuse for making that choice. It is at this point that we start thinking about reasons - we may think up philosophical justifications or we may recall supporting scriptures. And then, we act.
(Or, if you buy into Libet, we act first, then start rationalizing. ^_^; Either way.)
If you want to know why we sometimes act in ways that are immoral, it is because something else is given more weight in the decision-making process. Self-preservation may give a heavy weight to running away from a burning car, while morality gives light weight to helping someone still in the car. In that case, we would run and let people die. Or self-interest may give a heavy weight to material gain, while morality gives light weight to not stealing. In that case, we would steal. In both cases, our conscious mind would be informed of the decision after it is made, and it would then try to rationalize it.
In the post-decision rationalization, we are informed by our internal moral sense that stealing is immoral... but in order to rationalize, we may ignore that (remember, none of this is conscious, it is all unconscious and out of our control). So someone may do something immoral, and then claim that it was completely moral, because their mind has fooled them by rationalizing away the problem somehow. Terrorists who kill innocents are a good example of this. If they are human, they know killing innocents (especially indiscriminately with a bomb!) is wrong - all humans know this biologically. But because their minds have given greater weight to their hatred and anger and desire for vengeance and blood, their minds repress the moral warning - so the terrorist doesn't even clue in that what they're doing is immoral. They're not crazy and they're not "evil" - they are clueless about how immoral their acts are (or almost clueless - they may have tiny, insignificant nagging doubts, i suppose).Good effort, really!
I think, morality is a part of suggestive reflex that every one of us is imbibed with by the society. These are not taught in the school or at home. It is observed and learnt. I have seen kids of 5 years to 7 years where they knew nothing of sex or sexual morality get tensed up when a scene questioning the morality comes up on a movie or soap.
Who told them what is moral to them? They observe and learn. The society teaches them and they continue to get imbibed with these moral values. Most often moral values and morality is a social binding. What is moral in one society may notbe so in another. For instance, take an unknown lady's hand or kissing her in her cheek is not moral in eastern societies.
Indi wrote: | Quote: |
deanhills wrote:
Or did I get it wrong in that morality does not necessarily mean good, but can mean evil as well? And that both are from the same source?
i have no idea what that means. ^_^;
Thanks Indi. Will try and explain it better. Usually when someone is moral, or has morality, I have always thought this belongs to someone who does good deeds. Does not hurt people. Tries to do the right thing.
In the above reference about morality not necessarily meaning good I was wondering aloud that morality can also mean a choice for doing bad deeds |
.
Many of the points you have raised in the earlier posts are all random cases of mental disorders. They need to be discussed. Morality is not something that you can talk of with reference to mentally unstable people. Most humans are inherently moral. This is based on a sense of sympathy/empathy that drives people to be fair/do right by others. For the most part people put themselves first but strive for fairness and can sympathize with others. This is what separates humans from animals.
Psychopaths/sociopaths lack this sympathy and do not strive to be fair and do right to others, they exclude that.
Agree/disagree?
| TBSC wrote: |
Most humans are inherently moral. This is based on a sense of sympathy/empathy that drives people to be fair/do right by others. For the most part people put themselves first but strive for fairness and can sympathize with others. This is what separates humans from animals.
Psychopaths/sociopaths lack this sympathy and do not strive to be fair and do right to others, they exclude that.
Agree/disagree? |
Agreed. I sometimes wish I could be a psychopath as life has to be infinitely less complicated. Nobody can disappoint you either as opinions of others do not matter. Decisions must be pretty easy. Bonding may be a problem though. So possibly people like that are loners. But then if they do not feel much, maybe they are happy loners? | rshanthakumar wrote: |
Good effort, really!
I think, morality is a part of suggestive reflex that every one of us is imbibed with by the society. These are not taught in the school or at home. It is observed and learnt. I have seen kids of 5 years to 7 years where they knew nothing of sex or sexual morality get tensed up when a scene questioning the morality comes up on a movie or soap.
Who told them what is moral to them? They observe and learn. The society teaches them and they continue to get imbibed with these moral values. Most often moral values and morality is a social binding. What is moral in one society may notbe so in another. For instance, take an unknown lady's hand or kissing her in her cheek is not moral in eastern societies. |
Recent science is teaching is that it's not quite as culturally dependent as we previously thought. While it is true that children imitate behaviours they have seen adults perform (if they see adults get nervous when the topic of sex comes up, they copy the response), and it is also true that children learn responses via conditioning (when the topic of sex comes up and the child tenses, the adult rewards the behaviour with comforting, but if the child does not tense the adult punishes the behaviour by displaying concern and disappointment), that is not really what morality is about. We have found that moral thinking about real moral problems is universal across cultures, which means it is biological.
The problem is that after so many centuries of interference, religion (and culture, to a lesser degree) has so mucked up the idea of morality that we can't even talk about it clearly any more. For example, think about your examples. Where is the morality or immorality there? Is there any? A child overhears a conversation about sex... what part of that is really moral or immoral? You see, if you really think about it... that has nothing to do with real morality, it only involves puritanism, which is artificial morality imposed by a religion and/or culture. It is immoral because of religious and cultural beliefs, not because it is actually immoral.
The same goes for your other example: where to kiss. What part of that involves real morality? It doesn't really, it is artificial, imposed by social and religious conventions about sexuality. What is wrong - really wrong, as in what real harm does it cause - about kissing a woman on the lips in public (as a greeting, or a sign of affection, of course, i don't mean an unwelcome kiss). Hell, let's go all the way: what is wrong about having sex with a willing partner in public? Some people might be offended, sure, but that's their problem - no real harm is being done (and before anyone raises this silly objection - no it is not true that seeing sex "scars" children, that is an absurd claim made by religious puritans). This is not a moral question, because it has nothing to do with real right or wrong, just with social and religious conventions. Social and religious conventions are transmitted culturally. But it turns out that morality is not.
