Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

[ZenMode]

If it comes from the mind, it is based on opinion, consensus, culture, individual choice.

If it comes from evolution by natural selection, there can't be absolute right and wrong. Evolution doesn't recognize evil or an absolute right and wrong.

That may very well be correct. But I don't know enough about the human brain and consciousness to explain adequately the spectrum of human morality. No one has ever explained to me how the actions of Oskar Schindler or Georgio Perlasca are the results of evolution by natural selection.

Agree about evolution. Survival and procreation isn't morality.

I think it does come from the mind, but not because of culture, consensus or opinion but because of the impact immoral activities have on our minds. If we had visibility into the human brain where we could 'see' the impact, at a neurological level, of things like corporal punishment, verbal abuse, rape, etc we could present an objective case for what actions are moral and which are immoral.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Agree about evolution. Survival and procreation isn't morality.

I think it does come from the mind, but not because of culture, consensus or opinion but because of the impact immoral activities have on our minds. If we had visibility into the human brain where we could 'see' the impact, at a neurological level, of things like corporal punishment, verbal abuse, rape, etc we could present an objective case for what actions are moral and which are immoral.

and what of those brains which do not respond the same to the same scenario?

You imply a moral theory of "it's wrong and you know it" and based on a wide range of evidence that is unlikely to be universal.

 

[ZenMode]

and what of those brains which do not respond the same to the same scenario?

You imply a moral theory of "it's wrong and you know it" and based on a wide range of evidence that is unlikely to be universal.

I think you deal with exceptions as exceptions. Just because Jeffrey Dahmer finds it personally gratifying and moral to kill young men and have sex with their corpse doesn't mean you have to accept his input.

There will always be disagreements, but a thorough enough understanding our brains, and how outside events impact us, would make morality more and more objective.

 

[Yakuda]

Amazing, given that you have hatred deep in your heart.

only for you because you're evil. tou wished that I be violently murdered. youre an evil piece of shit

 

[Cypress]

Agree about evolution. Survival and procreation isn't morality.

I think it does come from the mind, but not because of culture, consensus or opinion but because of the impact immoral activities have on our minds. If we had visibility into the human brain where we could 'see' the impact, at a neurological level, of things like corporal punishment, verbal abuse, rape, etc we could present an objective case for what actions are moral and which are immoral.

Schindler and Perlasca saved thousands of strangers at the risk of arrest, death, and financial ruin. There was no mutual benefit for them. Nothing about evolution by natural selection can explain their actions.

If we think morality is just a matter of brain chemistry, then we should be very honest with ourselves and admit there is no evil, no such thing as absolute right, no absolute wrong. Biology and chemistry have nothing to say about evil and absolute wrong.

I agree in the sense that there is something about the human conscience we don't understand, and cannot be explained by our current knowledge of evolution and chemistry. Assuming we can ever truly understand human conscience, it might take an entirely different and new type of science or inquiry that we haven't even invented or conceived of yet.

 

[Daylight63]

What do you mean by "reason"?

There are some posters on here who believe that moral "rules" that humanity follows had to come from someone "formulating" them or thinking them through. The "moral teachers" sort of model.

This is in opposition to the very real concept that many of the "moral rules" we obey are hardwired into us. We are a social animal and those behaviors which lead to a safer social grouping become instinctual. My position is that our "moral teachers" did nothing more than explain why our inherent instinctual moral leanings were "true" in some abstract sense.

It's possible to explain the rise of moral behaviors spontaneously in a social animal through evolutionary processes. Humans are special in that they are able to "abstract" a concept and ask themselves "why" they do something they normally do automatically.

 

[Litmus]

Now you're just flailing.

A lion pride will cooperate for hunting, but then the male will kill cubs of it's rival.

That's not a moral society. That is Darwinian self preservation and propagation of genes of the stronger animals.

humanity is slightly better, but we still have red headed stepchild syndrome..

it's the same evolutioaary function.

reducing violence and maximixing cooperation is beneficial, but reversion to the animal state still happens, it's called "being a species in quick evolutionary flux".

 

[Daylight63]

Then morality is ultimately based on selfishness, because survival and evolution by natural selection is about propagating to one's own genetic information.

Yes. Why is that a problem?

That very well may be correct, but then we should be very honest with ourselves and just recognize what we think of as morally admirable acts are really in the end just about selfishness.

It SOUNDS unappealing when one says "selfishness" with a strong hint of the pejorative, but it really doesn't have to be anything more than that. And that's not bad. We're animals. Animals do one thing: survive. That's the job. In fact it's pretty much the only job.

Humans are again special because we can conceive of a situation that is different from what we currently find ourselves in and we think we are capable of having made choices that would be different, but really there's nothing wrong with admitting that in the end we are all just animals whose only job is to survive.

 

[Cypress]

humanity is slightly better, but we still have red headed stepchild syndrome..

it's the same evolutioaary function.

reducing violence and maximixing cooperation is beneficial, but reversion to the animal state still happens, it's called "being a species in quick evolutionary flux".

It's contradictory and inconsistent to say human morality is a product of evolutionary natural selection, but then turn around carve out a special exception for humans as a totally unique species in Earth's four billion year history.

There has to be a better explanation that doesn't require that kind of fancy dancing and flip flopping.

 

[Cypress]

Yes. Why is that a problem?



It SOUNDS unappealing when one says "selfishness" with a strong hint of the pejorative, but it really doesn't have to be anything more than that. And that's not bad. We're animals. Animals do one thing: survive. That's the job. In fact it's pretty much the only job.

Humans are again special because we can conceive of a situation that is different from what we currently find ourselves in and we think we are capable of having made choices that would be different, but really there's nothing wrong with admitting that in the end we are all just animals whose only job is to survive.

The famous atheist Richard Dawkins is the one who coined the concept of the selfish gene, not me. That is exactly what evolution natural selection comes down to, why kid ourselves and sugar coat it?

If we want to explain morality by evolution by natural selection, then we need to be perfectly honest and say there are no objectively admirable moral actions. All actions are linked to self preservation and the propagation of one's genetic information.

Plus, we need to be honest and stop kidding ourselves that there is any absolute right and wrong - because chemistry and evolution neither care about nor recognize absolute right and wrong

 

[T. A. Gardner]

When the German philosopher Hanno Sauer titled his ambitious new book “The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality” (Oxford), he made it clear that he sees morality as quite different from science. In his account, morality—that body of judgments about good and evil, the practices that reflect those judgments, and the blame, guilt, and punishment that sustain them—hasn’t always existed. That’s why it had to be invented, rather than discovered.

Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

Our basic sense of right and wrong appears to be the product of blind evolution. The hard question is how unsettling that should be.

www.newyorker.com

Let's toss the idea of morality out and see how things go...

 

[Daylight63]

It's contradictory and inconsistent to say human morality is a product of evolutionary natural selection, but then turn around carve out a special exception for humans as a totally unique species in Earth's four billion year history.

We assume we are unique in that we have a special level of self-awareness and "theory of mind" which scientists are not finding in other animals. Why can't we be unique?

There has to be a better explanation that doesn't require that kind of fancy dancing and flip flopping.

That isn't "fancy flipflopping" it's perfectly rational and dispenses with the supernatural or the "mysterious".

This is how science works. It attempts to explain as much of the data as it can with known factors. This explains it quite well. And utilizes factors everyone can agree on functioning in ways we know they function.

 

[Daylight63]

The famous atheist Richard Dawkins is the one who coined the concept of the selfish gene, not me.

Doesn't matter. It's a perfectly rational way to view the actions of life on earth. It is exacty what evolution is for.

That is exactly what evolution natural selection comes down to, why kid ourselves and sugar coat it?

No one is sugar coating it.

If we want to explain morality by evolution by natural selection, then we need to be perfectly honest and say there are no objectively admirable moral actions.

This is possibly quite true. Why would there be? Murder is wrong for us as humans but no one bats an eye when a polar bear murders a cub not his own.

Morality is the set of rules that help create the conditions that social creatures like humans can exist in and survive.

No one had to "reason" their way to the concept that it is wrong to murder another person. It has always been known in the human brain and is probably instinct at this point in our development.

If someone suggested to you that a problem you have could be solved by murdering someone there is ZERO likelihood that you even took time THINK "Oh, let me see, is that a forbidden action? Yes, yes it is! I will not do it then!"

No, you have an automatic an visceral reaction because it is an instinct in social animals like humans.

All actions are linked to self preservation and the propagation of one's genetic information.

Yes.

Plus, we need to be honest and stop kidding ourselves that there is any absolute right and wrong - because chemistry and evolution neither care about nor recognize absolute right and wrong

This is where your point fails.

To wit: for an animal like a human it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to murder an innocent person. It is developed into our instincts since murder makes social networks unstable. Humans survive PRECISELY because of these networks.

What there is NOT is some "overarching" universal truth that "murder is wrong" since murder is quite OK in much of the animal kingdom. The example I gave earlier is one.

For animals like polar bears who are largely SOLO creatures it isn't particularly problematic that an adult male will murder offspring that aren't his own. Doesn't scare the other polar bears into doing anything because they neither know nor care nor would it impact them at all.

Your point is CLEARLY aimed at being an appeal to emotion by presumably forcing them to say that they can't find anything wrong with Hitler. That is a SPECIOUS argument. And has no bearing on the actual conversation. It is a naked appeal to winning the debate through some emotional manipulation which doesn't actually apply to this discussion.

 

[Daylight63]

Let's toss the idea of morality out and see how things go...

People have a fear that if they somehow think of morality as something natural and not from God or from the brilliance of the human mind it will somehow "devalue" the moral teachings.

As if morality HAS to be a human construction or from the mouth of whatever our favorite god is. It offends some people to think of it as just another tool in the evolutionary toolbox and arising wholly naturally.

 

[Hume]

Let's toss the idea of morality out and see how things go...

We are there now with Trump.

 

[Hume]

only for you because you're evil. tou wished that I be violently murdered. youre an evil piece of shit

You are just like Jesus.

 

[Hume]

There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard.

Which is, your religion. Got it.

 

[Daylight63]

Schindler and Perlasca saved thousands of strangers at the risk of arrest, death, and financial ruin. There was no mutual benefit for them. Nothing about evolution by natural selection can explain their actions.

I'm not sure why this type of point animates you so. It IS still possible that the moral code is instinctual in humans and stopping a murder is equally valuable for the person.

You insist on saying there was "no mutual benefit" but you are 100% wrong. In fact it is kind of where your whole argument fails. There IS a mutual benefit. Each member of society is benefited by the security and safety of that society. If someone is going around and murdering other members of that society it is IN THE IMMEDIATE BENEFIT to EVERYONE in that society to stop the murder.

So your point is simply wrong from the outset. What follows from that is equally flawed for that reason.

If we think morality is just a matter of brain chemistry, then we should be very honest with ourselves and admit there is no evil,

Evil would be that which threatens our survival and the survival and propagation of our genes. Why is that a bad definition?

no such thing as absolute right, no absolute wrong.

That's fine.

Biology and chemistry have nothing to say about evil and absolute wrong.

Wrong. Evil would be defined as that which threatens survival. As such biology has a WHOLE LOT to say about it.

Assuming we can ever truly understand human conscience,

Why assume that? Because many people don't like what is being found now early on?

it might take an entirely different and new type of science or inquiry that we haven't even invented or conceived of yet.

Probably not. It will, however, require people to accept what science says even when it doesn't say what we want it to.

 

[Daylight63]

There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard.

Which is probably a good enough reason to abandon the idea of "absolute" right and wrong.

Animals have altruism and cooperation too - but that's not 'morality'.

It very well may be! Your ex cathedra declaration not withstanding, there is no reason why it can't be. It is the basis of morality. Unless your point was merely "special pleading" on the definition of morality (?)

Nobody calls prairie dogs moral beings.

That's a facile point not worthy of this discussion.

 

[Hume]

I think people confuse morality with theory of action.
Most of morality is just practical with no metaphysical implication.
Religious people conflate the two.