Morality is Non-Rational

[Received]

People are programmable, so morally they are plastic. There are all sorts of moral opinions.

The function of morality is to assist the genes.

This does not reduce "dignity", or an innate sense of the value of ones life, to rubble. Likewise, the functionality of the legs and arms does not make them spurious, but more valuable to the organism.

Sayings like "theft is wrong" are socially produced and ought not be seen as foundational to ethics. Oughts have roots in our psycholigy, not sociology.

What is foundational to ethics is the value of a life, stemming from complex psychology including emotional awareness, decision making skills etc. This in turn is an adaptation, but makes life sacred in the sense that sentience ought to be treated differently than stones and iron, water and clouds - which have no "inante value", no feelings, or sense of self worth etc...


"Rational attraction to being" is my ethical formula - using our theoretical and practical sense to make life worthwhile - and enjoy being - in a way that sustains the life of the person and species.

Dunno. It seems like there are plenty of instances within ethics where doing what's worst for your genes is what's the best thing to do. But then you have the possibility that doing the worst for your genes for the sake of society means doing the best for a larger number of genes. In this case, though, genetics loses its flavor, because genes are by definition "selfish", so appealing to helping other people out with "vastly" (in kinship terms) different genomes means working against genes as they're understood to function.

 

[Received]

So for me ethics, (as in we are situated with dignity and interests), is actually moderator or regulator of gene frequencies or population dynamics. This does not negate existential value, but actually maintains it (becauase such value is a useful adaptation). Ethics didnt happen because of random genetic drift, its a functional adaptation! So "life is precious" is itself an adaptation of life.

I might counter by saying that the tendency toward moral reasoning, or moral reasoning in general, is genetically adaptive, but there are plenty of particular circumstances where moral reasoning leads to what's not the best for your (or your group's) genes. In this case, moral reasoning is adaptive but practical application is a spandrel.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dunno. It seems like there are plenty of instances within ethics where doing what's worst for your genes is what's the best thing to do. But then you have the possibility that doing the worst for your genes for the sake of society means doing the best for a larger number of genes. In this case, though, genetics loses its flavor, because genes are by definition "selfish", so appealing to helping other people out with "vastly" (in kinship terms) different genomes means working against genes as they're understood to function.

Thanks for the responses! Thought i was on "ignore".

Altruism etc IMO are not switched on and off by point mutations (The "Dawkins delusion"?). Rather they are enabled by gentics, but learned. So altruism is a form of moral expression, but so is egoistic individualism. Thats what I mean by moral plasticity. We have a programmable moral nature.

Sometimes its moral not to have kids, especially 100s of them.

That may make it seem like fitness and morality are two different things. Yet I might argue I broke my arm, so arms arent an adaptation.

Yet the "moral instinct" (our overall programmability with regards to our interests or sense of thim and right/wrong) has spread across the population. So maybe it may not be unselfish of me to remain childless, because the "moral" side of my genetics is out there anyway.

My grape like eye may not be tho, but ought it? No.

Thats why I think morality assists evolution, via looking for a good life in adapted people, and causing us to strive to be healthy via learning to value certain activities (like work, caring etc) over others. In peacetime at least. During war we may believe killing is a duty.

Even if this is not 100% efficient, an adaptation (in this case the moral instinct overall in all its plasticity) only has to make a significant - 5% or so - difference to be selected. And theoretical rationality - actually understanding morality - can assist us to overcome superstition and nihilism. But how many people know this?


I think morality is probably enabled by dozens of genes. Together they can make for a Thatcher or a Gandhi, or ordinary people like you and I.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Had a sleep on this one.

I would say that the function of morality is to assist one's life. Genes may be involved in life, but that doesn't mean that genes are the point.

Thats the moral paradox. Genes are served by serving consciousness and life interests.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Genes are served by serving consciousness and life interests.

Genes are just strands of chemicals. Even when they replicate, that doesn't mean that they are benefited from replication, since they don't themselves have anything like a well-being. What point would there be in "serving" genes? You seem to be talking about something entirely unintentional, and without any real point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Genes are just strands of chemicals. Even when they replicate, that doesn't mean that they are benefited from replication, since they don't themselves have anything like a well-being.

Agreed, i think. It's consciouness that has interests and is "morally apt" or relevant.

But that, and the whole of brain chemisty behind it, is an evolved adaptation.

What point would there be in "serving" genes? You seem to be talking about something entirely unintentional, and without any real point.

I think that early gene philosophers thought that we are just slaves of "psychopathic genes" who dont care about us. Hence the view that life is no longer sacred, its just a vehicle for genetic survival.

Yet I think that holding life sacred is more akin to the ultimate view, even from a genetic or adaptational perspective.

Dawkins reportedly said "Genes don't care about suffering, because they don't care about anything...."

I think people may have concluded "...therefore its not adaptive to care for life --- morality and genetics are entirely seperate, and I side with the genes" which is a non sequitir. Likewise "Genes dont care, but I do, therefore its nothing to do with the genes" is another fallacy.

By intending to care fore our interests, we assist the genes survival, and this has been going in various animate forms on for billions of years before Watson and Crick discovered DNA.

 

[Received]

Thanks for the responses! Thought i was on "ignore".

Altruism etc IMO are not switched on and off by point mutations (The "Dawkins delusion"?). Rather they are enabled by gentics, but learned. So altruism is a form of moral expression, but so is egoistic individualism. Thats what I mean by moral plasticity. We have a programmable moral nature.

Yeah, but the degree to which something is learned is the degree to which any appealing to genes becomes unnecessary. Learning implies genes (i.e., the machinery of learning is ultimately endowed by a phenotype), but isn't itself genes, even if we're talking about epigenetics. Therefore appealing to genes is beside the point here.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok epigenetics I imagine. Is that ther way genes switch on and off to enable learning (in this case)?

 

[Inkfingers]

Dawkins reportedly said "Genes don't care about suffering, because they don't care about anything...."

Genes are a means, not an end. Dawkin's apparent problem is a belief that genes are an end in themselves; as if life exists to serve genes but then the buck stops with genes. This view is quite common in materialists - any morality that arises is seen as just a consequence of a particular being (ie: bundle of genes) pushing its owns desires....which is Relativism (at least when viewed objectively), failing to recognise that genes exist to serve something higher than themselves.

What is this "something higher" that they serve?

The ultimate. The foundation. The supreme. The beginning and end. The actually IS.

Some call such Tao. Some call such Logos. Some call such YHWH.

Is this heretical? Well, what does Tao, Logos, and HWH mean?

 

[Received]

Ok epigenetics I imagine. Is that ther way genes switch on and off to enable learning (in this case)?

Yeah, I think so. Epigenetics is sort of a synthesis between nature and nurture.

 

[jackcv]

Fascinating thread. I searched the 4 previous pages for any comments on personal revelation, Holy Spirit, and mystery. No hits. Fascinating. What is happening in Christianity?

The Savior told Peter a truth that seems most apropos to this thread, "Flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven." Much later, during his final hours of concentrated instruction to the 11 apostles, he confirmed the importance of personal revelation, "the Spirit of truth...will guide you into all truth."

Morals are simply above the mind of man. Like God, unrevealed they remain unknown. It is the biblical definition of a mystery, and why Paul referred to himself and, presumably, the leaders of the Church, as "stewards of the mysteries."

Look at Revelation 19:10, which concludes: "worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" and Numbers 11:29, which concludes: "would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!"

Of course, all through history the "do it yourself" egoists have objected to the idea that they must rely on others, even on God Almighty. Been there. Done that. Still fighting with it myself, so I'm not on a pedestal here.

Morals, the "oughts", will never come from Hume or any other philosopher. They are above the mind of man. Sure, some are somewhat comprehended by the puny human intellect, but at any given moment in human history, many are not. We are given commandments to simply act in faith and seek personal revelation from the Holy Spirit, as Isaiah said:
6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

No offence intended to Mr. Hume or any of the myriad of philosophers who have ignorantly thought they could figure out the mind of God by thinking and talking to each other. It is good to think and talk with others, IF it prepares the mind and heart to ask God for personal revelation, so that one may join Peter, Paul, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and millions of others as stewards of the mysteries. Why not?

"Revelation almost always comes in answer to a question, and usually an urgent question. Not always, but most of the time." (Jeffrey R. Holland)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You can go from is to ought, if you accept that there ar better and worse states of affairs. Its better to be healthy than to roast on a fire. Heck, so many skeptics complain about the hell concept...

Problem is, other than the fundamentals, you cat derive much through logic and reason. Sam Harris thinks you can, but Pat Churchland asks what about setting inheritance tax, or forced organ donation etc (IIRC).


The bible, and other faiths, well they have a point in that they are working systems at least - or rather contribute to our society in some way. But it all gets a bit chaotic when trying to do mega calculations for billions of people with so many variables. So scientific morality has to focus on the inividual and their well being I think.

Ten push ups please! (please consult a doctor before engaging in strenuous exercise).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I was looking for some sci fi tarot cards, but this wil have to do...

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what this all adds up to is that morality is clearly part of our lives, but it cannot be derived from reason. It's already there and we reason from it.

I completely disagree for 100%.

The only thing that is "there" is a social contract in which we all agree that well-being is better then suffering.

Using that as a premise, it's rather straightforward to come up with general rules of morality - using reason and science

Reason, because you need to come up with rational conclusions based on a premise and data.

Science, because you need to understand how the world works to make informed decisions.

I submit that the only reason why morals tend to evolve/develop over time is because we learn more about the world and gain more experience in building efficient societies where we try to maximise well-being.

For example, the idea that we should avoid letting animals suffer needlessly is directly related to the (relatively recent) understanding that animals can feel pain - physically as well as psychologically.

Morality doesn't come from an assertion of authority.
It rather comes from an understanding of reality.

 

[Tree of Life]

The only thing that is "there" is a social contract in which we all agree that well-being is better then suffering.

I'm embarrassed to say that I've never actually seen this contract (or even a picture of it). Where is it located?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm embarrassed to say that I've never actually seen this contract (or even a picture of it). Where is it located?

Between your ears.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

OK Ill be irrational. How is one randomised irrationality distinguished from morality?

Lets say I say 2+2=6

or post a surreal video.

Are these typical of morality? Exemplars?

Of couse, I can excavate all I like! But the mirror's sands still show the seal.

 

[Tree of Life]

Between your ears.

I'm confused. Are you saying that there's not a literal social contract?

 

[parkerjwill]

This discussion has emerged here and there across a few different threads so I thought it would be fun to bring it out into the open.

Coming into this discussion it will be helpful to assume that moral concepts have some meaning to all of us. No matter what we believe about where morality comes from or whether or not we're moral realists, all of us deal with moral considerations and make moral judgements on a daily basis. If you disagree with this assumption then that can also be a fun conversation but it's probably best discussed in a different thread.

So we would all generally agree with many of the moral commands expressed in the 10 commandments - at least their moral validity. Stealing is wrong. Murder is wrong. Lying is wrong. Violating promises is wrong. But what is the justification of such moral claims? Where do they get their authority from?

I'd like to say here, representing Hume's Is/Ought problem, that moral sentiment cannot be derived from rationality alone. Reason is certainly useful in applying moral norms (that we already have) to various situations. Reason is also useful for discerning inconsistencies in our moral systems. But values cannot be derived from reason alone. Reason and morality interact, but one is not derived from the other.

Hume's Is/Ought problem is one way of defending this assertion. Basically Hume tried to demonstrate that in order to have a moral conclusion, one needed a moral premise. In other words, an "ought" statement cannot logically be derived from an "is" statement. This often occurs in moral arguments, though. Here's an example of an invalid argument that commit's Hume's Is/Ought fallacy.

1. Stealing harms people
2. Internet piracy is stealing
3. Therefore we ought not pirate materials from the internet

Now whether or not you agree with the soundness of this argument is another thing. But even if this argument is sound it is technically invalid. Since there is no "ought" in the premises there can be no "ought" in the conclusion. Of course, you could say that there is an implicit "ought" in the premises and redesign the argument to go like this:

1. Stealing harms people
2. We ought not harm people
3. Internet piracy is stealing
4. Therefore we ought not pirate materials from the internet

Now this argument is indeed valid, but notice that there's a moral sentiment in the premises. We're assuming morality in order to prove morality. This goes to show that morality is simply there. We reason with it, but we cannot derive it from reason alone.

Some, in defense of a rationalistic approach to morality, have tried to suggest that morality comes from our goals and can be rationally derived from our goals. In other words, if we want to live a long life then we ought to behave in a certain way. The imperatives are authoritative because they're based on desires and goals that we actually hold. We can then use reason to determine how to best meet these goals. And this becomes our morality.

But this is an unsatisfying account. As Wittgenstein noted in his famous lecture on ethics, some "ought" claims are clearly hypothetically imperative. If I notice that you're a horrible tennis player and I say: "you really ought to practice more often", you can easily escape the imperative statement by saying: "but I don't really care about being a better tennis player." But this does not seem to be the case with moral claims. If you're a liar and I say: "you really ought to tell the truth" you cannot escape the imperative by saying: "but I don't really care about being a moral person!" In the second scenario it stills seems that you ought to care about being a moral person. The imperative still seems authoritative in spite of your goals (or lack-thereof).

So what this all adds up to is that morality is clearly part of our lives, but it cannot be derived from reason. It's already there and we reason from it.

I think morality implies empathy, which implies connection/substance/truth in relationships.

A hard core sociopath is akin to a true solipsist, in that all things 'out there' are simply objects for his/her manipulation and enjoyment. A sociopath would have a rationalistic moral code. Someone with empathy, compassion and spirit, would be more special. ;-)

So this brings us back to the question of what is real? What is knowable? Everything hinges on that.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what this all adds up to is that morality is clearly part of our lives, but it cannot be derived from reason. It's already there and we reason from it.

No. We act on it. But giving our lives to save a child's life is not really rational.
We give of ourselves, not to save the species, or even our own child. We do it
and it's not rational.