Morality Question

[DialecticMaterialist]

DialecticMaterialist:


I think you make a very good case for innate morality. Still i find we disagree on many things...

My point about the golden rule is that you dont need to first hear it to understand it. Animals before humans practiced it for a very long time, doing so by traveling in herds. They dont kill each other not necessarily because its wrong, but because they realize the benefits of traveling in herds for survival.

But, on the other hand, i could see how you could use this arguement for your own case. Where do you suppose this innate morality came from? Was it instilled by a supernatural being, or possibly a product of evolution?

Have you reached this view on your own, or are their others who subscribe to it? I would like to learn more about it.

I asked you before, but i think it got lost in the discussion... Can you show me examples of animals acting moral? I know you agree to a degree that morality is a product of culture, but i think that would be good evidence for your case.

Well in regards to animals adhering to the golden rule, this is not always merely for benefit. Animals sacrifice themselves all the time for their young, relatives and social groups.

Likewise I don't think animals are really capable of thinking long-term enough to realize long term benefits in the future. The only way the behavior can thus be shaped is at an instinctive emotional level.

Also animals in it only for benefit usually end up getting caught and labled "cheaters" in the system, which causes them a lot of grief. Better to play it safe and have the morals intrinsic then extrinsic then.

I think one major part of the issue comes from a view of morality as extrinsic or intrinsic. Is morality merely a means to an end, like doing a mcjob for money? Or is it an end in itself, something we do for its own sake, like art?


Are we thus a society of just really smart, long-term thinking sociopaths? Or are we sincere when we say we value things like honesty, loyalty, good will and justice?

I think the latter, because most of us, even if we could get away with doing lots of immoral things would rather not. I'm not saying this all the time. Obviously many of us may steal a lot from the bank if we could get away with it. But on matters of murder, torture, betraying friends/family etc. We would not do it, even if we were paid.


I doubt this is universal, I think many of us may be born with an overall greater sense of morality then others. But in the end I think most of us would rather live in a moral society then an immoral one, all things being equal, and even if things are not equal.

This is one reason I think religious morality evolved, to influence those who maybe have a weaker sense of morality. By telling them that even if morality is not intrinsically good enough for its own sake, one still best adhere to it, because God does like morals and will punish you if you violate them. This is also why laws are often times made, to keep the immoral or less moral in line. That's what I believe anyways.

I believe innate morality evolved and like language evolved to be something even more ingrained and complex in humans. This is because in small bands adherence to certain norms is vital for sake of the tribe and the invidiual. People who disprupt the band will weaken it, making it easy pickings for other more organized bands or set backs, and those people, if detected, will be dealt with harshly.

Hence an individual had to have a strong sense of morals or get voted off the island so to speak. I mean, who would you rather have on your team, an upstanding, honest, generous and courageous man....or some bedwetting, malevolent, deceptive coward? The choice is obvious. And mr. bedwetter cannot hide forever or become the majority(a majority of bedwetters would lose as a team) so eventually his kind became virtually extinct.


So since our intellect became more developed, I believe our sense of morals did as well. This is because with intellect came 1) More power by which to cheat the system, hence a greater temptation to do so that must be controlled. And 2) And easier way to spot and detect cheaters, likewise making increased moral character a necessity.

As for animals displaying a sort of moral behavior I can show examples. Notice however their behaviors are not exactly called "morals" but they can nonetheless be easily viewed as precursors to morality.

This is similiar to how we do not exactly call their forms of communication "language" but the value of the bevaios as precursors are obvious.
(for a long time it should be noted we wouldn't even call an anima's feelings "emotions.")


But wolves demonstrate that they not only have norms but establish them harshly:

Wolves tolerate no deviation from behavior that will ensure survival of the pack and their justice is swift.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/road/xni82/wolf faq.html#TWTraits2


And chimpanzees do as well:

Jimoh, the current alpha male of the Yerkes Field Station group, once detected a secret mating between Socko, an adolescent male, and one of Jimoh's favorite females. Socko and the female had wisely disappeared from view, but Jimoh had gone looking for them. Normally, the old male would merely chase off the culprit, but for some reason - perhaps because the female had repeatedly refused to mate with Jimoh himself that day - he this time went full speed after Socko and did not give up. He chased him all around the enclosure - Socko screaming and defecating in fear, Jimoh intent on catching him.

Before he could accomplish his aim, several females close to the scene began to "woaow" bark. This indignant sound is used in protest against aggressors and intruders. At first the callers looked around to see how the rest of the group was reacting; but when others joined in, particularly the top-ranking female, the intensity of their calls quickly increased until literally everyone's voice was part of a deafening chorus. The scattered beginning almost gave the impression that the group was taking a vote. Once the protest had swelled to a chorus, Jimoh broke off his attack with a nervous grin on his face: he got the message. Had he failed to respond, there would no doubt have been concerted female action to end the disturbance.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/DeWaal/jimoh.html

So many of the chimps felt another went too far and punished him according to their norms. I chose the two examples, chimps and wolves btw, because they (along with orcas and dolphins) are the most similiar to us of all animals. Chimps are the most similiar to us genetically and wolves are considered to have a social group that is the most similiar to our own, which is likely why we get along so well with the wolves modern day descendant: the dog.





What's also interesting about the chimp example is that not only does it show a sense of morals, as in a respect for a certain type of norm that is somewhat enforced, but also a sense of vengeance in regards to Jimoh. Vengeance is another thing I think has evolutionary precedence.


In fact a great many of our behaviors have evolutionary precursors, even culture, superstition and technology.



Pigeons for example have developed superstitions in the Skinner Box:

Pigeons!
He found that by presenting a reinforcement every 15 seconds to a hungry pigeon in a cage, the pigeon would perform a certain ritual during the interval between reinforcements. This sort of ritual was seen six out of eight pigeons in the experiments. These superstitions, such as head bobbing, turning around, and moving toward the feeder, occurred regularly before the feeding. These behaviors had no effect on when the reinforcement was given. The reasons for these rituals were because whatever the pigeon had been doing when it was fed was reinforced. Skinner likens this to superstitions in humans. When something positive happens to us, some of the specific things associated with that positive thing are often thought to have caused it. Some professional athletes wear certain items of clothing, or jump over the baseline on their way to the pitcher's mound because they might have done these things before scoring a touchdown or throwing a no-hitter

http://emmamc.freeservers.com/custom.html



Orca whales transmit different cultural practices and tactics, usually depending on what prey they go after:

http://www.orcanetwork.org/nathist/scifield.html#dietary

http://www.worldwidewhale.com/orcafacts.html

These are in fact good examples of how culture and biology interact, seeing as there always remain certain constants.

The orcas may for example differ in how they hunt their food, in their tactics, but the need for food itself is always a present, and powerful motivating factor.


This is why I make a distinction between custom and morality. I think morality is something more universal and differences among morals are not as common or tolerable as differences in customs.

An example of how custom can interact with other values is with greetings. Many cultures greet eachother differently, we shake hands, bow, and even hug according to whether you are American, Japanese or Russian respectively. But we all greet eachother, not doing so is usually considered rude.

Morals are therefore different then mere custom, in that differences in custom are common and incosequential while difference in morals are uncommon and of grave consequence.



What I like about this theory of morals is it can include both the Christian and the nobeliever. One just simply has to accept that morals are innate and one can even believe God made them innate through the process of evolution.


This changes the issue of God's existence from being one of morality to being merely one of ontology.

 

[ZaraDurden]

"Well in regards to animals adhering to the golden rule, this is not always merely for benefit. Animals sacrifice themselves all the time for their young, relatives and social groups."

Really? I was not aware of this, other than in disney movies. Even if this is so, i dont see how it can be attributed to morality rather than some instinct or even an unlikely benefit.

"Likewise I don't think animals are really capable of thinking long-term enough to realize long term benefits in the future."

Are you talking about traveling in herds? There are many immediate benefits, like its much easier to catch food and more protection in groups.

"Also animals in it only for benefit usually end up getting caught and labled "cheaters" in the system, which causes them a lot of grief."

Animals label each other, and feel grief? If you can attribute these things to animals, then why cant they think about the future?

"Are we thus a society of just really smart, long-term thinking sociopaths?"

Again, we have debated this in the Nietzsche thread... there is no reason to think that without morals someone will kill and murder. You could get someones money by killing them, or by helping them... The reprocussions are much better if you help them. So even without morality it makes sense. My point is that we dont need morality to be able to operate as a society.

You assert that morality developed because people needed to be moral so they didnt get "voted off the island." I dont really make the connection. It seems to me that everyone just wants to survive, and the best way to survive is to cooperate with the group. Morality need not be entered into the equation.

"with intellect came 1) More power by which to cheat the system, hence a greater temptation to do so that must be controlled."

I agree but i dont know what this has to do with innate morality. I think morality was developed as the threat of muscle became less of a threat... then those in power turned to supernatural threats. Eventually it became a way of life, almost unconcious to those growing up generations later.

I just dont see the things you call precursors to morality in those animals. The wolves are just trying to survive as best they can, so anyone going against that goal would not be tolerated. For the monkeys i see jealously, and then also trying to survive... they dont want fighting amongst themselves.

The pigeons and dolphins do not suprise me, because i think we are mere animals who have evolved differently. I have no doubt that other species are just as highly evolved as we are, but in different ways. I dont see how those examples relate to feeling bad or good about ones actions.

I think the heart of our disagreement is not in this issue, but maybe another... I do not believe god exists, i do not believe in altruism, and i often doubt free will. I feel people are motivated by pleasure (in one form or another) and i think people act out of necessity. When i look around, thats all i see. I hear your arguement, and i see your evidences for it... Is there a book you have read on this? Or is this your own theory? If there is some literature, i would be interested in reading it... maybe they would contain something we have just missed.

 

[royboy]

DialecticMaterialist:
"What I like about this theory of morals is it can include both the Christian and the nobeliever. One just simply has to accept that morals are innate and one can even believe God made them innate through the process of evolution."

Morals might be innate to an extent, but why does a baby, todler, child, need to be taught these morals if they are innate?


Also, about the chimps and the orcas; do chimps kill other monkey species and eat them?

Do orcas regularly toy with porpoises (?) before killing them for fun?

I saw it on some documentary, but maybe you've heard some more about it.

In my opinion, morals seem to be just a standard to refer to. Basic guidelines. Not really that sacred.

Humans will do what they want to get what they want. Poor and rich, christian or non-christian.

I find it interesting that even having justified it to others, a person who deviates from the standard may still need to justify it to himself.

Despite the conscience telling us something is wrong, some people will put up with guilt as long as they achieve their goals.

Brings up the means to an end kind of thing.

Any thoughts?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

DialecticMaterialist:
"What I like about this theory of morals is it can include both the Christian and the nobeliever. One just simply has to accept that morals are innate and one can even believe God made them innate through the process of evolution."

Morals might be innate to an extent, but why does a baby, todler, child, need to be taught these morals if they are innate?

For the same reason they need to be taught language. And they need food to grow. Remember innate tendencies cannot be expressed without sufficient enviromental conditioning.

Also, about the chimps and the orcas; do chimps kill other monkey species and eat them?

Chimps kill other monkeys in hunts, and eat them (it should be noted that they rarely share these kills with females, it for some reason is a male only excercise.) They also kill other chimps if they are from another troop and even commit acts of genocide where whole troops of chimps are wiped out by other troops.

Do orcas regularly toy with porpoises (?) before killing them for fun?

Orcas torture all sorts of prey animals for fun.

In my opinion, morals seem to be just a standard to refer to. Basic guidelines. Not really that sacred.

Well morals tend to be applied on an intragroup basis, that is why you will find so many seeming violations. Now at days though human beings tend to consider all of humanity or society to be their group.

Humans will do what they want to get what they want. Poor and rich, christian or non-christian.
I find it interesting that even having justified it to others, a person who deviates from the standard may still need to justify it to himself.

Despite the conscience telling us something is wrong, some people will put up with guilt as long as they achieve their goals.

Brings up the means to an end kind of thing.

Any thoughts?

Well of course the end justifies means, however one must always consider whether the ends at any given moment outweigh the means.

I go to work for money. Work is merely a means to an end. If they stopped paying me, I would not go.

However it is always important to have principles as basic guidlines and in order to keep in the right state of mind. One can only abandon principles so much for the "greater good" before they start to become meaningless i.e. one becomes more and more callous.



1

 

[admtaylor]

They were all deists, believing in a single god who created the universe with natural laws, then left it alone.

Where did you get this load?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Are you talking about traveling in herds? There are many immediate benefits, like its much easier to catch food and more protection in groups.

So you think animals sit down and just decide "well if I stay in a herd it will be easier to catch food" etc. Do you really think this?

And "if I betray my friend, it will harm me in the long run" again, do your eally think this?

Animals label each other, and feel grief? If you can attribute these things to animals, then why cant they think about the future?

There is no evidence to support the notion that their cognitive powers are that advanced.

Again, we have debated this in the Nietzsche thread... there is no reason to think that without morals someone will kill and murder.

Why not? Again look at my kill a toddler for money scenerio.

You could get someones money by killing them, or by helping them... The reprocussions are much better if you help them.

Not always, dictators and mafia men tend to do just fine.

My point is that we dont need morality to be able to operate as a society.

We don't need a lot of things, including hot water, good food, and freedom. However it is much better if we have those things.

You assert that morality developed because people needed to be moral so they didnt get "voted off the island." I dont really make the connection. It seems to me that everyone just wants to survive, and the best way to survive is to cooperate with the group. Morality need not be entered into the equation.

So why then do parents sacrifice their kids? Why do people fight for loved ones or ideas?

Positing the only motivation for an animal is survival is really a difficult claim to prove when we see all the evidence.

Ants die for their colonies all the time, I don't see how that aids their survival.

I agree but i dont know what this has to do with innate morality. I think morality was developed as the threat of muscle became less of a threat... then those in power turned to supernatural threats. Eventually it became a way of life, almost unconcious to those growing up generations later.

There is really no evidence for that statement above, and you dismissed the latter part of my assertion.

So then why do wolves and chimps adhere to norms, are they threatening eachother with supernatural punishment?

I just dont see the things you call precursors to morality in those animals.

Well a lot of people didn't see precursors to emotions, thought and language in animals either. But {b] just not seeing it[/b] does nothing to refute it. I would call that an example of the slothful induction fallacy.

Slothful Induction

Definition:

The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/sloth.php

Richard Dawkins calls this an argument from incredulity. Basically you just won't make the inference or accept the evidence.

However that is not a refutation or proper reason for doubt by any means.

The wolves are just trying to survive as best they can, so anyone going against that goal would not be tolerated. For the monkeys i see jealously, and then also trying to survive... they dont want fighting amongst themselves.

Well they are more just trying to satisfy their motives as best they can. We as animals have a variety of motives because our genes cannot just program us with a single motive like "survive as best you can and spread your genes", animals in the past are simply not capable of enough abstract thought to figure that out. THAT would be an innate idea in the platonic sense of the word.

Instead we are simply given feelings, pleasure pain mechanisms and the deeper emotions. That does help the genes indirectly and well enough for our ancestors to have survived.

Your entire proposition falls apart at the insect level. Insects cooperate but do you really suppose they are capable of abstract though?

Penguins cooperate, do they think asbtractly?

Or do we also have feelings?

Obviously we have feelings to motivate us, not merely abstract thought or a survival instinct. Based on my experience of moral satisfaction, outrage and guilt, I would consider morality to be one of these feelings. In observing animals, I think they have precursors to what I call morality.

They are simply not capable of for example thinking "well I should mate to promote my genes" or "I should die for the herd because that would help my genes". Animals don't even know what genes are.

A wolf cannot say to itself "well this behavior in the future might threaten the survival of the pack" that level of abstraction is as beyond it as counting. They simply feel indignant and then attack.

The pigeons and dolphins do not suprise me, because i think we are mere animals who have evolved differently.

So you don't think pigeons and dolphins have superstitions and cultures?

If they do that shows how much of our behavior has precursors in the animal kingdom.

I think the heart of our disagreement is not in this issue, but maybe another... I do not believe god exists, i do not believe in altruism, and i often doubt free will.

I don't believe in God or free will but why not altruism? It's demonstrated all the time in the animal kingdom. Having kids is a fundamentally altruistic act, as such does nothing to help one's survival only one's genes.

I feel people are motivated by pleasure (in one form or another) and i think people act out of necessity.

The key point here is "in one form or another", couldn't morality simply be then a unique kind of pleasure? Like attaining knowledge, surviving or creating art?

When i look around, thats all i see. I hear your arguement, and i see your evidences for it... Is there a book you have read on this? Or is this your own theory? If there is some literature, i would be interested in reading it... maybe they would contain something we have just missed.

This is somewhat my own theory, but there is some literature on the subject from a more scientific approach.

One is the book "The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the evolution of cooperation"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._books_5/002-3045802-3536820?v=glance&s=books

By Matt Ridley.

Also "Nature via Nurture" about innate behavior and how it is influenced by enviroment again by Matt Ridley.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._books_5/002-3045802-3536820?v=glance&s=books

another is "the Blank Slate" about innate behavior by Steven Pinker.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...t_1/002-3045802-3536820?v=glance&s=books&st=*

Also "The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Human life"

by Robert Wright.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t..._books_4/002-3045802-3536820?v=glance&s=books


And on chimps a good book is "Chimpanzee Politics"

By Frans De Waal

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-3045802-3536820?v=glance&s=books


That one is mainly about how chimps develope conflict social structures that seem very political in their complexity.





Lastly there is an oldy but a goody by Charles Darwin on animal emotions that one can read online, it's called "The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals."

http://human-nature.com/darwin/emotion/contents.htm


I myself have not read all of the above btw, more just bits and pieces.

In any event you will also find that a lot of the above is somewhat new, taken from much of evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics. However it is pretty solid as far as I can tell.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Where did you get this load?

Is that in regards to our Founding Fathers by any chance? Because if so, I got it from various sources including this one:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm

The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority.

Deists:
Do not follow the fundamental beliefs by most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur'an or other religious texts.
[bullet] Disagree with strong Atheists who assert that there is no evidence of the existence of God.

They regard their faith as a natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

And

Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker. A few Deists believe that God still intervenes in human affairs from time to time.

And lastly:

Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[ZaraDurden]

man i spent like an hour writing this post and my internet explorer got an error-- i dont know if i can go through that again-- if not, thanks for the debate, your opinions interested me

...see ya in the pit

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes that has happened to me a couple times, that's why I save perdiodically. I'm sorry to hear that happened to you though. I know how frustrating/demoralizing that can be.

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

man i spent like an hour writing this post and my internet explorer got an error-- i dont know if i can go through that again-- if not, thanks for the debate, your opinions interested me

...see ya in the pit

get OPERA!

 

[shar]

*edited because she's no longer here*

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

 

[tcampen]

Post: "They were all deists, believing in a single god who created the universe with natural laws, then left it alone.

Where did you get this load?

Read up on some history. Focus in on what the individuals personally said and wrote. This was the Age of Reason.