Morality

[infamous]

  pgrmdave said:

I believe, although I don't have sources, that the trend is toward fewer conflicts, but with each conflict having greater loss of life.

Please understand pgrmdave; I intend no disrespect with my next remark. How do you come to the conclusion that the trend is toward fewer conflicts, I will admit that I have no statistical record to publish here at present, but that statement is a little hard to believe. Just look around, it appears that there is hardly a place left on the planet where some conflict is not taking place.

[lindagarrette]

  Aquagem said:

 

One more thought -- our moral predilections are MEMES, persistent thought forms that are passed from generation to generation through symbols and form the substrate of culture. Also called ENGRAMS, they guide behavior as 'extragenetic information', and mutate, are selected for, and evolve along with us. This is where neuroscience comes in and makes the whole picture really interesting.

I agree with most of your post (as usual) but I think the morality for survival is even deeper than you describe, unless I misunderstood. Survival is the issue, in the Darwinian sense. The first priority is self preservation followed by immediate offspring, followed by group (tribe or pack) so that a social order is established at the instinct level. As tribal beings, we humans behave protectively within our own clan, then expand to state and nation, or religion, or whatever is the unifying factor. Nietzsche has an interesting philosophical perspective that ties into the biological principles of morality -- the Ubermench as Alpha male comes to mind.

[pgrmdave]

The difference is that while there was conflict everywhere for most of human history, now, our weapons can kill many people. Consider 9/11 - one encounter in which a small number of people killed thousands.

[infamous]

  pgrmdave said:

The difference is that while there was conflict everywhere for most of human history, now, our weapons can kill many people. Consider 9/11 - one encounter in which a small number of people killed thousands.

Yes, I believe I made that point in my post #33 of this thread. So not only can we kill more efficiently, we are doing it with increasing regularity.

[Aquagem]

  lindagarrette said:

I agree with most of your post (as usual) but I think the morality for survival is even deeper than you describe, unless I misunderstood. Survival is the issue, in the Darwinian sense.

 

I agree completely - it's as deep as you get. I mention the cultural dimension of morality as higher-level (more abstract) manifestations of a fundamentally rooted biological imperative. This is ultimately important, especially when your religious friends prattle on about how you can't be moral if you're not in their church.

[IrishEyes]

  Quote

This is ultimately important, especially when your religious friends prattle on about how you can't be moral if you're not in their church.

I don't think being in a church has much to do with morality. I know many people that attend church on regular basis, and their lives do not reflect any more adherence to morality than many others that have nothing to do with church...

The problem there is that many churches do not teach morality anymore. In an effort to increase their membership base, and to placate the masses, many churches have moved towards a more 'wordly' standard, and away from the morals that were taught in the Bible. Where people that believe in a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible and the morals inherent in its teachings used to be called 'Biblists", they are now called 'legalists'.

Again though, I don't think that morals are only found in a church setting, nor do I think that most people outside of a church setting are without morals because they lack a church foundation.

I do not belive that morality is something that is inherent in us though. I think that it is something that is learned, in many different ways. I also think that there is a trend toward a broader interpretation of morality that can also be seen as a decrease in moral standards, depending on where you stand on the issue. I do agree that morals seem to evolve, but I don't necessarily agree that this is a good thing. However, as you have already pointed out, that is based on a religious perspective, and I'm not trying to imply that those without God are without morals.

[infamous]

Exactly Irish; A moral code is learned, and if we as adults want to influence the next generation, a moral code must be taught. If we want to take some responsibility for what is learned, we must take an active part in the teaching. Not to do so is sending the message that it does't matter. I for one believe that it does matter, things just don't take care of themselves. The only question remains, what kind of a world do we want to leave to our children?

[Aquagem]

  IrishEyes said:

I do not belive that morality is something that is inherent in us though. I think that it is something that is learned, in many different ways. I also think that there is a trend toward a broader interpretation of morality that can also be seen as a decrease in moral standards, depending on where you stand on the issue. I do agree that morals seem to evolve, but I don't necessarily agree that this is a good thing.

 

  infamous said:

A moral code is learned, and if we as adults want to influence the next generation, a moral code must be taught.

 

This is for Irish Eyes and Infamous (if they have the patience to read it). The quote is just a starting point. Please forgive me for being so lengthy.

 

As I wrote some time ago, I agree that morality is learned, in that its specific contents are culturally produced and passed along through time. But I find increasing evidence that there's a part of morality that we are born with, in a way that appears to be true of all, or nearly all, of our major human faculties. The part of morality that is innate is what I suppose I would call a "moral motive" or "moral inclination", which, increasingly, we find is also expressed among other primates and other social animals. Morality, right conduct when dealing with others of our species, is a survival issue – and a really big one, considering how widely distributed it is in the natural world.

 

I Googled "primate culture" after starting to write about this, and the first article that came up discussed studies showing that capuchin monkeys exhibit a sense of unfairness, a reaction to injustice, as revealed by careful experimentation. Before you reject this as a fluke, it would be worth your time to look into it. This isn't an isolated case – there are many other studies by well-know researchers (e.g., Jane Goodall, Carl Sagan) showing strong support for the premise that we share a lot more than hands and binocular vision with primates.

 

(www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html -- this was from National Geographic, 2003

 

Also, see http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~comqkd

 

The Google results had many more links to similar articles studies and articles.)

 

These studies fit my prediction that we should find behaviors in our near relatives that would differ from us in extent, but not in kind. I was surprised to find that Darwin felt the same way and wrote a whole book about it (find name for cite). I was even more surprised to find an article in the same Google result set about the history of “naturalistic ethics” among our best known philosophers and clergy through the ages. I feel deficient that this is all a surprise to me, but at the same time I’m delighted to have made a prediction that is in line with current research.

 

Based on what I have been reading and thinking through, my feeling is that the monopoly on moral righteousness long claimed by religion appears to be a sincerely held, powerfully enforced, but undeserved claim that it is the sole source of moral authority, including the idea that morality itself had to be instilled from outside (supernaturally). This, I think, needs to be discussed, debated, and the resulting knowledge assimilated by all of us if we have the slightest hope of living in peace. And I’m not optimistic that even that would work.

 

Returning to “A moral code is learned, and if we as adults want to influence the next generation, a moral code must be taught”, I would say, from my own (evolutionary) perspective, “The moral sense in children needs to be nurtured and educated in a way that provides them perspective on past moral systems and flexibility to face a rapidly changing future". They need to get a sense of how we as humans have developed and used moral systems in many contexts, rather than to be told that only one of them is "right" without question. I would teach children a broad spectrum of wisdom stories from many ages (Aesop, Jesus, Plato, Aquinas, Galileo, Newton, et al.), and fill them with respect for the breadth and depth of human history and the need for novel solutions to the problems we face in the years to come. Prominent among them would be the story of science, which is the story of evolution. Most of all, I would concentrate on those core values present in all, or nearly all cultures, as keys to the unchanging constants of morality that appear to be part of human nature through all ages, so they are not swept away by fads, even fads that may be millennia old.

 

This is not even close to all I wrote last night, but this is a decent stopping place. Irish Eyes, if you’re reading this, be aware that much of it has come out of your questions of a couple of weeks ago about the conflict between science and religion. I don’t want to become oppressive by writing posts of such great length to people who aren’t interested in the depth of thought I don’t seem to be able to turn off. To me, this stuff is important – I’ll take my cues from responses or a lack thereof about whether I write more in this line.

[motherengine]

as devil's advocate for samuel clemens i will suggest that morality is a conceptual construct developed from humankind's need to find a semblannce of control over things out of their control through labling and more to the point that morality is far more dangerous than amorality in a social context. a man can be dangerous. a man with a moral purpose can be devistating. when one believes that god

(or a universal truism) is directly behind his/her feelings the will to hurt has its ultimate justification. morality can also give a kind of vicious order to groups causing even more destruction en mass. my own view of morality is that of a symbol representing an emotional aspect of the self rather than an intellectual one. i may feel that something is 'wrong' but it is up to the intellect to descide what, if anything, to do about it. if the intellect is amoral it is less likely to be swayed through emotion and therefore the resulting action or inaction can be somewhat unbiased.

[Aquagem]

  mother engine said:

if the intellect is amoral it is less likely to be swayed through emotion and therefore the resulting action or inaction can be somewhat unbiased.

 

...a perfect statement of motives for the perpetrators of the Holocaust and the Inquisition.. Go devils!

 

Seriously, though, one of the major uses of a moral code that I haven't thought much about yet is that it makes a great club to bash those who don't agree with your way of doing things. When in doubt, invoke "family values" as a reason for regressive policies or to get votes. Wham! Emotional appeal gets 'em every time, and it's lots deeper in the brain than reason. The Dark Side of morality.

 

As I was turning that over in my head, it occurred to me that this use of morality is exactly why I oppose moral codes, especially the ones that claim to be the One Right Way -- and the Inquisition is the perfect metaphor for what happens when absolute morality gets political power. And that's just why Jefferson and Adams felt so strongly about separating church and state. I've always suggested that people who want to see the church more important in state business need a good dose of European history, right up to the minute the US was founded.

[pgrmdave]

  Aquagem said:

why I oppose moral codes, especially the ones that claim to be the One Right Way

 

Isn't this merely a moral code, in which you say that all moral codes which claim to be the One Right Way are immoral, and that your's is the only way?

[IrishEyes]

  Aquagem said:

Irish Eyes, if you’re reading this, be aware that much of it has come out of your questions of a couple of weeks ago about the conflict between science and religion. I don’t want to become oppressive by writing posts of such great length to people who aren’t interested in the depth of thought I don’t seem to be able to turn off. To me, this stuff is important – I’ll take my cues from responses or a lack thereof about whether I write more in this line.

Aquagem,

Thanks for your well-thought out repsonse. It really impresses me that you have taken so much time, and put so much thought, into answering my questions.

I don't have nearly as much time as you seem to have to formulate responses. However, I very much enjoy reading yours. Again, I don't agree with everything that you say, but I still come away from these discussions feeling that I have learned something. I also leave our discussions feeling very un-abused, and for that - I THANK YOU!!

 

I would like to discuss much of your post, but for now, this is what strikes me as most in need of discussion...

  Quote

Most of all, I would concentrate on those core values present in all, or nearly all cultures, as keys to the unchanging constants of morality that appear to be part of human nature through all ages, so they are not swept away by fads, even fads that may be millennia old.

 

What this statement seems to imply is that there are some absolutes in the mix... you allude to 'core values present...in all...cultures... as keys to the unchanging constants of morality ...through all ages...'

 

Are YOU the one that will sift through these cultures to find the core values that seem present in them all (or most of them, anyhow), that best represent the keys to the unchanging constants of morality? Or will that be someone else that does the sifting? And if it's YOU, then does that not imply that YOU are the one with the claim that it is the sole source of moral authority?

 

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative. It just seems a bit off-center to hear someone say that the church, or religion, or anyone, is wrong for claiming to have the sole moral code, then to claim to be able to discern it themselves.Do you understand my point, or does it just seem like semantics to you?

[Aquagem]

  IrishEyes said:

What this statement seems to imply is that there are some absolutes in the mix... you allude to 'core values present...in all...cultures... as keys to the unchanging constants of morality ...through all ages...'

 

Are YOU the one that will sift through these cultures to find the core values that seem present in them all (or most of them, anyhow), that best represent the keys to the unchanging constants of morality? Or will that be someone else that does the sifting? And if it's YOU, then does that not imply that YOU are the one with the claim that it is the sole source of moral authority?

 

Good question. As I was typing that line about the constants in various cultures, I was picturing a statistical study of customs and writings people consider sacred, not to establish an absolute basis for morality, but, rather, to discover, when viewed across a broad spectrum of cultures, what behaviors are universally exalted (e.g., honesty, respect for others, love of children) and others condemned (e.g., stealing, lying, adultery). I stole this idea from William Bennett (The Book of Virtues, The Moral Compass), with whom I share very little except the point in his foreword that there are, in fact, values that seem to be universal to humankind. We'd expect any people of faith to endorse these, even if everything else about their religions makes them hate each other. I want to understand them from an evolutionary perspective, NOT to enforce them. It's a study of morality, not the imposition of morality.

 

Second, I'm curious what those shared values might be, because I think they would provide a great set of clues to our cultural evolution. At least some of the values common to a large sample of cultures may be anachronistic, i.e., useful, even critical in one period of time and counterproductive to another. (I have a couple of examples of things I feel fit this mold in historical times.) I feel that many of our values need a re-examination in light of changes in population and technology. Some only seem "eternal" because we lived with them for a million years and can't imagine things being different.

 

So, my canvass of world cultural values would be NOTHING like the establishment of moral authority, but, rather, would have two main purposes:

• To establish what, traditionally, this species has learned to accept as moral and immoral, and
  
• To re-evaluate them in light of our current situation so that we may have a chance of not being caught in endless rounds of making the same mistakes continously.
  

For example, I'd expect to find some fairly strong language in many traditions about how all the members of this culture have the absolute truth, or are the one Chosen People. Such a belief may help a small struggling culture survive in an area with a small population density (i.e., it would have a significant adaptive value and foster survival). But, that same belief set, translated into much larger national scale, is a free ticket to endless war. Remind you of anyone today?

 

Finally, I didn't mean to imply that I expect to find any truly timeless values in my look at world cultures, but, instead, to get an idea about our particular species and what has sustained it so far. These are the "core values" for hominids, not for the universe. As an aside, I'd also look hard at other primate cultures to get a sense of values we share with them through a common ancestry and similarity of neural tissue and systems.

 

By the way, I have been doing more writing since joining Hypography than I have done in years. I LOVE to write, because it forces me to examine my thoughts and subject them to internal and external criticism. So, in short, this is all your fault!

;)

[Freethinker]

Jump!

[Freethinker]

  Freethinker said:

Jump!

Sorry, just thought it was time for me to JUMP in! :-)

[pgrmdave]

Freethinker, do you believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, or are they subjective?

[Freethinker]

OK, "Morality", "MORALS".

 

We all have morals, each and every one of us. Including mass murders, thiefs, ...

 

Our "morals" are what ever combination of tenets and ethics we choose to follow. They are OUR Morals. Our personal individual Morality.

 

As individuals we may not agree as to what those moral tenets are or should be. But that does not mean that just because MY morals do not agree with YOURS, that YOU are immoral. Yes you are based on MY morals, but not based on YOURS.

 

Perhaps a better question is how should be develop a moral code? Our perhaps is there some external source of morals that result in a better set of them. Naturally the problem being how do we determine "better".

 

Aqua, you seem to have taken over my place. Keeping religion in the disussion, primarily from a negative direction. Way to go! :-) You promoted a bifurcation of either Traditional or Postmodern. Either an externally proscribed absolute set or everything is equally valid.

 

I would suggest "The Science of Morality" Joseph L. Daleiden. He develops a well documented and reasoned presentation of how "Science", the application of factual data and logical analysis CAN develop OBJECTIVE moral tenets that are still situational. Thus Objective while not absolute.

 

One example he and I had many discussions about while he was writing it regards the example of birth control. If we look back in history to earlier times, infant mortality was high, human population was low, it was critical to human survival as a species that we procreate as much as possible to allow for enough progeny to survive long enough for them to reproduce. As sucn we could objectively conclude that birth control would be an immoral action for human society in general. However as we bring infant mortality under control, thus assuring that each progeny has a significant chance of survival till self reproduction and as we grow in population density to the point of environmental detriment, then suddenly birth control can be shown objectively as a more moral stance and lack of it then immoral.

 

Thus while morals can be anything the individual desires, on a societal basis we CAN objectively establish which moral tenets are ultimate best for humanity and it's continued survival.

 

Let me add that I have really enjoyed reading the posts so far. This is quite a group. There were many individual points made along the way which Iwas barely able to keep from responding to individually. Not enough time. And many of yuou that know me know how hard it is for me to resist detailed analysis of each and every point!

 

More to come!