Where did morality come from?

[Wally]

Please bear with me as I'm no expert on either evolutionary theory or creationism. I simply have a question that's been bouncing around in my head for some time now and I hope that someone here can help me out with it. This question is more philosophical in nature than scientific.

If human beings are simply the products (byproducts?) of random processes and chance biological happenings and, like every other species on the planet, arose from earlier species that concerned themselves with little more than survival at all costs, then where did our sense of morality come from?

How is it evolutionarily advantageous to feel sympathy for your fellow human beings and even help them if there is absolutely no benefit for yourself or your immediate offspring? Why did humans develop the capability for sympathy for total strangers when this doesn't seem to provide any survival advantage at all?

If anything, this would seem to be a hindrance that would increase the likelihood that you would NOT survive. It would seem that any early human that had developed feelings of compassion and empathy towards his fellow men, as opposed to having simply a "survive at all costs" mentality, would be much more likely to put himself in unnecessary danger (by sticking his neck out for someone else, for example) or would be less willing to harm someone else to forward his own lineage, thereby drastically reducing the likelihood that these higher feelings of compassion would be passed on to subsequent generations.

Man has taken on habits that are in direct conflict with the "survival of the fittest" idea. We've devised methods of keeping people alive that have "defective" genes (diabetes sufferers, babies born with defective hearts, etc.) thereby weakening the gene pool with human lineages that mother nature is trying to get rid of. Why is it that humans, alone on the planet, have progressed past our base survival instincts?

Where did all this morality come from? Why did man alone develop these qualities in what is otherwise a sea of unadulterated survivalists?

Wally

[otseng]

Good question Wally and welcome to the forum. I look forward to hearing an evolutionist answer to this too.

[Corvus]

Please bear with me as I'm no expert on either evolutionary theory or creationism. I simply have a question that's been bouncing around in my head for some time now and I hope that someone here can help me out with it. This question is more philosophical in nature than scientific.

If human beings are simply the products (byproducts?) of random processes and chance biological happenings and, like every other species on the planet, arose from earlier species that concerned themselves with little more than survival at all costs, then where did our sense of morality come from?

How is it evolutionarily advantageous to feel sympathy for your fellow human beings and even help them if there is absolutely no benefit for yourself or your immediate offspring? Why did humans develop the capability for sympathy for total strangers when this doesn't seem to provide any survival advantage at all?

You have to understand that it's survival of the species, not survival of the individual. If it was survival of the individual, why would we be keeping even our friends and immediate offspring alive? Why, if one animal was bigger and tougher than the others, wouldn't it kill and eat them all? Why even have children if that would constitute an unnecessary expenditure of energy? As you can guess, selfishness would only lead to destruction. As would complete selflessness. There's a balance.

If anything, this would seem to be a hindrance that would increase the likelihood that you would NOT survive. It would seem that any early human that had developed feelings of compassion and empathy towards his fellow men, as opposed to having simply a "survive at all costs" mentality, would be much more likely to put himself in unnecessary danger (by sticking his neck out for someone else, for example) or would be less willing to harm someone else to forward his own lineage, thereby drastically reducing the likelihood that these higher feelings of compassion would be passed on to subsequent generations.

The continuation of the species depends on people outside of one's direct family.

Man has taken on habits that are in direct conflict with the "survival of the fittest" idea. We've devised methods of keeping people alive that have "defective" genes (diabetes sufferers, babies born with defective hearts, etc.) thereby weakening the gene pool with human lineages that mother nature is trying to get rid of.

These aren't in direct conflict with the survival of the fittest. Simply "surviving" defines being "fit". People with "defective" genes are, thus, completely fit because they are surviving. Also, most of the diseases that arise through defective genes aren't hereditary... otherwise they wouldn't exist at all.

Why is it that humans, alone on the planet, have progressed past our base survival instincts?

Where did all this morality come from? Why did man alone develop these qualities in what is otherwise a sea of unadulterated survivalists?

Whatever made you think man alone developed these qualities? It's actually not that rare in the animal kingdom, and is called "animal altruism". Bees, for example, sacrifice themselves to protect a queen. Monkeys pick fleas from other monkeys. Whales support sick members of their pod. Zebras rally to protect a single fowl, meerkats care for young that may not be their own. Some of this is real altruism - expending energy for the sake of perpetuating the race. Others are what is called reciprocal altruism, which means they do a selfless deed and expect it to be repayed later.

[Alan]

Please bear with me as I'm no expert on either evolutionary theory or creationism. ... If human beings are simply the products (byproducts?) of random processes and chance biological happenings and, like every other species on the planet, arose from earlier species that concerned themselves with little more than survival at all costs, then where did our sense of morality come from? Wally

Your question really goes deeper than this, but you hint at it. If human beings are the products of random process only, then there is no proof at all of such things as free will or consciousness, or even the reality of time (as we perceive it). These matters have been the subject of rigorous consideration by physicists with the conclusion that they indeed do NOT exist. There is no scientific evidence that they do and all good evidence says that they do not, but are strictly illusions. A real mess.

The only way out of such experimental and logical cul-de-sacs, recognized for centuries, is to conclude (or assume by faith) that an external intelligence and universal consciousness exists independently, and always has. Once done, the human mind seeks further explanation by attempting to recognize by experience and logic more about what that universal consciousness really is (God). Making a connection...

Some will go so far as to admit that God is a matter of social ethics or superstition based on fear of the unknown, but that falls far short of addressing the real problem as it requires a truly independent and universal intelligence. That's why some say that the Bible is divinely inspired and rightly hedge on saying it is the literal word of God. If God is truly real, He must be capable of "speaking" directly and guiding the human conscience, the fundamental tenet of people who are also wary of religious indoctrination and so are called deists.

Those who claim that God has spoken to them are referring to a subjective, personal experience, so this cannot be independently verified. Some claim that God speaks in a still, inner voice that may or may not be an unmistakeable. God does speak in that way only - by impression, not audible tone. Generally, this is a matter of guiding by conscience and does not require conscious recognition. That is not to put the matter into a box and say that stronger impressions can be ruled out, but many say that human effort must be put into the matter.

I'll likely get some flak for saying these things, but they are hardly rare opinions, being the logical conclusions and experiences of many people throughout history.

[Wally]

A continuation of the morality question. Again, this is more philosophical than scientific. If this forum is not the place for this kind of discussion, please let me know. =)

I suppose a more direct way of wording the question would be to ask this: if humans are nothing more than animals with larger brains and higher thought processes than the rest of the animal kingdom, then where does this feeling of "I'm not supposed to do that" come from?

This is going to sound very simplistic and is for demonstration purposes only, but please bear with me.

The only thing that's keeping me from walking over to my elderly next door neighbor's house, breaking into it, taking everything he owns, and maybe even doing him serious harm if he tries to stop me, is this deeply rooted feeling in my gut that says "You're not supposed to do that. That would be wrong." That's an over simplification of the matter, of course. In reality, this feeling of morality is so thoroughly entrenched that the thought of doing my neighbor harm for my own personal benefit never even crosses my mind.

However, taking the concept that humans are nothing more than highly developed animals and following that idea through to it's logical conclusion, then there should be absolutely no reason why I shouldn't harm my elderly neighbor if it benefits me. Sure, the police would probably come and drag me away, but the only reason they would do that is because someone somewhere decided that breaking into people's houses and doing them harm is wrong. If I can get away with it without getting caught, what exactly have I done wrong? Am I not simply proving that I am more "fit" than my neighbor?

Who says it's wrong? On what authority are they basing this decision? Humans are nothing more than highly developed animals. The concepts of sin, morality, and "right and wrong" don't exist in the animal kingdom.

Remember, there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no atonement for your sins in the afterlife. Indeed, if there is no God then the very idea of sin itself is a myth and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are subjective on a person-by-person basis. Your idea of "wrong" may differ greatly from my idea of "wrong", and who is going to make the call on what the actual definition of "wrong" is?

Is it the LAW that decides what's wrong? Not so fast. The law is subjective and depends on the time and place you happen to be in. The law of Nazi Germany allowed for the extermination of four million Jews. The law of early America allowed for the enslavement of an entire race of people. Frankly, when it comes to deciding what's right and what's wrong, the law has a mediocre track record.

So I suppose this is the question that I'm actually trying to ask. If humans are just another member of the animal kingdom, what exactly is wrong with harming my neighbor if it benefits me and I can get away with it? Who says it's wrong and on what authority are they basing this?

Wally

[Corvus]

I suppose a more direct way of wording the question would be to ask this: if humans are nothing more than animals with larger brains and higher thought processes than the rest of the animal kingdom, then where does this feeling of "I'm not supposed to do that" come from?

As I wrote.. er.. typed earlier, most of it is inherited for the continuation of the species. A lot of it is also through social conditioning. Andre Gide, for example, had a strict protestant upbringing. When he went into the east and met Oscar Wilde there, the system of ethics that caged his thought for so long was shattered, and a different one took its place.

The only thing that's keeping me from walking over to my elderly next door neighbor's house, breaking into it, taking everything he owns, and maybe even doing him serious harm if he tries to stop me, is this deeply rooted feeling in my gut that says "You're not supposed to do that. That would be wrong." That's an over simplification of the matter, of course. In reality, this feeling of morality is so thoroughly entrenched that the thought of doing my neighbor harm for my own personal benefit never even crosses my mind.

I think often of how easy it would be. Sometimes, when observing a child, I fancy how easy it would be to pick him and fling him against a brick wall. This is done with clinical disinterest, without motive. Still I carry on with impeccable manners and behaviour for two reasons, firstly because I have an ideal of myself in my mind, and I want to get as close to that ideal as possible, and secondly because to do so would result in more pain than pleasure.

I believe that empathy is something instinctual to every animal, as I have shown in my previous post.

However, taking the concept that humans are nothing more than highly developed animals and following that idea through to it's logical conclusion, then there should be absolutely no reason why I shouldn't harm my elderly neighbor if it benefits me. Sure, the police would probably come and drag me away, but the only reason they would do that is because someone somewhere decided that breaking into people's houses and doing them harm is wrong. If I can get away with it without getting caught, what exactly have I done wrong? Am I not simply proving that I am more "fit" than my neighbor?

I'm certain you still don't understand fitness means the very act of survival. "Fitness" means adapting to one's environment. The act of robbing one's neighbour is not necessary for your survival, so it's a superfluous action, an unecessary expenditure of energy.

Think though, that it was once perfectly acceptable to rob your neighbour, so long as the neighbour happened to be in another country. It was called "raiding". You can understand then, that a reluctance to rob your neighbour is your own personal quibble from a socially imposed ethic system.

Who says it's wrong? On what authority are they basing this decision? Humans are nothing more than highly developed animals. The concepts of sin, morality, and "right and wrong" don't exist in the animal kingdom.

I believe I've shown that doing right and wrong arises from species survival instinct. Most of ethics tends to depend on which society you come from.

Remember, there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, no atonement for your sins in the afterlife. Indeed, if there is no God then the very idea of sin itself is a myth and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are subjective on a person-by-person basis. Your idea of "wrong" may differ greatly from my idea of "wrong", and who is going to make the call on what the actual definition of "wrong" is?

Indeed. I've always maintained right and wrong are subjective, and one only has to look at the world to see.

Is it the LAW that decides what's wrong? Not so fast. The law is subjective and depends on the time and place you happen to be in. The law of Nazi Germany allowed for the extermination of four million Jews. The law of early America allowed for the enslavement of an entire race of people. Frankly, when it comes to deciding what's right and what's wrong, the law has a mediocre track record.

If our sense of right and wrong are so deeply ingrained as you say, then why did these atrocities occur? Of course, morality is subjective, We can usually tell what's right and wrong when it comes to deciding on people's lives, but add greater complexity, like property, and it becomes more and more difficult.

If our sense of right and wrong are so deeply ingrained, why did God have to bother to mention it? We had already eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So I suppose this is the question that I'm actually trying to ask. If humans are just another member of the animal kingdom, what exactly is wrong with harming my neighbor if it benefits me and I can get away with it? Who says it's wrong and on what authority are they basing this?

Quite clearly, nature states it. And harming your neighbour is perfectly fine if it assists your survival, just as saving your neighbour from harm is perfectly fine if it assists the survival of the species. We are often torn between these two extremities; the selfless and the selfish. The balance is such as to give the species the greatest chance to survive. We have all heard the story of the people on the boat with nothing to eat, drawing straws to see who will sacrifice themselves. Meditate on this. Morality is always a grey area.

So tell me, where do you think morality comes from?

[otseng]

A continuation of the morality question. Again, this is more philosophical than scientific. If this forum is not the place for this kind of discussion, please let me know. =)

Actually, I highly encourage philosophical questions, as long as there is some religious element to it. As a matter of fact, as we get more questions philosophical in nature, I'll be creating a new category for it.

[Wally]

Quite clearly, nature states it.

I have to disagree on this point. There is no natural law that says I shouldn’t steal from my neighbor if it benefits me. There are no Ten Commandments of the Animal Kingdom that say it’s wrong if I feel like gunning down innocent passersby in the street if I can get away with it.

Sure, the innocent passersby that get gunned down may think its wrong, but that’s their opinion. What if I’m of the opinion that it’s not wrong? What if I think that they’re in the wrong for allowing themselves to get gunned down and, seeing as how they’re lying in the street, I believe that “might makes right”? Who’s going to disagree with me and on what are they going to base this ludicrous assumption?

If our sense of right and wrong are so deeply ingrained as you say, then why did these atrocities occur?

Good point. I’ll leave my own personal version of morality out of the discussion. From a strictly naturalistic perspective, why were these atrocities wrong? Better yet, why were these occurrences even considered “atrocities” at all?

So tell me, where do you think morality comes from?

I think that morality comes from recognition of a higher power, but let’s leave God and my own personal belief system out of it. Let’s start from the assumption that there is no God and we’re all products of random natural occurrences.

You can understand then, that a reluctance to rob your neighbor is your own personal quibble from a socially imposed ethic system.

Another good point. Let’s assume that I had absolutely no qualms about robbing my neighbor and possibly doing him serious physical harm in the process, and I asked you to give me a reason why I shouldn’t if I knew I could get away with it. What would your reply be?

Let’s take it a step further and say that my neighbor happened to be your mother or father or son or daughter, and it was up to you to convince me why I shouldn’t do them harm. What would you say?

Please realize that the above question is NOT intended to bait anyone or rouse anyone’s anger. It is posed out of genuine curiosity.

Wally

[Abs like J']

From Wally:

There is no natural law that says I shouldn’t steal from my neighbor if it benefits me. There are no Ten Commandments of the Animal Kingdom that say it’s wrong if I feel like gunning down innocent passersby in the street if I can get away with it.

Sure, the innocent passersby that get gunned down may think its wrong, but that’s their opinion. What if I’m of the opinion that it’s not wrong? What if I think that they’re in the wrong for allowing themselves to get gunned down and, seeing as how they’re lying in the street, I believe that “might makes right”? Who’s going to disagree with me and on what are they going to base this ludicrous assumption?

Societies have worked like that in the past. Tyrants and others have ruled by killing and stealing with impunity for much of human history. Eventually such actions do have consequences though. It only works if you have authority or power to prevent negative consequences to yourself, as many a king and queen have found out. Societies have progressively realized that to allow the theft and murder of their fellow citizens is to risk the theft and murder of themselves.

...why were these atrocities wrong? Better yet, why were these occurrences even considered “atrocities” at all?

For societies that recognize the dangers implicit in allowing the arbitrary execution of fellow citizens, they are atrocities because they present a clear and present danger to society as a whole and themselves. If you don't stand up against the arbitrary execution of your neighbor today, there may be nobody to stand up against the arbitrary execution of you tomorrow.

Let’s assume that I had absolutely no qualms about robbing my neighbor and possibly doing him serious physical harm in the process, and I asked you to give me a reason why I shouldn’t if I knew I could get away with it. What would your reply be?

Let’s take it a step further and say that my neighbor happened to be your mother or father or son or daughter, and it was up to you to convince me why I shouldn’t do them harm. What would you say?

As before, if negative consequences can be avoided there isn't much reason to refrain. By a similar token, there's no point in robbing or harming a neighbor if you don't have a need to rob or harm them. As Corvus mentioned before, arbitrarily robbing and killing your neighbor would be an unnecessary expenditure of energy.

If it were a relative of mine and I had knowledge of your intentions, the situation is different in that you're more likely to suffer negative consequences for such actions. Would it be worth it then to proceed with the theft and injury if equal or greater harm would in turn be inflicted upon yourself?

[Wally]

Abs like J',

Here's a summary of what your argument seems to be. Please feel free to correct any of these points that I may be unintentionally misrepresenting.

Your argument seems to be:

1. From the execution of four million Jews to breaking into my neighbor's house and stealing his loot, there is, in fact, NOTHING inherently wrong with harming our fellow man if we can get away with it and there are no consequences to us. Is this correct?

2. The only reason any human being, or society in general, should take measures to stop injustice is for reasons that are purely out of self interest. There is no inherent "wrongness" in the execution of millions of people based on ethnicity alone. Indeed, the very concept of "wrong" is a myth. However, we had better step in and stop it for no other reason than the tables may be turned and it may be us standing on that firing line one day!

There is absolutely nothing arbitrary about robbing my neighbor for personal gain. Where I'm from this happens every day. If only more people considered crime to be an "unnecessary expenditure of energy", then the world would be a much better place to live.

Are you really saying that you can't give me a single reason why I shouldn't harm someone, even if it was your mother or someone that you personally know and care about, if it benefits me and I can get away with it? Not one single, solitary reason?

Wally