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

[TQWcS]

Hmmm - I'm not sure what you mean, since "anomie" is not in my dictionary. But no, I don't think it proves anything. Gang members probably do have a moral code, although it is probably one that you or I would not recognize. We were not made by cookie cutters, after all.

The point is that basic human morals are not inborn. Just like language is not inborn, our ability to learn language is though. What I am proposing is that morals are learned rather than inherited.

So, how do I argue for a genetic basis if socializing is required? For the same reason that I would say that a redwood sapling is geneticaly predisposed to grow very tall. But this will not happen if I withhold water etc. - it will only happen in the right environment. But the genetic basis is still there.

I see what you are saying. Redwood saplings do not learn to need water. Humans however aquire morals because of our ability to learn. I agree that our ability to learn is genetic. So in a round about way you could say that morality is genetic because our ability to learn is genetic. This would not prove that morality is inborn.

[Corvus]

Hmmm - I'm not sure what you mean, since "anomie" is not in my dictionary. But no, I don't think it proves anything. Gang members probably do have a moral code, although it is probably one that you or I would not recognize. We were not made by cookie cutters, after all.

The point is that basic human morals are not inborn. Just like language is not inborn, our ability to learn language is though. What I am proposing is that morals are learned rather than inherited.

So, how do I argue for a genetic basis if socializing is required? For the same reason that I would say that a redwood sapling is geneticaly predisposed to grow very tall. But this will not happen if I withhold water etc. - it will only happen in the right environment. But the genetic basis is still there.

I see what you are saying. Redwood saplings do not learn to need water. Humans however aquire morals because of our ability to learn. I agree that our ability to learn is genetic. So in a round about way you could say that morality is genetic because our ability to learn is genetic. This would not prove that morality is inborn.

I sort of agree with what you are saying, but am not completely convinced. I have always thought of morality as something we are predisposed towards, just as we are predisposed towards walking upright, even if we still have the option of crawling or running on all fours. In 1920 Reverend Singh of India discovered two children that were, believe it or not, raised by wolves, and were aged 3 and 6. Both were strict carnivores and moved on all fours, even moving faster than most men could on two legs. But it is fairly obvious we have adapted to walking on two legs, and this is the direction evolution has pushed as towards. That said, I think morality or ethics is similar in that the majority are naturally inclined to act a certain way under certain circumstances, though if they find themselves in other circumstances, different psychological issues might arise that takes prominence in their mind and alters their behaviour - such as survival in a harsh environment or with hostile opposition. Consider that if the behaviours of all animals were completely staid, most would die. Evolution implies some flexibility.

[TQWcS]

I have always thought of morality as something we are predisposed towards, just as we are predisposed towards walking upright, even if we still have the option of crawling or running on all fours.

I agree that we all have a feeling of a way things should be. I also believe we would not know how things should be if we were not taught. Nazis were taught that killing Jews was the right things to do. To us that was bad to them that was good. I think Nietzshe put it best, "One persons vice can be anothers virtue."

[Corvus]

I have always thought of morality as something we are predisposed towards, just as we are predisposed towards walking upright, even if we still have the option of crawling or running on all fours.

I agree that we all have a feeling of a way things should be. I also believe we would not know how things should be if we were not taught.

Taught is not perhaps the best word. Our behaviours are, I think, based more on imitation than on education. This one of the reasons I believe children should be taught to think independently - if one is to tell them something is wrong, then one should explain why it is wrong at every opportunity. Morality too can come from logic.

Nazis were taught that killing Jews was the right things to do. To us that was bad to them that was good.

I don't think it was quite that simple. Nazi soldiers were involved in some vast overreaching goal. Collectively they were a machine, marching towards a single cause where once they might have been cold, hungry and alone. They felt strong in their fraternity, glorying in a united cause. They also felt hope that Hitler could give them some kind of future. Also part of what may have appealed to them was that Hitler played on their prejudices, and becoming a soldier obedient to a higher authority could, in their minds, absolve them of all responsibility for their actions. They didn't really need to be taught because the prejudices were there to be exploited, and when exploited, the foundation was there that they might do evil and yet not feel completely evil.

For more information about mass movements, read Eric Hoffman's The True Believer.

[TQWcS]

Taught is not perhaps the best word. Our behaviours are, I think, based more on imitation than on education.

I don't believe you can imitate morality. Morality is an abstract concept. From a young age we are taught to act morally. We are tought to act morally from a very young age. We are told to share, to not hit other kids, to apologize when we do. It is not untill we are older that we understand why we do these things. Kohlberg illustrated this in his stages of moral development. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

I don't think it was quite that simple. Nazi soldiers were involved in some vast overreaching goal.

I know it wasn't as simple as I made it seem. Still their morality changed.

[Corvus]

Taught is not perhaps the best word. Our behaviours are, I think, based more on imitation than on education.

I don't believe you can imitate morality. Morality is an abstract concept. From a young age we are taught to act morally. We are tought to act morally from a very young age. We are told to share, to not hit other kids, to apologize when we do. It is not untill we are older that we understand why we do these things. Kohlberg illustrated this in his stages of moral development. http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

Hm. Think of it this way; if moral behaviour was not to some extent imitated, there would be no reason for censorship of violence, explicit sexual references, sex, nudity or coarse language. Ratings would be a thing of the past. Children very often learn from example, and they will just as readily learn through the simple act of observation that one should treat servants differently than the Lord Mayor as through being told the servents are inferior and the mayor belongs to a different social sphere. Telling a child to share may not echo as profoundly in their mind as showing them the act of sharing. They would subconsciously refer to a concept of morality, yes, but the concept will be personified in the character of someone they respect, look up to, love or maybe even fear. Or at least this is what I believe. Consider the effect every word has upon a child. As soon as my brother-in-law's 2(?) year old nephew hears a new word, he repeats it. As soon as he understands the meaning of a phrase he will use it exclusively. Over time, the accents in which the words were spoken will even be imitated down to the tiniest movement of the tongue. Language itself is almost entirely imitation, and as an example of a system very closely resembling ethics, one need only look to a system of conduct that for most of us is almost never taught, but is often somehow acquired; ettiquette. Finally, I will add that animals, which, to all appearances, have no language in which to give lessons, surely all learn through imitation. How else does the calf learn to stand and walk, and the cub to hunt?

Parents, feel free to give examples of the almost eerie accuracy with which a child will attempt to duplicate an adult's actions.

Recently I saw a Heman cartoon being played in the morning. I cannot give you a reasonable excuse as to why I watched the entire episode, but after 30 minutes of mind-numbing animated violence, sans blood, a scene faded in of a character who promptly ejaculated some sort of morality lesson. The lesson itself was simply making explicit what was already demonstrated when Heman was not fighting the forces of Darkness. Something about kindness or somesuch. Regardless of what it was, I think the child is more likely to imitate the nature of Heman in the way he treated the villagers rather than recall the moral imperative. What Would Jesus Do becomes What Would Heman Do?

[Jose]

The point is that basic human morals are not inborn. Just like language is not inborn, our ability to learn language is though. What I am proposing is that morals are learned rather than inherited.

I agree that we all have a feeling of a way things should be. I also believe we would not know how things should be if we were not taught.

As Corvus has said, "imitate" is a better word than "taught." But, even then, there's more to it. In thinking of this issue, I ask myself, why do Chimpanzees play sex games with their brothers and sisters when they are little, but when they reach sexual maturity, strictly avoid their close relatives? Where did they get this incest taboo? Observations have given no clue about teaching, and it's hard to imitate a non-activity. For them, it seems to be inborn. This relates to your statement that we all have a feeling of a way things should be. We might not have the appropriate context to apply that feeling without being in the social situations we are, but we have that feeling. That feeling is inborn. It is shaped to some extent by our societal norms, but it is inborn.

Nazis were taught that killing Jews was the right things to do. To us that was bad to them that was good.

I don't think it was quite that simple. Nazi soldiers were involved in some vast overreaching goal. Collectively they were a machine, marching towards a single cause where once they might have been cold, hungry and alone. They felt strong in their fraternity, glorying in a united cause. They also felt hope that Hitler could give them some kind of future. Also part of what may have appealed to them was that Hitler played on their prejudices, and becoming a soldier obedient to a higher authority could, in their minds, absolve them of all responsibility for their actions. They didn't really need to be taught because the prejudices were there to be exploited, and when exploited, the foundation was there that they might do evil and yet not feel completely evil.

It is important to separate "morality" from "hatred of others." There are very clear evolutionary selective pressures that would lead to each of these inborn behaviors. Morality, according to this logic, results from selection to help your friends and relatives. It's more complex, of course, but let's leave it there for now. Hatred of others comes from selection to support your own tribe, but fight others (necessary under conditions of limited resources). The tribes that won the fights--that had the inborn behavior of adherence to their group, and hatred of other groups--are the ones who passed on their genes.

So, now we have this inborn distrust and often hatred of other groups. This instinct is codified in political boundaries and religious doctrine. It shows up in tribal names--most tribes' name for themselves is "the people," implying that everyone else is non-people. It even shows up in our fanatical devotion to one sports team, often involving fights with supporters of the other team.

Hitler simply took advantage of this instinct. He convinced his followers that God had chosen them to do His work of developing the superior race. Because these "others" were not of their group, it was OK to kill them. According to the morality of fighting for your group against the others, this was moral in their minds. It's not so different from other things we see going on now. It's OK to kill Shi'ites if you're Sunni, because they're different. It's OK to kill Hindus if you're Muslim, and vice versa, because they're different. It's OK to kill Protestants if you're Catholic, and vice versa, because they're different. It's OK to bomb Iraqis, and not even mention the civilian casualties, because they're different. It's OK to discriminate against gays because they're different.

The hard part is overcoming this instinct and developing tolerance and understanding of others. It's easier if we recognize that we have this "hatred of others" instinct, because we can see that it's based on conditions from thousands of years ago. All we have to do is expand the definition of "friends and relatives" and include more people in our "morality" instincts. Apparently, some people can do this, and others can't.

[TQWcS]

This relates to your statement that we all have a feeling of a way things should be.

Just because I have the feeling of the way things ought to be doesn't mean we have to act that way. We can override our genetics. My beef with evolutionary theory of morality is this, they make us seem as if we are some sort of a genetic moral robot, we have been programmed to do good and that is why we do it. Like C.S. Lewis Stated, "Christ did not come to preach any brand new morality...the real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see; like bringing a horse back and back to the fence it has refused to jump." I believe morality is 50/50 we have a feeling of what is right but we do not have to do that, nor do we want to in all situations.

[Jose]

Just because I have the feeling of the way things ought to be doesn't mean we have to act that way. We can override our genetics. My beef with evolutionary theory of morality is this, they make us seem as if we are some sort of a genetic moral robot, we have been programmed to do good and that is why we do it....I believe morality is 50/50 we have a feeling of what is right but we do not have to do that, nor do we want to in all situations.

And I believe you are absolutely right. We can override our genetics, at least with respect to behavior. But, just because we can override our genetics doesn't mean we don't have genetics. It means we can rationalize a variety of alternate behaviors. There's no danger of being a moral robot (unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that there is One Set Of Invariant Morals from which you may never deviate), because your brain is in charge. Your brain, however, is constantly weighing the inputs of different values--which is why it is often considered "immoral" to kill a member of your own group, but "moral" to kill a member of another ("heathen") group. Killing is killing, isn't it? It depends on how you rationalize it.

It is important not to confuse genetically-coded behavior in humans with genetically-coded behavior in sea slugs. We have much more complex brains, and can do more than bob our heads when we lay eggs. We can think about what we do, as well as ignore what we think in order to follow a leader who has hornswoggled us. Nor is genetically-coded behavior as immutable as genetically-coded hair color--again, because we can think and rationalize and learn. This is where religious moral codes, and where laws become important: to add extra force to the "feeling" of doing the right thing, and to mark the boundaries beyond which overriding our native behaviors becomes unacceptable.

[TQWcS]

I accect most of what you are saying Jose. However if this is true, that our morality is encoded, should we try to rehabilitate prisoners? And do you believe that we have free will Jose?