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

[ST88]

If "do unto others" was programmed into us via evolution then explain how homeless or impoverished people view the world as dog eat dog.

I don't think anyone's contending that genetic morals = "do unto others". Morality is a social construct based on complex behaviors. Saying an action has a moral value is a judgment applied to the action, and not a part of the action itself. If we had to tell people that "Do unto others" was the correct moral value to have, then it can't have been a genetic result of evolution.

This is an oversimplification, but what evolution did was to place behaviors into the minds of early humans that made it more likely they would survive and reproduce. One of these behaviors probably goes somewhere along the lines of "being kind to members of your tribe" or at least "not committing violence against members of your tribe." This would tend to help a tribe stay intact in the face of a hostile world.

[Jose]

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?

Certainly we have free will. That's what allows us to overcome any innate behaviors and do different things. At least, it sure looks like free will; I can't distinguish it from God planting the actions in our brains in a way that we can't detect. As for prisoners, it depends on the nature of the crime, and how long they've been imprisoned. Ideally, we'd be able to determine whether their anti-social behavior (ie crime) was "fixable," and rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated. There's no point in attempting to rehabilitate those for whom it is impossible. Unfortunately, we have no way of determining who is likely to be rehabilitated, and who isn't.

One thing we do know, however, is that some can be rehabilitated if they develop a strong commitment to religion. Maybe this means that some of the criminal behavior comes from a feeling of being adrift (too much free will, and not enough guidance). Religion may provide an anchor that wasn't previously supplied by society, friends, family, and acquaintences.

I don't think anyone's contending that genetic morals = "do unto others". ...

This is an oversimplification, but what evolution did was to place behaviors into the minds of early humans that made it more likely they would survive and reproduce. One of these behaviors probably goes somewhere along the lines of "being kind to members of your tribe" or at least "not committing violence against members of your tribe." This would tend to help a tribe stay intact in the face of a hostile world.

Ha! In fact, I had contended exactly that! The reasoning was the macaque experiment, in which the macaques refused to eat if they knew that pulling on the banana would give an electrical shock to another macaque. They were more adamant about not shocking their fellows if they had previously been on the receiving end. To quote one of my students: "A monkey that has been electrocuted will stop eating faster than a monkey that has not been electrocuted."

We can extrapolate from the macaque experiment to humans, and suggest that a similar innate behavior underlies our "do unto others" morality--which many people have, despite not accepting the biblical reasoning for having it.

If we ask how selection would give rise to such a behavior, it is exactly what you said: be kind to members of your tribe. Tribes tended to be fairly small, so most members of the tribe were relatives. If you were kind to your tribe members, and helped them when they were in danger, you increased the successful propagation of your genes (through your relatives, who share many of the same genetic variations).

There is a question, though, about the strength of the "morality" that can be innate. As TWQcS has asked, if it is innate, then why are these other types of behaviors possible? Is there really free will? As noted above, we are smart enough to learn alternate behaviors, which we can follow as conditions warrant--even if those behaviors go against our innate tendencies. We do this by rationalizing, perhaps using what we might call "moral relativism." It's OK to do things that would be immoral in our own tribe if we do them to people of other tribes (or other religions). Even Christians are not immune to this moral relativism.

[loki]

Morality must have been spawned from christianity, or, more properly stated, the common idea which circulates amongst christian thought circles, which erroneously differentiates man from the rest of the animals. Therefore, morality is merely an extension of this belief, as since, from their standpoint, man, which must be something other than plant or animal, is not connected to the animals, then the animalistic instincts of man must be denied. Thus, morals were introduced, originally by an elite christian group of a given society to differentiate themselves from the animals. However, it seems rather hypocritical that the enforcers of said system of beliefs, the aristocracy, also reveled in the joys of the darker, more sinful, side of the moral line.

[TQWcS]

Morality must have been spawned from christianity, or, more properly stated, the common idea which circulates amongst christian thought circles, which erroneously differentiates man from the rest of the animals. Therefore, morality is merely an extension of this belief, as since, from their standpoint, man, which must be something other than plant or animal, is not connected to the animals, then the animalistic instincts of man must be denied. Thus, morals were introduced, originally by an elite christian group of a given society to differentiate themselves from the animals. However, it seems rather hypocritical that the enforcers of said system of beliefs, the aristocracy, also reveled in the joys of the darker, more sinful, side of the moral line.

I believe morality was around before Christ.

[loki]

While laws, existed, morality, to the best of my knowledge, was not codified until Christian expansion began. However, one could argue the the virtues embraced by the older religions are akin to morals. Personally, I embrace the idea that modern morality is a christian/semetic philosophical construct used to forcefully infuse the aforementioned ideas into the minds of future generations of the followers of Semetic teachings.

[The Happy Humanist]

While laws, existed, morality, to the best of my knowledge, was not codified until Christian expansion began. However, one could argue the the virtues embraced by the older religions are akin to morals. Personally, I embrace the idea that modern morality is a christian/semetic philosophical construct used to forcefully infuse the aforementioned ideas into the minds of future generations of the followers of Semetic teachings.

Pardon me, but how exactly are you defining morality in this context? Are you saying that the Ten Commandments, which pre-existed Christianity by millenia, are not an attempt at codifying morality?


Further, are you suggesting that all modern morality, worldwide, stems from the Judeo-Christian tradition?

[loki]

I was writing of morality within the christian/islamic/jewish world, hence the usage of 'christian/semetic philosophical construct'. Since the spread of Christianity wrought more change within the history of europe, as I am of european decent, I initially used that movement as the focal point of my post.

My apologies for not properly stating my thoughts earlier.

How do you differentiate the words law and moral?

[The Happy Humanist]

How do you differentiate the words law and moral?

Short answer: Law is an attempt to codify morals.

I had written a lot more, but I'm new here (hi everyone )and decided it might be off-topic. We can take it up elsewhere.

[The Happy Humanist]

First of all, happy solstice everyone!

I just arrived here, and am extremely impressed with the politeness and astuteness of the discourse here. A refreshing change!

There are about 150 messages in this topic I want to reply to, wish I'd found this place sooner. I guess a Q&A would be easier than going back and quoting all the posts...

Q: If morality is genetically induced, or "innate", why are there immoral individuals? More to the point, why are there entire movements, such as Nazism or slavery, that are immoral in nature?
A: I visualize the "morality gene" as a very small firmware chip in a very complex computer. I sense that this gene is only capable of sending a very small, quick message to our brain in response to any given situation; perhaps something like "Do the right thing." The rest of the process of moral choice involves a hugely complex "cocktail" of other messages, some from other firmware ("preserve self", "preserve species"), others from what I would call "software," which is the sum total of our experiences, recollections, musings, etc. all firing from different neural paths. As most of us computer geeks know, software can always override firmware. The process of moral choice involves assessing these various messages in order to comply with the trigger message, "Do the right thing." In short, we don't always know, either as individuals or as a species what the right thing is. Those of us whose "software" includes experiences with homelessness or a tough, dog-eat-dog environment such as the ghetto may adapt our programming to equate "do the right thing" with "preserve self". Others who may have had a more reflective education in this area may be able to see the wisdom in "preserve species" as a roundabout way of improving their own condition. It's not just a matter of "do the right thing," it's a mixture of that genetic signal plus what has been learned. This applies at the societal level as well. At one time, slavery was seen as "the right thing," perhaps because it advanced certain segments of society; but as the species went along, it became clearer to us that equality was more desirable. That equation will now be part of our revamped programming, possibly (hopefully) forever. Same thing with the Holocaust - as aptly underscored in the rallying cry, "Never again!" It's a learning process - and we still have much to learn

Religious doctrines such as the Decalogue are one response to this dilemma of mixed signals. The Ten Commandments sure makes it easy to know how to respond to the "Do the right thing" signal - at least on its face. The problem of course is that it is not comprehensive enough to cover individual situations, such as killing in self-defense, or stealing in order to survive. We still have to rely on internal software rather than external "Operator Input" for the solutions to most, if not all, dilemmas.

So, the answer to the question, Is morality still evolving? is yes, definitely, but not necessarily the genetic firmware so much as the software, our individual and collective learning experiences that we use to process and refine the "Do the right thing" signal. This will be anathema to many Christians, but I believe that mankind is becoming more moral, on his own, without spiritual guidance. I am prepared to defend that stance, in a separate post.

Q: Is there no absolute right or wrong? Can you not say the Holocaust was absolutely wrong?
A: No, not in some overriding cosmic sense. First, we don't have access to the entirety of the Cosmos; perhaps in some corner of the universe, something similar may be OK or even necessary for preservation of the species. But even this assumes that preserving a particular species is "absolutely good."

But we don't need for the Holocaust to be Absolutely, Cosmically Wrong. It was wrong within the context of the human experience, and that's wrong enough for me. It's wrong enough for the vast majority of humanity, and that will go a long way towards preventing it from ever happening again. And in the end, that's what really counts, isn't it?

So many thoughts, so little time...more later. Comments invited.

[Gangstawombatninja]

Hmm... Well, this is what I believe: everyones life is dictated by the pursuit of happiness. I think true happiness is found by making others happy. But some people find their happines in a nonproductive way that deprives another person of happiness. By why do certain people find their own joy by purloining the joy of others?

Well, we've all heard that children who have been abused as children grow up to be abusers. And I once heard a statistic that 90% of all prostitutes were abused as children. So the mode in which a person derives happiness is dictated by what they've learned as impressionable children.

So there isn't evil in the world, there are only psyches which find their happiness in a nonproductive way by depriving others of happiness caused by childhood trauma or chemical imbalanc.

Over the summer I had to read Edith Hamilton's Mythology for AP summer reading (not only read but took notes on every single pg., 40 pgs. in spiral in less than a week--stupid boring Great Expectations took me a month). Well in it, I learned a Greek word (or at least an ancient Greek word) called aidos (I think that's right, but may be wrong). Aidos is like compassion without caring. It is what a nobleman should feel when looking at a beggar; he doesn't feel compassion for the bum (let's be p.c., residentially challenged lol) but he understand that the difference between them isn't fair and that he had the misfortune of having his life shaped by less-than-positive experiences and situations not under his control--like being born to nobles.

So when see a crazy pedophile like Micheal Jackson on the news, even if you can't feel compassion for him at least feel aidos and understand that he's still a person trying to find happiness just like you. And pedophiles and rapists and murderers in general, they are immoral (find they find their happiness in a nonproductive way that deprives others of happiness). But you should try to be the moral person and love them, love thy enemy, as Jesus taught and would do.

So be a moral person by: finding your happiness by making others happy.

Oh, I also don't believe in absolute good and evil (don't believe in evil eiteher, just badness blah blah nonproductive blah). Take Jesus for instance. I don't believe he was divine or the Son of God (I'm an atheist) but he was a really awesome guy. He broke (one of) the Ten Commandments! Like the sabbath. He was God and God broke his own rules! He was pretty cool.

So even the Ten Commandments aren't absolute. Like killing. We're suppose to support the troops even tho they're killing (to protect others, yeah, but don't you see the irony--they're fighting death, the death of their loved ones back home, by killing. I think that's pretty ironic--I'm not saying bad, life could not exist without death). And killing to save your own life, in self defense, is ok. I believe the world isn't black and white--it has shades of gray, too, but not only that, it's a rainbow!

And killing is ok a la coup de grace. If someone is suffering on the battlefield, it's ok... oh, isn't there a post on euthanasia? I guess I should save that for there.