Is There a Universal Moral Grammar? (morals, tradition, choices, choice)

[Sunstone]

I pulled up an old article published on the web by Discover Magazine this morning and read, "Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong." Yet, that's not quite what Marc Hauser is saying.

Instead, it would be more correct to say, Hauser is asserting something along these lines: Our concept that there is such a thing as right and wrong is hardwired into us by our evolution. We have a sort of universal "moral grammar", but not a universal "moral language". For instance: The notion it is wrong to harm an innocent person is universal, but specific notions of who is innocent and who is not innocent are far from being universal.

Yet, most certainly, Hauser is not saying right and wrong exist independent of us. In Hauser's world, man is the measure of right and wrong -- not some metaphysical standard of right and wrong.

Oddly enough, saying "man is the measure of right and wrong" does not preclude a god having something to do with that measure. For, if I were religious, I could always say something like, "God inscribed a universal moral grammar upon the human heart."

Of course, were I both religious and uncomprehending, I could say something like, "God inscribed morality upon the human heart." But that implies there is only one true morality -- and implying that is just as silly as asserting there is only one true human language.

Another way of illustrating the distinction between moral grammar and moral language would be to say morality is hardwired into us much like tool use is hardwired into us. Humans naturally create and use tools. But the specific kinds of tools humans use can vary from culture to culture. And how tools are used can even vary from person to person. So, too, morality is hardwired into us on one level, yet is determined by our culture on another level, and on yet a third level is individual.


From here.

[Sunstone]

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Does anyone want to tackle this one?

That would entail actually reading it.

(Edit: Sorry, it's just been a busy day.)

[stephenw]

I'd like to have a go. This might take a couple of tries...

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I pulled up an old article published on the web by Discover Magazine this morning and read, "Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong." Yet, that's not quite what Marc Hauser is saying.

Instead, it would be more correct to say, Hauser is asserting something along these lines: Our concept that there is such a thing as right and wrong is hardwired into us by our evolution. We have a sort of universal "moral grammar", but not a universal "moral language". For instance: The notion it is wrong to harm an innocent person is universal, but specific notions of who is innocent and who is not innocent are far from being universal..

Would it be more correct to say we have hard-wiring that allows us differentiate between behaviour that meets our needs and advances our needs in cooperative ways and behaviour that does not. 'Right' and 'wrong' can then be seen as functions of adaptive and mal-adaptive. Choices as to innocent or otherwise could then be seen as by-products of this function?

.[/quote]Yet, most certainly, Hauser is not saying right and wrong exist independent of us. In Hauser's world, man is the measure of right and wrong -- not some metaphysical standard of right and wrong..

Oddly enough, saying "man is the measure of right and wrong" does not preclude a god having something to do with that measure. For, if I were religious, I could always say something like, "God inscribed a universal moral grammar upon the human heart.".[/quote]

or indeed that what appears to humans moral is a result of evoloution and this need not be incompatible with beleif in a deity





.[/quote]Of course, were I both religious and uncomprehending, I could say something like, "God inscribed morality upon the human heart." But that implies there is only one true morality -- and implying that is just as silly as asserting there is only one true human language..[/quote]

You've answered that one yourself.


.[/quote]Another way of illustrating the distinction between moral grammar and moral language would be to say morality is hardwired into us much like tool use is hardwired into us. Humans naturally create and use tools. But the specific kinds of tools humans use can vary from culture to culture. And how tools are used can even vary from person to person. So, too, morality is hardwired into us on one level, yet is determined by our culture on another level, and on yet a third level is individual..[/quote]

70% nature, 30% nurture? We are an interaction of genes and environment? I think this fits.


Not the best effort I'm sure but maybe it'll get the ball rolling.


From here.[/quote]

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Another way of illustrating the distinction between moral grammar and moral language would be to say morality is hardwired into us much like tool use is hardwired into us. Humans naturally create and use tools. But the specific kinds of tools humans use can vary from culture to culture. And how tools are used can even vary from person to person. So, too, morality is hardwired into us on one level, yet is determined by our culture on another level, and on yet a third level is individual.

I'm not sure this is closely related to what Hauser is discussing but the similarity is close enough to warrant comment.

A quote from the Fourteenth Dalai Lama:

"Traditionally, it has been considered the responsibility of religion to prescribe what behaviors are wholesome and what are not. However, in today's society, religion has lost its prestige and influence to some degree. And at the same time, no alternative, such as a secular ethics, has come up to replace it."

Perhaps a universal code of ethics/morality is in order?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

I'm not sure this is closely related to what Hauser is discussing but the similarity is close enough to warrant comment.

A quote from the Fourteenth Dalai Lama:

"Traditionally, it has been considered the responsibility of religion to prescribe what behaviors are wholesome and what are not. However, in today's society, religion has lost its prestige and influence to some degree. And at the same time, no alternative, such as a secular ethics, has come up to replace it."

Perhaps a universal code of ethics/morality is in order?

Universalism in language works on the level of grammar. That is, there seems to be a nearly universal grammar. But universalism in language doesn't work on either the level of specific languages nor on the individual level. That is, there are many specific languages, and individuals sometimes create unique uses of the languages they know.

In the same way, universalism in ethics seems to work on a "grammar level". Although the subject is just beginning to be studied, the early results support the notion that there is a universal moral grammar. But universalism in ethics doesn't work on either the level of specific ethical systems or moral codes, nor on the individual level. The world has many specific ethical systems or moral codes. And individuals are notorious for devising their own fairly unique morals.

What I think all of that might mean is that we will never really see a universal ethics or moral code which all people adhere to. Just as we are unlikely to see the world forsake all it's many languages and wind up with just one language that everyone uses exactly the same way.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Stephen W

Would it be more correct to say we have hard-wiring that allows us differentiate between behaviour that meets our needs and advances our needs in cooperative ways and behaviour that does not. 'Right' and 'wrong' can then be seen as functions of adaptive and mal-adaptive. Choices as to innocent or otherwise could then be seen as by-products of this function?

It might be more correct to say that. The study of this subject is still so new that, while it seems to support the notion there is a universal moral grammar, it has not yet resolved precisely what that grammar is.