Conscience = Survival Instincts

[joe1776]

Knowledge must be learned from an effect (as in cause-and-effect) first observed from one of our five senses. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it. We refer to those intuitive feelings as conscience. In other words, if we humans couldn't first feel the difference between a specific act that is wrong and one that is justified, we would know absolutely nothing about morality.

Conscience is our only moral guide, but we have free will. We can follow the guidance of conscience or ignore it.

Now, here's where we humans went wrong: Having learned about morality from conscience, we decided to apply our reasoning minds, of which we are so proud, to improving on human behavior by writing moral rules and criminal laws.

Since conscience is our only moral authority, our moral rules and laws aren't necessary, but when they don't conflict with the judgments of conscience, they do no harm. When our moral rules conflict, they become biases capable of throwing judgments off course. For example, many Catholics were probably misled morally when their pope, in 1866, declared (correctly) that he found nothing in his Bible opposed to the buying, selling and trading of slaves.

We humans are gradually learning from our mistakes, so it's a good bet that some future generation will dump the moral rule-making and trust conscience alone as its moral authority.

Now, here's an interesting thought I'd like you to consider: Maybe the intuitive judgments that we've been calling "conscience." are actually survival instincts. For example, conscience informs us that some acts of killing other humans are wrong (murder) but those in self-defense are justifiable. This is well-aligned with the survival of our species since it would dilute the gene pool of the violent bullies among us. In contrast, if all the good people on the planet were pacifists, the bully-tyrants of the world would kill many and dominate and oppress others.

Your thoughts?

 

[Augustus]

aving learned about morality from conscience, we decided to apply our reasoning minds, of which we are so proud, to improving on human behavior by writing moral rules and criminal laws.

Scale matters.

Once you scale highly diverse human societies up to levels of millions or billions, you cannot organise them based on the proviso that everyone knows instinctively what is right/wrong in every situation so there is no need to codify any rules.

Maybe the intuitive judgments that we've been calling "conscience." are actually survival instincts. For example, conscience informs us that some acts of killing other humans are wrong (murder) but those in self-defense are justifiable. This is well-aligned with the survival of our species

Evolution doesn't operate on the level of the species. When you look at 'survival instincts' based on individual or group level models of evolution the logic operates very differently. Again, scale matters.

Also, we have countless competing intuitive judgements/'survival instincts' that influence us in different ways and do not operate independently of each other.

 

[joe1776]

Once you scale highly diverse human societies up to levels of millions or billions, you cannot organise them based on the proviso that everyone knows instinctively what is right/wrong in every situation so there is no need to codify any rules.

This is your claim but you don't support it with a reason. Why isn't it possible that conscience is a species-wide instinct?

Evolution doesn't operate on the level of the species.

Another claim without an explanation. Why would evolution not apply to our entire species?

Also, we have countless competing intuitive judgements/'survival instincts' that influence us in different ways and do not operate independently of each other.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Can you give me one or two examples?

Conscience informs us that some acts of killing other humans are wrong (murder) but those in self-defense are justifiable. Why would this NOT be an evolved, species-wide instinct? Do you know of societies where this instinct wouldn't apply?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Evolution operates on the level of the population. That could be the entire species, or a more local/regional breeding population (because a population in a limited geographical environment can go extinct in that environment by not successfully adapting to the local conditions.)

The question becomes, how, and if at all, such survival instincts/moral imperatives affect the survivability of the population in which the behavior is observed.

 

[joe1776]

Evolution operates on the level of the population. That could be the entire species, or a more local/regional breeding population (because a population in a limited geographical environment can go extinct in that environment by not successfully adapting to the local conditions.)

The question becomes, how, and if at all, such survival instincts/moral imperatives affect the survivability of the population in which the behavior is observed.

The intuition-instincts we refer to as conscience seem to be solely concerned with how we humans treat each other. The more stressful the environment, the more important it becomes to follow those instincts. But, I can't imagine why those instincts would change depending on the environment. Can you?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The intuition-instincts we refer to as conscience seem to be solely concerned with how we humans treat each other. The more stressful the environment, the more important it becomes to follow those instincts. But, I can't imagine why those instincts would change depending on the environment. Can you?

I've never given it much thought, but I also haven't thought much about how conscience/intuition/instincts would consistently be applied and lead to improved survivability of the population. It may be that they don't, but that they are maintained because we are a social species and such instincts are needed to continue the social units that make up the population.

 

[metis]

Up until about 6 years ago [I'm 76, btw], I never believed in what some call "premonitions", but what I experienced over a 2 year time period changed that. My point is that I do have to wonder whether a part of what we call "conscience" may in fact also be premonitions?

I don't have many answers but I do have tons of questions.

 

[joe1776]

I've never given it much thought, but I also haven't thought much about how conscience/intuition/instincts would consistently be applied and lead to improved survivability of the population. It may be that they don't, but that they are maintained because we are a social species and such instincts are needed to continue the social units that make up the population.

I think those "social units" are cooperative endeavors which allow specialization, and the efficiency of specialization, in turn, increases our chances to survive and thrive. So, if I'm right, those intuitions-instincts we call 'conscience" increase our chances for survival in both of the ways you mentioned.

 

[joe1776]

Up until about 6 years ago [I'm 76, btw], I never believed in what some call "premonitions", but what I experienced over a 2 year time period changed that. My point is that I do have to wonder whether a part of what we call "conscience" may in fact also be premonitions?

I don't have many answers but I do have tons of questions.

I haven't made the connection. Can you describe what you are referring to as "premonition?" An example, maybe?

.

 

[Bear Wild]

Knowledge must be learned from an effect (as in cause-and-effect) first observed from one of our five senses. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it. We refer to those intuitive feelings as conscience. In other words, if we humans couldn't first feel the difference between a specific act that is wrong and one that is justified, we would know absolutely nothing about morality.

Conscience is our only moral guide, but we have free will. We can follow the guidance of conscience or ignore it.

Now, here's where we humans went wrong: Having learned about morality from conscience, we decided to apply our reasoning minds, of which we are so proud, to improving on human behavior by writing moral rules and criminal laws.

Since conscience is our only moral authority, our moral rules and laws aren't necessary, but when they don't conflict with the judgments of conscience, they do no harm. When our moral rules conflict, they become biases capable of throwing judgments off course. For example, many Catholics were probably misled morally when their pope, in 1866, declared (correctly) that he found nothing in his Bible opposed to the buying, selling and trading of slaves.

We humans are gradually learning from our mistakes, so it's a good bet that some future generation will dump the moral rule-making and trust conscience alone as its moral authority.

Now, here's an interesting thought I'd like you to consider: Maybe the intuitive judgments that we've been calling "conscience." are actually survival instincts. For example, conscience informs us that some acts of killing other humans are wrong (murder) but those in self-defense are justifiable. This is well-aligned with the survival of our species since it would dilute the gene pool of the violent bullies among us. In contrast, if all the good people on the planet were pacifists, the bully-tyrants of the world would kill many and dominate and oppress others.

Your thoughts?

What we call conscience are behavioral patterns selected for through evolution to promote effective social behavior. They are not just survival instincts for in many species these behavioral patterns are learned or gained through experience. But they are behavioral from neural patterns and hormonal patterns allowing for greater social complexity in social animals. Social behavior has been an important evolutionary development improving survival of a species by these are not just instincts.

 

[joe1776]

What we call conscience are behavioral patterns selected for through evolution to promote effective social behavior. They are not just survival instincts for in many species these behavioral patterns are learned or gained through experience. But they are behavioral from neural patterns and hormonal patterns allowing for greater social complexity in social animals. Social behavior has been an important evolutionary development improving survival of a species by these are not just instincts.

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

I think we are born with a conscience. We are born knowing right from wrong the way a traveler to a foreign country knows right from wrong but still needs to learn the local customs so that he doesn't accidentally insult an innocent person. Those customs vary from country to country, but insults cause harm -- and intentionally harming an innocent person is wrong in all cultures.

 

[Bear Wild]

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

I think we are born with a conscience. We are born knowing right from wrong the way a traveler to a foreign country knows right from wrong but still needs to learn the local customs so that he doesn't accidentally insult an innocent person. Those customs vary from country to country, but insults cause harm -- and intentionally harming an innocent person is wrong in all cultures.

I disagree. Humans and other animals are born with some instinctual behaviors that allow a newborn animal to survive the initial period of life but these are not about good or evil, they are about initial survival until the more complex behaviors have time to develop. For instance the release of oxytocin has a major effect on many mammals initial bond of mother to offspring associated with the appropriate evolutionary neurologic wiring of the brain. This can be considered good in the sense that the resulting bond increases the likely survival of the offspring. Now social creatures are "hard wired" with mirror neurons and neurologic pathways in the insula area of the brain that promote empathy which improves social cohesiveness but that is influenced through learning in social animals. We call it good when it improves social cohesiveness because we are social animals. Thus recognizing and helping individuals in our social group is called a good behavior "moral behavior" but when different social groups come into contact now competing for a shared resource then aggressive behaviors against the other group members can also be considered a good behavior "moral behavior" to that one group but seen as an evil behavior "non-moral" to the other group when the conflict arises.

Animals also have the cognitive capacity to override conflict behaviors if the concept of the social group can be changed - become more inclusive.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think those "social units" are cooperative endeavors which allow specialization, and the efficiency of specialization, in turn, increases our chances to survive and thrive. So, if I'm right, those intuitions-instincts we call 'conscience" increase our chances for survival in both of the ways you mentioned.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion...but is there evidence...rhetorical question.

again, haven't put serious thought into it, but my mind has come up with a thought experiment:

Consider the 'intuition' that one should, or conversely, should not kill outsiders of the community. It is known that there are communities that take one or the other, and sometimes both under different conditions, positions.

I think that given a little thought we can take either extreme and show a causal chain to being beneficial for survival or harmful to survival of the population...certainly it can be shown both ways to the survival of a community.

Overall, an interesting topic of discussion

 

[joe1776]

I disagree. Humans and other animals are born with some instinctual behaviors that allow a newborn animal to survive the initial period of life but these are not about good or evil, they are about initial survival until the more complex behaviors have time to develop. For instance the release of oxytocin has a major effect on many mammals initial bond of mother to offspring associated with the appropriate evolutionary neurologic wiring of the brain. This can be considered good in the sense that the resulting bond increases the likely survival of the offspring. Now social creatures are "hard wired" with mirror neurons and neurologic pathways in the insula area of the brain that promote empathy which improves social cohesiveness but that is influenced through learning in social animals. We call it good when it improves social cohesiveness because we are social animals. Thus recognizing and helping individuals in our social group is called a good behavior "moral behavior" but when different social groups come into contact now competing for a shared resource then aggressive behaviors against the other group members can also be considered a good behavior "moral behavior" to that one group but seen as an evil behavior "non-moral" to the other group when the conflict arises.

Animals also have the cognitive capacity to override conflict behaviors if the concept of the social group can be changed - become more inclusive.

I recognize that your position follows the evolutionary biologist's playbook. To me, some of it makes sense, much of it doesn't.

For example, I said earlier that the instincts of conscience informs us that intentionally causing harm to innocent others is wrong in all cultures. But statements like that assume we're talking about unbiased minds.

When you write of in-group, out-group moral opinions, you're referring to biased minds incapable of fairly judging right from wrong. You aren't going to make sense of the moral intuition of conscience when you do that.

 

[joe1776]

I think that's a reasonable conclusion...but is there evidence...rhetorical question.

again, haven't put serious thought into it, but my mind has come up with a thought experiment:

Consider the 'intuition' that one should, or conversely, should not kill outsiders of the community. It is known that there are communities that take one or the other, and sometimes both under different conditions, positions.

I think that given a little thought we can take either extreme and show a causal chain to being beneficial for survival or harmful to survival of the population...certainly it can be shown both ways to the survival of a community.

Overall, an interesting topic of discussion

I think we have to recognize that we humans have two sides to our nature, good and bad. So, as to survival, we are both the problem and the solution.

I see group pride and group prejudice as effects of the arrogant side of our nature because we know intuitively that a man who is very proud of being an Irish Catholic would be just as proud, if by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. It's not that his groups are wonderful. It's that he's wonderful and they're HIS groups.

Group pride and Group Prejudice are the causes of most human bad behavior.

Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!
Our race is superior to their!.

 

[metis]

I haven't made the connection. Can you describe what you are referring to as "premonition?" An example, maybe?

.

It would take way too long to explain what I went through, so I'll define what I mean by it, namely to know of something that you couldn't possibly know using our regular senses. As a scientist, now retired, I'm not a superstitious person, but what I went through convinced me that this was very much real. Harriet Tubman supposedly had a great many episodes of premonition according to those who knew her.

In my case, I often refer to it as having a "spiritual connection" because it involved another person. A close friend of mine, who is quite theologically astute, says that it sometimes is referred to as having a "soul mate".

Where it may relate to the OP is that I wonder if there are some people and/or some times whereas a premonition may give one an advantage for survival's sake-- a 6th sense, sort of.

 

[joe1776]

It would take way too long to explain what I went through, so I'll define what I mean by it, namely to know of something that you couldn't possibly know using our regular senses. As a scientist, now retired, I'm not a superstitious person, but what I went through convinced me that this was very much real. Harriet Tubman supposedly had a great many episodes of premonition according to those who knew her.

In my case, I often refer to it as having a "spiritual connection" because it involved another person. A close friend of mine, who is quite theologically astute, says that it sometimes is referred to as having a "soul mate".

Where it may relate to the OP is that I wonder if there are some people and/or some times whereas a premonition may give one an advantage for survival's sake-- a 6th sense, sort of.

I don't know about that, but I've had a couple of "paranormal" experiences in my life, one of telepathy, another of precognition, that physicists don't believe are possible. But, science is a left-brain activity. I think the right brain is a mystery.

 

[Bear Wild]

When you write of in-group, out-group moral opinions, you're referring to biased minds incapable of fairly judging right from wrong. You aren't going to make sense of the moral intuition of conscience when you do that.

That is how human and animal minds work. What is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group. Conscience is an individual construct of the individual human/animal influenced by the individuals neurologic wiring, hormones, environment and social surrounding. The studies completely support this. When we describe morals you are describing what a social group agrees is right or wrong. Despite what a society says is good or evil and describe what is moral, conscience is still in the individual and though they may be influenced by what a social group considers is moral or not it is the individual that will act based on their perception of what is right or wrong based on the influences mentioned above. There are no absolute morals but there is a shared tendency of conscience based on how humans and other animals evolved.

 

[joe1776]

That is how human and animal minds work. What is considered moral is determined by the individual influenced by the social group. Conscience is an individual construct of the individual human/animal influenced by the individuals neurologic wiring, hormones, environment and social surrounding. The studies completely support this. When we describe morals you are describing what a social group agrees is right or wrong. Despite what a society says is good or evil and describe what is moral, conscience is still in the individual and though they may be influenced by what a social group considers is moral or not it is the individual that will act based on their perception of what is right or wrong based on the influences mentioned above. There are no absolute morals but there is a shared tendency of conscience based on how humans and other animals evolved.

If your opinion on morality is correct, the abolition of legal slavery, and its sweeping change, which happened over three centuries, in every culture of the world, couldn't happen as it did because you don't allow for a universal, cross-cultural, moral guide like conscience.

Conscience is a moral guide only. It doesn't prevent immoral behavior based on biases. As I see it, you are mixing the judgments of conscience with personal and cultural biases.

Moral judgments are objective and correct when they are made by the consciences of unbiased minds. This idea is accepted in courtrooms all over the world. Because of the nature of biases, it is sometimes not possible to get an unbiased jury in a particular court so it has to be moved to another jurisdiction -- a "change of venue.".

 

[Bear Wild]

If your opinion on morality is correct, the abolition of legal slavery, and its sweeping change, which happened over three centuries, in every culture of the world, couldn't happen as it did because you don't allow for a universal, cross-cultural, moral guide like conscience.

Conscience is a moral guide only. It doesn't prevent immoral behavior based on biases. As I see it, you are mixing the judgments of conscience with personal and cultural biases.

Moral judgments are objective and correct when they are made by the consciences of unbiased minds. This idea is accepted in courtrooms all over the world. Because of the nature of biases, it is sometimes not possible to get an unbiased jury in a particular court so it has to be moved to another jurisdiction -- a "change of venue.".

The morality of owning slaves has changed with changing society. Morals are agreed upon by a social group. Conscience is an individuals belief of what is good or bad, right or wrong and are influenced by the morals of a group but and an individuals conscience does not prevent them from acting differently to the morals of a society.

There is no universal cross-culture moral conscience but there are definitely trends based on how human and other animal brains work thus there are common patterns to conscience, the bonding of a mother to an infant is an example seen in social animals.

There are no moral judgements that are objective and made by unbiased minds they are far more emotionally derived rather that cognitively.

Our individual conscience is only influenced by socially derived morals and in the end we each make our own decision about how we should behave based on our own conscience.