Instinct, Morality, and Law

[usfan]

I’ll try substituting a temperature scale and a sense of hot and cold, in the place of a moral code and a sense of morality, in what you’re saying.

Temperature is an empirical, exact science. It can be measured and tested. Animals (and even plants!) can respond to temperature.

Morality is a human abstract. It is not the same as instinct, as those often conflict. Offer a human a moral choice, and they will ponder it internally. Offer an animal the same, and they will respond instinctively.

 

[usfan]

Not all instincts are to do with morality.

Hardly any. They are different mechanisms, and seldom overlap.

If you are insisting that all morality is just animal instinct, then how do you explain the conflicts humans have, when making a moral choice that conflicts with their instincts?

 

[blü 2]

Hardly any. They are different mechanisms, and seldom overlap.

If you are insisting that all morality is just animal instinct, then how do you explain the conflicts humans have, when making a moral choice that conflicts with their instincts?

Why is that a mystery? I'd have thought a harder question was, Why couldn't almighty God get the system right so there were never any conflicts?

Take the examples I gave in my previous post ─

1. Infant nurture is instinctive in mammals. But a mother who neglects her children, and to a lesser extent a father who fails to provide for his children, is subject to moral condemnation. So both elements, instinct and morality, are present. And that's a huge part of the conduct of any human society. Do you say that a mother with no instinct for childcare is free of moral responsibility because childcare's only an instinct?

2. It's a much-recorded phenomenon that many males step in front of the females, even women they don't know, when sudden danger arise eg someone starts shooting. Is it your view that because this behavior is instinctive, it has no moral value, is not worthy of praise, is devoid of nobility or similar approving judgments?

3. You lend Fred money. Fred doesn't pay it back, despite hints, requests, and so on. You get angry. Is it your view that your anger has no moral dimension because it's instinctive? Or do you think Fred's conscience should be telling him what yours says it should be telling him?

Talk me through these so I understand your view.

 

[Jim]

Temperature is an empirical, exact science. It can be measured and tested. Animals (and even plants!) can respond to temperature.

Morality is a human abstract. It is not the same as instinct, as those often conflict. Offer a human a moral choice, and they will ponder it internally. Offer an animal the same, and they will respond instinctively.

I still would like to know, would you agree with this? If not, why not?

Is hot and cold a Real Thing, or a human construct?
If it is something there, that we are all sensing, where did that capacity come from, to be able to sense hot and cold? Why? How?

In a godless universe, temperature can only be a human construct.. a contrivance for some human agenda. The only way that our sense of hot and cold can be a response to something real outside of us is if God, or some unseen Higher Power embedded, or instilled this sense of hot and cold in all humanity. That is the only way that temperature could be measuring something real. There is no basis for measuring temperature in a godless universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And, like i said, which also should be obvious:

IF.. natural selection 'selects' certain traits, it does not explain the origin. These artificial, man made 'values' are human constructs.. that is the only explanation of their origin, since, in a godless universe there is Nobody to instill them.

And, these man made constructs can only be called delusions, in a godless universe, since they are presented by a human controller, for a human agenda. That they allegedly improve survivability (an unbased assumption), is incidental, and does not change their source.

Human construct.
Embedded by God.

Those are the only logical possibilities for morality.

I don't understand your point about delusions. More specifically, your assertion that man made constructs (ie. morality) are a delusion if there is no god. Just because morality is something created by human beings doesn't make it a delusion. As I tried to point out before, the consequences of the moral decisions we make, have actual observable results in the real world, which by definition would make it not a delusion.

 

[Curious George]

You can accuse and assert whatever you like, but that is not a rational rebuttal. My points stand, unrefuted. You merely dismiss them, you do not provide counter arguments or explanations.

I'm not sure you are ready to accept your error. No point in trying to explain a person's error when they don't want to hear about it. I merely pointed to the error you made.

 

[osgart]

Morality is of conception caused by the need for worthy relationship, and seeing the need for a quality of life beyond what the natural world dictates.

The capacity to conceive of whatsoever we wish to make be a reality brings us beyond natural limitations that other life cannot be aware of.

Universal objective morality comes out to be true the more one explores moral possibilities if they have the desire to find it.

There is a Supreme Truth of morals not owned by any being or deity. From this truth springs the fruits of true love. A love that is not sexual or romantic, but a love that is of pure platonicy. A love for self and others, a love for every virtue discovered, a love that rejects evil.

Imo, we are all fallible humans compared to this ideal, supreme, morality. Nature is blind, nature is indifferent to morality, and nature is to be contended with in regards to morality.

 

[usfan]

I see a very sharp distinction between 'morality', as a Real Thing, and normal animal instinct.

Definitions, again:

Instinct: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Morality: *principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior*

Morality and instinct are not synonymous. Instinct is an involuntary response to stimuli, not a reasoned decision. 'Right and wrong' are meaningless factors, in an instinctive situation. You react, instinctively, with no moral question. ONLY if morality arrests the instinct, does an inner struggle occur. This is a Moral conflict, not an instinctual one.

It is morality, not instinct, that tells you to not steal an item you see and want. An animal instinct would say, 'Take it!', with no second thought. It is the moral 'sense' that overrides the instinct.

The same with survival. The 'flight' instinct would cause you to flee from personal danger. But the moral sense overrides that instinct, and invokes courage, for duty, honor, pride, or other intangibles that have no instinctive basis.

Pick an instinct. Almost every one is tempered by an overriding moral decision. Sex, vs restraint. Theft, vs respect for property. Murder, vs Natural Law. A moral 'sense', at times conflicting with our natural instincts, 'reasons' with us, at the conscience level, so we do not respond instinctively.

Morality, as a factor in behavior, is unique to the human animal. All other animals respond instinctually, to their environment. They migrate like clockwork. Breed & hibernate, at instinctive intervals. They steal, murder, & have random sex, with no sting of conscience.

So, the Real Question is, 'What is the Source of this 'sense' of morality? Did an Embedding Force put it there? Or is it a acquired trait, indoctrinated by society or human manipulation?
To assert, 'Evolution did it!!', with no reasoning, data, or logical progression is a leap of faith. Evolution could 'select' traits that enhance survival, but it is an irrational stretch to claim that all moral values seen in the human animal 'enhance survival.'

It is a logical conclusion to perceive delusion, if this is a godless universe. But it is conflicted to claim belief in morality AND 'no God'.

 

[blü 2]

I see a very sharp distinction between 'morality', as a Real Thing, and normal animal instinct.

Definitions, again:

Instinct: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Morality: *principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior*

Morality and instinct are not synonymous. Instinct is an involuntary response to stimuli, not a reasoned decision. 'Right and wrong' are meaningless factors, in an instinctive situation. You react, instinctively, with no moral question. ONLY if morality arrests the instinct, does an inner struggle occur. This is a Moral conflict, not an instinctual one.

It is morality, not instinct, that tells you to not steal an item you see and want. An animal instinct would say, 'Take it!', with no second thought. It is the moral 'sense' that overrides the instinct.

The same with survival. The 'flight' instinct would cause you to flee from personal danger. But the moral sense overrides that instinct, and invokes courage, for duty, honor, pride, or other intangibles that have no instinctive basis.

Pick an instinct. Almost every one is tempered by an overriding moral decision. Sex, vs restraint. Theft, vs respect for property. Murder, vs Natural Law. A moral 'sense', at times conflicting with our natural instincts, 'reasons' with us, at the conscience level, so we do not respond instinctively.

Morality, as a factor in behavior, is unique to the human animal. All other animals respond instinctually, to their environment. They migrate like clockwork. Breed & hibernate, at instinctive intervals. They steal, murder, & have random sex, with no sting of conscience.

So, the Real Question is, 'What is the Source of this 'sense' of morality? Did an Embedding Force put it there? Or is it a acquired trait, indoctrinated by society or human manipulation?
To assert, 'Evolution did it!!', with no reasoning, data, or logical progression is a leap of faith. Evolution could 'select' traits that enhance survival, but it is an irrational stretch to claim that all moral values seen in the human animal 'enhance survival.'

It is a logical conclusion to perceive delusion, if this is a godless universe. But it is conflicted to claim belief in morality AND 'no God'.

So stop generalizing and talk me through the three specific examples I gave you ─ and there are plenty more where they came from.

 

[sooda]

The interrelationships between these 3 parts of human motivation are not always delineated. They are often blurred together, so they all seem the same, and the nuances of each element are missed. I propose a deeper look into each element, parsing them as different, for better understanding of ourselves and the peculiarities of the human animal.

First, definitions:

Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*

Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity.

Instinct is an animal quality, where certain responses are programmed internally, apart from a learned response. Migration of birds. Self preservation. Maternal care. It differs from morality in that is involuntary, not a rational choice.

From Merriam's: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Law is a codefied rule, enforced by a human agenct.

Merriam's: *a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority*

Law can be a moral imperative, or even an instinct. Or, it can be something arbitrary, contrary to a moral sense or instinct. Power to enforce a law is the determining factor. Morals can be observed with or without the force of law. Law can be immoral, or counter instinctive.

The relationships between these human elements are fascinating, and are rooted in a fundamental belief about the universe.

The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality.

Any thoughts, differences, additions, examples, or corrections on these concepts?

'Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,"

Who says that?

 

[usfan]

I'm not sure you are ready to accept your error.

I dont accept your unbased, false accusation.. that is all..

What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[usfan]

Ok. I've answered these points, but not in numbered order. Though i will not always hop if you say frog, especially since you ignore most of my points, and just repeat beliefs.

1. Infant nurture is instinctive in mammals.

Answered it yourself.

2. It's a much-recorded phenomenon that many males step in front of the females, even women they don't know, when sudden danger arise eg someone starts shooting. Is it your view that because this behavior is instinctive, it has no moral value, is not worthy of praise, is devoid of nobility or similar approving judgments?

Why must i pick your caricatures or straw man choices? You've said it is an instinct. What moral dilemma do you see, here? Make your own points, here, instead of trying to bait me with straw men. I agree this is an instinct. Moral dilemmas often arise in response to instinctive behavior.

3. You lend Fred money. Fred doesn't pay it back, despite hints, requests, and so on. You get angry. Is it your view that your anger has no moral dimension because it's instinctive? Or do you think Fred's conscience should be telling him what yours says it should be telling him?

Anger, in this case, would be a moral response, not an instinct. Most people wrestle with anger, be it justified or not, as a MORAL issue. The conflicts and choices made show it to be a moral choice, not an instinctive response.

 

[usfan]

Morality is of conception caused by the need for worthy relationship,

Ok.. you seem to be saying that it is a human construct.. that is the only logical possibility, in a godless universe, and may even be the case in a God made universe, if God did not embed morality in man.

The capacity to conceive of whatsoever we wish to make be a reality

'perceived reality', yes. That is what i called, 'delusion'. Believing in something that is not real, but a human contrivance.

Universal objective morality comes out to be true the more one explores moral possibilities if they have the desire to find it.

?
You lost me, here. First you say morality is a perceived, imagined conception, now, you find it to be true? If it is real, and not a human construct, how could you 'find' it? You just imagined it before, how did it become real?

 

[usfan]

The sex drive is an instinct. Men would bang any female they could catch, with no moral restraint. THAT is the instinct.

Morality, otoh, tells men to restrain themselves. Respect boundaries. If they meet an attractive married woman, it is morality, not instinct, that restrains them from hopping in the sack.

So our natural instinct, to procreate with any and every woman of child bearing age, is tempered by a moral 'sense', that is either constructed by man, for manipulation, or is embedded by a Higher Power, or Creator.

Why should we let deluded human platitudes interfere with our natural instincts, if we are in a godless universe?

 

[osgart]

Ok.. you seem to be saying that it is a human construct.. that is the only logical possibility, in a godless universe, and may even be the case in a God made universe, if God did not embed morality in man.
'perceived reality', yes. That is what i called, 'delusion'. Believing in something that is not real, but a human contrivance.

?
You lost me, here. First you say morality is a perceived, imagined conception, now, you find it to be true? If it is real, and not a human construct, how could you 'find' it? You just imagined it before, how did it become real?

Objective universal morality is not physically real. However the conception of such a morality and how it may affects the hearts of mankind makes it become a reality if desired and realized.

Whatever can be conceived about morality can take on a life of its own.

To discover a cause and effect, that is supremely true is not out of reach of conception. What we can conceive of morally, we can become.

 

[blü 2]

Ok. I've answered these points, but not in numbered order. Though i will not always hop if you say frog, especially since you ignore most of my points, and just repeat beliefs.

Answered it yourself.

No, you're dodging the issue. Do you agree that as well as being instinctive it has a strong moral element? That humans make negative judgments about people who are bad parents, and that those judgments are moral judgments?

Why must i pick your caricatures or straw man choices? You've said it is an instinct.

I've said it's more than an instinct ─ that it's accompanied by a moral element. Do you agree or disagree? State your position and your reasoning clearly please.

What moral dilemma do you see, here? Make your own points, here, instead of trying to bait me with straw men. I agree this is an instinct. Moral dilemmas often arise in response to instinctive behavior.

Then what is the problem you're complaining about? My entire point is that some instinctive behaviors have important moral aspects.

So tell me in plain words: is it praiseworthy to instinctively step between a gunman and a woman? ─ praiseworthy requiring a moral judgment, of course.

Anger, in this case, would be a moral response, not an instinct.

Oh come now! Anger would be a natural, an instinctive, reaction to frustration.

Most people wrestle with anger, be it justified or not, as a MORAL issue. The conflicts and choices made show it to be a moral choice, not an instinctive response.

So you sit at your desk pondering this debt Fred owes you, and you coolly consider all the options, and after thinking about it, you say, Okay, what I'll do is choose to become angry about this matter.

Nah, that's simply silly. Of course anger is an instinctive reaction to frustration. It's not the only possibility, but it's still instinctive. And as you suggest, although instinctive, it has a moral aspect.

 

[usfan]

'Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,"

Who says that?

Jefferson?

 

[usfan]

No, you're dodging the issue. Do you agree that as well as being instinctive it has a strong moral element? That humans make negative judgments about people who are bad parents, and that those judgments are moral judgments?

I'm not 'dodging!' anything. And, if every response to me will be laden with ad hom, i will tire of replying.

Are morals intertwined with instincts? Of course. I have listed many examples of the moral 'struggle' with some instincts.

Does that make them the same? No. It emphasizes their difference.

Make your own points, or respond to mine. But don't presume to make mine.

 

[blü 2]

Are morals intertwined with instincts? Of course. I have listed many examples of the moral 'struggle' with some instincts.

Does that make them the same? No. It emphasizes their difference.

So is it praiseworthy to step instinctively between the gunman and the women?

Yes it is, it's brave, altruistic, accepts the risk of self-sacrifice?

No, it's not, it's merely instinct, something animals do, no considered response is involved?

Which, in your view?

 

[usfan]

So tell me in plain words: is it praiseworthy to instinctively step between a gunman and a woman? ─ praiseworthy requiring a moral judgment, of course.

This is irrelevant. Whether a moral dilemma is or can take place does not change the instinctive behavior.

Whether something is 'praiseworthy!', or not, is a moral judgment.

This thread is about the delineation between instinct, morality, and law. They often intersect, overlap, and combine. They also conflict, at times.

I do not see how your examples apply. Nor do i see a point. Mine are clear and straightforward, if you want to address them, or offer a rebuttal. But demanding i follow some tangential points with no application or rebuttal seems like a diversion.