Morality

[joe1776]

We are born with instincts and the ability to develop a conscience.
One indicator of that is the average IQ of prison inmates. It is far below the average of the population overall.

There is some learning involved. For example, the ways we might insult others will vary from culture to culture, so those cultural differences must be learned so that we don't accidentally insult an innocent person.

However, it is wrong to intentionally harm an innocent person in every culture. We were born knowing that.

 

[joe1776]

One indicator of that is the average IQ of prison inmates. It is far below the average of the population overall.

Dumb criminals are more likely to get caught and less likely to be able to afford a good attorney.

 

[Heyo]

However, it is wrong to intentionally harm an innocent person in every culture.

Sadly, no. See genital mutilation in Judaism and parts of Africa.

We were born knowing that.

We have an instinct to avoid harming other persons. We also have instincts for survival and reproduction that can override the instinct not to harm.
Our learned moral helps us to decide what instinct not to follow.

 

[Heyo]

Dumb criminals are more likely to get caught and less likely to be able to afford a good attorney.

While that is true, it is not enough to explain the massive discrepancy.
More intelligent people are less likely to commit "crimes of passion" (instincts overcoming reason) and more likely to understand the reasons of laws and why it is better for all to hold to them.

 

[joe1776]

Sadly, no. See genital mutilation in Judaism and parts of Africa.

So, your conscience is informing you that a religious practice is wrong. I think you're right but religious and cultural biases can motivate people to ignore their conscience.

We have an instinct to avoid harming other persons. We also have instincts for survival and reproduction that can override the instinct not to harm.
Our learned moral helps us to decide what instinct not to follow.

Give me an example of how our instinct for survival would work against a conscience that informs us that we shouldn't harm an INNOCENT person.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Morality is a choice to live in accordance with principles of justice and compassion.

I'm sorry but this is a really stupid definition.

The word justice can so easily be abused it isn't funny. It typically means payback. Blacks have been oppressed in the slavery period, but rather than trying for true equality, many agitation groups define justice in rather violent ways. Or it means fairness, but if you treat everyone fairly do you ignore vile actions? Batman's folks were gunned down in the street, but under this system Penguin and Joker are perfectly good to roam around killing other people in the street. My best system of justice concluded that unless the police can act for the sake of real compassion (see below), the fact they can be bought by corrupt mayors and ordered to arrest normal people for shopping or attending services, and they delude themselves that following the law for its own sake is right... all that means we probably need an alternative. I proposed bounty hunters because thet are honest to themselves that thisbis about their own greed. A bounty hunter won't touch minor crimes like stealing a loaf of bread for one's sister (24601 is free to go), they're after murderers, rapists, and grand thieves who do a violent robbery or steal everything. Big bounties. As you can see, this too is pretty corrupt and hardly just.

And compassion? Well, if for some reason a man enters your store (me) and they have some sort of emotional or moral hangup about wearing masks, and enter a store after walking for several days. He's walking several days because nowhere helped him. Or is it compassion to care about all of the "normal" people who might get sick because of this man? No one has every proven to me the virus even exists, and you are turning away an obviously suffering man, because of your own insistence that some "normal" people might get sick. "Normal" people who aren't in the store, while someone desperate for food right in front of you, you throw to the curb. Sorry pal, "just following orders". I probably won't get to vote unless they practice true compassion to me. Because I do have such a hang up (as well as many strong moral objections, I have an aunt who kept messing with her mask until it got her sick, and I have some sort of claustrophobic reaction to having mt face boxed in). But in order to help me, they have to "risk" others. If this were real (I saw people with actual symptoms), I wouldn't expect people to care for me that way, and I wouldn't now.

So yes, that's a stupid answer.

Morality is often defined by folk mores/norms/taboos but it can also be defined by the action of integrity.

But what is more important? Your values or the values of others?

 

[joe1776]

While that is true, it is not enough to explain the massive discrepancy.
More intelligent people are less likely to commit "crimes of passion" (instincts overcoming reason) and more likely to understand the reasons of laws and why it is better for all to hold to them.

I don't think such clear-cut statistics exist. Intelligence is a factor in the economic situation. Poor people commit more crimes just to survive.

Laws don't prevent crimes. Even lawyers have to specialize to understand the laws in their jurisdictions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks.
Could you give me the evidence of morals, "n primates today, and our primitive primate ancestors and other higher mammals", where stealing, lying, murder, etc., are morally wrong.

Our Brains are Wired for Morality: Evolution, Development, and Neuroscience.

BUILDING BLOCKS OF MORALITY IN NON-HUMAN SPECIES

Natural observations of animals in the wild and research in laboratories show us that a number of “building blocks” of moral behavior can be found in animals. For instance, many animals exhibit behaviors that benefit other members of their species. Such prosocial behaviors

Refers to any behavior intended to benefit another individual.
(meaning behaviors that are good for others), like helping each other and caring for offspring, have been seen in rodents and primates. Rats will help other distressed rats that have been soaked with water, and it will also choose to help a cage mate that is in distress before obtaining a food reward. Chimpanzees will help each other and share with each other, but only when they benefit from the sharing, as long as the costs are minimal and the needs of the other chimpanzees are clear. Chimpanzees also collaborate and form alliances in fights or when hunting. Capuchin monkeys have even been shown to react in a negative way when they see other monkeys being treated unfairly.

Humans often try to comfort or console other humans who have been hurt or are afraid. Chimpanzees will also try to console the “victim” of a fight by grooming, hugging, and kissing. This behavior decreases the level of stress that the victim feels. Helping behaviors have also been demonstrated in mice and rats. Importantly, with both humans and animals, these prosocial behaviors are more likely to be shown toward kin (those related to the animal) and members of the same social groups. These examples illustrate that empathy

Is the ability to “feel” the emotions that another person is experiencing, often leading to the motivation to care for someone in distress or need.
, which is the ability to “feel” another’s emotional state, often leads to prosocial behaviors and is present in many mammals. Empathy does not require conscious thinking or language. Empathy originally evolved to promote parental care for their offspring, but it is now expressed by humans in many different ways and is not restricted to kin

Refers to one’s relatives or family with whom genes are shared.
Of course, just because we can observe some buildings blocks of morality in non-human animals does not mean that those animals have the same sense of morality that humans do. But, it strongly suggests that morality is a product of evolution. When behaviors seen in the animal kingdom are similar to behaviors found in humans, it suggests that these behaviors have been selected, because they increase the ability of humans to prosper both as individuals and in the groups in which they live.

more to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Even though human morality is more advanced and sophisticated basic primitive morality involving cooperation, deception, and punishment exists in related primates.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310452886_Cooperation_and_deception_in_primates

Cooperation and deception in primates
Katie Hall and Sarah Frances Brosnan

Abstract
Though competition and cooperation are often considered opposing forces in an arms race driving natural selection, many animals, including humans, cooperate in order to mitigate competition with others. Understanding others' psychological states, such as seeing and knowing, others' goals and intentions, and coordinating actions are all important for complex cooperation—as well as for predicting behavior in order to take advantage of others through tactical deception, a form of competition. We outline evidence of primates' understanding of how others perceive the world, and then consider how the evidence from both deception and cooperation fits this framework to give us a more complete understanding of the evolution of complex social cognition in primates. In experimental food competitions, primates flexibly manipulate group-mates' behavior to tactically deceive them. Deception can infiltrate cooperative interactions, such as when one takes an unfair share of meat after a coordinated hunt. In order to counter competition of this sort, primates maintain cooperation through partner choice, partner control, and third party punishment. Yet humans appear to stand alone in their ability to understand others' beliefs, which allows us not only to deceive others with the explicit intent to create a false belief, but it also allows us to put ourselves in others' shoes to determine when cheaters need to be punished, even if we are not directly disadvantaged by the cheater.

 

[PureX]

Is morality a natural tendency towards one particular thing or other? Please explain.

Morality is a value assessment placed on human behavior based on our ethical imperatives. So the question is do we share ethical imperatives, and are they based on nature. And the answer probably is more or less, yes, most of us do share fundamental ethical imperatives, and they are based on our natural experiences and understanding.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not seeing a God that I can say is God. I don't know a God. I have lived 49 years and have come to know what I feel are very high standards for a true God to meet.

There are claims of omnipotence but all I see is that reality causes a lot of suffering that is beyond toleration for a lot of people.

I cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books. I don't see myself as having any responsibility to these books. Mercy, sin, karma, I don't get it. These books are making judgment on all of humanity. And then I have to buy into a substantial amount of information to get approval.

I have no objections that morality must come from mind. And there is some ultimate source somewhere. But honestly I don't see that an ultimate source has much control over reality.

The problem with outsourcing morality to some external mind like God is that it just pushes the problem back a step. Okay, God says x is immoral. Why does he say that? What's his reasoning? It's the classic Euthyphro Dilemma. There's no problem in non-theistic ethics that gets solved by inserting a god in the mix. God just becomes an unnecessary middle man for the discussion of why we regard things as moral or immoral.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm sorry but this is a really stupid definition.

So yes, that's a stupid answer.

Is the rudeness really necessary? Do you somehow feel superior to the person you're responding to when you use such abrasive words?

Do you consider this to be moral behavior?

 

[Heyo]

So, your conscience is informing you that a religious practice is wrong. I think you're right but religious and cultural biases can motivate people to ignore their conscience.

The religion/culture (which is a younger function than the instincts) is overriding the instinct not to hurt innocent children.
An example of how morality can be pretty immoral.

Give me an example of how our instinct for survival would work against a conscience that informs us that we shouldn't harm an INNOCENT person.

Ever tried to save a drowning person? S/he will flail around and cling to you and take you down in panic.

 

[nPeace]

Morals IMO is mostly subconscious programming. It genetics, environment, culture, experience with a little bit of conscious choice thrown in.

Morals is how you feel about right and wrong with regards to ideas and behavior. Mostly on a subconscious level so we can't usually identify the source of those feelings. However we can to some degree govern those feelings. We can try to adopt a moral code, usually of the religious ilk, but that doesn't always work out as we think it ought to. People are driven by their subconscious programming often find themselves unable to live up to their moral ideals.

You ought to be familiar with trying to adopt the moral behavior you think you should have yet finding yourself tempted to act otherwise. Sometimes you are able to do the right thing. Sometimes you find yourself not consciously in control and acting otherwise.

I usually avoid adopting moral codes as these are usually ideas other people have of who I ought to be. They are not really who I am.

So in your opinion, it in not a natural tendency toward any particular way, but a programming, by some programmers - those programmers being whom or what we are influenced by, and sometimes choice comes into play, regarding what we consider moral.
Okay, thanks?

Yes, you are absolutely right, that it's not the easiest thing to conform to a moral standard, but isn't that one of the evidences it is a good moral - because it is of high standard, whereas taking the easy way out, and not being willing to work, results in low standards?
I find that very common today, the quality we see in most products today gives evidence of sloppy, or careless work.

The way I see it, high quality work give evidence of a careful, craftsman - interested in his customers.
Likewise, high standards of morality, gives evidence of one who cares about the well-being and prosperity of their beneficiary.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. It's based on our past experiences and lessons and trial and error.



I don't see morality having a root cause. We were born a clean slate. If we had inherent morals, we would know right from wrong before we make mistakes. I feel our morals come "from" those mistakes which would be at first basic survival skills (don't touch the fire) to more values indoctrinated by the care taker(s) involved in that child's growth. That's why it's so hard to change your morals when you've been following them so long in your life and in adulthood you realize they aren't the best for you at present adulthood as was assumed growing up as a child.

That's what I understood you to be saying.
I was not saying root cause, but root beginning, as in the start of the experience. Everything has a beginning. Not true?
So it began somewhere.

 

[nPeace]

"If I am antisocial." That made me laugh.

Depends on how we're defining natural. I was interpreting your question to ask if certain moral tendencies are innate, ie instinctive, or maybe even genetic, as opposed to something learned. Did you have a different meaning in mind?

The question being asked is,if morality is a natural tendency towards one particular thing or other.
To explain how that might be interpreted. Do humans have an inborn tendency to... for example, do good to others? That's how you could look at it.

If that's your question, then yes, most humans seem to have some common moral instincts. Not all do, as you mentioned.

As I mentioned? Gasp! Did I mention that? I didn't say that.. Did I?

Sociopaths, for example, have no remorse for doing horrible harm to others. Is that "unnatural?" One could argue it's natural to them - some studies have shown that sociopaths actually have brain differences from the average person. I tend to think our moralities are a function of both moral instinct and learning.

Okay, so you believe some humans have an inborn tendency to do 'good' to others, while other people are not born with that tendency.
What do you account for that... Genetics?

 

[Left Coast]

As I mentioned? Gasp! Did I mention that? I didn't say that.. Did I?

I thought so? Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you. Do you think people all have this inborn tendency? Every single one?

Okay, so you believe some humans have an inborn tendency to do 'good' to others, while other people are not born with that tendency.
What do you account for that... Genetics?

Genetics, seems plausible. Possibly also the intrauterine environment? I really don't pretend to know, that's above my pay grade.

 

[nPeace]

I'm not seeing a God that I can say is God. I don't know a God. I have lived 49 years and have come to know what I feel are very high standards for a true God to meet.

What do you mean "seeing a God that I can say is God"? In your expectations, what is God supposed to be?
Would you mind listing those "very high standards".

There are claims of omnipotence but all I see is that reality causes a lot of suffering that is beyond toleration for a lot of people.

I cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books. I don't see myself as having any responsibility to these books. Mercy, sin, karma, I don't get it. These books are making judgment on all of humanity. And then I have to buy into a substantial amount of information to get approval.

At least you admit you "cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books. Whom or what do you blame for that?

I have no objections that morality must come from mind. And there is some ultimate source somewhere. But honestly I don't see that an ultimate source has much control over reality.

I have a suggestion.
Do you think there is any truth to this...
"The heart [Not the physical beating heart] is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

 

[osgart]

What do you mean "seeing a God that I can say is God"? In your expectations, what is God supposed to be?
Would you mind listing those "very high standards".


At least you admit you "cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books. Whom or what do you blame for that?


I have a suggestion.
Do you think there is any truth to this...
"The heart [Not the physical beating heart] is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)

Why is the heart treacherous? I have found that that isn't necessarily true of anyone. I know people who don't have an ounce of treachery in their hearts. Statements like that are sweeping over generalizations. There is no way of judging all humans the same way. Nor is there any way to find that out of all people.

All words and meanings of good character are the virtues. Those are the high standards I hold to. You could write volumes on virtues and still words and lists won't do the standards of virtues any justice in explaining them. But when someone talks of particular virtues such as honesty you can get a sense of what that means. There are at least 100 virtues.

The religious books have no clear message and assume a lot of the reader. It's certainly not my fault that the religious books are very ambiguous. They don't translate well from ancient to modern day. And no two people will agree on how to interpret them.

God is supposed to be supremely virtuous and flawless in creating and maintaining a universe with life in it. God is supposed to know how to handle evil and allow his creations to flourish. Before ever creating life God should know all possibilities of good and evil.

 

[osgart]

The problem with outsourcing morality to some external mind like God is that it just pushes the problem back a step. Okay, God says x is immoral. Why does he say that? What's his reasoning? It's the classic Euthyphro Dilemma. There's no problem in non-theistic ethics that gets solved by inserting a god in the mix. God just becomes an unnecessary middle man for the discussion of why we regard things as moral or immoral.

We don't have any reliable reference for how God reasons. I sense that virtues stand on their own without God, and vices lead to no good thing. God would be a caretaker, teacher, and an authority figure though.

God's importance is in what God can do for us. But first we must stand on our own two feet morally though. I don't think God has to be a moral guide to be important. God could still be masterfully righteous.