Morality

[nPeace]

There are multiple regulatory circuits that determine behaviour. Instincts regulate each other. In an older model that we now know is too simplistic we thought that different brain layers have different functions. Instincts were generated in the "lizard brain" and rational thought (and morality) came from the mammalian/primate/human brain of the frontal or neo cortex. The functions of the lizard brain are fast and hard wired. The functions of the neo cortex are flexible (have to be learned). The "higher" functions of the neo cortex are able to regulate functions of the lizard brain. (It's not that simple but as a model it's close enough.)
That's why it is much easier to train a mammal than a reptile.
You need a neo cortex to regulate instincts.

I see you haven't learned any lessons from the past.

It is a natural tendency but more than that it is a natural ability. Based on your ability to use your rational brain, your education and your experiences, you are more or less likely to make conscious choices - or let your instincts make them for you.

Just to be clear, you are saying morality is a natural tendency toward a particular way, but it works well with proper use of you mental faculties, or power of reason?
I've got good news for you.
"Solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong."
That's taken from the Bible book of Hebrews 5:14... written nearly 2,000 years ago, by a religious person, well in advance of modern science.

So if you are right, which I know you are , look who got it right all along.
I was actually, thinking, while looking at the comments being posted, that it doesn't seem too difficult to work out, that humans alone have a built in moral compass, which points in a particular direction, and it can either be trained to always point there, or it can be bombarded with interference - 'magnets' perhaps, that set it in other directions.

We know a compass did not pop into existence on it's own, but it's maker designed it purposefully, in that way, just like we see in humans.
Now if we couple that with something that can be used to deflect any interference to our compass, we are good to go.
It makes sense to me, that the one who made the compass, will also provide the deflector... if he is wise.
What the writer of that text in the book of Hebrews was describing, is actually the deflector - solid food of God's word.

I don't know. I see no rational reason to include a god idea into the explanation of morality or behaviour. For me it seems that pareidolia is an older function of the neo cortex on a level between instinct and true consciousness.

From all the evidence in the universe - from the most infinitesimal structure to the most complex... including our body, there is every rational reason to not dismiss the obvious - that there is a creator... a designer... one beyond your limited understanding.

 

[nPeace]

Morality and ethics are the changeable ways in which a society thinks.
Like @Heyo said, there is no rational reason to include a god idea into the explanation of morality or behavior.

"Morality is a changeable way in which a society thinks."
So, you don't think it's a natural tendency to any particular way.
You believe then that different societies have their own morality, and there is no such thing as wrong or right morals.
So if one society believe in one thing, and another society believes the opposite, one cannot condemn the other, and call their acts inhumane, or atrocious.
Is that what you believe?

I have read that monkey mothers do not let incest happen.

Did you read why?

 

[nPeace]

Our conscience is remarkable. It can give us an immediate judgment enabling us to discern right from wrong despite the fact that human acts vary in an almost infinite number of different situations.

We are born with a conscience. We don't learn to discern right from wrong as many think. The argument against that idea is complicated but the first clue is that, if learning was involved, intelligent people, on the whole, would obviously be morally superior. We've seen no evidence of that.

I'm only guessing that there's a connection to survival because, for example, conscience isn't bothered by killing in self-defense. Over the course of many generations that judgment would diminish the percentage of murderers in the human population. There is research confirming that the murder rate (as a percentage of the population) is going down.

I don't quite agree.
You might want to ask soldiers how they feel about killing in "self defense".
We have a conscience yes, but it still needs to be trained, as it is constantly bombarded with many, many conflicting and corrupting influences.
If we were solidly built on a principle or principles and did not need to learn anything, I might agree with you, but that is not the case, we need guidance.
For example, it may not be obvious, for one to know from conscience alone that puffing on a cigar is not beneficial, nor might one know to stay away from voodoo, or other spiritistic practices.
There are many others.
Then there is imperfection. No man is perfect.

 

[nPeace]

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.

We are not born with a conscience?

 

[nPeace]

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

Yes. that is why even though people are born into the most evil families, they are still bothered by certain actions.
It happens, regardless of the family one is born into.
Why do you think ISIS and other hard core terrorist needs to drug their young "soldiers", or use a form of brainwashing, and manipulation.
Even the young heir of a vicious leader, has to be brainwashed with lies and manipulation.

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

Ah. So I have got the edge over you.
Why not join our school.

You'll learn a lot of cool stuff there... things highly educated people don't know.
(Psalm 119:97-100) 97 How I do love your law! I ponder over it all day long. 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, Because it is with me forever. 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, Because I ponder over your reminders. 100 I act with more understanding than older men, Because I observe your orders.

Genetics? Is spirituality passed on genetically?
Yet, everyone is born with a spiritual need. Matthew 5:3
True, we may not realize it, just as we may not realize we are physically hungry, until we get that pang.
Nevertheless, the Bible has the answers. God created humans in his image, with the tendency to love, and be loved, with the tendency toward justice, etc.

However, yes, the scriptures suggest these are passed on somehow, before exiting the uterus.
(Psalm 139:16) Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.

Will you accept our invitation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

An advice in India - "do not pass under a ladder'. Ladder is not fixed and may slip and injure you. However, I have not understood the reason for another saying. "Drink milk while standing, drink water while sitting." If it is a proverb, then it must have some reason. Can anyone help me to understand this?

I don't know about the milk, but with the ladder it's walk under the ladder and you'll get bad luck (just as splitting the pole and letting a black cat cross your path). It being dangerous would be a more logical response but I guess many superstitions have their place.

 

[nPeace]

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.

So do you know the heart of those people, including yours?
This is what the verse is highlighting.
How can you claim there is no treachery, when you can't know it?

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.

I don't understand what you are saying here, sorry.

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.

That's interesting.
Last I heard, over eight million people were saying the exact opposite... including me.
So would it not be better to take a step back, then take these steps... 1) examine your earlier words, namely, you "cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books", 2) consider the role the heart may be playing in this, 3) humble yourself under the mighty hand of God, that he may instruct you. (James 4:7-10)
Evidently, this was the case with all who came to understand. Acts 8:26-39; Acts 10

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.

You are saying God is not flawless, but it's one thing to say that. It's an entirely different thing, to demonstrate or show it.
Who says God does not, or did not know all possibilities?
Does it make sense that someone would create something with free choice, and not know the possibilities of choice?
Why, even those working on computer AI understand this. Why would you even think of God beneath that.
Why do you think you would do a better job at handling evil, than God does? Reminds me of the teacher illustration.
Honestly, have you really read the Bible?

 

[nPeace]

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.

A dog will bring the leash and its dish to its owner, and open the door for them.
What does such training have to do with lying, stealing, or murder?
Will a hungry rat care if your last meal is left unattended in close vicinity to it?

 

[shunyadragon]

A dog will bring the leash and its dish to its owner, and open the door for them.
What does such training have to do with lying, stealing, or murder?
Will a hungry rat care if your last meal is left unattended in close vicinity to it?

Actually nothing to do with your question nor my response. We're not talking about dogs, rats and cats. You asked a question about primates and I gave two sources.

 

[nPeace]

Actually nothing to do with your question and my response. We're not talking about dogs, rats and cats. You asked a question about primates and I gave two sources.

I asked you about lying, stealing, and murder. You gave me none.

 

[shunyadragon]

I asked you about lying, stealing, and murder. You gave me none.

You asked . . .

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.

You did not ask concerning dogs, cats, and rats.

I gave your references to moral behavior in non-human primates on lying and stealing. Now murder . . .

Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees
By Jonathan Webb

A major study suggests that killing among chimpanzees results from normal competition, not human interference.

Apart from humans, chimpanzees are the only primates known to gang up on their neighbours with lethal results - but primatologists have long disagreed about the underlying reasons.

One proposal was that human activity, including destroying habitats and providing food, increased aggression.

But the new findings, published in Nature, suggest this is not the case.

Instead, murder rates in different chimp communities simply reflect the numerical make-up of the local population.

The international study was co-written by more than 30 scientists and gathers data from some 426 combined years of observation, across 18 different chimp communities.

A total of 152 killings were reported. This includes 58 that were directly observed by researchers; the rest were counted based on detective work - tell-tale injuries or other circumstances surrounding an animal's death or disappearance.

IMAGE COPYRIGHTJOHN MITANI
image captionViolence most often occurs between male chimps, at the fringes of established community territories
Interestingly, the team also compiled the figures for bonobos, with strikingly different results: just a single suspected killing from 92 combined years of observation at four different sites. This is consistent with the established view of bonobos as a less violent species of ape.

Killing the competition
The researchers' global compilation of chimp violent crime statistics allowed them to consider what conditions in a community produce a higher murder rate.

Chimpanzees live in well-defined colonies, and groups of males patrol the borders of each colony's territory. This is where violent conflicts are known to arise, particularly if a patrol encounters a single chimp from a neighbouring community - but never before has this much data on the lethality of those interactions been combined in a single study.

When the scientists compared the figures across chimpanzee research sites, they found that the level of human interference (e.g. whether the chimps had been fed, or their habitat restricted) had little effect on the number of killings.

Instead, it was basic characteristics of each community that made the biggest difference: the number of males within it, and the overall population density of the area.

These parameters link the violence to natural selection: killing competitors improves a male chimp's access to resources like food and territory - and crucially, it will happen more frequently when there is greater competition from neighbouring groups, and when the males can patrol in large numbers, with less risk to their own survival.

IMAGE COPYRIGHTANNE SCHEL/UNIVERSITY OF YORK
image captionChimpanzees and bonobos are our closest living evolutionary relatives
"It's a natural behaviour - it's not something that we've induced by disturbance or intervention," explained Dr Susanne Shultz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Manchester.

Dr Shultz was not involved in the study, but told BBC News the scale of the collected data was impressive.

"There's a real effort to look across a really wide range of populations, and the results are very compelling and very thorough," she said.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes. that is why even though people are born into the most evil families, they are still bothered by certain actions.
It happens, regardless of the family one is born into.
Why do you think ISIS and other hard core terrorist needs to drug their young "soldiers", or use a form of brainwashing, and manipulation.
Even the young heir of a vicious leader, has to be brainwashed with lies and manipulation.

Oftentimes. I don't think we have enough information to conclude that literally every single human being who has ever lived has these tendencies. Again, sociopaths seem to be a notable exception.

Ah. So I have got the edge over you.

Oh really? What's your education been like in genetics and/or embryonic development?

Why not join our school.

What are its qualifications? Is it accredited?

You'll learn a lot of cool stuff there... things highly educated people don't know.
(Psalm 119:97-100) 97 How I do love your law! I ponder over it all day long. 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, Because it is with me forever. 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, Because I ponder over your reminders. 100 I act with more understanding than older men, Because I observe your orders.

I'm quite wary of anyone claiming they know some inside secrets in a field that people who've spent their entire adult lives studying and working on don't know.

Genetics? Is spirituality passed on genetically?

Actually it appears it may be, at least in part. The field of behavioral genetics has a lot to say here. For example, the attached.

Yet, everyone is born with a spiritual need. Matthew 5:3

Why should we believe what Matthew 5:3 says is true?

True, we may not realize it, just as we may not realize we are physically hungry, until we get that pang.
Nevertheless, the Bible has the answers. God created humans in his image, with the tendency to love, and be loved, with the tendency toward justice, etc.

A fascinating sentiment, although sadly without evidence to support it. And salient to this thread, it doesn't actually solve any ethical dilemmas we face. "Love" is one of those squishy English words that can mean lots of things to lots of people. In any given situation, if you say that God wants us to do x, then we still have to ask: why does God want that? Why should we care what he thinks? What's his moral reasoning? Does it make sense? What happens if people want something else so decide to do something else? All the same ethical questions and issues arise.

Will you accept our invitation.

I've studied the Bible basically my entire life, including JW theology, so I doubt you'll have much new for me. Replying with your evidence would be sufficient.

 

[nPeace]

I gave your references to moral behavior in non-human primates on lying and stealing. Now murder . . .

Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees

Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees
By Jonathan Webb

A major study suggests that killing among chimpanzees results from normal competition, not human interference.

Apart from humans, chimpanzees are the only primates known to gang up on their neighbours with lethal results - but primatologists have long disagreed about the underlying reasons.

One proposal was that human activity, including destroying habitats and providing food, increased aggression.

But the new findings, published in Nature, suggest this is not the case.

Instead, murder rates in different chimp communities simply reflect the numerical make-up of the local population.

The international study was co-written by more than 30 scientists and gathers data from some 426 combined years of observation, across 18 different chimp communities.

A total of 152 killings were reported. This includes 58 that were directly observed by researchers; the rest were counted based on detective work - tell-tale injuries or other circumstances surrounding an animal's death or disappearance.

IMAGE COPYRIGHTJOHN MITANI
image captionViolence most often occurs between male chimps, at the fringes of established community territories
Interestingly, the team also compiled the figures for bonobos, with strikingly different results: just a single suspected killing from 92 combined years of observation at four different sites. This is consistent with the established view of bonobos as a less violent species of ape.

Killing the competition
The researchers' global compilation of chimp violent crime statistics allowed them to consider what conditions in a community produce a higher murder rate.

Chimpanzees live in well-defined colonies, and groups of males patrol the borders of each colony's territory. This is where violent conflicts are known to arise, particularly if a patrol encounters a single chimp from a neighbouring community - but never before has this much data on the lethality of those interactions been combined in a single study.

When the scientists compared the figures across chimpanzee research sites, they found that the level of human interference (e.g. whether the chimps had been fed, or their habitat restricted) had little effect on the number of killings.

Instead, it was basic characteristics of each community that made the biggest difference: the number of males within it, and the overall population density of the area.

These parameters link the violence to natural selection: killing competitors improves a male chimp's access to resources like food and territory - and crucially, it will happen more frequently when there is greater competition from neighbouring groups, and when the males can patrol in large numbers, with less risk to their own survival.

IMAGE COPYRIGHTANNE SCHEL/UNIVERSITY OF YORK
image captionChimpanzees and bonobos are our closest living evolutionary relatives
"It's a natural behaviour - it's not something that we've induced by disturbance or intervention," explained Dr Susanne Shultz, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Manchester.

Dr Shultz was not involved in the study, but told BBC News the scale of the collected data was impressive.

"There's a real effort to look across a really wide range of populations, and the results are very compelling and very thorough," she said.

What is this for?
Why do you like to do that... pull up irrelevant quotes, I mean.

 

[nPeace]

Oftentimes. I don't think we have enough information to conclude that literally every single human being who has ever lived has these tendencies. Again, sociopaths seem to be a notable exception.

Seems to be doesn't cut it, now does it?

Oh really? What's your education been like in genetics and/or embryonic development?

What are its qualifications? Is it accredited?

It has the highest qualifications and authorization.

I'm quite wary of anyone claiming they know some inside secrets in a field that people who've spent their entire adult lives studying and working on don't know.

No problem. I understand that quite well. No more quotes.

Actually it appears it may be, at least in part. The field of behavioral genetics has a lot to say here. For example, the attached.



Why should we believe what Matthew 5:3 says is true?

It appears the evidence supports it

A fascinating sentiment, although sadly without evidence to support it. And salient to this thread, it doesn't actually solve any ethical dilemmas we face. "Love" is one of those squishy English words that can mean lots of things to lots of people. In any given situation, if you say that God wants us to do x, then we still have to ask: why does God want that? Why should we care what he thinks? What's his moral reasoning? Does it make sense? What happens if people want something else so decide to do something else? All the same ethical questions and issues arise.

We aren't getting into that, are we?
However, if morality is inborn, and a higher standard of life seems to be our target, then there evidently is an obvious connection.
For example, all over the world, people acknowledge the difference between good standards and bad, and they can see the negative results from not attaining a higher standard of values.
Take as an example adultery and ts effects on the family.

I've studied the Bible basically my entire life, including JW theology, so I doubt you'll have much new for me. Replying with your evidence would be sufficient.

Yeah. I doubt too.
What's the gist of the article?

 

[shunyadragon]

What is this for?
Why do you like to do that... pull up irrelevant quotes, I mean.

No irrelevant quotes. You made a request and I simply responded with citations to fulfill your request.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Morality is a changeable way in which a society thinks."
So, you don't think it's a natural tendency to any particular way.
You believe then that different societies have their own morality, and there is no such thing as wrong or right morals.
So if one society believe in one thing, and another society believes the opposite, one cannot condemn the other, and call their acts inhumane, or atrocious.

No, there is no particular way. Right and wrong is relative to the society.
One should not condemn another society or culture, but accept that there are differences. Condemnation will only bring conflict.
Perhaps monkeys saw the deleterious affects of incest.

 

[nPeace]

No irrelevant quotes. You made a request and I simply responded with citations to fulfill your request.

...and failed. Since, it has no relevance... Except to say, "Oh murder is natural for primates. Therefore it's natural for us." Is that your message?

 

[nPeace]

No, there is no particular way. Right and wrong is relative to the society.
One should not condemn another society or culture, but accept that there are differences. Condemnation will only bring conflict.

Thank you for your opinion.
Then according to your view, no one should be in prison for rape, murder, or child molestation. Right?
Gang members and terrorists should be exempted. Right?

Perhaps monkeys saw the deleterious affects of incest.

I wonder why they don't think of the disastrous effects of manslaughter.

 

[Heyo]

Thank you for your opinion.
Then according to your view, no one should be in prison for rape, murder, or child molestation. Right?
Gang members and terrorists should be exempted. Right?

Right and wrong is relative to the society.
One should not condemn another society or culture, but accept that there are differences.

I think @Aupmanyav was pretty clear here. If in your society rape, murder or child molestation is illegal, rapists, murderers and child molesters should go to prison.
Just don't assume that other societies have the same laws as your country.

Just take the child molester as an example. Who is considered a child according to the law varies widely over the world (between 13 and 19 years of age iirc).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Others would disagree.
What determines that helping the man is morally right?

We must consider if we would like help in the same situation. Do unto others as one would have them do unto oneself, is another moral choice.

Regards Tony