The Definition of Morality

[oldbadger]

Hi there!

Hi back....!

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."
Do you agree or disagree with this definition?

No. (I'm in a 'No' mood. )

No! So if a person acts upon a 'Moral' code even though it causes them harm, or damage, or loss........ where's the benefit in that?

Morality is an impostor, it changes its face and character to suit so many different cultures, groups, nationalities.

One country's wonderful hero is another country's evil dastardly coward.
The word is meaningless in as much as it can always be replaced by a better word.

Now I'm going off to hide somewhere.

 

[joe1776]

Given that there are striking commonalities in the moral and value systems of all human cultures, I think the only reasonable explanation is that morals and values are to some measure and in some way encoded in our DNA, probably in the form of instincts or predilections for certain kinds of behavior.

If so, it would be absurd to dismiss the likelihood that morals and values were subject to evolutionary pressures.

I think you're right. For example, our intuitive conscience finds nothing wrong with a killing in self-defense. If we project this judgment call over many generations, it would weaken the impact of murderers on the gene pool.

Moreover, we have research to confirm that the murder rate has fallen over many generations.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Given that there are striking commonalities in the moral and value systems of all human cultures, I think the only reasonable explanation is that morals and values are to some measure and in some way encoded in our DNA, probably in the form of instincts or predilections for certain kinds of behavior.

If so, it would be absurd to dismiss the likelihood that morals and values were subject to evolutionary pressures.

How would you go about proving that?

I don't dismiss the likelihood. Because it cannot be socially tested in our evolutionary history I accept it as a possibility, yet I do not accept it as fact. But the author says that certain aspects of morality are evolutionary but then goes on to say that what is considered morality that falls out of bounds of those certain aspects are side effects, which I think is just conjecture.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't think it much addresses Morality. Something can be immoral and schieve the same results.

Example?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Other animals also exhibit forms of morality, not just within Ape species like our own, this still points to a biological basis, not a human one.

Do Animas Know Right From Wrong? | Live Science

"Until recently, scientists would have said your cat was snuggling up to you only as a means to get tasty treats. But many animals have a moral compass, and feel emotions such as love, grief, outrage and empathy, a new book argues."

Coincidentally, I have been watching videos of animals helping each other out and saving other animals and humans. Such as Gorillas who were raised amongst humans protecting children from other Gorillas. So I do believe that animals have a sense of caring. I think that morality is code resulting from empathy. So their empathy provides them with a moral compass?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hi back....!



No. (I'm in a 'No' mood. )

No! So if a person acts upon a 'Moral' code even though it causes them harm, or damage, or loss........ where's the benefit in that?

Morality is an impostor, it changes its face and character to suit so many different cultures, groups, nationalities.

One country's wonderful hero is another country's evil dastardly coward.
The word is meaningless in as much as it can always be replaced by a better word.

Now I'm going off to hide somewhere.

Is it not possible then that morality is a set of codes applying to their respective tribes? This would explain why it differs from tribe to tribe and promotes tribalism as expressed by laws and religion?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If not, then please explain your reasoning and what you think the actual definition is or should be?

It seems to me to be sort of lacking a "group think" dimension - that the morally acceptable items held by a society are not necessarily distinctly tied to a "psychology" or "selfishness" of an individual. I suppose it could be said that the individual psychologically adapts to the mores of his/her society, and this paves the way for continued cooperation/support, and societal adherance is just this played out en masse. However, these types of influences on individual morality become a property of the group, and individuals may or may not adapt to them at will. So where does that put them, according to the definition above?

It also doesn't seem to account for altruism. By this definition, I would think altruism wouldn't even be acknowledged to exist. Any action taken that was considered of a "moral" quality, would be considered of "selfish" origins, or done to "reap the benefits of cooperation." But what of the person who gives anonymously without expectation of any reward? Perhaps it makes them feel good about themselves, and is still ultimately "selfish?" However, even in that vein, how are they "reaping the benefits of cooperation?" With whom have they cooperated? Without a subject to have "cooperated" with, how have they reaped the benefits of cooperation specifically?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think you're right. For example, our intuitive conscience finds nothing wrong with a killing in self-defense. If we project this judgment call over many generations, it would weaken the impact of murderers on the gene pool.

Moreover, we have research to confirm that the murder rate has fallen over many generations.

But isn't the murder rate decreasing because of many factors, such as education, technology, spread of wealth etc.? I mean, there are countries where the murder rate has increased. So wouldn't the murder rate be dependent social conditions, so that a person's intuitive conscience is shaped more by social forces than anything else?

 

[The Hammer]

Coincidentally, I have been watching videos of animals helping each other out and saving other animals and humans. Such as Gorillas who were raised amongst humans protecting children from other Gorillas. So I do believe that animals have a sense of caring. I think that morality is code resulting from empathy. So their empathy provides them with a moral compass?

I think that we are all thinking and percieving creatures, and via feeling emotions (happy, sad, fear), some that feel pleasant, and some that feel unpleasant, we follow this "compass", and either adjust our behavior to avoid the things that feel unpleasant, or those negative actions continue to harm us. It is a combination of ingrained drives to seek out what feels good, as well as a learned pattern of behaviour through either experience or the passing of knowledge (as in humans). It's a cost benefit analysis in it's simplest form.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It seems to me to be sort of lacking a "group think" dimension - that the morally acceptable items held by a society are not necessarily distinctly tied to a "psychology" or "selfishness" of an individual. I suppose it could be said that the individual psychologically adapts to the mores of his/her society, and this paves the way for continued cooperation/support, and societal adherance is just this played out en masse. However, these types of influences on individual morality become a property of the group, and individuals may or may not adapt to them at will. So where does that put them, according to the definition above?

It also doesn't seem to account for altruism. By this definition, I would think altruism wouldn't even be acknowledged to exist. Any action taken that was considered of a "moral" quality, would be considered of "selfish" origins, or done to "reap the benefits of cooperation." But what of the person who gives anonymously without expectation of any reward? Perhaps it makes them feel good about themselves, and is still ultimately "selfish?" However, even in that vein, how are they "reaping the benefits of cooperation?" With whom have they cooperated? Without a subject to have "cooperated" with, how have they reaped the benefits of cooperation specifically?

I agree with you. In the book tribalism and altruism are addressed. The author says that humans are naturally tribalistic, so we are built to only be able to socialise in a certain size group and the smaller the group, the smaller the bond and the stronger the morality. So we care more about what happens to our family and less about those who are acquaintances or who we do not know. I think the author also said that through evolution we developed a chemical in our brain that triggers empathy, and the side effect of empathy is that many humans help those who are not of their tribe, hence altruism.

So even though the author thinks that his definition covers tribalism and altruism, from your explanation it doesn't actually account for this and he shrugs off altruism as a side effect of our evolved morality.

 

[joe1776]

OK, so both you and I agree that there is some learning involved. The question then is: to what extent is learning involved. Do we intuitively feel wrongness because of something innate within us or through social influence and does this involve all of our sense of morality or just a bit of it?

The reasoning function of the brain is involved with learning. So, I'll broaden your question to make it: How is reasoning involved with moral questions? In a criminal court these are typical questions of reason: What exactly happened? Who did it? Was the harm done intentionally?

Theses are questions of conscience: Was the act immoral or justified? What is a fair sentence (assuming guilt).

Your last point seems loaded to me because who each culture regards as "innocent" has varied throughout history. Those who wrote the Bible didn't regard certain children and animals to be innocent, as an example. The Aztecs didn't think it wrong to kill tribes of people to quench their gods' thirst fro blood, so did were they OK with killing the innocent, or did they even think anybody was innocent at all?

Biases are capable of sending Truth and Justice off course. The kind of behavior you list are cultural biases that once existed. My position is that it is the nagging of conscience over the years that causes moral progress by eliminating these biases.

 

[joe1776]

But isn't the murder rate decreasing because of many factors, such as education, technology, spread of wealth etc.? I mean, there are countries where the murder rate has increased. So wouldn't the murder rate be dependent social conditions, so that a person's intuitive conscience is shaped more by social forces than anything else?

I can only show that the murder rate is decreasing and that such a decrease would correlate with the survival advantages gained from the judgments of conscience on murder and self-defense. I can't eliminate other possible causes.

One Oxford study showed a decrease in the murder rate in Europe over 800 years. The other study was more recent. I don't have the time right now to dig them out for you.

 

[Nimos]

Hi there!

So I am hoping there are posters out there who are chomping at the bit to get into a good old-fashioned RF scrap!

I have just started reading a book called "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them" authored by Joshua Greene.

It is a fascinating book with which I agree on much but also disagree with a bit too, especially with the idea of evolutionary morality since it is an idea that cannot really be examined, thus is unfalsifiable, and therefore the author is just throwing conjecture regarding how we evolved our morality.

But that is besides the point of this thread.

What I would really like to get everyone's thoughts on is his definition of morality below:

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If not, then please explain your reasoning and what you think the actual definition is or should be?

Haven't read the book myself, but found this quote from it. Which might put the statement into context so it's easier to understand.

“After Darwin, human morality became a scientific mystery. Natural selection could explain how intelligent, upright, linguistic, not so hairy, bipedal primates could evolve, but where did our morals come from? Darwin himself was absorbed by this question. Natural selection, it was thought, promotes ruthless self-interest. Individuals who grab up all the resources and destroy the competition will survive better, reproduce more often, and thus populate the world with their ruthlessly selfish offspring. How, then, could morality evolve in a world that Tennyson famously described as “red in tooth and claw”? We now have an answer. Morality evolved as a solution to the problem of cooperation, as a way of averting the Tragedy of the Commons: Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation.”
― Joshua Greene, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them

I don't think he is right, mostly because I think he misunderstand the purpose of natural selection as being a selfish thing.

Natural selection
the process that results in the continued existence of only the types of animals and plants that are best able to produce young or new plants in the conditions in which they live.

If you look at humans or other primates for that matter, we are social animals that live close together in societies. We didn't use to be on the top of the food chain, which means that for a ancient human to set out on their own as a selfish individual, would most likely mean that they wouldn't survive very long. If males would simply leave pregnant women alone, hardly any of them would survive the pregnancy period and definitely not the years after birth, having to try to take care of a crying kid, while at the same time having to gather food, make shelters etc. And at the same time hope to not get eaten by a pack of predators. If humans were selfish, we would have gone extinct.

Therefore I see morality as more of a mechanism of measuring or evaluating, trust and collaboration within a group of individuals that are already socialized or bound together. And not something to combat the selfishness of a species.

For instance if a group member steal food from the rest of the group, morality as mechanism kicks in as natural justice system, because such behaviour is not beneficial for the group as a whole. And therefore such individual would be punished. Ultimately I think this comes down to the relationships found within a group. Meaning such person, would not just steal food from random people, but from someone's child, parents, their aunts or close friends etc. Which not only hurt the group, but also spread mistrust within the group, and were such thing allowed to go on, most likely the group would perish quite fast. Obviously this is when we talking smaller groups back in the days, which is why in modern societies, we rely on a legal justice system to take care of it.

So at least to me, I would say that:
"Morality is a natural mechanisms by which individuals of a species can judge each other towards some common standards, that makes sure that trust and collaboration is maximized for the benefit of the groups survival."

And the reason for it having developed as it has, is because the majority of people, not capable of following these moral guidelines, did not survive. Our species and most primates species are not capable of surviving on their own as selfish individuals.

 

[Bear Wild]

Hi there!

So I am hoping there are posters out there who are chomping at the bit to get into a good old-fashioned RF scrap!

I have just started reading a book called "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them" authored by Joshua Greene.

It is a fascinating book with which I agree on much but also disagree with a bit too, especially with the idea of evolutionary morality since it is an idea that cannot really be examined, thus is unfalsifiable, and therefore the author is just throwing conjecture regarding how we evolved our morality.

But that is besides the point of this thread.

What I would really like to get everyone's thoughts on is his definition of morality below:

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If not, then please explain your reasoning and what you think the actual definition is or should be?

Have you read
"Conscience: the origins of Moral Intuition" by Churchland, Patricia. It gives support for the evolutionary basis for morals. The clear evidence supports that what we call morals are pro-social behaviors that evolved with time and are highly variable depending on the social context. Morals are highly variable depending on context of a situation. What is clear there is growing neurologic/hormonal evidence to show how our brains developed the mechanisms to support social behaviors which we then use words to describe as morals.

 

[Ancient Soul]

I think that we are all thinking and percieving creatures, and via feeling emotions (happy, sad, fear), some that feel pleasant, and some that feel unpleasant, we follow this "compass", and either adjust our behavior to avoid the things that feel unpleasant, or those negative actions continue to harm us. It is a combination of ingrained drives to seek out what feels good, as well as a learned pattern of behaviour through either experience or the passing of knowledge (as in humans). It's a cost benefit analysis in it's simplest form.

All good points, but you are leaving out empathy and compassion for others that also leads to morality, like not taking from someone in need, but helping them instead.

 

[The Hammer]

All good points, but you are leaving out empathy and compassion for others that also leads to morality, like not taking from someone in need, but helping them instead.

That I think I covered in an earlier post referencing Altruism and it's impact on reproductive fitness.

 

[Ancient Soul]

That I think I covered in an earlier post referencing Altruism and it's impact on reproductive fitness.

Ok, my oversight.

 

[The Hammer]

How would you go about proving that?

I don't dismiss the likelihood. Because it cannot be socially tested in our evolutionary history I accept it as a possibility, yet I do not accept it as fact. But the author says that certain aspects of morality are evolutionary but then goes on to say that what is considered morality that falls out of bounds of those certain aspects are side effects, which I think is just conjecture.

There is skeletal proof that our Neanderthal cousins from which we share a common Ancestor and interbred with, also cared for their sick, elderly, and wounded: as shown by healed major fractures, and jaw bone dental resorption amongst the elderly (meaning someone fed and hunted for them). So technically it can be tested in our Evolutionary history.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Hi there!

So I am hoping there are posters out there who are chomping at the bit to get into a good old-fashioned RF scrap!

I have just started reading a book called "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them" authored by Joshua Greene.

It is a fascinating book with which I agree on much but also disagree with a bit too, especially with the idea of evolutionary morality since it is an idea that cannot really be examined, thus is unfalsifiable, and therefore the author is just throwing conjecture regarding how we evolved our morality.

But that is besides the point of this thread.

What I would really like to get everyone's thoughts on is his definition of morality below:

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If not, then please explain your reasoning and what you think the actual definition is or should be?

Before considering the question of the actual existence of
evil we will add the following: the two great religious dimensions-
exoterism and esoterism-can be, if not defined at
least described to some extent by associating with the former
the terms .. morality," .. action." ··merit." ··grace," and with
the latter the terms ··symbolism." ··concentration," ··knowledge,"
··identity"~ thus the passional man will approach God
through action supported by a moral code, while the contemplative,
on the other hand will become united with his
Divine Essence through concentration supported by... a
symbolism, without. of course, this excluding the former
attitude within the limits that are proper to it Morality is a
principle of action. therefore of merit. whereas symbolism is
a support of contemplation and a means of intellection~
merit. which is acquired by a mode of action, has for its goal
the Grace of God whereas the goal of intellection. insofar
as the latter can be distinguished from its goal is union or
identity with That which we have never ceased to be in our
existential and intellectual Essence~ in other words, the
supreme goal is the reintegration of man in the Divinity, of
the contingent in the Absolute, of the finite in the Infinite.
Morality as such obviously has no meaning outside the
relatively very restricted domain of action and merit. and
therefore in no way extends to such realities as symbolism,
contemplation, intellection, and identity through knowledge.
As for moralism, which must not be confused with
morality, this is merely the tendency to substitute the moral
point of view for all other points of view~ it has the result. in
Christianity at least. of fostering a kind of prejudice or
suspicion with regard to anything of an agreeable nature, as
well as the erroneous notion that all pleasant things are only
that and nothing more. It is forgotten that for the true contemplative
the positive quality and hence the symbolic and
spiritual value of such things will greatly outweigh any disadvantage
that may arise from a temporary indulgence of
human nature, for every positive quality is essentially though
not existentially-identified with a Divine quality or
perfection that is its eternal and infinite prototype. If in
the foregoing remarks there is some appearance of contradiction,
this is due to the fact that we have considered
morality first of all as it is in itself. that is to say, as a matter of
social or psychological expediency, and secondly as a
symbolic element. therefore in the quality of a support for
intellection~ in the latter case, the opposition between
morality and symbolism (or intellectuality) is obviously
meaningless.

- Frithjof Schuon, The Transcendent Unity of Religions, pg 51-52.
​

Fredrick Nietzsche comes to the same conclusion, despite having a very different worldview to Schuon in other areas.

 

[oldbadger]

Is it not possible then that morality is a set of codes applying to their respective tribes? This would explain why it differs from tribe to tribe and promotes tribalism as expressed by laws and religion?

I'm sorry, IK, I'm having another 'No' day.

No! That's Loyalty, or Integrity.
The whole tribe could be immoral by the neighbouring standards, might eat their grannies or whatever.

I do suggest that the word 'moral' is a meaningless impostor...........

*badger ducks down hole again*