The Definition of Morality

[joe1776]

OK. I think I understand that explanation. I don't disagree with you. But I would add that our reasoning also determines whether our feelings of wrong or feelings of unfairness has any validity to them as we might be feeling something based off lack of understanding of a situation.

Agreed. We have to have all the relevant facts straight just as we do in judging situations that don't involve moral questions.

I would be interested in how you would track the development of the nagging conscience that eventually caused the abolition of slavery. How do you think that specific nagging conscience developed? If it is through the spreading of ideas, then that would fall under philosophy, which is one of the points I made, because it has to develop and spread as a result of many people observing the world and having thoughts and discussions about what they have observed or experienced.

My best guess is that conscience is evolved intuition aligned with the survival of our species. It is unlike philosophy, a product of slow, deliberate, conscious reasoning. The judgments of conscience seem to emerge intuitively and immediately from the unconscious. When you consider that the unique situations it must judge are almost infinite in variety, conscience is a remarkable function from a mysterious source of wisdom.

 

[ChristineM]

A question because of my lack of understanding of evolution:

Would doing something considered moral as a result of thinking it through rather than innate instinct and feeling mean that that morality is a result of evolutionary adaptation? Or would the capacity to think be the result of evolutionary adaptation and not the morals themselves? (I hope I am making sense)

How far to go with this??? Thought can override or modify morality but i see morality as inbuilt, everyone knows the difference between good and bad. Without that understand civilisation could not have arisen. Culture can put different slants on what is good or bad as can thought.

 

[Bear Wild]

He accounts for morality that doesn't help us socially by dismissing them as an accidental side effects of evolution. This is a copout. He only deals with that which suits his agenda and doesn't deal with that which doesn't suit his agenda, by saying that it is accidental, which to me seems similar to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If a set of morality doesn't neatly fit into his box then he doesn't examine other possibilities for their development.

This is why I am having a problem with his explanations of WHY our morality developed. I understand that our emotions are linked to our biology and our biology evolved. But WHY it evolved in a certain direction is just conjecture on his part. He isn't providing evidence for the actual mechanisms that caused these morals to develop the way they did.

He is my basic understanding of how morals evolved .
I think you can track moral behavior back evolutionary to the most intimate relationship of mother/offspring. As animals developed more complex brains that are more plastic (not just instinct) at birth there became a need for longer periods of time for care. So in evolution we see the use of hormones such as oxytocin and vasopressin linking with the motivational reward system of dopamine to form the bond between mother and offspring as well as pair bonding of parents.

In addition to start there had to be a system to create the recognition of actions of another individual. The development of mirror neurons was critical to social behavior allowing one organism to have a sensation of what another is doing and an area of the brain to interpret as in the Insula part of the brain. Further a neuronal network had to evolve that could allow the individual to interpret those feeling and be able to predict the behavior of the other which we call Theory of Mind. Finally, since animals are primarily emotionally driven motivated for the self, there had to develop a neurologic structure to override the emotionally driven networks to do the harder thing. To override direct pleasure for a greater good so to speak. This is found in the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex which can modulate the emotional ventral medial prefrontal cortex. These structures had to evolve for social behaviors to become successful. Thus there had to be a reward for helping another individual over oneself driven by the dopamine reward pathway.

When these pathways evolved and a group behavior becomes more successful than an individual behavior we have the necessary mechanism for the evolution of moral behavior. Now evolve a complex linguistic system to and the we can actually right down the moral behaviors as morals. Thus different morals for different groups can arise.

 

[Samael_Khan]

My best guess is that conscience is evolved intuition aligned with the survival of our species. It is unlike philosophy, a product of slow, deliberate, conscious reasoning. The judgments of conscience seem to emerge intuitively and immediately from the unconscious. When you consider that the unique situations it must judge are almost infinite in variety, conscience is a remarkable function from a mysterious source of wisdom.

I have never heard of that idea before but it certainly is an interesting option to explore. Would you also think that if all tribes or societies remained isolated from each other forever, they would inevitably come to the same standards of morality because of their evolved intuition? Or will they have a different intuitive evolution based on their environment?

 

[Samael_Khan]

How far to go with this??? Thought can override or modify morality but i see morality as inbuilt, everyone knows the difference between good and bad. Without that understand civilisation could not have arisen. Culture can put different slants on what is good or bad as can thought.

Well it could have been that we just survived as individuals at one point and then we realised that working together was more beneficial so we created rules for social cohesian right? Obviously we would have emotional input such as empathy. What I struggle to agree with, is that humans inherently have the same idea of what is good and bad, since we know that there are people within a tribe who have conflicting concepts of what is good and bad.

 

[ChristineM]

Well it could have been that we just survived as individuals at one point and then we realised that working together was more beneficial so we created rules for social cohesian right? Obviously we would have emotional input such as empathy. What I struggle to agree with, is that humans inherently have the same idea of what is good and bad, since we know that there are people within a tribe who have conflicting concepts of what is good and bad.

It is fairly certain that the human race has always been social, all close relatives, the other apes are all social. Archeology shows us that humans have always been in groups. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

As i said, culture can modify morality. As can thought. Different personalities will consider what is good or bad differently, but to stray to far from the norm usually means ejection from the tribe or censure of some sort.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"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?

What I struggle to agree with, is that humans inherently have the same idea of what is good and bad, since we know that there are people within a tribe who have conflicting concepts of what is good and bad.

I see the source of Morality is God's Messengers, who are the embodiment of God's Will for us.

Thus the definition of morality can be said to be 'Submission unto God's Law.

Thus Morality is relative to the age of the Message given and is why our views of morality can change.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How far to go with this??? Thought can override or modify morality but i see morality as inbuilt, everyone knows the difference between good and bad. Without that understand civilisation could not have arisen. Culture can put different slants on what is good or bad as can thought.

From a Faith perspective that is correct. The Holy books say we are made in God’s Image, that is, with all the potential of Morality and Virtue within us.

The Key in faith is that it is God's Messenger that allows us to find that Morality and Virtue within, to the extent we submit to God's Word applicable to the age it is given

Every person on this planet has that potential and we see it when we consider passages such as this.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prive all things; hold fast that which is good.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

From a Faith perspective that is correct. The Holy books say we are made in God’s Image, that is, with all the potential of Morality and Virtue within us.

The Key in faith is that it is God's Messenger that allows us to find that Morality and Virtue within, to the extent we submit to God's Word applicable to the age it is given

Every person on this planet has that potential and we see it when we consider passages such as this.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prive all things; hold fast that which is good.

Regards Tony

My view is that if you need a god to guide you as to what is right and what is wrong then there is something wrong with morality. Morality was around long before people invented gods, its exists in animals with no concept of gods.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

My view is that if you need a god to guide you as to what is right and what is wrong then there is something wrong with morality. Morality was around long before people invented gods, its exists in animals with no concept of gods.

You can indeed choose to see that morality is of our own volition.

The issue I have found, is that I know myself before faith, I know what my faith asks of me and I know that I have always fallen so very short of the virtue and morality asked of me and what it can produce.

So it becomes our choice if there is a morality beyond our own mind.

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

We4ll morality does vary depending on tribe. Different people can and do have different sense of morality and often consider other people's morality immoral.

That's the thing. I've never understood the word because it is so indefinite, untrustworthy, etc.
I understand words like Love or Hate, these are emotions which can be directed..... I know what they mean.

But 'moral' can always be replaced by more fitting, more definite, more trustworthy adjectives...... it is an impostor best used in rhetoric...... I claim.

 

[ChristineM]

You can indeed choose to see that morality is of our own volition.

The issue I have found, is that I know myself before faith, I know what my faith asks of me and I know that I have always fallen so very short of the virtue and morality asked of me and what it can produce.

So it becomes our choice if there is a morality beyond our own mind.

Regards Tony

I see no choice, it is human nature to be moral animals, without morality civilisation could not have got a foothold, without civilisation religion could not have formed and without religion stealing morality and claiming it as its own then there would have been far fewer wars of religion.

 

[joe1776]

I have never heard of that idea before but it certainly is an interesting option to explore. Would you also think that if all tribes or societies remained isolated from each other forever, they would inevitably come to the same standards of morality because of their evolved intuition? Or will they have a different intuitive evolution based on their environment?

Adapting to the environment is a factor in survival, but not a factor in how we humans treat each other. So, I doubt that conscience would change due to environment. For example, the intuitive judgment that justifies killing in self-defense would, over the centuries, reduce the impact of cold-blooded murderers on the gene pool to enhance survival in all cultures.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see no choice, it is human nature to be moral animals, without morality civilisation could not have got a foothold, without civilisation religion could not have formed and without religion stealing morality and claiming it as its own then there would have been far fewer wars of religion.

If we trace any great civilization back, I see a source of the foundation of morality and virtue is found.

All great civilizations are built on a moral source and all great civilizations fall, when thay neglect the source they were built upon.

Regards Tony

 

[Bear Wild]

I see no choice, it is human nature to be moral animals, without morality civilisation could not have got a foothold, without civilisation religion could not have formed and without religion stealing morality and claiming it as its own then there would have been far fewer wars of religion.

Well said! We are moral animals like so many other moral animals that function in complex social groups. We think ours are more special because we write them down in words and forget they are really just prosocial behaviors.

 

[Bear Wild]

If we trace any great civilization back, I see a source of the foundation of morality and virtue is found.

All great civilizations are built on a moral source and all great civilizations fall, when thay neglect the source they were built upon.

Regards Tony

Yes if you trace it back far enough you will see the source that allowed great civilizations to exist. It will however trace you far back before modern humanoid evolved.

 

[Bear Wild]

Adapting to the environment is a factor in survival, but not a factor in how we humans treat each other. So, I doubt that conscience would change due to environment. For example, the intuitive judgment that justifies killing in self-defense would, over the centuries, reduce the impact of cold-blooded murderers on the gene pool to enhance survival in all cultures.

Except that a change in the environment may change the way we treat other humans. Harsh climatic changes and limiting resources can influence human social behavior and change the social order especially when compared to an environment with excessive resources. Our would and its history are full of examples.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's the thing. I've never understood the word because it is so indefinite, untrustworthy, etc.
I understand words like Love or Hate, these are emotions which can be directed..... I know what they mean.

But 'moral' can always be replaced by more fitting, more definite, more trustworthy adjectives...... it is an impostor best used in rhetoric...... I claim.

I agree with you here. And when I think of it I don't even think that the word morality is relevant anymore because i my mind it is a religious word and only has relevance through religion. Of course its sub components are more relevant to use but I don't think that we can link them all together under one term and work on them together. So for instance we have empathy, which operates within each person on a different level, and which I do not think has a universal standard. Then you have standards created through reasoning for social cohesion etc.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Adapting to the environment is a factor in survival, but not a factor in how we humans treat each other. So, I doubt that conscience would change due to environment. For example, the intuitive judgment that justifies killing in self-defense would, over the centuries, reduce the impact of cold-blooded murderers on the gene pool to enhance survival in all cultures.

That doesn't make sense though. We can prove today through observation that people raised in different environments treat each other differently because of their environment. For instance some people think that it is OK to litter while others do not based on their environment. That is why different cultures have different standards of morality. The same is true with animals. Depending on who raises them, animals like pitbulls will either be more violent or more peaceful.

 

[Heyo]

I agree with you here. And when I think of it I don't even think that the word morality is relevant anymore because i my mind it is a religious word and only has relevance through religion. Of course its sub components are more relevant to use but I don't think that we can link them all together under one term and work on them together. So for instance we have empathy, which operates within each person on a different level, and which I do not think has a universal standard. Then you have standards created through reasoning for social cohesion etc.

I don't think that morality is a religious word. That may be because I have encountered it more often in philosophy than in religion but religions mostly have little to do with morality. They are less engaged in discussing or teaching morality and more in forcing their ethics upon the believers.
YMMV