Your Source of Morality

[RestlessSoul]

Well, look at the history of England. The queen is still technically in charge as the sovereign, yet it has changed over time. Now it is my tribe against your tribe. Unless you believe in humanity.

Well yeah, we’ve evolved I suppose. Perhaps not very far; the Romans got rid of their Kings 2500 years ago, then eventually allowed Emperors to rule over them. England got rid of hers in 1649, but not for long.

But yeah, I believe in humanity.

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, I mean it. Forget your feelings for a moment.. You know the 4 Fs in biology, right. As long as there are not to many sociopaths, it can a viable biology strategy in how to meet the 4 Fs. Because sociopathy destroys the social element in what makes humans overall reproduce, there can't be to many. But on another hand a small percentage can do fine.

This is an interesting link.
The psycho gene

 

[sayak83]

What is the source of your morality?

My view is morality is the product of feelings. Feelings are a product of evolution/genetics and culture.

We feel whether something is right or wrong. Evolution has created a commonality based on survivability. So we who have genes that have survived through the ages share much the same feelings about what is right and wrong.

However individually exceptions exist. Genetic drift. Cultural norms. I think it is easy to understand that religious leaders took what they felt to be right and wrong as inspired by God since they had no understanding of evolution or genetics. They proceeded to create codes and laws based on what they felt was right. Therefore evolution/survival encoded morality into our DNA.

We may rationalize our morals but ultimately we are still victims of our feelings.
For example, homosexuality is not a survival trait. So people aren't commonly geared to see this as morally good. However we also possess feelings of compassion and group support. These feelings in some outweigh the other but not in everyone.

I think you are confusing between
1) how we came to have the ability to do moral reasoning or have moral intuitions
And
2) What morality is in and of itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you are confusing between
1) how we came to have the ability to do moral reasoning or have moral intuitions
And
2) What morality is in and of itself.

Please explain.

 

[Nakosis]

I think you are confusing between
1) how we came to have the ability to do moral reasoning or have moral intuitions
And
2) What morality is in and of itself.

See, I disagree with your premise, if you can understand.
But, the question is, what do you see as your source.

Obviously some see God as the source.
My view is our feelings are the source. I think rationalization comes after the fact.

 

[Nakosis]

So right and wrong is what the tribe says it is? And if the tribe says that might is right, the King’s authority is total, and justice is administered according to his whim, there is no absolute morality by which this can be challenged?

IMO,
Our conscious rationalization is just the ego entertaining itself.

 

[Nakosis]

There are at least three:

1. Inherited instincts like responding to the baby scheme, aversion to killing, etc.
2. Education/formation. That what my society tells me is moral.
3. Thinking about morality.

1. is only instinct, that is not morality. 2. is only rules, that is not morality. 3. is what makes true morality but without 1. and 2. I wouldn't have a basis to think about.

So 1, yes we agree. 2. We don't always agree with society. However society usually enforces this through a legal process. It's a group morality which I suppose has its own evolutionarily trajectory.

3. I think has very little if any actual impact. I suspect it is more an attempt to consciously rationalize feelings we already held.

 

[Heyo]

3. I think has very little if any actual impact. I suspect it is more an attempt to consciously rationalize feelings we already held.

Only if you're intellectually dishonest. Sure, you can rationalize your instincts but you can also convince yourself that your instincts are wrong.
E.g.: you see a cute little bear cup and your feelings tell you that you want to go over and cuddle it. Your ratio should tell you that your feelings are not conductive to your survival.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Only if you're intellectually dishonest. Sure, you can rationalize your instincts but you can also convince yourself that your instincts are wrong.
E.g.: you see a cute little bear cup and your feelings tell you that you want to go over and cuddle it. Your ratio should tell you that your feelings are not conductive to your survival.

Your need to survive is a feeling.

 

[Magical Wand]

What is the source of your morality?

My view is morality is the product of feelings. Feelings are a product of evolution/genetics and culture.

We feel whether something is right or wrong. Evolution has created a commonality based on survivability. So we who have genes that have survived through the ages share much the same feelings about what is right and wrong.

However individually exceptions exist. Genetic drift. Cultural norms. I think it is easy to understand that religious leaders took what they felt to be right and wrong as inspired by God since they had no understanding of evolution or genetics. They proceeded to create codes and laws based on what they felt was right. Therefore evolution/survival encoded morality into our DNA.

We may rationalize our morals but ultimately we are still victims of our feelings.
For example, homosexuality is not a survival trait. So people aren't commonly geared to see this as morally good. However we also possess feelings of compassion and group support. These feelings in some outweigh the other but not in everyone.

Very interesting post! ㅤ:）

 

[Nakosis]

If survival is the key then environment will play a big role in morality. Survival also incorporates status, as this helps our genes survive.

In harsh environments, from Afghanistan (to this day) to Steppes Nomads and the Scottish Highlands (historically), you often saw strong honour codes develop.

This is because you had to rely on others for survival, so reputation was important and anything that made your family/tribe/clan lose honour was a serious problem.

Things like honour killing or vendettas that make no sense to us today, had/have a certain type of logic in these cultures. If you let people within your tribe compromise your honour, or let outsiders take advantage then you couldn't be taken seriously and people couldn't trust you which could be a death sentence.

A modern 'live and let live' approach does not translate, just as an unbending honour approach doesn't translate well to the modern, urban world.

So while we do have moral instincts, how they develop is dictated by environment and how this impacts how we gain status. In some environments our empathy and cooperative instincts develop most as these gain status, and in others our in group loyalty and willingness to punish transgressors gain status.

There are obviously other factors in play too.

Environment is a factor in our evolution. It think it begins with genetics, but as we began to organized ideas into literature, the tribes who survived passed on the ideals. The group concept of morals has its own evolutionary path.

My point is our morals is not an intellectual conscious choice. We happened to survive well enough that these traits and ideas survived with us. Not that they were founded in some objective truth.

If the environment were different, whomever survived would pass on the feelings and ideas without regard to what we might morally rationalize.

 

[Nakosis]

Only if you're intellectually dishonest. Sure, you can rationalize your instincts but you can also convince yourself that your instincts are wrong.
E.g.: you see a cute little bear cup and your feelings tell you that you want to go over and cuddle it. Your ratio should tell you that your feelings are not conductive to your survival.

The fear of death is a feeling. Yes it you lacked that feeling, you might not survive long enough to procreate.

Are you really convincing yourself or just giving into another feeling?

 

[Magical Wand]

Whose feelings are we talking about? If I feel an overwhelming urge to have sex with my neighbour’s wife, and she reciprocates, is it therefore morally right for us to follow through on those feelings?

I don't think that's a good objection to Nakosis' view simply because you're conflating moral feelings with other feelings such as the desire to have sexual intercourse. So, if one feels it is morally wrong to have intercourse with his neighbor's wife, but also has the feeling of desire, the feeling of wrongness is still there. So, it is still morally wrong to this person. ㅤ:）

 

[Heyo]

The fear of death is a feeling. Yes it you lacked that feeling, you might not survive long enough to procreate.

Fear of death? Why should I fear a little bear cup? It's harmless and cute.
To fear mama bear, I have to use my intellect to deduce that she might be around the corner and she might not be amused when I befriend her cup.

Are you really convincing yourself or just giving into another feeling?

That is sometimes hard to decide (and may be dependent on whether you feel cognitive dissonance or not).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fear of death? Why should I fear a little bear cup? It's harmless and cute.
To fear mama bear, I have to use my intellect to deduce that she might be around the corner and she might not be amused when I befriend her cup.

That is sometimes hard to decide (and may be dependent on whether you feel cognitive dissonance or not).

If I remember correct, there are the following examples:

1 - There are humans, who have a brain disorder to use feelings. E.g. they can spend a ½ hour to decide which flavor of ice-cream they want. I.e. they are disabled because they can't use feelings.
2 - Follow your reasoning to the end. Why don't you want the mama bear to find you close to her cup? Well, she might kill you. Why don't you want that to happen? This is in the end a variant of the is-ought problem. I ought not do something which could lead to my death, unless I have a good(feeling) reason.

 

[sayak83]

Please explain.

It's simple.
For example:
Our ability to reason has come through biological and evolutionary processes.
But logical reasoning itself is something quite distinct from the biological processes that makes us capable of doing it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's simple.
For example:
Our ability to reason has come through biological and evolutionary processes.
But logical reasoning itself is something quite distinct from the biological processes that makes us capable of doing it.

Stated, but not shown. I.e. you need to show evidence/reasoning.

 

[Heyo]

2 - Follow your reasoning to the end.

For following your reasoning to the end, you have to start reasoning. @Nakosis thinks intellect is of not much relevance to morals but if you don't think, you just have your instincts - and they will probably kill you in our modern world.

Why don't you want the mama bear to find you close to her cup? Well, she might kill you. Why don't you want that to happen? This is in the end a variant of the is-ought problem. I ought not do something which could lead to my death, unless I have a good(feeling) reason.

Yes, all reasoning leads to some basic values (which rest on feelings). You can't reason without some axioms. But without reason you are no more than a stimulus - reaction machine. You need both. And since you are living in a society you also need the knowledge about common values.
That's what I said in my initial post: there are three equally relevant basis for morality, not just one.

 

[Nakosis]

Fear of death? Why should I fear a little bear cup? It's harmless and cute.
To fear mama bear, I have to use my intellect to deduce that she might be around the corner and she might not be amused when I befriend her cup.

I guess I didn't clearly understand what your assumed outcome/choice would be.

That is sometimes hard to decide (and may be dependent on whether you feel cognitive dissonance or not).

I'd imagine the stronger feeling would dictate the choice. You are torn between two or more strong emotions. Not all choices impact survival.
What's the moral dilemma in choosing to pet or not pet the bear cub?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't think that's a good objection to Nakosis' view simply because you're conflating moral feelings with other feelings such as the desire to have sexual intercourse. So, if one feels it is morally wrong to have intercourse with his neighbor's wife, but also has the feeling of desire, the feeling of wrongness is still there. So, it is still morally wrong to this person. ㅤ:）

So we can experience a multiplicity of feelings, often conflicting and contradictory? Which makes them a most untrustworthy guide…