Can science finally explain where we get the morals we believe in?

[joe1776]

It's quite simple: if it doesn't feel pleasurable or is unpleasant. When you see someone intentionally hurt, one might empathise and know it's a bad thing that happened. It's an unpleasant feeling to see someone that is in pain, therefore, if the entity doing it had a choice then it's the wrong one. Vice versa for pleasure. This why the majority of convicts are psychopaths. Psychopathy is primarily diagnosed with a lack of empathy. They have difficulty telling what's right or wrong or don't care altogether unless it helps them.

It gets fairly convoluted when we think people deserve to be punished. This is human beings suspending their empathy to protect the group or distancing the deserved from themselves altogether. This is why slaves were differentiated from people. Slaves were generally thought of as property and some argued they had no soul. In other words, we can avoid being empathetic by thinking they mimic us but they are not us.

It's quite simple: if it doesn't feel pleasurable or is unpleasant.

Okay, you have just explained moral intuition (conscience). It's a very simple product of the pain-pleasure function of the brain. We feel the wrongness when an innocent person is intentionally harmed but we don't feel it when the harm was caused accidentally or when the person harmed isn't innocent.

As I explained in an earlier post though, most people have assumed for centuries, and still do, that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason -- a false premise that has completely confused discussions on the topic.

 

[blü 2]

Dislike of one who harms? We don't dislike one who harms in self-defense or one who harms accidentally. Why?

Like of fairness? The question is how do we discern fair from unfair?

Respect for authority? We don't respect someone who abuses authority. Why?

Loyalty to the group? Group pride is disguised arrogance. The man who is especially proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. His groups are wonderful because they're HIS groups.

Ahm, they're tendencies, not rules. In some situations they can compete with each other, as when (as you say) the leader is unfair.

The fairness question has been the subject of many experiments, some with children. For example, children six months old watched a puppet show in which a triangle was trying to climb a hill. A square kept bumping the triangle back down. A circle then began to help the triangle to continue up. At the end the infants were given the chance to take any one of the three shapes. 26 out of 28 chose the circle. (Further experiments switching the roles made it clear the helper was being favored, not the shape or color.) There have been many experiments looking at various aspects such as this, of course.

Why do you think group pride is disguised arrogance, a derogatory term? The evolutionary aspect is that we profit from cooperation; and modern societies couldn't exist without these kinds of instincts underlying our complex sets of interacting organizations. Morale at work, in the armed services, in the household, is a positive factor ─ why should not a successful team take pride in what it achieves? (How that pride should be expressed has just been a matter of discussion at the women's soccer World Cup, as you no doubt noticed, but that's a different question.)

Moreover, humans appear to be unique in being able to be loyal to groups outside of their direct bloodlines; our capacity for variety in kinds of cooperation is of a different amplitude to any other species.

 

[charlie sc]

Okay, you have just explained moral intuition (conscience).

No, intuition was not what I was describing. Intuitions are gut feelings and is usually described by instinctively knowing something without evidence. What I'm describing is empathy. Empathy is feeling the perceived emotions of another entity. They are quite different.

It's a very simple product of the pain-pleasure function of the brain.

I wouldn't say anything about the brain is simple.

We feel the wrongness when an innocent person is intentionally harmed but we don't feel it when the harm was caused accidentally or when the person harmed isn't innocent.

No, we do still feel their pain. The only difference is that we can't do anything about it because it was unavoidable. Tsunami's are unavoidable and some accidents are unavoidable. We can't stop the unstoppable forces but we can take precautions to avoid accidents or unstoppable forces. Therefore, it's not a moral issue. Accidents and tsunamis are not moral agents; they don't have a supposed choice in the matter.

As I explained in an earlier post though, most people have assumed for centuries, and still do, that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason -- a false premise that has completely confused discussions on the topic.

I don't know what you mean here. You seem to be using intuition and conscious interchangeably. As far as I know, they aren't the same. Also, I am talking, in particular, about empathy. So, you'll need to expound on this.

 

[Maximilian]

Notably, humanity does not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their spiritual values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.)


On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as good moral facts; conduct which is actually good.


That said, irrational beasts don't possess such **objective** morals. Just about everything they do is the denouement of behavioral instinct not shared knowledge handed down from one era to the next, their woefully limited cognition notwithstanding. So whenever a lion savagely kills some other, it doesn't believe it's committing homicide. Any time a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another, it doesn't think it's stealing. Each time primates violently force themselves onto females as well as their little ones they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia. Needless to say, we undoubtedly didn't “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from these.


**Objective** morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by its very nature, is morally nihilistic. From where, then perhaps, did we obtain our **universal objective morals**?



Consider the following:


(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.

(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.

(3) Evil exists.

(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

(5) Therefore, God exists.

(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.



That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

 

[joe1776]

Ahm, they're tendencies, not rules. In some situations they can compete with each other, as when (as you say) the leader is unfair.

I don't think your list explained much. However....

The fairness question has been the subject of many experiments, some with children...

Paul Bloom did some interesting stuff with toddlers. We don't disagree that fairness is an innate sense.

Why do you think group pride is disguised arrogance, a derogatory term?

I explained why in the post you quoted.

The evolutionary aspect [of group pride] is that we profit from cooperation...

Group pride is one side of the coin. Group prejudice is the opposite side. And group prejudice has been the cause of most of humanity's violent aggression.

Moreover, humans appear to be unique in being able to be loyal to groups outside of their direct bloodlines; our capacity for variety in kinds of cooperation is of a different amplitude to any other species.

Once again, you mention only one side of the coin (group pride) while ignoring the troublesome side (group prejudice) driven by the need to feel superior to others.

 

[blü 2]

Group pride is one side of the coin. Group prejudice is the opposite side. And group prejudice has been the cause of most of humanity's violent aggression.

We're tribal critters, no doubt about it, and aggression is part of nearly all adult animals. As Jonathan Height put it, Sport is to war as porn is to sex.

Once again, you mention only one side of the coin (group pride) while ignoring the troublesome side (group prejudice) driven by the need to feel superior to others.

But you're discussing oughts. I'm simply talking about is'es, the finding of those who've examined the questions. Our tendencies to certain kinds of moral behavior aren't the only tendencies or the only behaviors humans have.

 

[joe1776]

No, intuition was not what I was describing. Intuitions are gut feelings and is usually described by instinctively knowing something without evidence. What I'm describing is empathy. Empathy is feeling the perceived emotions of another entity. They are quite different.

Yes, they're different. We feel empathy for someone who has been hurt whether the injury was caused by accident or an intentional act. So, you can't use empathy to explain moral judgments on its own.

I wouldn't say anything about the brain is simple.

You think the pain-pleasure function is difficult to comprehend?

I don't know what you mean here. You seem to be using intuition and conscious interchangeably. As far as I know, they aren't the same. Also, I am talking, in particular, about empathy. So, you'll need to expound on this.

As I have it, the judgments of conscience (our ability to discern right from wrong) are intuitive. They emerge immediately from the unconscious.

A soldier killing enemy combatants in what he believes to be a just cause is ordered to kill civilians. He immediately feels the wrongness. If he kills civilians, his conscience will nag him with guilt for the rest of his life whenever he remembers his immoral act.

 

[joe1776]

But you're discussing oughts. I'm simply talking about is'es, the finding of those who've examined the questions. Our tendencies to certain kinds of moral behavior aren't the only tendencies or the only behaviors humans have.

I'm not discussing oughts. I'm discussing perceptions. You see group pride as a virtue because you haven't considered that it's disguised arrogance which causes most of humanity's aggression when it presents itself as group prejudice.

 

[Nimos]

Dislike of one who harms? We don't dislike one who harms in self-defense or one who harms accidentally. Why?

We don't even dislike one that harms, if we share their belief.

Like of fairness? The question is how do we discern fair from unfair?

I would say subjectively, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. As above, if you go kill a person because you don't like him for whatever reason and I agree with you, I could find your action a fair treatment of the victim.

Respect for authority? We don't respect someone who abuses authority. Why?

This is also subjective, if we disagree with the authority, we have no respect. For instance I don't believe in God or the Sharia law, so why should I have any respect for them?

Loyalty to the group? Group pride is disguised arrogance. The man who is especially proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. His groups are wonderful because they're HIS groups.

Exactly Its all subjective, if you disregard instincts.

 

[blü 2]

I'm not discussing oughts. I'm discussing perceptions.

I'm discussing the science. That seems to me to be the best way to address the OP.

You see group pride as a virtue because you haven't considered that it's disguised arrogance which causes most of humanity's aggression when it presents itself as group prejudice.

Pride and prejudice? Gee, that deserves its own book!

But let's just say that cooperation and team spirit and the pleasure of succeeding all have their place in the scheme of things, and that every coin has two sides.

 

[Milton Platt]

How did we get our moral beliefs?

Here are some different ways to believe where morals could come from.

1. Supernatural derived morals – moral knowledge based on the will or commandments of the Creator/god/goddess. Morals are defined by the creator

2. Non-natural - neither the natural nor the supernatural but coming from comprehension requiring something comparable to mathematical intuition. (Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, 1907). I am not so familiar with this view.

3. Natural morals – there are moral facts are among the natural facts of the world or moral truths. Here Kant argues that moral knowledge cannot be based on experience of the natural world. If we have moral knowledge at all, we must know a general moral truth from which we can deduce specific conclusions. From what I have read there are those who feel moral properties are identical with certain natural properties specified by combinations of non-moral terms found in the natural and social sciences. And others that believe moral facts are natural facts but denies that they are specifiable using the language of the natural and social sciences.

4. Naturalized morals including rational choice, and pragmatic naturalism. These describe moral facts without absolute moral truth or knowledge and have been described by Nelson Goodman, W Quine, William James, John Dewey and Philip Kitcher

And finally

5. Evolutionary Morals – proposed as early as Darwin who suggested that human morality originated and persisted among our ancestors primarily as an adaptation fashioned by natural selection. This explanation of the origins and persistence of morals among humans undermine the likelihood that moral beliefs are true and hence undermine the possibility of moral knowledge. It is in this last category that advances in neuroscience, evolution, anthropology and psychology are unveiling how human behavior and culture evolved. Here science may not be creating moral beliefs but rather explaining how they came about and the role they serve.

[Interesting in the category of evolutionary moral development there is a division between those that believe the cognitive aspect of the brain in humans has created more complex morals and dominated over a more primitive intuitive/emotional morals (thus humans have an ability not seen in the natural world) and those that believe the cognitive and intuitive/emotions aspects of the brain with respect to morals have evolved together and are co-dependent (those that agree with Darwin that humans are different in degree and not kind).]

So where do you believe human morals come from?

It isn't an "eithr/or" situation.I believe that morals are a function of the society in which you live, the upbringing you have had, and genetics.

 

[sealchan]

How did we get our moral beliefs?

Here are some different ways to believe where morals could come from.

1. Supernatural derived morals – moral knowledge based on the will or commandments of the Creator/god/goddess. Morals are defined by the creator

2. Non-natural - neither the natural nor the supernatural but coming from comprehension requiring something comparable to mathematical intuition. (Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, 1907). I am not so familiar with this view.

3. Natural morals – there are moral facts are among the natural facts of the world or moral truths. Here Kant argues that moral knowledge cannot be based on experience of the natural world. If we have moral knowledge at all, we must know a general moral truth from which we can deduce specific conclusions. From what I have read there are those who feel moral properties are identical with certain natural properties specified by combinations of non-moral terms found in the natural and social sciences. And others that believe moral facts are natural facts but denies that they are specifiable using the language of the natural and social sciences.

4. Naturalized morals including rational choice, and pragmatic naturalism. These describe moral facts without absolute moral truth or knowledge and have been described by Nelson Goodman, W Quine, William James, John Dewey and Philip Kitcher

And finally

5. Evolutionary Morals – proposed as early as Darwin who suggested that human morality originated and persisted among our ancestors primarily as an adaptation fashioned by natural selection. This explanation of the origins and persistence of morals among humans undermine the likelihood that moral beliefs are true and hence undermine the possibility of moral knowledge. It is in this last category that advances in neuroscience, evolution, anthropology and psychology are unveiling how human behavior and culture evolved. Here science may not be creating moral beliefs but rather explaining how they came about and the role they serve.

[Interesting in the category of evolutionary moral development there is a division between those that believe the cognitive aspect of the brain in humans has created more complex morals and dominated over a more primitive intuitive/emotional morals (thus humans have an ability not seen in the natural world) and those that believe the cognitive and intuitive/emotions aspects of the brain with respect to morals have evolved together and are co-dependent (those that agree with Darwin that humans are different in degree and not kind).]

So where do you believe human morals come from?

All of the above but with the literalness of 1. removed from consideration. I think that there is a natural logic as to how a thing is preserved over time. Simply put the strong reed breaks in the wind. Moral truths reflect this balance in context sort of dynamic where the relationship between individual and group is co-determined in a mutual pattern of relationship.

As organelles grouped together to mutual benefit to form the coop we now know as the cell, we have a very persistent physical-biological organization of matter which evidences some basic principles of mutual cooperation for the sake of long term stability (the essence of morality). On top of that, as social animals, we have evolved instinctual behaviors that promote survival based on cooperative behavior (taking on different roles in the group, mirror neurons to track self vs other behavior and promote emulation, etc).

With the advent of language and the increased neural capacity related to that we have an additional context for understanding which gives us via culture a new layer of degrees of freedom to understand how to achieve a cooperative contract (covenant). All of these are dynamically intertwined and are co-created systems for determining individual behavior that is aimed at promoting individual and collective survival in a consistent and cooperative manner.

So circling back to 1, we can understand that a piece of our morality stems from the nature of our Universe and if we are to imagine the Universe as having been created by an intelligence then we can find profit in the notion that such a creator has provided a ground on which our sense of morality appears to reflect some objective qualities of our creation. Having a covenant which defines an individual's rights and responsibilities toward their collective and a contract for both with respect to a God who is seen as representative of reality then makes sense since there is definitely in human intelligence this ability to negotiate both with each other and with reality itself various ways in which to satisfy our sense of morality which is our sense of what is good and bad with respect to our longevity.

 

[joe1776]

I'm discussing the science. That seems to me to be the best way to address the OP.

Well, no, we were discussing our different perceptions of group pride.

But let's just say that cooperation and team spirit and the pleasure of succeeding all have their place in the scheme of things, and that every coin has two sides.

The endeavors of cooperation and competition done together are harmless fun when that activity is team sports. But when it involves nations at war, our species will be better off when we recognize that arrogant group pride is at the root of the problem.

 

[charlie sc]

So, you can't use empathy to explain moral judgments on its own.

No, it’s not sufficient enough to explain moral judgements. Morality is a philosophical abstraction, so it can never be truly explained by empirical means. However, empathy is sufficient enough to explain the foundation and origin of moral judgements.

You think the pain-pleasure function is difficult to comprehend?

I never said that. Comprehending pain and pleasure is different from understand how this works in the brain.

As I have it, the judgments of conscience (our ability to discern right from wrong) are intuitive. They emerge immediately from the unconscious.

A soldier killing enemy combatants in what he believes to be a just cause is ordered to kill civilians. He immediately feels the wrongness. If he kills civilians, his conscience will nag him with guilt for the rest of his life whenever he remembers his immoral act.

I agree except intuition is probably the wrong word to use, as it implies a different concept. I never said empathy is a choice, nor do I think it's a choice. Unlike the soldier, you can have someone who kills civilians and sleeps like a baby. Therefore, empathy may be universal but it can be manipulated. The world went along just fine for more than two thousand years with slavery, gender inequality, injustice, political oppression and sadistic wars. It's always the considered out-group that's dismissed as separate and therefore dehumanised. It's only recently Earth has become far more equal right orientated.

 

[viole]

How did we get our moral beliefs?

Here are some different ways to believe where morals could come from.

1. Supernatural derived morals – moral knowledge based on the will or commandments of the Creator/god/goddess. Morals are defined by the creator

2. Non-natural - neither the natural nor the supernatural but coming from comprehension requiring something comparable to mathematical intuition. (Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, 1907). I am not so familiar with this view.

3. Natural morals – there are moral facts are among the natural facts of the world or moral truths. Here Kant argues that moral knowledge cannot be based on experience of the natural world. If we have moral knowledge at all, we must know a general moral truth from which we can deduce specific conclusions. From what I have read there are those who feel moral properties are identical with certain natural properties specified by combinations of non-moral terms found in the natural and social sciences. And others that believe moral facts are natural facts but denies that they are specifiable using the language of the natural and social sciences.

4. Naturalized morals including rational choice, and pragmatic naturalism. These describe moral facts without absolute moral truth or knowledge and have been described by Nelson Goodman, W Quine, William James, John Dewey and Philip Kitcher

And finally

5. Evolutionary Morals – proposed as early as Darwin who suggested that human morality originated and persisted among our ancestors primarily as an adaptation fashioned by natural selection. This explanation of the origins and persistence of morals among humans undermine the likelihood that moral beliefs are true and hence undermine the possibility of moral knowledge. It is in this last category that advances in neuroscience, evolution, anthropology and psychology are unveiling how human behavior and culture evolved. Here science may not be creating moral beliefs but rather explaining how they came about and the role they serve.

[Interesting in the category of evolutionary moral development there is a division between those that believe the cognitive aspect of the brain in humans has created more complex morals and dominated over a more primitive intuitive/emotional morals (thus humans have an ability not seen in the natural world) and those that believe the cognitive and intuitive/emotions aspects of the brain with respect to morals have evolved together and are co-dependent (those that agree with Darwin that humans are different in degree and not kind).]

So where do you believe human morals come from?

They come from the same place my appreciation for chocolate and my distaste for crap come from. And I am serious. They are biological traits. At least the ones who appear to be independent of time and space.

Incidentally, you mean us in the 21st century? Or us in general?

Ciao

- viole

 

[joe1776]

...
I agree except intuition is probably the wrong word to use, as it implies a different concept....

"In contrast to older, conventional accounts that treat ethical decision making and behavior as the result of deliberative and intendedly rational processes, a rapidly growing body of social science research has framed ethical thought and behavior as driven by intuition."

Other research articles on this topic use the word "intuition" as well.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

 

[charlie sc]

"In contrast to older, conventional accounts that treat ethical decision making and behavior as the result of deliberative and intendedly rational processes, a rapidly growing body of social science research has framed ethical thought and behavior as driven by intuition."

Other research articles on this topic use the word "intuition" as well.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

When you say morality is intuitive, I don't know what you mean. Similarly, that's why the paper defines moral intuition right in the beginning. So that people know what they're talking about lol.
Regardless, I'm talking about empathy.

 

[viole]

Consider the following:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.

Not sure, but I will accept that.

(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.

(3) Evil exists.

Nope. There is not such a thing as objective evil. All moral perception are biological traits. Like our love for some foods and not others. To say that evil exists objectively is like saying that dogs crap tastes objectively bad.

(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.

(5) Therefore, God exists.

(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

All non sequiturs since 3 is false or ill defined.

Well it is actually easy to test: if evil exists, then I think that objecting to the right of gays to marry is pure discriminatory evil.

Did I take that perception from God? Or do I get from God only the perceptions you agree might come from the biblical God, Allah, Apollo or whatever divinity is the source of our morality?

See? All moral arguments for the existence of God are hopelessly question begging. All.

That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

So, if you know for sure that you will never be punished for killing someone, would you do it?
If yes, then I suggest you keep believing in whatever you believe.

Ciao

- viole

 

[siti]

Trees have culture?

What is culture?

The defining myths of a social unit

OK - then trees don't have it...

In a nutshell, a culture is an all-encompassing learned survival strategy.

...or do they?

Still no wiser I'm afraid...or am I?

See - what the "defining myths of a social unit" are, are elements of human culture - clearly trees don't have human culture...but if these elements of human culture are, as suggested, parts of "learned survival strategy" then species other than humans can certainly have them can't they? Do chimpanzees have culture? Who knows? Do they have "myths"? Probably not. Do they have "learned survival strategies"? Certainly. So do chimpanzees have morals? I'm suggesting they probably do - but not human morals - they just have norms of social interaction which are part of a survival strategy...if you have dogs, you will know that they also have some kind of morals - it is, for example, OK for the top dog to take the food of the others - and they will turn away with their tails between their legs - but woe betide the dog that tries to steal the top dog's dinner - all hell will break loose. Not human morals - in fact we even try to intervene to make it 'fairer' from our point of view - but we only get away with that by becoming the 'top dog' ourselves. We can't impose human morality on other animals, we just usurp their socially dominant roles for a time.

Trees? Do they have survival strategies? - obviously they do. Are they 'learned' - certainly not in the way humans learn. But do they respond to their environmental circumstances - e.g. trees at the edge of a mature forest that are exposed to the wind etc. will be shorter and have thicker trunks than those inside the forest that have the protection of the outer trees...how do the trees on the outside "know" that they should grow differently than those in more sheltered locations? When a tree is "attacked" by having its leaves cut or bitten it may release volatile organic compounds into the air - in response to which all the trees of that species in the vicinity will begin to produce higher levels of toxins in their leaves to make them distasteful to herbivores.

Is that culture? Is that trees communicating with their closest neighbours to alert them to danger or changing their natural behaviour in response to circumstances so that the group has a better chance of survival?

So how - apart from the level of complexity - is that different from humans 'devising' strategies intended to protect the best interests of the group over the freedom of the the individual?

 

[blü 2]

Well, no, we were discussing our different perceptions of group pride.

I was doing so because you raised it. And I was discussing it in the context of the science.

The endeavors of cooperation and competition done together are harmless fun when that activity is team sports. But when it involves nations at war, our species will be better off when we recognize that arrogant group pride is at the root of the problem.

I don't doubt it. Have you read, or seen a review, of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature?