Is societal evolution a reasonable explanation for morality?

[leibowde84]

It seems more than reasonable to assume that morality arose from our ability to reason and organize ourselves in societies. It is overwhelmingly obvious that societies cannot last unless certain rules are enforced. For example, if people are permitted to kill without justification, society will crumble. If people are permitted to steal whatever they want, society will crumble. So, why can't we credit our own species with the development of morals? I mean, there is no proof of objective moralty, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree that morality got its start via evolution. To put that in context, though, our ancestors most likely began living in groups tens of millions of years ago, long before our species, so evolution has had a long time in which to give rise to various moral instincts or predispositions.

But I think today's emerging moralities often go beyond anything that evolved in us as an instinct or predisposition. That's not a bad thing, but I do believe it means we cannot rely solely on our instincts for our morality.

Beyond that, some of our instincts are morally questionable. For instance, it has been argued by some scientists that rape is a genetically based behavior. That is, in effect, what I'm calling an "instinct" here. Most of us, though, would not consider rape moral behavior. So, again, I think there are limits to how much we can rely on instincts or evolved behaviors to guide us in our morals.

 

[McBell]

I wonder how much trial and error there was to get morality to where it is now...

 

[leibowde84]

I agree that morality got its start via evolution. To put that in context, though, our ancestors most likely began living in groups tens of millions of years ago, long before our species, so evolution has had a long time in which to give rise to various moral instincts or predispositions.

But I think today's emerging moralities often go beyond anything that evolved in us as an instinct or predisposition. That's not a bad thing, but I do believe it means we cannot rely solely on our instincts for our morality.

Beyond that, some of our instincts are morally questionable. For instance, it has been argued by some scientists that rape is a genetically based behavior. That is, in effect, what I'm calling an "instinct" here. Most of us, though, would not consider rape moral behavior. So, again, I think there are limits to how much we can rely on instincts or evolved behaviors to guide us in our morals.

See, I don't believe that morality, as a rule, is inert or instinctual. Empathy seems to have evolved as part of our brain, but sometimes instinct contradicts morality. So, I think we aare in agreement.

 

[leibowde84]

I wonder how much trial and error there was to get morality to where it is now...

There surely is a plethora of evidence of "trial and error" throughout written history. That's for sure.

 

[Quintessence]

I wonder how much trial and error there was to get morality to where it is now...

Trial and error? Do you mean to imply there is some fixed, optimal destination for "morality?" If so, isn't that contrary to the ideas of evolutionary theory?

 

[Sunstone]

See, I don't believe that morality, as a rule, is inert or instinctual. Empathy seems to have evolved as part of our brain, but sometimes instinct contradicts morality. So, I think we aare in agreement.

Not just empathy. Quite a few things seem to have evolved in us that form a basis for most or all moral codes. Empathy, a tendency to reciprocate, a sense of fairness, Theory of Mind (which makes empathy and other things possible), territoriality, and so forth. These things are ubiquitous to humans and almost certainly have a genetic basis. But they also play a role in most or all moralities.

 

[McBell]

Trial and error? Do you mean to imply there is some fixed, optimal destination for "morality?" If so, isn't that contrary to the ideas of evolutionary theory?

I am not a theist.
I am not one to personify.
No, morality does not have a mind of its own.
Nor does morality have a "goal" or "destination".

People, however, do all the above...

 

[leibowde84]

Trial and error? Do you mean to imply there is some fixed, optimal destination for "morality?" If so, isn't that contrary to the ideas of evolutionary theory?

I don't think he implied that at all. Just because something is in continual change/progress, doesn't mean that there is necessarily a defined goal. That merely an assumption that we make because of the limits of our mental capacity. But, hopefully, that to someday will change.

 

[leibowde84]

Not just empathy. Quite a few things seem to have evolved in us that form a basis for most or all moral codes. Empathy, a tendency to reciprocate, a sense of fairness, Theory of Mind (which makes empathy and other things possible), territoriality, and so forth. These things are ubiquitous to humans and almost certainly have a genetic basis. But they also play a role in most or all moralities.

Doesn't "empathy" cover all of those things. Empathy is the ability to share and understand the feelings of another, so wouldn't that just back up the Golden Rule? And, wouldn't that force us to want fairness territorily, judicially, etc.?

 

[Sunstone]

Doesn't "empathy" cover all of those things. Empathy is the ability to share and understand the feelings of another, so wouldn't that just back up the Golden Rule? And, wouldn't that force us to want fairness territorily, judicially, etc.?

I don't know of any science that suggests empathy is wired into our brains in such a way that it becomes generalized into such things as territoriality, etc. But that's an interesting question. I suppose one way to go about answering it would be to study people who have suffered brain damage to see if they experience empathy but not territoriality, or a desire to reciprocate, but not empathy.

 

[Quintessence]

I am not a theist.
I am not one to personify.
No, morality does not have a mind of its own.
Nor does morality have a "goal" or "destination".

People, however, do all the above...

I wasn't presuming theism nor personification with my question. Language like "trial and error" seems to suggest there's a right way to do morality and a wrong way to do morality, or that there's some optimum moral state. I was simply asking for clarification with respect to what you meant to say so as to not mistake your meaning. *shrug*

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems more than reasonable to assume that morality arose from our ability to reason and organize ourselves in societies. It is overwhelmingly obvious that societies cannot last unless certain rules are enforced. For example, if people are permitted to kill without justification, society will crumble. If people are permitted to steal whatever they want, society will crumble. So, why can't we credit our own species with the development of morals? I mean, there is no proof of objective moralty, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

Morality was more than likely developed by sociological need, I agree. I just don't see how that would counter-evidence objective morality.

Maybe you meant static or revealed morality? If so, I don't think those may usefully exist either.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's exactly the disguinishment made regarding our view of morality itself of which I'm under the impression that the term alludes to just simply getting along equitably and cooperativly as a group compared to that of many, if not all animal species that functions essentially along those same lines by which morality is defined among each respective species?

 

[SkylarHunter]

There surely is a plethora of evidence of "trial and error" throughout written history. That's for sure.

I'm under the impression that throughout history there is a lot of trial and "let's keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again and hope that some day the results will be different".

 

[jeager106]

I'm under the impression that throughout history there is a lot of trial and "let's keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again and hope that some day the results will be different".

I tend to agree with that.
Someone wrote: A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
expecting different results.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It seems more than reasonable to assume that morality arose from our ability to reason and organize ourselves in societies. It is overwhelmingly obvious that societies cannot last unless certain rules are enforced. For example, if people are permitted to kill without justification, society will crumble. If people are permitted to steal whatever they want, society will crumble. So, why can't we credit our own species with the development of morals? I mean, there is no proof of objective moralty, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

So far this has been a back patting thread between people but I also have to agree.

Though the actual study and understanding of it is far more complicated than all that and it is also important to understand that the social behaviors and instincts that we have evolved to have also are the same mechanisms that cause us to act immorally as well.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know of any science that suggests empathy is wired into our brains in such a way that it becomes generalized into such things as territoriality, etc. But that's an interesting question. I suppose one way to go about answering it would be to study people who have suffered brain damage to see if they experience empathy but not territoriality, or a desire to reciprocate, but not empathy.

So far this has been a back patting thread between people but I also have to agree.

Though the actual study and understanding of it is far more complicated than all that and it is also important to understand that the social behaviors and instincts that we have evolved to have also are the same mechanisms that cause us to act immorally as well.

That's because it is an eternal process. We are always improving our moral structure (and sometimes we move backwards a bit).

 

[Nakosis]

I mean, there is no proof of objective moralty, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

Except there was a being which jammed these ideas into our minds. Maybe just that being is fictional.

However I'd assume societal evolution includes the development of religions. Would we even have the concept of morals without the development of religious idealism? I don't know. That's not our reality.

One can imagine a reality where the concept of God never came about but that's not what happened.

No way to test the theory so it remains a theory.

 

[leibowde84]

Morality was more than likely developed by sociological need, I agree. I just don't see how that would counter-evidence objective morality.

Maybe you meant static or revealed morality? If so, I don't think those may usefully exist either.

I am saying that the evolution of morality is not discovering anything, but, instead, creating something out of need. But, I think you are right.