Is societal evolution a reasonable explanation for morality?

[Excaljnur]

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 morality, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

I think, to support your claim (which I agree with), it is important to explain Morality and speak of it less abstractly. For instance, when upon the development of human reasoning and organizing societies did we acquire the ability to, or discover the that we always could, distinguish decisions and actions as right or wrong, or good or bad? Perhaps we could be less abstract in our description of decisions and actions as good or bad and right or wrong and instead say better or worse. That is, to investigate when are we more inclined to act in a better matter as opposed to only a good manner with regard to claims of value. I believe studying morality and its origins can help us make this distinction clearer.

Interestingly, research in neuroscience has revealed that claims of facts and claims of value are processed in the brain identically as beliefs. Now, the implications of these findings are presently debated, but it does reveal, as apparent, what many philosophers have theorized in the past, that all that we know (believe we know) is belief-based. And this leads me to say that understanding how morality evolved over time may, in fact, be better stated as how our understanding of morality has evolved because if it is based on belief, then we have had the capacity to be moral ever since we became sufficiently capable of reasoning to hold beliefs.

So the "evolution of morality" is really the ever evolving development of complicated belief systems where we can compound beliefs and engage in systematic thinking. Systematic thinking of the form of reasoning certain potential beliefs to be more salient than others. The ontology of beliefs is still debated in its origins and extent of involvement in our thinking, but the capacity to reason can be regarded as analogous or even a development of the human capacity to form beliefs and conceptualize them in reference to other beliefs. The complexity by which we can conceptualize beliefs is not shared by any other animals and would explain why most animals aren't considered to have a sense of morality. Most animals lack the capacity to form inter-connected belief systems that allow systematic thinking. The insights into degrees of complexity in conceptualizing beliefs have come from studying primates and marine mammals because they exhibit behaviors that require communication on a conceptual basis such as that of language.

To believe that "morality" can be given, implanted or revealed to someone is, IMO, to not understand that "morality" is a very highly abstract concept used to describe the less abstract (but still very abstract) sub-concepts (justice, emotion, reality, language, empathy, etc) that are referred to when speaking of morality. Since morality is based in holding beliefs, to speak of someone as having a "moral sense" would be to acknowledge that that person holds specific beliefs that influence their behavior.

In this case, I would argue for the claim that the human understanding of morality in the purview of evolution really began to take form when a person could first identify a set of beliefs they held with a general notion of approval and disapproval. Although I think conceptualizing notions of approval and disapproval is first understood through a single mind as associated with personal desires, the development of conceptualizing notions of approval and disapproval became more complicated and advanced more quickly through communication within groups. These advancements, in a sense of more complicated modes of communication, are what I would call the evolution of morality which would certainly be crediting our species with the development of morality. Societal evolution certainly enabled our species to understand morality in more complicated forms and distinctions.

 

[Sunstone]

...
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.

Yes.

 

[bmk2416]

To believe that "morality" can be given, implanted or revealed to someone is, IMO, to not understand that "morality" is a very highly abstract concept used to describe the less abstract (but still very abstract) sub-concepts (justice, emotion, reality, language, empathy, etc) that are referred to when speaking of morality. Since morality is based in holding beliefs, to speak of someone as having a "moral sense" would be to acknowledge that that person holds specific beliefs that influence their behavior.

And I think herein lies the major issue with everyone's argument, whose
justice, emotion, reality, language, empathy etc are we basing the belief on? Because in one sense it can be the "morality" of say a pedophile and on the other hand it can be the "morality" of Mother Teresa and if you can subjectively choose either of the two based on evolution of a society then they aren't really morals at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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 only applies to free will. A capability for free will provides predators with surprise in attack, and prey unpredictability in escape. A choice can turn out either way in the moment is what provides the surprise and unpredictability. And in other ways choosing is the optimal solution to survival problems.

When a decision is made, then we can choose in identifying the spirit in which the decision is made, choose between courageous and reckless for instance. That is where morality applies.

Morality applies to what options are allowed and not allowed. The source and end of morality is the spirit which does the actual choosing. Which means the result of a decision is principally irrellevant in morality, only the spirit in which a decision is made matters. A decision which is made with a bad spirit, is evil, regardless of what the material result of the decision is. If one is happy now or later makes no difference, the point in both cases is the spiritual happiness, and the point is not the result of any decision. It is error to reason that morality makes things better only later, and not now.

Does it really matter if you pull the corners of your mouth upward or downward and cry when you are very happy? It does not, showing that the results of decisions are principally irrellevant and that only the spirit matters.

 

[Etritonakin]

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 morality, so why does there have to be a being that jammed these ideas into our minds?

There does not HAVE to be a being that jams SOME things into our heads -because they are apparent.

However, it could be said that all societies have crumbled from within or without -not one has stood continually, though some do get back up -and that human society as a whole inevitably crumbles, or at least has a strong tendency to do so.

It can also be said that in the absence of God, others do the jamming -government, police, etc.... because, while things might be apparent, some do not act in the best interest of society.

From a perspective of ignorance of what is not yet known, it can be said that either such a being does exist -or does not.

If such a being does exist, he jammed all of that into everything -the law applies to the overall situation -but we don't necessarily apply the law to the situation.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Also, while things such as stealing, killing, adultery, etc., can be known to be harmful to society, it is not apparent to many why the first few commandments are important because God himself is not readily apparent.

As God's intent is to create beings who will be eternally willing to apply the appropriate law, they must first see that the law -and the lawgiver -should be obeyed.
This can possibly come by reason -but most choose the route of experience, so mankind as a whole is experiencing crumble after crumble -which will eventually inevitably lead to a complete crumble as we are increasingly adept at causing things to crumble.

Many things are apparent to adults -but little is apparent to new beings. Humans usually live long enough to get a general idea about things -and just when they get the gist, they die.
Then another generation follows. This allows many individuals to get the general idea while occupying a limited space, and our impermanence means that each has a limited opportunity to do good or evil. Permanence could only be a good thing if all permanent beings were willing and able to apply the appropriate law.

If humans did not die.... counting from 50,000 B.C. there would be approximately 107,602,707,791 humans on the earth and things would be a complete mess -or perhaps we might have managed to make a mess of other planets. We may have managed some organization which allowed for great tasks to be accomplished, but it is not likely it would be a good time had by all.

So -the overall experience of mankind will make something apparent -which is that the government of God is necessary. God will prevent our complete self-destruction, then enforce and teach peace on earth as the decimated human population rebounds. Then all will be resurrected, and those who are or become willing to apply the law can inhabit the universe as immortals not subject to destruction and able to manage even the cosmic forces without making a mess of things and without needing to be micromanaged.

Or... we go on as we are and hope we don't blow ourselves up (we would), get wiped out by an asteroid, or fall to any number of doomsday scenarios.

Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Even if you don't believe God exists, you have to admit that's a pretty cool plan.

 

[McBell]

And I think herein lies the major issue with everyone's argument, whose
justice, emotion, reality, language, empathy etc are we basing the belief on? Because in one sense it can be the "morality" of say a pedophile and on the other hand it can be the "morality" of Mother Teresa and if you can subjectively choose either of the two based on evolution of a society then they aren't really morals at all.

It is interesting how so many people completely deny morality when it is not to their liking.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

You're absolutely right.

In sociology you read and study about how morals are analyzed and different theories how they emerge in society. One thing that stuck the most with me is that morals arise from mores (general conventions) but even more so from values. What we value as a person and what is valued in society brings about what we consider to be worthwhile protecting. And anything we want to protect, we produce morals for.

When it comes to objective morality, I do think there are some morals that we could consider objective, however vague they might be. In any society, of any species that would evolve to be a social creature, some morals would have to eventually evolve in there as well to protect the species as a whole. One is the one you mention about, killing. There has to be some kind of intrinsic rules growing in a society regarding murder of other individuals, or the group won't exist for long. It's a general rule that objectively must exist at some point, but it's not an absolute rule. Killing is allowed in certain situations, like war, execution, or self-defense, but in general it cannot be allowed. We don't need God to explain this, It's just reasonable.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I agree with you.

However, the tricky thing here is that this is not in the brain of a newborn. Empathy, reciprocation, how to react to right and wrong, and knowing what is considered right and wrong, develops. The brain develops from back to front. The frontal lobe is where most of our ability to know right and wrong, and having the "error code" produced to signal that something is wrong, is mostly in the front. I'm not sure where empathy lies, but I suspect that's there too. And the bad thing is, biochemistry and genetics can hinder this development, but also upbringing and environment. A child that doesn't learn what the social norms are won't be able to even generate the necessary synapses to know this. In the end, it's a mix of things. Morality is a quick and easy word for some really intricate and interrelated details.