Is a morality innate, grown, or learned?

[WAB]

To suppose that a moral sense is not grown but only learned is to suppose that lemurs and monkeys and apes evolved progressively more sophisticated moral instincts, and then hominid ancestors lost them, and then all human cultures reinvented them by social evolution. It's unparsimonious.

- Bomb#20, from a year old thread.

I noticed this only just now but overlooked it while the thread was going. It comes from a dialogue between Bronzeage and Bomb#20.

I agree with Bomb#20, though I'm not clear on what he/she means by 'grown'. It sounds like it means something like inherent, or innate. ?

I think this merits further discussion.

 

[WAB]

*will work on this post later...

 

[Bronzeage]

I am going to copy and past my posts from another current thread, just to save time typing.

Morality is independent of any religion, although religion always serves to codify the moral code of a society. Religion gets to offer horrible consequences to those who violate the code, which is pretty heady stuff.

Morality can be boiled down to two basic tenets. You can't kill your friends and you can't steal your friends stuff. That's it. The rest is just arguing over the definition of friend, kill, steal, and stuff.

Morality comes from the simple fact, that from a zoological viewpoint, humans are a pathetic animal. We cannot survive as a solitary creature. We can't run fast enough to catch most animals we would like to eat and can't outrun those who want to eat us. Our flat teeth, soft claws, poor sense of smell and inadequate night vision forces us to gather in groups. A group has to live without conflict, which means our behavior must be predictable. We have to know how one another are going to react in any given situation.

Morality makes it possible for us to live in close quarters and cooperate, instead of compete for for resources. Morality is a social construction. There does not appear to be much instinct in human social structure. This means it must be taught to each new member of the group, and the teaching must be consistent, throughout the group. Religion, in all it's varieties through time and geography, provides consistent transfer of the group's moral code, generation after generation.

The problem with moral codes start when groups merge and the definition of who is in the group becomes blurred. To complicate things even more, some religions suddenly declare the entire world to be one group and in a flash, killing and stealing from other people is wrong. There was a time when David(soon to be King David) could massacre tens of thousands of people and take all their stuff, and his group thought this was a good thing. Their "Thy shalt not kill" clause in the moral code did not apply to other groups.

Morality and evolution are a chicken or the egg paradox. Atheism is a rejection(reconsideration?) of the social authority we construct to enforce our moral code of behavior.

The problem comes when this rejection of the authority is mistaken for a rejection of the code of behavior.

This is where it gets tiresome, because some asshole has to pop up and ask something like, "If there is no God or hell, why don't I kill or rape as many people as I want?"

The simple answer to this simple minded question is, "Apparently, you have." Sometimes people fail to recognise zero is a number. Humans are a lazy species. It maybe our weak behavioral instincts. Turn a wasp loose and it will begin to build a nest. A toad will hop back to the pond where it was spawned, to find a mate. If I wanted to hop back to Panama, I would have to consult a map, or maybe a GPS navigation device, but I'd probably decide to look for a woman someplace close by. A code of behavior makes life easier, and we've never been able resist the easy way.

We have a moral code of behavior because it makes life easier. An easy life gives us more time to do the fun stuff and that is a powerful evolutionary drive. Did our large brain bet bigger because life was easier in ways such as more and better food, lower infant mortality, longer childhood, etc,l or did the large brain make that stuff possible? We're back to the chicken or egg thing, again.

One thing is certain, without the egg, we wouldn't have the chicken.

 

[rousseau]

In my opinion we don't 'learn' or 'grow' morality.

What we've labelled as a 'moral action' is just a sub-set of an array of self-interested behaviours. In other words, if we remove morality from the equation altogether we realize that people continuously 'learn' to act in ways that benefit themselves the most, whether those behaviours are given the label of moral or not.

 

[WAB]

I am going to copy and past my posts from another current thread, just to save time typing.

Morality comes from the simple fact, that from a zoological viewpoint, humans are a pathetic animal. We cannot survive as a solitary creature. We can't run fast enough to catch most animals we would like to eat and can't outrun those who want to eat us. Our flat teeth, soft claws, poor sense of smell and inadequate night vision forces us to gather in groups. A group has to live without conflict, which means our behavior must be predictable. We have to know how one another are going to react in any given situation.

Morality makes it possible for us to live in close quarters and cooperate, instead of compete for for resources. Morality is a social construction. There does not appear to be much instinct in human social structure. This means it must be taught to each new member of the group, and the teaching must be consistent, throughout the group. Religion, in all it's varieties through time and geography, provides consistent transfer of the group's moral code, generation after generation.

The problem with moral codes start when groups merge and the definition of who is in the group becomes blurred. To complicate things even more, some religions suddenly declare the entire world to be one group and in a flash, killing and stealing from other people is wrong. There was a time when David(soon to be King David) could massacre tens of thousands of people and take all their stuff, and his group thought this was a good thing. Their "Thy shalt not kill" clause in the moral code did not apply to other groups.

Morality and evolution are a chicken or the egg paradox. Atheism is a rejection(reconsideration?) of the social authority we construct to enforce our moral code of behavior.

The problem comes when this rejection of the authority is mistaken for a rejection of the code of behavior.

This is where it gets tiresome, because some asshole has to pop up and ask something like, "If there is no God or hell, why don't I kill or rape as many people as I want?"

The simple answer to this simple minded question is, "Apparently, you have." Sometimes people fail to recognise zero is a number. Humans are a lazy species. It maybe our weak behavioral instincts. Turn a wasp loose and it will begin to build a nest. A toad will hop back to the pond where it was spawned, to find a mate. If I wanted to hop back to Panama, I would have to consult a map, or maybe a GPS navigation device, but I'd probably decide to look for a woman someplace close by. A code of behavior makes life easier, and we've never been able resist the easy way.

We have a moral code of behavior because it makes life easier. An easy life gives us more time to do the fun stuff and that is a powerful evolutionary drive. Did our large brain bet bigger because life was easier in ways such as more and better food, lower infant mortality, longer childhood, etc,l or did the large brain make that stuff possible? We're back to the chicken or egg thing, again.

One thing is certain, without the egg, we wouldn't have the chicken.

This sounds reasonable, though I may expound on a few things later, time permitting.

I do want to point out, though: I believe I misinterpreted your "Apparently, you have," answer in the other thread. I took it to mean, "Apparently you have raped and killed," - but I think what you meant was, "Apparently you have raped and killed as many people as you want, which is none." IOW: "If you wanted to rape and kill someone, you would have."

Have I got it right?

 

[WAB]

In my opinion we don't 'learn' or 'grow' morality.

What we've labelled as a 'moral action' is just a sub-set of an array of self-interested behaviours. In other words, if we remove morality from the equation altogether we realize that people continuously 'learn' to act in ways that benefit themselves the most, whether those behaviours are given the label of moral or not.

I dunno.

I tend to think that a more valuable code of morality must include the Other. Altruism-light, perhaps. While I don't advocate people acting like sacrificial lambs, acting like schmoon, I would most certainly advocate doing what one can to help others, and I certainly believe that compassion, generosity, gentleness, kindness, and community spirit are virtues.

This is from someone who spent several years as an Objectivist, before going through monumental changes in worldview and political ideology in my late 40s.

I'm almost glad Steve Weiss hasn't come over to the new board—at least I haven't seen him around. He'd be all over me like a cheap suit.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree with Bomb#20, though I'm not clear on what he/she means by 'grown'. It sounds like it means something like inherent, or innate. ?

I meant "grown" in the biological sense, as a branch grows from a tree. Getting moral feelings is something that happens to monkeys at a particular stage in the development of our nervous systems, later than embryo and earlier than adult. This is not the same thing as being innate. Innate means present from birth, but there's nothing magical about the moment of birth to make DNA-coded development processes shut off just because you get squeezed through somebody's birth canal. This came up because I was arguing with Bronzeage about whether morality is coded for in our DNA, and he offered his toddlers' apparent lack of morals as evidence against that hypothesis, which means he, like so many others, was casually treating DNA-coding as equivalent to innateness. I used the word "grown" to emphasize the distinction from "innate" -- there's no rule against a DNA-coded brain characteristic being absent in 2-year-olds and present in 9-year-olds. It's the same point I was making when I asked him why his toddlers toddled.

 

[Unbeatable]

I agree with Bomb#20, though I'm not clear on what he/she means by 'grown'. It sounds like it means something like inherent, or innate. ?

I meant "grown" in the biological sense, as a branch grows from a tree. Getting moral feelings is something that happens to monkeys at a particular stage in the development of our nervous systems, later than embryo and earlier than adult.

Can you specify which feelings you're referring to when you use the phrase "moral feelings"?

 

[Bronzeage]

I am going to copy and past my posts from another current thread, just to save time typing.

Morality and evolution are a chicken or the egg paradox. Atheism is a rejection(reconsideration?) of the social authority we construct to enforce our moral code of behavior.

The problem comes when this rejection of the authority is mistaken for a rejection of the code of behavior.

This is where it gets tiresome, because some asshole has to pop up and ask something like, "If there is no God or hell, why don't I kill or rape as many people as I want?"

The simple answer to this simple minded question is, "Apparently, you have." Sometimes people fail to recognise zero is a number. Humans are a lazy species. It maybe our weak behavioral instincts. Turn a wasp loose and it will begin to build a nest. A toad will hop back to the pond where it was spawned, to find a mate. If I wanted to hop back to Panama, I would have to consult a map, or maybe a GPS navigation device, but I'd probably decide to look for a woman someplace close by. A code of behavior makes life easier, and we've never been able resist the easy way.

We have a moral code of behavior because it makes life easier. An easy life gives us more time to do the fun stuff and that is a powerful evolutionary drive. Did our large brain bet bigger because life was easier in ways such as more and better food, lower infant mortality, longer childhood, etc,l or did the large brain make that stuff possible? We're back to the chicken or egg thing, again.

One thing is certain, without the egg, we wouldn't have the chicken.

This sounds reasonable, though I may expound on a few things later, time permitting.

I do want to point out, though: I believe I misinterpreted your "Apparently, you have," answer in the other thread. I took it to mean, "Apparently you have raped and killed," - but I think what you meant was, "Apparently you have raped and killed as many people as you want, which is none." IOW: "If you wanted to rape and kill someone, you would have."

Have I got it right?

Exactly. At this point in time and space, my desire to rape and kill is completely satisfied, having raped and killed no one.

The hairs we must split keep getting finer. The reason we don't rape and kill is not directly based on our moral code, which says it is a bad thing to do. We don't rape and kill because we have the empathy to realize this will harm someone else. It is our empathy which allows us to construct the code of behavior which will define exceptions to the rule. Tricky, huh?

The moral code of behavior's great purpose is to let everyone know what behavior is expected of themself and of their neighbor. Further, it defines what happens if someone violates the code. All of this is so we can maintain order in the group. While our empathy is the power behind the moral code, the power of the code is ready when empathy fails.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can you specify which feelings you're referring to when you use the phrase "moral feelings"?

No doubt it's debatable which feelings count as moral feelings, but we don't really need exact boundaries here. So let's start with Richard Leakey's list: sympathy, gratitude, guilt and moral indignation.

 

[Kharakov]

The hairs we must split keep getting finer. The reason we don't rape and kill is not directly based on our moral code, which says it is a bad thing to do. We don't rape and kill because we have the empathy to realize this will harm someone else. It is our empathy which allows us to construct the code of behavior which will define exceptions to the rule. Tricky, huh?

The moral code of behavior's great purpose is to let everyone know what behavior is expected of themself and of their neighbor. Further, it defines what happens if someone violates the code. All of this is so we can maintain order in the group. While our empathy is the power behind the moral code, the power of the code is ready when empathy fails.

Don't read the following. Seriously.

Show

BDSM just fucks moral code in the ass. Not too mention the fact that while you're alive, you suffer, when you're not you don't. That's a pretty damning indictment of anyone who doesn't murder you, because they allow you to suffer.

 

[Bronzeage]

The hairs we must split keep getting finer. The reason we don't rape and kill is not directly based on our moral code, which says it is a bad thing to do. We don't rape and kill because we have the empathy to realize this will harm someone else. It is our empathy which allows us to construct the code of behavior which will define exceptions to the rule. Tricky, huh?

The moral code of behavior's great purpose is to let everyone know what behavior is expected of themself and of their neighbor. Further, it defines what happens if someone violates the code. All of this is so we can maintain order in the group. While our empathy is the power behind the moral code, the power of the code is ready when empathy fails.

Don't read the following. Seriously.

Show

BDSM just fucks moral code in the ass. Not too mention the fact that while you're alive, you suffer, when you're not you don't. That's a pretty damning indictment of anyone who doesn't murder you, because they allow you to suffer.

per·ver·sion
pərˈvərZHən/Submit
noun
1.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
"all great evil is the perversion of a good"
synonyms: distortion, misrepresentation, falsification, travesty, misinterpretation, misconstruction, twisting, corruption, subversion, misuse, misapplication, debasement
"a twisted perversion of the truth"
2.
sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.
synonyms: deviance, abnormality; More

Every definition leads to more definitions, all of which determine the definition of the word. It's always possible to present perverted definitions with the hope of making a point.

 

[Unbeatable]

Can you specify which feelings you're referring to when you use the phrase "moral feelings"?

No doubt it's debatable which feelings count as moral feelings, but we don't really need exact boundaries here. So let's start with Richard Leakey's list: sympathy, gratitude, guilt and moral indignation.

Aren't those combinations of feelings and ideas?

 

[Bomb#20]

No doubt it's debatable which feelings count as moral feelings, but we don't really need exact boundaries here. So let's start with Richard Leakey's list: sympathy, gratitude, guilt and moral indignation.

Aren't those combinations of feelings and ideas?

Probably so. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

[untermensche]

Only potentials are innate.

Their expression depends on circumstance.

One may have the potential to be tall, but circumstance may stunt the full expression of that potential.

And nothing can be said of ALL humans.

Most seem to have the potential to acquire some kind of morality.

 

[rousseau]

Only potentials are innate.

Their expression depends on circumstance.

One may have the potential to be tall, but circumstance may stunt the full expression of that potential.

And nothing can be said of ALL humans.

Most seem to have the potential to acquire some kind of morality.

That's a good point and feeds into what I was saying earlier in the thread.

I've been trying to respond again but I don't seem to have the eloquence to express myself clearly on this topic. But 'potentials' helps me make my point.

If one could imagine that the most probable motivation for any given behavior is to further one's own chance for survival, but that most of those behaviors have been classed 'moral' and 'immoral', then it follows that 'good' and 'bad' behaviors are sub-classes of behavior, which is usually, but not absolutely, self interested.

Where 'potentials' would come in to play would be that we have innate traits: empathy, fear, anger, sadness.. etc which express themselves in 'good' or 'bad' behaviors. So it's not that morality is learned, or innate, it's just a thing that can happen within the spectrum of human expression. And if you want to be more accurate about people's behaviour you could say something like 'we act in the context of our world' rather than 'we act morally or immorally in the context of our world'.

Still, one could claim that people *should* behave morally, but that's an ethical philosophy, not a natural one.

 

[Kharakov]

And nothing can be said of ALL humans.

Your inability to say nothing has been quoted.