People's true moral nature

[rousseau]

I've been thinking about morality here and there over the past few years, and what seems so obvious to me doesn't always seem so clear to many. After doing a quick search on philosophy stack exchange I hear a lot of questions like: 'is it moral to do [x]' and 'is it moral to do [y]'. I'd argue that these types of questions are nonsense, and that there is one objective moral framework that actually guides human behaviour. Beyond man-made moral systems, it defines how people actually behave in the ethical realm.

Basically human morality boils down to this:

I'm free to do anything I want, but I'm not free from the consequences of doing what I want

In other words the quality of the moral principles that guide me is always going to be rated on the real-world results that the principles provide. In a sense it goes back to ancient ideas of karma, every action has a corresponding reaction, and so the end of controlling my behaviour is to control the resulting consequences of my behaviour in a way that I desire.

This means there is really no such thing as 'universal morals that must always be followed' but rather people who move from situation to situation who have to make choices toward some self-defined end goal. Even people who profess to follow some form of man-made moral system will, in reality, be more inclined to gauge unique situations toward their advantage, even if it means breaking the 'official' moral code. This is a pattern that's played out throughout history.

I'd argue that this type of code or moral view, if you will, is distinct from the study of man-made moral systems, where we collectively decide rules to follow toward the end of a productive society. Those types of morals are the rules of the game, what I'm describing here is a human reaction to those rules that actually describes our behaviour.

 

[Eric H]

Basically human morality boils down to this:

I'm free to do anything I want, but I'm not free from the consequences of doing what I want

This seems to be very much in line with trading morality.

Even people who profess to follow some form of man-made moral system will, in reality, be more inclined to gauge unique situations toward their advantage, even if it means breaking the 'official' moral code. This is a pattern that's played out throughout history.

This is a typical trading morality, getting the edge on others, so you can enjoy a bit more for yourself.

This is not a good morality to have in a marriage, always trying to have an advantage over your spouse. What kind of friendship can you have with others, if you are constantly looking for an advantage over your friends?

 

[bilby]

nm

 

[rousseau]

This seems to be very much in line with trading morality.

Even people who profess to follow some form of man-made moral system will, in reality, be more inclined to gauge unique situations toward their advantage, even if it means breaking the 'official' moral code. This is a pattern that's played out throughout history.

This is a typical trading morality, getting the edge on others, so you can enjoy a bit more for yourself.

This is not a good morality to have in a marriage, always trying to have an advantage over your spouse. What kind of friendship can you have with others, if you are constantly looking for an advantage over your friends?

You seem to have missed the key point that I'm not describing a particular moral system, I'm describing people's moral relationship with the world.

That is we are constantly forced to make decisions, situation to situation, and the moral rules we choose to follow are only as good as the results that arise from them.

 

[ronburgundy]

This seems to be very much in line with trading morality.



This is a typical trading morality, getting the edge on others, so you can enjoy a bit more for yourself.

This is not a good morality to have in a marriage, always trying to have an advantage over your spouse. What kind of friendship can you have with others, if you are constantly looking for an advantage over your friends?

You seem to have missed the key point that I'm not describing a particular moral system, I'm describing people's moral relationship with the world.

That is we are constantly forced to make decisions, situation to situation, and the moral rules we choose to follow are only as good as the results that arise from them.

But it's important to keep in mind that the "results" and "consequences" that actually matter are not the material results but the emotional ones. Material results (such as rewards or punishments delivered by others) are only part of what impacts the emotional results of an action or inaction. Not only do our ideas impact our emotional reactions independent of material impact but those emotions are also shaped by what seems to be empathetic reactions to other's pain which triggers negative emotions that most people seek to avoid by not contributing to the pain of others.

People that have neurological impairments (often genetically influenced) to areas that generate and regulate emotional responses and thus emphatic responses tend to have psychopathology prone towards harmful immoral and violent acts, not out or reactionary rage but because they act purely out of the kind of cold, instrumental cost-gain analyses your describing that is devoid of experiencing and thus considering the emotional consequences. There is some evidence that some psychopathology may stem issues with the amygdala and its connections to the orbitalfrontal cortex and their role in forming memories of one's emotionally arousing past episodes. If you have no memory for past emotional consequences of your actions, you are more likely to act in ways that cause others pain.

 

[Under the Rose]

I've been thinking about morality here and there over the past few years, and what seems so obvious to me doesn't always seem so clear to many. After doing a quick search on philosophy stack exchange I hear a lot of questions like: 'is it moral to do [x]' and 'is it moral to do [y]'. I'd argue that these types of questions are nonsense, and that there is one objective moral framework that actually guides human behaviour. Beyond man-made moral systems, it defines how people actually behave in the ethical realm.

Basically human morality boils down to this:

I'm free to do anything I want, but I'm not free from the consequences of doing what I want

In other words the quality of the moral principles that guide me is always going to be rated on the real-world results that the principles provide. In a sense it goes back to ancient ideas of karma, every action has a corresponding reaction, and so the end of controlling my behaviour is to control the resulting consequences of my behaviour in a way that I desire.

This means there is really no such thing as 'universal morals that must always be followed' but rather people who move from situation to situation who have to make choices toward some self-defined end goal. Even people who profess to follow some form of man-made moral system will, in reality, be more inclined to gauge unique situations toward their advantage, even if it means breaking the 'official' moral code. This is a pattern that's played out throughout history.

I'd argue that this type of code or moral view, if you will, is distinct from the study of man-made moral systems, where we collectively decide rules to follow toward the end of a productive society. Those types of morals are the rules of the game, what I'm describing here is a human reaction to those rules that actually describes our behaviour.

What precisely is morality beyond a system of interaction that we learn from our surrounds?

From birth, we seek to fulfill our basic needs, nurtured by our mother or another because we are not precocious young. During that interval of rapid growth and learning we are shaped by our surrounds and interactions with others, which we largely emulate.

If we are born into a safe environment, we become more kind and sharing and if we must endure hardship and scarcity, there is a greater chance that survival instincts will shape our moral compass.

 

[rousseau]

You seem to have missed the key point that I'm not describing a particular moral system, I'm describing people's moral relationship with the world.

That is we are constantly forced to make decisions, situation to situation, and the moral rules we choose to follow are only as good as the results that arise from them.

But it's important to keep in mind that the "results" and "consequences" that actually matter are not the material results but the emotional ones. Material results (such as rewards or punishments delivered by others) are only part of what impacts the emotional results of an action or inaction. Not only do our ideas impact our emotional reactions independent of material impact but those emotions are also shaped by what seems to be empathetic reactions to other's pain which triggers negative emotions that most people seek to avoid by not contributing to the pain of others.

People that have neurological impairments (often genetically influenced) to areas that generate and regulate emotional responses and thus emphatic responses tend to have psychopathology prone towards harmful immoral and violent acts, not out or reactionary rage but because they act purely out of the kind of cold, instrumental cost-gain analyses your describing that is devoid of experiencing and thus considering the emotional consequences. There is some evidence that some psychopathology may stem issues with the amygdala and its connections to the orbitalfrontal cortex and their role in forming memories of one's emotionally arousing past episodes. If you have no memory for past emotional consequences of your actions, you are more likely to act in ways that cause others pain.

When I suggest it's only the 'results' that matter, I wasn't trying to imply strictly material results, but any results that the person acting thinks are important. I do agree that emotional results are important, and that very often is the goal that people have in mind when they behave.

Getting to this point opens up a whole range of discussion points but the main one in the view in my OP is that when a person 'decides' what moral code is going to guide their behaviour, that moral code can only really be judged on the consequent results. This means questions like 'is [x] moral' are really contextual based on individual situations and a range of variables involved. This also means there is no such thing as universal morality.

To give you a few clear examples:

A person decides giving to the poor is important to them. The result is another person eating. Setting aside that judging the behaviour is subjective itself, a person could call this a good moral view.

A person decides that helping their partner as much as they possibly can is a good idea for a lot of reasons. The result is that they have a fulfilling relationship with each other. A person could call this a good moral view.

In a more complex example, a medieval Christian monk realises he doesn't have enough money to eat or he'll starve to death, and he consequently steals some food, breaking with his Christian faith. Given the circumstances, one could excuse the behaviour as a necessity, and so not immoral. This is in contrast if a rich Christian monk steals.

So the take home here is that people need to act in the world toward some end, usually survival, but it can be other things. Man-made, and 'official' moral frameworks in this context are more like suggestions and guiding principles, but not authoritative moral law. In this view people have to measure competing aspects of their lives and make decisions for whatever reason they think is relevant

The other interesting point that I think your post raises is that the absence of any conscious moral system, whether empathic or sociopathic, means the person is actually amoral. That is a lot of their behaviour is a series of learned or random responses without any real guiding principle besides 'I want to feel more pleasure and less pain' and however their past experience has painted their moral world. And so if someone is deciding and calculating their behaviour, this doesn't necessarily entail pure material judgements, it just means that their own behaviour has become an object of their conscious reflection.

 

[Treedbear]

...
So the take home here is that people need to act in the world toward some end, usually survival, but it can be other things. ...

As I see it the larger context is always survival.

 

[ronburgundy]

But it's important to keep in mind that the "results" and "consequences" that actually matter are not the material results but the emotional ones. Material results (such as rewards or punishments delivered by others) are only part of what impacts the emotional results of an action or inaction. Not only do our ideas impact our emotional reactions independent of material impact but those emotions are also shaped by what seems to be empathetic reactions to other's pain which triggers negative emotions that most people seek to avoid by not contributing to the pain of others.

People that have neurological impairments (often genetically influenced) to areas that generate and regulate emotional responses and thus emphatic responses tend to have psychopathology prone towards harmful immoral and violent acts, not out or reactionary rage but because they act purely out of the kind of cold, instrumental cost-gain analyses your describing that is devoid of experiencing and thus considering the emotional consequences. There is some evidence that some psychopathology may stem issues with the amygdala and its connections to the orbitalfrontal cortex and their role in forming memories of one's emotionally arousing past episodes. If you have no memory for past emotional consequences of your actions, you are more likely to act in ways that cause others pain.

When I suggest it's only the 'results' that matter, I wasn't trying to imply strictly material results, but any results that the person acting thinks are important. I do agree that emotional results are important, and that very often is the goal that people have in mind when they behave.

Getting to this point opens up a whole range of discussion points but the main one in the view in my OP is that when a person 'decides' what moral code is going to guide their behaviour, that moral code can only really be judged on the consequent results. This means questions like 'is [x] moral' are really contextual based on individual situations and a range of variables involved. This also means there is no such thing as universal morality.



To give you a few clear examples:

A person decides giving to the poor is important to them. The result is another person eating. Setting aside that judging the behaviour is subjective itself, a person could call this a good moral view.

A person decides that helping their partner as much as they possibly can is a good idea for a lot of reasons. The result is that they have a fulfilling relationship with each other. A person could call this a good moral view.

In a more complex example, a medieval Christian monk realises he doesn't have enough money to eat or he'll starve to death, and he consequently steals some food, breaking with his Christian faith. Given the circumstances, one could excuse the behaviour as a necessity, and so not immoral. This is in contrast if a rich Christian monk steals.

So the take home here is that people need to act in the world toward some end, usually survival, but it can be other things. Man-made, and 'official' moral frameworks in this context are more like suggestions and guiding principles, but not authoritative moral law. In this view people have to measure competing aspects of their lives and make decisions for whatever reason they think is relevant

The other interesting point that I think your post raises is that the absence of any conscious moral system, whether empathic or sociopathic, means the person is actually amoral. That is a lot of their behaviour is a series of learned or random responses without any real guiding principle besides 'I want to feel more pleasure and less pain' and however their past experience has painted their moral world. And so if someone is deciding and calculating their behaviour, this doesn't necessarily entail pure material judgements, it just means that their own behaviour has become an object of their conscious reflection.

To be clear, I completely reject all notions of moral objectivity, whether rooted in dictates of a moral authority like God, or fallaciously inferred from various scientific facts regarding human evolution, survival needs, or collective agreement (aka "universality"). Morals are subjective feelings and preferences for how we want people (others and/or ourselves) to act. The objective impact of various moral positions or systems does not make those morals true in any objective sense, but is merely the objective facts that underlie the purely subjective feelings that are the essence of morality (not unlike the objective biochemistry that leads use to subjective like the taste of sweet more than bitter).

That said, your argument sometimes seems to equate how people actually behave with what their morals are or what is moral. Morality is about preferences not actualities. Those preferences are impacted by consequences associated with various actions, but the preferences are at more abstract conceptual level than single events and thus are not as context dependent as you are making out. If I wind up having sex with 17 year old that doesn't mean I made the choice that it was moral to do so. It might mean that I just ignored its morality or even consciously decided to do it anyway even after thinking "This is wrong." People do things they feel are wrong all the time, so you cannot infer what was moral for them at the time simply from their actions.

Also, your monk stealing example raises the issue that the context that varies the morality of an act could instead be viewed as varying the objective facts about the act and thus what the act actually was, with the morality of particular acts remaining stable. IOW, keeping yourself alive by taking property whose owner is not depending on to live is a different action with different objective properties than taking the same property without using it to keep yourself alive. The relation between the objective features of an action and its morality may remain constant, but those objective features vary with context and thus so does the morality.

 

[rousseau]

...
So the take home here is that people need to act in the world toward some end, usually survival, but it can be other things. ...

As I see it the larger context is always survival.

Yea I was going to say.

In the world as I see it personally, I usually see self-interest embedded in everything.

Although I'm also inclined to think that people *can* intentionally act outside of their own interests, which is what I think separates us from beasts.

I don't see it too often, but speaking for myself I like giving to poor people quite a bit for no other reason than I can, and like seeing people with little be slightly happier.

Of course you can make the old round-about arguments about giving, but when someone intentionally gives when they don't need to, instead of the alternative of not giving at all, I think that speaks to shirking self-interest as best as is possible.

 

[ryan]

As I see it the larger context is always survival.

Yea I was going to say.

In the world as I see it personally, I usually see self-interest embedded in everything.

... but speaking for myself I like giving to poor people quite a bit for no other reason than I can ...

Be careful. You seem to be walking a fine line of cynicism and even venturing into self-righteousness. To say that all you see is self interest except for yourself just seems really wrong.

Many people who give to charities will not tell people. If they don't, they will not be sure if they do it for the positive attention or they do it because they actually want to help.

 

[rousseau]

Yea I was going to say.

In the world as I see it personally, I usually see self-interest embedded in everything.

... but speaking for myself I like giving to poor people quite a bit for no other reason than I can ...

Be careful. You seem to be walking a fine line of cynicism and even venturing into self-righteousness. To say that all you see is self interest except for yourself just seems really wrong.

Many people who give to charities will not tell people. If they don't, they will not be sure if they do it for the positive attention or they do it because they actually want to help.

I'm not saying that I'm not self interested, I'm giving an example of acting outside of one's own interests that I know of.

And believe me, I don't care whether or not people of Talk Freethought know that I donate to charity, but without alluding to it, how could I use the example?

I mean I'm sure I could have thought really hard about it and come up with something else, or I could just not be hoity toity about it and use the easiest example I know of.

 

[ryan]

Be careful. You seem to be walking a fine line of cynicism and even venturing into self-righteousness. To say that all you see is self interest except for yourself just seems really wrong.

Many people who give to charities will not tell people. If they don't, they will not be sure if they do it for the positive attention or they do it because they actually want to help.

And believe me, I don't care whether or not people of Talk Freethought know that I donate to charity, but without alluding to it, how could I use the example?

I am saying that you may not notice all of the selfless people because they don't like to tell other people what they do.

- - - Updated - - -

not trying to troll, just thought your post was quite alarming

 

[Under the Rose]

Altruism is one aspect of morality. I had an interesting discussion with one mentor in regard to whether altruism is a genetic trait or a learned attribute.
He was of the opinion that it was both and science demonstrates that we have a biological feed back loop that rewards us for altruistic behavior.

Abstract

William D. Hamilton postulated the existence of ‘genes underlying altruism’, under the rubric of inclusive fitness theory, a half-century ago. Such genes are now poised for discovery. In this article, we develop a set of intuitive criteria for the recognition and analysis of genes for altruism and describe the first candidate genes affecting altruism from social insects and humans. We also provide evidence from a human population for genetically based trade-offs, underlain by oxytocin-system polymorphisms, between alleles for altruism and alleles for non-social cognition. Such trade-offs between self-oriented and altruistic behaviour may influence the evolution of phenotypic diversity across all social animals.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/6/20130395

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Altruism is one aspect of morality. I had an interesting discussion with one mentor in regard to whether altruism is a genetic trait or a learned attribute.
He was of the opinion that it was both and science demonstrates that we have a biological feed back loop that rewards us for altruistic behavior.

Abstract

William D. Hamilton postulated the existence of ‘genes underlying altruism’, under the rubric of inclusive fitness theory, a half-century ago. Such genes are now poised for discovery. In this article, we develop a set of intuitive criteria for the recognition and analysis of genes for altruism and describe the first candidate genes affecting altruism from social insects and humans. We also provide evidence from a human population for genetically based trade-offs, underlain by oxytocin-system polymorphisms, between alleles for altruism and alleles for non-social cognition. Such trade-offs between self-oriented and altruistic behaviour may influence the evolution of phenotypic diversity across all social animals.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/6/20130395

Quite. We're no different than other "beasts" in this regard.

 

[Treedbear]

As I see it the larger context is always survival.

Yea I was going to say.

In the world as I see it personally, I usually see self-interest embedded in everything.

Although I'm also inclined to think that people *can* intentionally act outside of their own interests, which is what I think separates us from beasts.
...

I don't mean personal survival. Even when people seem to be acting for their own benefit it is based on an instinctive drive to do what is best for the species. That is, unless they are physiologically sociopathic. While consciously (i.e.; subjectively) they may be thinking "me", they are subconsciously thinking what they do is good for the species as a whole. And it doesn't separate us from all the beasts. Wolf packs for instance. Any social species in which the individual has the capacity to view itself as a member of a community. It is sometimes morally necessary for the individual to disrupt the local community (such as by acting selfishly) in order to serve the wider good.

 

[Under the Rose]

Our actions and reactions in various situations are also interesting. I am thinking of the horrible mob mentality that seems to infect so many on Black Friday, the discount shopping event, which creates demand for limited resources and the lengths to which people go to fulfill their desires.

Ethics and morality seem to go out the window and people get injured and even killed.

When our previous grocery store closed two years ago, the staff was given a 15 minute private shop before the public was let in as a parting gift. We still had to pay but we had the pick of the remaining goods and close out prices.

I scooped a number of Ferrero Rocher chocolates into my cart and continued hunting for deals.

When the store opened to the public, I noticed a disappointed young lady looking at the few remaining boxes on the shelf and I went over and offered her some of the multitude that I had scooped in anticipation of pending seasonal holidays. She was astounded that I would relinquish anything that was inside the sacred confines of my buggy as I gather those are the parameters. If it is in your cart, it's yours. On the shelf, we can bump elbows and grapple.

In actuality, once the excited flush of momentary possession had passed, I began to feel greedy and I did not enjoy my score if there was not more for others also. I was raised with a sense of fair play and apparently, this trait is also observable in Capuchin monkeys, who demonstrate an understanding of unfair treatment. Enjoy!

 

[Valjean]

Johnathan Haidt:
"The mind is designed (by evolution), to unite us into teams, to divide us against other teams, and to blind us to the truth."

Human morality was forged in the Pleistocene, as a tribal survival mechanism, and has become hard-wired into our psychology.

Human moral behavior revolves around tribalism: intense in-tribe loyalty and altruism, coupled with animosity toward and competition with other tribes. Our moral sense and desire for understanding does not naturally extend beyond out own tribe. Even when seers appear, teaching peace, love, tolerance and unity few are able to extend these ideals beyond their own in-group.

The pleasure of tribalism is so intense that, absent actual, competing tribes, humans will create artificial tribes, to which they can focus their loyalty and out-group animosity -- even when these opposing entities are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

Cf: the current, World Series competition between the Cub and Indian tribes.

 

[iolo]

I don't think the 'imagined communities' that are modern states have much in common with tribal societies, actually.

 

[PyramidHead]

I've been thinking about morality here and there over the past few years, and what seems so obvious to me doesn't always seem so clear to many. After doing a quick search on philosophy stack exchange I hear a lot of questions like: 'is it moral to do [x]' and 'is it moral to do [y]'. I'd argue that these types of questions are nonsense, and that there is one objective moral framework that actually guides human behaviour. Beyond man-made moral systems, it defines how people actually behave in the ethical realm.

Basically human morality boils down to this:

I'm free to do anything I want, but I'm not free from the consequences of doing what I want

That's vague enough to apply to any action, not just encounters with other moral agents. It doesn't even mention other people nor their interests. Also, it's not strictly true, as there are lots of ways people avoid the consequences of doing what they want, and there are lots of things people are not free to do, even if they want to. So I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that people will choose the moral system that produces the best consequences (for them? for others?) then that's probably true, but it's not reflected in your underlined principle, which only says that consequences are inescapable. More importantly, you're moving into the realm of science when you say this actually describes how humans behave. It would take a huge, worldwide psychological study with rigorous controls to demonstrate that most people really think this way. It's not the type of thing that can be realized from one's computer chair, if you get what I mean.