If morals are not biology or magic, what is their source?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Somehow, mathematics doesn't seem biologically based to me. If you want to call it magic, you can. It comes as close as anything I've ever come across in my life.

Why doesn't it seem biologically based to you? If it is built into us from the outset, underlying the very way we think, wouldn't it appear to pervade all of creation?

Would we not be looking with a flashlight in the dark and seeing everything aglow?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

In another thread I said morality is either derived from biology or the only other option is some kind of magical source. Does morality stem from a magic sky man sprinkling pixie dust in the eyes of newborns? Do we pull it out of thin air?

It was said this is a false dichotomy. So I'd like to know what is the source of human morality?

There is evidence learning is not the key. Young children express moral choices unrelated to learning. And if you claim moral behavior is purely learned, then what motivated humans to teach it in the first place if it was not a biological/evolutionary basis?

There is evidence morality evolved. Animals express moral behavior.

There is evidence morality is associated with the physical brain because brain damage can change one's moral behavior.

I interpret this as evidence morality is biologically based. A recent study of fraternal and identical twins supports that conclusion:


Are We Programmed For Kindness?


So if I've presented a false dichotomy, magic or biology, then where do other people believe morals originate from?

My guess would be, as I have seen in other threads on this topic, that folks are using 'morality' in two slightly different ways.

There are sort of two sources of morality -- our biological predispositions and interactions with other people. So, morality comes about because of the way that we are built and the way that we interact with others.

Now, I think your proper response to that is that the way that we interact with others is also grounded in biology.

I don't think that it is really a false dichotomy. I think the problem arises, just as many other philosophical problems arise, because of the fact that we discuss these issues on multiple levels (by levels I mean something like Dawkins' discussion of us living in a middle world, not really understanding the quantum or cosmological scales). Ultimately, everything goes back to physics, but we discuss things on the level of human interaction because we don't have enough knowledge to discuss human interaction at the level of physics.

I think you are trying to discuss it at a very basic level -- biology and others are trying to discuss it at a much higher level of abstraction. And I think that creates the problem. The same thing happens in virtually every discussion I have seen over free will and consciousness.

ETA:
I think the other issue is that when people hear "morality is biology" they think you mean that morality is an instinct and that you mean to commit the naturalistic fallacy, saying that morality is simply whatever we feel is right. It's obviously more complex than simple emotivism, but that does not remove it from the realm of biology necessarily.

 

[Beth]

Why doesn't it seem biologically based to you? If it is built into us from the outset, underlying the very way we think, wouldn't it appear to pervade all of creation?

Because it pervades all of creation, I don't think it is biologically based. Would aliens on another planet have different mathematics? Or do you think they would still invent/discover basic concepts as whole numbers and fractions, rational and irrational, 1+1=2, etc.? I would say that mathematics transcends our biology rather than being based on it.

I do think some aspect of mathematics we use extensively are biologically based, such as base 10 (the number of digits on our hands) and Euclid's geometry (because we live on the surface of a sphere that is enormous in relation to our bodies).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because it pervades all of creation, I don't think it is biologically based. Would aliens on another planet have different mathematics? Or do you think they would still invent/discover basic concepts as whole numbers and fractions, rational and irrational, 1+1=2, etc.? I would say that mathematics transcends our biology rather than being based on it.

I do think some aspect of mathematics we use extensively are biologically based, such as base 10 (the number of digits on our hands) and Euclid's geometry (because we live on the surface of a sphere that is enormous in relation to our bodies).

I think the question is valid, though: does it pervade all of creation or do we simply see it pervading all of creation because of the way we are made?

How could we tell the difference?

I don't have an answer for this, just asking the question. The answer might lie, however, in the way neurons function, if there is an answer siding with biology. But we would have to keep in mind that the way that we interpret neuron function is clouded by the way that neurons function -- if we do think with our brains and not through some other means.

 

[Beth]

I think the question is valid, though: does it pervade all of creation or do we simply see it pervading all of creation because of the way we are made?

How could we tell the difference?

I don't have an answer for this, just asking the question. The answer might lie, however, in the way neurons function, if there is an answer siding with biology. But we would have to keep in mind that the way that we interpret neuron function is clouded by the way that neurons function -- if we do think with our brains and not through some other means.

I can't disagree with you here.

 

[Dymanic]

So "morals" (in a certain definition) arises from empathy, which is an essential mechanism of survival that evolved through time.

That's very much the way I see it. The survival/reproductive advantage derives from the ability to get inside another person's head. If you can do that, you can perform little thought experiments that enable you to predict how that person will react in a given situation (useful in planning military strategy, getting laid, negotiating agreements, etc). You can perform little thought experiments that enable you to predict how YOU will react in a given situation.

It's like running a simulation. The more realistic the simulation, the more accurate the predictions. This ability is so well developed in humans that we can experience strong emotional reactions to entirely imagined scenarios. Simply picturing ourselves in a dangerous (or merely uncomfortable -- or happy, or sad, or romantic...) situation is often enough to trigger measureable physiological responses indistinguishable (in quality at least) from those we would experience in the actual situation itself. When we watch another person facing some challenge -- even if it is merely a fictitious person portrayed in a book, film, or daydream -- we cannot help but put ourselves in that person's place; to feel what (we imagine that) that person would feel, etc. We become the characters in those simulations.

Figuring out the locally accepted sets of rules for social interaction I see as a separate process. It's like learning the language. In fact, many of those rules may be embedded in the language itself; learn the language, and you get a lot of the rules at the same time. But nothing guarantees that the locally accepted rules will always be compatible with the intuitive, empathy-aquired insights into what is "right" and what is "wrong". As Hume said, those are not really insights so much as they are feelings. The "rules" may require that the individual ignore the feelings, but that's easier said than done. I simply cannot believe that there ever was a man capable of stoning his own daughter to death (for, say, worshipping "other gods") and walking away psychologicaly unscathed, free of the torment of knowing -- of feeling, on a deep level -- that he had just committed a profoundly immoral act. There are those who might try to explain this in terms of kin altruism, but I see that as both unnecessary and insufficient. Could any participant in such an event avoid imagining (every day for the rest of their lives, probably) what it must have been like for the victim? Unless they were somehow wired very much differently than most of us appear to be, I'll bet they'd just wish they could.

 

[drkitten]

Perhaps I should simplify the question here.

If one dismisses the biological basis of morality, then where does it come from? What accounts for moral feelings, decisions, beliefs?

Again, regarding the 'nurture' component if you think there is no 'nature' involved, then why did humans begin teaching any moral concepts to our offspring?

Because people are creative, and try to solve problems. If one problem is that you keep getting beaten by the alpha male because your brat is stealing his stuff, you might find (create) a way to teach your child not to steal the alpha male's stuff.

Once a meme has been invented, it will continue to be transmitted and to evolve. If it's a useful meme (as most successful forms of morality seem to be), then it will persist until the origin has been lost.

If that is a false dichotomy, because one doesn't believe morality is biological and one finds the term, magic, to be insulting [or whatever], then where do morals come from?

Many of them are learned.

 

[Mahaha]

This is on par with ancient aliens and psychics communicating with the dead...and somewhat below bigfoot. I realize it will not be questioned because it makes both leftr and right-wing nuts happy.

Wait, I realize it wasn't the most rigorous statement (wasn't meant to be), but how is it woo?

 

[Jono]

There's obviously a very related biological basis from which morality is habitually derived, despite the nurture. But it's probably similar to counterbility in that it doesn't do much on its own unless it's acting, condensing/expanding itself in dependance of its enviroment. And since nurture tend to rest in nature, it's valid to say that the reason for having definable moral is genetic, the context and content of the given moral is moreso dependant on what enviroment it's been shaped through.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

In another thread I said morality is either derived from biology or the only other option is some kind of magical source.

Yes, it is derived from biology, in the sense that morality has its foundations in the human brain.

It was said this is a false dichotomy. So I'd like to know what is the source of human morality?

The human brain

And if you claim moral behavior is purely learned, then what motivated humans to teach it in the first place if it was not a biological/evolutionary basis?

It was a biological/evolutionary process, which took place in us, humans. To this day we do not know of any other species that practices morality.

There is evidence morality evolved. Animals express moral behavior.

No. Animals express behaviors that can be translated as moral to the eyes of humans (such as a mother protecting her son from danger) but animals do not have a moral code, nor act based on anything resembling a moral code (Some animals, such as lions, sometimes eat their own cubs given certain environmental conditions) Animals have not developed a brain that allows them to consciously establish a moral code and consciously label certain things "moral" and certain things "immoral".

There is evidence morality is associated with the physical brain because brain damage can change one's moral behavior.

Please keep in mind that every time you say "morality" and "the brain", you have to refer to the human brain. There is no evidence of another species that has created its own moral code.

I interpret this as evidence morality is biologically based. A recent study of fraternal and identical twins supports that conclusion:


Are We Programmed For Kindness?

You will of course, realize, this is study was only pertaining humans. Because as I said, the subject of morality is pertinent to the only species we know of that has evolved a brain capable of creating moral codes: Ourselves.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes, we pull them out of thin air. At the most basic, morals are just decisions about conduct based on enlightened self-interest. They seem like magic because that is one of the primary ways that those who are capable of understanding them have always imposed them on those who are not.

I'm inclined to think that whoever came up with the biology/magic idea lacked even the most basic education in philosophy (not saying mine is good (it's not), but even uneducated reasoning should do better than that).

.
That's about it.
"I won't do this to you if you don't do it to me".

 

[godofpie]

This is a very interesting story on morality and the brain. I trot this out anytime someone claims that morality comes from a supernatural entity.
Radio Lab

 

[Drachasor]

Yes, we pull them out of thin air. At the most basic, morals are just decisions about conduct based on enlightened self-interest.

That's not how it works. At the most basic level, as Dawkins noted, morals are about propagating genes in tribal societies. That's why altruism towards kin is seen (and in modern society this is general extended towards non-kin). It's NOT enlightened self-interest. Humans most definitely have an instinct regarding how we behave towards others. Heck, other social animals do too, though Chimps and other primates share the most in common with our instincts in this regard (such as a sense a fairness).

mathematics is either derived from our biological make-up or you have nothing left to explain it other than magic.

Not at all. Mathematics is in fact an example of something we AREN'T evolved to do in particular. Learning a language we evolved to do. Walking we evolved to do. This is why you don't have classes that teach you how to do these things. Mathematics is something that beyond some very basic counting, we had to figure out for ourselves and we can do that because our brains are adaptable.

 

[Meed]

It was a biological/evolutionary process, which took place in us, humans. To this day we do not know of any other species that practices morality.

That depends how you define "morality". What is your definition?

Animals have not developed a brain that allows them to consciously establish a moral code and consciously label certain things "moral" and certain things "immoral".

Because they don't use human-style language and thus don't label things the way we do.

Please keep in mind that every time you say "morality" and "the brain", you have to refer to the human brain. There is no evidence of another species that has created its own moral code.

So what is the evidence that humans have created a moral code, other than the fact that we say we have?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not at all. Mathematics is in fact an example of something we AREN'T evolved to do in particular. Learning a language we evolved to do. Walking we evolved to do. This is why you don't have classes that teach you how to do these things. Mathematics is something that beyond some very basic counting, we had to figure out for ourselves and we can do that because our brains are adaptable.

I think she refers more to the mathematical relationships that we see throughout nature, such as pi or the golden number. There are many examples of these relationships, even in the way that our faces seem to be 'constructed'.

The problem, of course, is that the world has to unfold in some way and for life to occur it has to have some order; so, is the reality that we just see these relationships because of the way we are constructed -- in order to see them -- or do they somehow 'rule' all that is?

I tend to think that we pick out the relationships that just occur naturally and which have no inherent meaning and we value them (create meanings).

ETA:

It's an old issue. Do we discover mathematics -- the real nature of the world -- or do we create it in some way? Or is it -- I think more likely -- some combination of the two?

 

[Drachasor]

I think she refers more to the mathematical relationships that we see throughout nature, such as pi or the golden number. There are many examples of these relationships, even in the way that our faces seem to be 'constructed'.

The problem, of course, is that the world has to unfold in some way and for life to occur it has to have some order; so, is the reality that we just see these relationships because of the way we are constructed -- in order to see them -- or do they somehow 'rule' all that is?

I tend to think that we pick out the relationships that just occur naturally and which have no inherent meaning and we value them (create meanings).

ETA:

It's an old issue. Do we discover mathematics -- the real nature of the world -- or do we create it in some way? Or is it -- I think more likely -- some combination of the two?

The origins of mathematics were based on the real world. Counting, geometry on a flat plane, etc. Calculus was developed to extend things to deal with real world description. A lot of math is like that. There are perhaps some oddities in how certain math can be applied (PERHAPS), such as imaginary numbers (though I don't actually think it is that odd). It is important to remember there's a lot of math out there that's utterly useless in describing the real world now. Naturally scientists don't use those parts.

Overall I don't think there's anything that surprising here. It isn't like math was developed with no regard for reality.

 

[Earthborn]

Young children express moral choices unrelated to learning.

The experiments that are claimed to show moral choices in children have neither convinced me that the children's behaviours are unrelated to learning, nor that they can fairly be called morality. Do you have a specific example of research showing young children expressing moral choices in mind?

And if you claim moral behavior is purely learned, then what motivated humans to teach it in the first place if it was not a biological/evolutionary basis?

Humans were motivated to teach it because they had to live in close communities, and in a community you can't have people just doing whatever the heck they want. There need to be rules.

There is evidence morality evolved.

There is more than one kind of evolution. I think the most obvious way moral behaviour evolved was memetically.

Animals express moral behavior.

Many animals also live in communities, and they also teach each other and learn from each other.

There is evidence morality is associated with the physical brain because brain damage can change one's moral behavior.

Brain damage can change all sorts of learnt behaviour.

So if I've presented a false dichotomy, magic or biology, then where do other people believe morals originate from?

When learn it from others in our community, and we teach it to others in our community.

 

[Drachasor]

The experiments that are claimed to show moral choices in children have neither convinced me that the children's behaviours are unrelated to learning, nor that they can fairly be called morality. Do you have a specific example of research showing young children expressing moral choices in mind?

Well if you want to dismiss the research, then that's your call I guess.

Humans were motivated to teach it because they had to live in close communities, and in a community you can't have people just doing whatever the heck they want. There need to be rules.

And you somehow think communities came AFTER the brain was fully developed? Or do you just think evolution, which regularly ingrains various behaviors and instincts, magically did nothing for social behaviors?

 

[Robin]

Well of course the symbols, rules and axioms of mathematics are human inventions - but it deals with things that could not be otherwise.

There is no possible universe where the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a plane circle was not pi.

Morals, on the other hand, seem to vary considerably across time, across cultures and even within the same cultural group.

So I am not sure that this is a fair analogy.

If it were the case that we were all imperfectly discoving some objective and immutable morality then how would we know?

What would be the moral equivalent of pi?

 

[Drachasor]

Well of course the symbols, rules and axioms of mathematics are human inventions - but it deals with things that could not be otherwise.

There is no possible universe where the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a plane circle was not pi.

Sure there is. If the universe isn't flat, then pi would be different.

Morals, on the other hand, seem to vary considerably across time, across cultures and even within the same cultural group.

So I am not sure that this is a fair analogy.

If it were the case that we were all imperfectly discoving some objective and immutable morality then how would we know?

What would be the moral equivalent of pi?

Killing neighbors or family willy-nilly.