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

[Ichneumonwasp]

Killing neighbors or family willy-nilly.

But if that were a moral imperative throughout the universe (or inherent to the universe), wouldn't it include other mammals?

Pi is pi no matter where in the universe you are, presumably.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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.

Sure, I agree. But Beth's perspective is that math is an integral part of the universe -- what gives the universe its form.


I get the impression from your post that you think math is more a learned behavior than something inbuilt in us.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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?

Which is all fair, but I think Beth's point was about having problems calling the other option 'magic'. I don't think that she thinks that morals are inherent to the universe. She does think mathematics is; but she does not think that is magic. And from her perspective, I would have to agree.

I think she is trying to make the point that we could find something is neither magic nor biologically based -- her example is mathematics.

ETA:

Your point, of course, being that morality can't be inherent to the universe based on the way that it appears is very fair. I suppose the only response might be that just as there could be an exception with math, so there might be some exception with morality that we haven't considered.

 

[Drachasor]

But if that were a moral imperative throughout the universe (or inherent to the universe), wouldn't it include other mammals?

It in fact includes other animals. There's no animal that kills its family willy-nilly, not that relative killing doesn't happen.

Pi is pi no matter where in the universe you are, presumably.

Not true. Pi isn't 3.141592653589.... in a curved geometry, such as on a sphere (the Earth) or in space near a strong gravitation source.

Sure, I agree. But Beth's perspective is that math is an integral part of the universe -- what gives the universe its form.


I get the impression from your post that you think math is more a learned behavior than something inbuilt in us.

Eh, that's like saying "blue" gives the sky its form. Just because blue describes the sky doesn't mean it is somehow involved in its creation. And math is totally something we learned. Our math ability sucks compared to the abilities we actually were born with.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It in fact includes other animals. There's no animal that kills its family willy-nilly, not that relative killing doesn't happen.

There might have been one, though. It would not have survived to leave behind enough offspring for us to talk about though and, therefore, been culled out by natural selection -- so there is a competing account for why animals don't kill their family willy-nilly. It isn't necessarily that there is a moral reason within the universe.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Eh, that's like saying "blue" gives the sky its form. Just because blue describes the sky doesn't mean it is somehow involved in its creation. And math is totally something we learned. Our math ability sucks compared to the abilities we actually were born with.

Well, she thinks about it much more subtly than that, and, she being a mathematician, I don't argue with her about it that much. But I obviously don't agree with her.

By the way, welcome to the forum. I hope you find it congenial.

 

[Drachasor]

There might have been one, though. It would not have survived to leave behind enough offspring for us to talk about though and, therefore, been culled out by natural selection -- so there is a competing account for why animals don't kill their family willy-nilly. It isn't necessarily that there is a moral reason within the universe.

Granted, it isn't absolute, but in a real sense the value if Pi isn't either. Of course, the reasons for this are different, so there's certainly a qualitative distinction between the two (so good point). This sort of distinction is kind of inherent in systems dealing with "ought" though, like morality. Having good health isn't universal either, but there are certainly some basic, generalized principles to follow if one wants to maintain good health. I think morality is similar to that, though on a societal scale.

By the way, welcome to the forum. I hope you find it congenial.

Thanks. Hmm, my initial impression is that I think I should stay out of the politics forums. They look like a great way to waste a lot of time. (Edit: I am disappointed the Science section of these forums seems to be wholly owned by people posting crazy "theories" on things).

 

[Dymanic]

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.

I have to disagree with both of you -- while also partly agreeing at the same time. I think the source of this apparent confusion is that we're discussing at least two different things in parallel here.

The two words, "morals" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably, but I suggest that in order to avoid confusion, we follow the convention of using "morals" to refer to that which is internalized by the individual (and which, I have argued above, is based on what Hume called "sentiment" and can be obtained intuitively), and "ethics" to refer to that which is dictated by social convention (and, being based on rules, must be learned -- as in professional ethics, political ethics, etc).

Kin altruism is arguably not a product of either, but a basic biological drive -- and as such, is often the cause of moral or ethical dilemmas, rather than a solution.

As for mathematical (or moral) Platonism, that's a puzzle I never could quite manage to solve, and while I don't see its solution as absolutely vital to answering the question at hand, it would be great to see it solved anyway.

But that's four separate discussions.

 

[qayak]

Kin altruism is arguably not a product of either, but a basic biological drive . . .

Can you please define "kin" and explain this a little more?

 

[qayak]

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

Or non-existent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is a mix of nature and nurture still purely biology?

I'm asking about the source of morals. Even if purely nurture, what accounts for starting the teaching in the first place if not natural evolution, be it by biology or by social-cultural memes?

The question I'm asking is what is the source of morality? Natural evolution or magic or ??? People are often arguing morals are not biology. Great, then where do they originate from? The magical sky daddy, pixie dust, thin air?

Surely there are more possible reasons to have a moral opinion and to teach that opinion than biological ones - something could have happened to you or your society that made you form an opinion that leads to a moral feeling, behavior and value that you wish to pass on.

Of course, biology still determines your reaction to an event, so you could argue that even this is a biological factor. But then you've reduced it to what I stated in my previous post, that since living beings are biological, and living beings are what we observe morals in, then morals must be biological. I don't see the relevance of such a claim.

The relevance is asking people who don't think we are biologically moral beings to carry their belief out to its natural conclusion. If not biology then what?

 

[Earthborn]

And you somehow think communities came AFTER the brain was fully developed?

Communities existed long before there were even humans. Social environments are very complex, and make big brains a selective advantage.

Or do you just think evolution, which regularly ingrains various behaviors and instincts, magically did nothing for social behaviors?

I think social behaviours evolved mostly memetically, by learning and teaching.

I suggest that in order to avoid confusion, we follow the convention of using "morals" to refer to that which is internalized by the individual and "ethics" to refer to that which is dictated by social convention.

(Some parts of the quote snipped)

I don't think this avoids confusion (is there any?), because I don't see how your two definitions necessarily refer to different things.

Kin altruism is arguably not a product of either, but a basic biological drive

Is it? By saying it is "a basic biological drive" what exactly do you mean with "basic biological drive" ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's try that with another abstract set of ideas we humans have invented/discovered:

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

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

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.

I understand you are trying to equate the question to where does [x] concept exist in the real Universe, but that is not my question.

Actually, mathematics does originate from our biology. If we had no intellectual capacity for quantifying the things around us, we would not have mathematical concepts. If we didn't have great thinkers like Newton and Archimedes, the more sophisticated relationships in complex mathematical systems would not exist. Humans did not pull mathematical concepts out of thin air. Those concepts developed within the evolving brain.

No magic man, no pixie dust, no aliens introducing us to the concepts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That says very little about the content though. The OP uses a twin study to try to demonstrate that the content of moral systems is biological and that is a very different question.

We've had the nature nurture discussion before. There is a wealth of evidence that morality begins with the biological brain just as other emotions do. It feels right or wrong, you feel happy or sad or angry etc.

But that isn't what I am getting at.

If you believe there is nature and nurture involved in moral thinking, then we agree regardless of the degree each plays which we may not agree on.

But if one doesn't think morality originates in our biology then I'm asking for one to say where one thinks it originates from.

If it is all nurture and no nature, how/why/from what source did it begin? Why did someone begin teaching it?
If it is neither nature nor nurture, how/why/from what source does it come from?

 

[Drachasor]

I have to disagree with both of you -- while also partly agreeing at the same time. I think the source of this apparent confusion is that we're discussing at least two different things in parallel here.

The two words, "morals" and "ethics" are often used interchangeably, but I suggest that in order to avoid confusion, we follow the convention of using "morals" to refer to that which is internalized by the individual (and which, I have argued above, is based on what Hume called "sentiment" and can be obtained intuitively), and "ethics" to refer to that which is dictated by social convention (and, being based on rules, must be learned -- as in professional ethics, political ethics, etc).

Kin altruism is arguably not a product of either, but a basic biological drive -- and as such, is often the cause of moral or ethical dilemmas, rather than a solution.

As for mathematical (or moral) Platonism, that's a puzzle I never could quite manage to solve, and while I don't see its solution as absolutely vital to answering the question at hand, it would be great to see it solved anyway.

But that's four separate discussions.

Ignoring the biological basis of morals and our intuitions seems rather silly to me. You shouldn't dismiss such things out of hands, as they certainly do play an important role in how we function as creatures with morals. It's especially important if you are talking about the origin of morals/ethics.

Communities existed long before there were even humans. Social environments are very complex, and make big brains a selective advantage.

There are many communities in the animal kingdom where big brains are NOT selected for, such as with insects. Herd animals is another.

I think social behaviours evolved mostly memetically, by learning and teaching.

That's not really backed up by the evidence. For example, Mirror Neurons and Developmental Psychology both show evidence that many things seem to be innate in our biology. The concept of Kin Selection provides a framework for how this can work (and we of course have many examples in life of kin selection at work both with humans and in the rest of the animal kingdom). We have a lot of machinery geared towards interacting with others in particular. We aren't born blank slates with regards to socialization and interacting with others.

That's not to say such instincts are the end of ethics or morality, but I certainly think it is fair to say they are the beginning.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Is it? By saying it is "a basic biological drive" what exactly do you mean with "basic biological drive" ?

From the evidence I see, it is a naturally occurring emotion. It can be modified by nurture, but just as we didn't learn to be happy or sad, we didn't need to learn some things feel fair and some feel wrong.

 

[Fiona]

What do you mean by "morality"?. I am not at all sure that we are all talking about the same thing.

 

[Earthborn]

The question I'm asking is what is the source of morality? Natural evolution or magic or ??? People are often arguing morals are not biology. Great, then where do they originate from?

You might as well ask what the "source of life" is; all we know for certain is that it developed out of earlier forms and there is no clear demarcation between life and non-life. Similarly moral behaviour developed from earlier forms of social behaviour, and was handed down to us from earlier generations through memes.

The relevance is asking people who don't think we are biologically moral beings to carry their belief out to its natural conclusion. If not biology then what?

I don't understand the question. One the one hand it seems like you want to limit "biology" to what is inborn or genetic, on the other hand you want to "biology" to include things learnt behaviours such as moral behaviour.

There is such a thing as "behavioural biology" which among other things studies how behaviours are learned.

 

[Pup]

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.

...

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".

That seems a very anthropocentric way of looking at it. I think most of the groping for explanations about what morality is, or the existence of a moral code, or even magical explanations such as what a god wants us to do, all come from an attempt to explain why we have sometimes-illogical feelings that tell us certain behavior is "just the right thing to do" or "just wrong." But those feelings are what drive all animals who need to behave in certain ways in order to survive.

Humans sometimes abort their own offspring, yet I don't see how that would prove that humans have no moral code or that humans don't have biological drives which, in general, tell them that protecting their children from harm is "the right thing to do."

The main difference between humans and other species, I think, is that other species don't have to worry about why. Something in their brains merely signals "when you do this, all is well," and "when you do that, you feel something negative."

The morality may be taught, but even then, it's based on the basic urge necessary for social animals: "when you comply with the group, all is well," compared to "when you behave in ways unacceptable to the group, you feel something negative."

 

[Dragoonster]

I'm asking about the source of morals. Even if purely nurture, what accounts for starting the teaching in the first place if not natural evolution, be it by biology or by social-cultural memes?

The question I'm asking is what is the source of morality? Natural evolution or magic or ??? People are often arguing morals are not biology. Great, then where do they originate from? The magical sky daddy, pixie dust, thin air?

Morality is a human concept, so sure, if every human concept or any human anything should be called biologically-sourced, it is, but that doesn't seem very enlightening. IMO though I'd say language is the biggest source of morality. As a concept, not an emotion, morality requires complex rules and thinking which may not be possible without language.

Do "feral children" grow a concept of morality without language? If they do is it any different than a gorilla or lion's concept? If it is different perhaps humans have a unique biological basis for morality. If not though, we either have to say "morality" doesn't mean anything complex, but more akin to instinct or emotion; or have to say morality is not actually biologically-sourced.

Is biology the source of economics? Of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine? Of the Lambourghini Countach?

These things couldn't exist without humans, so in a way, sure. But there's no "Lambourghini Countach" gene. And there's no "morality" gene imo. Only at most a "love" "hate" "empathy" gene. Morality is a complex set of rules based on emotions, societies, etc., not something that springs forth spontaneously from our bodies or brains.