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

[FattyCatty]

I hope you don't mind an ignoramus joining you in discussing this. I'm confused about it. How can morality be entirely biological when it means different behaviors to different societies at different times? If it's entirely biological, shouldn't it always be the same (we are the same species, have the same brains)? And how do you define morality?

Here is one definition:

“Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.”

How can this be found in biology? The ability to think about things may be based in biology, but that doesn't mean the things themselves are.

According to The Evolution of Morality by Douglas Allchin:

Science is limited to description. Biological analysis may enrich our understanding of morality, but it is also limited. Science is not able to discover ethical principles in nature, nor to justify them, nor to evaluate them, say, based on evolutionary history, nor even to develop them based on some presumed universal or "objective" principle of "human nature." Many have tried. All have failed (Farber 1994; Bradie 1994). Rather, the achievable aim is to explain how organisms such as humans evolved moral capacities to form moral concepts and to act on them in particular environments. That may also involve describing how, as organisms, they are able to do so (neurologically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially). To describe morality as a practice is not to prescribe any particular moral rule. To explain the behavior is not to justify it. Facts and values (is and ought) are conceptually distinct.

This seems to make sense:

I propose that the capacity for ethics is a necessary attribute of human nature, whereas moral codes are products of cultural evolution.

<snip>
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".
<snip>

I disagree with you. Our actions can be similar to those of animals. Does that mean we don't have a moral code? How can it be used to say animals don't? Many societies have killed children for various reasons, some similar to those of your lions. Many societies have eaten people for various reasons. Those actions were considered moral in those places at those times; they are not considered moral in our society today.

See Cultural Cannibalism as a Paleoeconomic System in the European Lower Pleistocene, The Case of Level TD6 of Gran Dolina (Sierrade Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain), Eudald Carbonell, Isabel Cáceres, Marina Lozano, Palmira Saladié, Jordi Rosell, Carlos Lorenzo, Josep Vallverdú, Rosa Huguet, Antoni Canals, and José Marıa Bermúdez de Castro:

Cannibalism is by definition the act of consuming tissues of individuals of the same species, and it occurs among a wide variety of living organisms. From an ethological point of view,there are different mechanisms that determine this behavior. However, why humans process and consume other humans is a complex question, and moving away from purely ethologic causes, the answer may encompass nutritional, economic, cosmogonic, social, and political purposes. Because these conditions can sometimes intermingle, cannibalism must be viewed not as something unitary or simple (Sanday 1986) but rather as a complex activity that has some temporal continuity.

Doesn't animal cannibalism have some of the same complexity?


More scientists are questioning whether animals do have morality. That they act morally in their own society, not just in terms of ours. So if animals have morality, is it based more on biology, or do animals' thought processes and/or abilities resemble ours more than we have hitherto believed?

Here:

Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them.

Here:

In his response, de Waal does just this. He outlines three levels of morality, comparing humans and apes—moral sentiments, social pressure, and reasoned judgement. According to his analysis, other primates have the first, aspects of the second, and only a little of the third. Put more specifically, most animals show Functional Altruism (perform acts that are costly to the performer but benefit the recipient). Many social (group-living?) animals show Socially Motivated Helping (empathic responses to the distress of their fellows). Some large-brained animals (primates, cetaceans, elephants?) go further, and show Intentional Targeted Helping (which entails awareness of how the other will benefit from being helped). Finally, only some large-brained animals engage in ‘Selfish’ Helping, in which the helper is intentionally seeking return benefits. All four variants are forms of altruism, and are often confused.

From Wild justice: the moral lives of animals[/I], by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce:

New information that's accumulating daily is blasting away perceived boundaries between human and animals and is forcing a revision of out-dated and narrowminded stereotypes about what animals can and cannot think, do, and feel.
<snip>
..that animals have a broad repertoire of moral behavior and that their lives together are shaped by these behavior patterns. Ought and should regarding what's right and what's wrong play an important role in their social interactions, just as they do in ours.

And here:

Our final conclusion is that while human capacities and animal capabilities are different, the jury is out on whether the differences amount to a difference in kind or, as we have discovered for so many features posited to distinguish humans from animals (referential language, tool-making, self-awareness), only a matter of degree. Ultimately, whether animals have morality depends on both philosophical and empirical questions that have not yet been fully answered.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the reason people might be having a hard time with my intent with this thread is that the people posting are not the ones claiming morality comes from something/some place other than an evolved cultural biological source.

The easiest example to describe the problem are the folks who believe we get our morality from God. So does God send us secret messages? Did God send those secret messages to the Bible's authors? I would define those and similar explanations for morals to be in the 'magic' category. Morals are magically instilled in or introduced to people.

Unfortunately Rika, the person who said I was presenting a false dichotomy, biology or magic, has yet to post here.

If you don't think that is a false dichotomy, then we can still have a discussion. But if you do think that is a false dichotomy, then what are the other potential sources if not biology or magic? Again, assuming if you think it is all nurture and no nature, then what was the source of its beginning?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My take on it is that a sense of morals emerges naturally out of the ability to imagine ourselves in another's place

Biology.

other than to note that biology alone neither demands moral behavior nor guarantees development of the cognitive capacity needed to support it ...

With the exception of people who have specific brain damage affecting areas of the brain which guide moral 'feelings', biology of the human most certainly does demand moral behavior, just as it demands an infant cries when it has needs.

But if not demanded by our nature, are morals instilled by magic?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just saw an episode of "Life" (the series Oprah narrated if you haven't seen it). She stated that recent studies have shown primates can be altruistic. They can be "kind". This is ethical behaviour. Social animals exhibit it to a greater or lesser degree. Severely injured animals have recovered because other animals feed them through the recuperation, we know this because of bones that were fully healed and post-injury by years before death.

Just noting the above, I'm too soggy to take it anywhere.

One merely needs to Google, 'the evolution of morals', to pursue this line of thought.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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).

How is altruism without a direct reward in one's self interest? And if there is no direct self interest, then the mechanism for altruism would be evolutionary and in particular, genetically based.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, there's learning-and-thinking ....

That ain't helpin' "magic", though.

Right, that would be biology.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think, SG, that your OP fails to recognize the "nature vs nurture" sociological discussion and resembles: "it's not this specific type of magical and it's not nature, so is it magical?"

You lost me here.

When we discuss evolutionary advances in a biological sense, we're discussing a change that occurs and is passed on to the next generation where it cannot be altered until it is passed on to the next, ad infinitum. However, when discussing a nurtured trait, such as morality, we can see where there are overlaps between one generation and the next. As such, some morality that the previous generation has developed/learned is able to be passed on to the next generation(s).

For example, let's discuss the changing morality behind slavery.

At some point in time, thousands of years ago, one of our ancestors decided that it would be beneficial for him to own another of his/her species. This ancestor's offspring thus learned that slavery is acceptable. As the centuries passed, the details behind the who/where/why/etc of slavery adapted as the latest generation's interpretation changed, but the morality behind slavery was passed on via nurturing the next generation to accept this more. As the generations continued to pass, other morals began to seriously conflict with the slavery moral until, eventually, the conflicting mores became more valued by Society

So what made people change? Magic or biology? What made the first person decide slavery was wrong?

ISpecies do better when their clan/pack/in-group protects it's own. In this way, murder was taught to be immoral, while waging war against one's enemies was taught to be moral. And as the generations pass, we find society's position on the morality of war to be shifting.

Expressions of moral behavior may be based on the situation but still have a consistent underlying biological basis.

I would describe these examples as some form of peer pressure affecting the whole. Peer pressure would have to have a source that the peers' got their moral opinions/beliefs from.

 

[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.

If it is not the biology that the "content of moral systems" develops from, is it magic? And if not either, then what is the source that results in this content developing in the first place?

 

[Dymanic]

I don't think this avoids confusion

It's actually rather obvious that it doesn't. "In order to try to avoid confusion" would have been a better choice of words.

(is there any?)

Sure looks like it.

...because I don't see how your two definitions necessarily refer to different things.

As I noted, the two words are often used interchangeably. When they are, it's hard to even begin discussing the possible differences, which I consider to be subtle but important. I've already presented my case above, and await your counterarguments.

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

I'm saying it's nature over nurture. Parents from diverse cultural settings will willingly sacrifice their lives to save the lives of their children; brothers will fight to defend brothers, sons to defend mothers, etc. They will commit crimes to provide these people with food, and they will commit murder to avenge them or to protect their honor -- and they will do these things much more willingly than they will on behalf of non-relatives.

 

[154]

... 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?

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

How does the means of defending one's moral choice not also rest in the underlying biological basis of morality? In other words, maybe I don't recognize the motivation for my moral decisions is biological, so if justifying a decision I might give an elaborate explanation. But the bottom line still comes down to something akin to "it feels right (or wrong)". That 'feeling' is biology.

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?

..I made the claim, morality 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 morality is biological and one finds the term, magic, to be insulting [or whatever], then where do morals come from?

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?

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?

The easiest example to describe the problem are the folks who believe we get our morality from God. So does God send us secret messages? Did God send those secret messages to the Bible's authors? I would define those and similar explanations for morals to be in the 'magic' category. Morals are magically instilled in or introduced to people

But if not demanded by our nature, are morals instilled by magic?

How is altruism without a direct reward in one's self interest? And if there is no direct self interest, then the mechanism for altruism would be evolutionary and in particular, genetically based.

God.

 

[Dymanic]

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

"Kin altruism" is the term for altruistic behaviour whose evolution is supposed to have been driven by kin selection.

 

[Dymanic]

My take on it is that a sense of morals emerges naturally out of the ability to imagine ourselves in another's place.

Biology.

Agreed.

 

[154]

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

"What God does demand is justice and goodness based on faith in God: "Oh, man," taught the prophet Micah, "God has told you what is good and what God requires of you only that you act justly, love goodness and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8, emphasis added).

In Judaism, the commandments between human beings and God are extremely significant. But they are not as important as ethical behavior. The prophets, Judaism's most direct messengers of God, affirmed this view repeatedly, and the Talmudic rabbis later echoed it. "Love your neighbor as yourself is the greatest principle in the Torah," said Rabbi Akiva (Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim 9:4).

That is why when the great Rabbi Hillel was asked by a pagan to summarize all of Judaism "while standing on one leg, he was able to do so: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others; the rest is commentary now go and study" (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Hillel could have said, "Keep the 613 commandments of the Torah; now go and do them," but he didn't. In fact, he went further. After enunciating his ethical principle, he concluded, "The rest is commentary." In other words, the rest of Judaism is essentially a commentary on how to lead an ethical life."
http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/p2.html

 

[Dymanic]

Ignoring the biological basis of morals and our intuitions seems rather silly to me.

Agreed. I wasn't doing that. Please review my earlier posts more carefully.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Yes, I see that, and also the question is about the source of morality and a lot of answers are not addressing "source" in the same sense I am trying to. So people are viewing the word, source, differently.

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.

Because that is the source.

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.

For the record, I take total responsibility for having one concept in mind and others not seeing where I'm trying to go with this discussion.

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.

I don't discount the input of contemplation and thinking. The decision of right and wrong mostly rests in emotion. But I can override that emotion with another layer of intellectual right and wrong, but it is still an emotion or feeling.

For example, I may react a certain way emotionally to an Arab man in Arab garb. Intellectually, I know that bias is not consistent with the evidence about the diversity of Arab males. But I still have to have some sense of fairness that it is wrong to stereotype Arab males or I wouldn't bother with the moral decision to override my underlying emotional reaction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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).

This is like asking, would these aliens if they developed a technological society have different math. And you know they wouldn't.

But they would need a certain level of intelligence. So the source of their math would still be their brains. Unless you think someone magically flew by the alien planet and dropped a few math texts off in strategic places.

 

[Dymanic]

"God has told you what is good and what God requires of you only that you act justly, love goodness and walk humbly with your God."

The Euthyphro dilemma: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

 

[154]

"Ethical monotheism means two things:
1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.
2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another.

If all people subscribed to this simple belief - which does not entail leaving, or joining, any specific religion, or giving up any national identity - the world would experience far less evil."

"The whole point of ethical monotheism is that God's greatest desire is that we act toward one another with justice and mercy. An Unmoved Mover who didn't know His human creatures couldn't care less how they treat one another."

"If God weren't moral, ethical monotheism would be an oxymoron: A God who is not good cannot demand goodness. Unlike all other gods believed in prior to monotheism, the biblical God rules by moral standards. Thus, in the Babylonian version of the flood story, the gods, led by Enlil, sent a flood to destroy mankind, saving only Utnapishtim and his wife - because Enlil personally liked Utnapishtim. It is an act of caprice, not morality. In the biblical story, God also sends a flood, saving only Noah and his wife and family. The stories are almost identical except for one overwhelming difference: The entire Hebrew story is animated by ethical/moral concerns. God brings the flood solely because people treat one another, not God, badly, and God saves Noah solely because he was "the most righteous person in his generation.""

"GOD'S PRIMARY DEMAND IS GOODNESS
Of course, the clearest teaching of ethical monotheism is that God demands ethical behavior. As Ernest van den Haag described it: "[The Jews'] invisible God not only insisted on being the only and all powerful God . . . He also developed into a moral God."

But ethical monotheism suggests more than that God demands ethical behavior; it means that Gods primary demand is ethical behavior. It means that God cares about how we treat one another more than He cares about anything else."

Excerpts from:
http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/p2.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.



Many of them are learned.

Trial and error (observation and behavior adaptation) cannot explain such moral behavior as the sense of fairness or unfairness we have.

It also cannot explain why all primates don't have the same dominant male social structure. Bonobos have quite a different social structure from chimpanzees for example.

So it makes sense there is some biology underlying that morality, even if morality evolves culturally and not just genetically.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
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".



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.



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.

You are wrong about the moral code of animals. Higher primates have a moral code and there is evidence dogs may at least have a sense of fairness.

Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics?

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior