What is morality?

[andyandy]

i guess this could go in R and P but i'm more interested in the scientific rather than philosophical side of the debate.....

the question is simple,
"What is morality?"

Do individuals have an inbuilt morality?

If so, is that inbuilt "morality" just a way of maximizing gene propagation? Where immoral is defined as "defection" from a set, mutually beneficial system?

Or has the ability to (and willingness/need to) categorise into "right" and "wrong" itself had evolutionary benefit? Do we inherit a need to to pass moral judgement?

Or is that which we think of as morality really just a societal imposition?

or is it (as it normally seems to be ) a complex mixture of all of the above?

many thanks.

 

[gdtbiker]

Does this boil down to a Nature vs. Nurture analysis? And perhaps it will be necessary to define what is really meant by 'morality' here for the purpose of debate. But my own first take is that moral behavior must first have its roots in nature/biology. From there we can look to sociobiology as to how the biology of moral behavior manifests in the social scheme of things. Pretty soon, then, morality can be considered to be an emergent property of a population. But to just what degree the end result of the morality of a group of people can be attributed to the nature of the beast individually is up for lots of debate.

--Just my initial 2 cents--

 

[3bz]

Since you haven't provided a definition of morality, I'm not suret this really answers the question if we have a built in "morality", but moral judgement, decisions, abillity to see moral implications of actions and emotions related to morality (guilt,emphathy etc) can be affected by very localized damage to different areas of the prefrontal cortex. So in that sense, yes we have built a built in "morality".

I'm not really sure what kind of ethical theory you have in mind though, something deontological, consequentional or maybe you like virtues?

If you think of something like a minimum conception of morality it could include impartiality (ie. every persons interest counts as much as anyones elses) and moral decisions would have to be guided by reason. From here the step to ultilitarianism is not far, if you want to go there is another question.

As for how much of the morals we see today is a product of reciprocal altruism, I'm not really sure.

Anyway, time to stop before I unintentionally get back to moral philosophy again....

 

[Dr. Imago]

My conception of morality is found, rather simplistically I'll admit, in one of the tenets of the Hippocratic oath: "first do no harm." Of course, Hippocrates went on about not using abortifacients on patients... but, I digress.

I think morality, simply defined, is a relativistic notion that involves not doing anything outside of your personal sphere of control to intentionally harm anyone else. The concept is anchored to the idea of "intent", and this defines whether or not the action is moral. It is relativisitic because each individual might have a separate idea about what constitutes harm.

The medical profession has interestingly broken down the concept of ethics, which may be more appropriate to talk about than morality which has certain theological implications, into four categories.

1.) Nonmalfeasance: The "first do no harm" principle.
2.) Autonomy: The individual has a right to decide.
3.) Beneficence: Try to do "good" to the patient based on their autonomy.
4.) Justice: Be fair and treat the millionaire, eponymous-wing-of-the-hospital-donator the same way you treat the homeless patient.

Sorry if this is a derailure, but it was posted in the science forum.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Ducky]

Interestingly, why does no one ever look at morality from an evolutionary standpoint when discussing it over coffee and crumpets?

It stands to reason that development of a social governing structure would be paramount to intelligent life's reproduction.

 

[Roboramma]

Or has the ability to (and willingness/need to) categorise into "right" and "wrong" itself had evolutionary benefit? Do we inherit a need to to pass moral judgement?

I think we probably do.
There are plenty of good reasons that his could be selected for. Passing judgement on a specific behavior is a way of saying that you are not yourself going to display that behavior - but it also says that you won't associate with those who do. This should tend to bring others who are of a similar bent toward you. And you will together benefit from cooperation where those that you are ostrasizing will not.

Or is that which we think of as morality really just a societal imposition?

or is it (as it normally seems to be ) a complex mixture of all of the above?

I think it likely.

I'd like to point out too that no matter where our feelings of morality come from, they are no less meaningful for it.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Morality is an inherited trait that allows us to live in communities.

 

[Godmode]

This is just opinion...
I feel there are two types of morality. There is personal morality, which is completely subjective, and there is society morality which is basic morals a community shares, or agrees to share. The first comes from experience, personality and our perception of what's "fair". The second comes in the form of rules, commandments, and laws.

 

[Roboramma]

The first comes from experience, personality and our perception of what's "fair".

How does experience cause us to develop personal morality?
What causes personality to be that way?
Where does our perception of what's fair come from? Why do we perceive the things we percieve as fair, rather than something else. For instance, it's entirely possible that I could think it fair for you to come to my house and take 50% of my paycheck every month. But I don't.
Why?

The second comes in the form of rules, commandments, and laws.

Where do these come from?

I don't expect you to have answers to all of these questions, Godmode. I just want to point out that your response doesn't get around them. And I do think that these questions have answers. Answers that we are getting closer to.

 

[Yahzi]

Morality is the abilty to process fairness. Like language, it is abstract and largely limited to human beings. Also like language, it is a powerful tool for a social species.

What we consider to be moral is much like what we consider to be language: a cultural expression of a biological instantiation of a mathematical concept.

 

[Dancing David]

Uh, huh, from the biological perspective, social species like homo spaiens sapiens are likely to want to remove members of the group who violate the social norms.

So I believe that humans were selected by other humans to conform to the social norms, in non-agrarian societies there are usualy two punishments, death and death with extenuating circumstances (exile). they usualy don't have any other options. So remove you from the gene pool or remove you from contact.

The actual mores of a society are somewhat flexible.