Where does morality come from?

[arthwollipot]

Nice.

 

[rocketdodger]

Nothing that you've written (and I've just reviewed far too many of your posts) indicates that you have a clue about what intelligence is, how it is thought about or modelled, how the brain works, or how an artificial intelligence might be fostered.

First, thanks for going into 0.00000001 percent more detail than you did in the previous post.

Second, even if you are right, what do any of those subjects have to do with the current thread?

No, I'm not at all interested in engaging you in a discussion or debate on this or other subjects.

You embody the academic spirit. Way to go, graduate! Your old advisory commitee would be proud that the years of higher learning has led you to prefer flaming threads over positively contributing to them.

 

[greymatters]

Others have investigated the basis of morality in a far more detailed manner than I. In deference to them, I would like to share the works of those who best define the basis of morality, in my opinion:

* James Sedgwick - There's plenty of great reading here, but you'll probably want to scroll down and focus on the morality section.

* Goodness Through A Mystical Lens, by Michael J. Hurd, PhD.

* Bill Whittle's "You Are Not Alone"- Set aside a long afternoon to read and ponder the thoughts contained in this essay.

 

[Complexity]

You embody the academic spirit. Way to go, graduate! Your old advisory commitee would be proud that the years of higher learning has led you to prefer flaming threads over positively contributing to them.

I saw someone saying silly things and thought it best to leave a flag warning others off.

I walked away from the academy years ago. I think my way is more honest.

I'm tired of fruitless arguments that are the dominance battles of a rutting season rather than a search for truth.

There are threads that I enjoy participating in. There are many people that I find interesting, intriguing, and worth spending some time with.

 

[jimlintott]

Morality comes directly from god. Even if you don't believe in god he still gives you your morals.

If anyone tries to argue this point, I'll just keep repeating it over and over until you all get angry or agree with me.

Of course the real answer is that morality comes from free will. It works, so we choose to keep doing it. Except for those that chose something else. Then we call them immoral.

 

[rocketdodger]

I saw someone saying silly things and thought it best to leave a flag warning others off .

That might be a nice thing to do, except that you left a pile of smelly excrement instead of a flag. The fact that some people choose character attacks based on postings from other threads and (most likely) the past, rather than addressing the current thread, says alot about their actual motives, don't you think?

I'm tired of fruitless arguments that are the dominance battles of a rutting season rather than a search for truth.

Ironic coming from someone who's first post in a legitimate thread is "you don't have a clue what you are talking about." Not to mention the fact that a dominance battle by definition requires at least one party to fight back, which I have not done. In fact, here -- "Complexity, you are smarter, faster, more successful, and better looking than me." No more battle, you win. Will you talk about the thread topic now?

There are threads that I enjoy participating in. There are many people that I find interesting, intriguing, and worth spending some time with.

Does that mean that you find me to be one of those things? Because you certainly enjoy participating in this thread, or else you would not keep pushing your flame here. Will your next response contain something useful to say about this topic? I hope so, because I for one enjoy the input of anyone I can learn from.

 

[zombiebex]

You've got most of it.

Morality is cultural, in that it is influenced through what we learn from those in our various social groups.

It is directly linked with a hierarchy of importances we call 'values'. Where two values conflict, we defend that which is more important to us. This behaviour is what we define as moral. For instance, I might want to eat a muffin. The value is in the reward of sating hunger with something sweet. Imagine the muffin is owned by a friend, though, and they want to eat it. To get it, you'd have to steal it. There are abstracted values of negotiated trust, of empathy with your friend and even a value in not suffering the consequences of whether they find out, all competing. You would value each of those in some order, with your own satisfaction at the top or bottom depending on your cultural development. This order would form the basis of your own morality. Comparing this to the morality of those individuals you deal with each day determines social interactions; hence its much easier if you all share values and complimentary behaviours.

As you move further from the social group in which your culture developed, you increase the chance that you will interact with people who do not share those values and have conflicting behaviours, and increase the chance of conflicting behaviours.

Athon

There's another great article (if no one minds me bringing up monkeys again, and really, who would?) that I refer to all the time with my friends whenever we start to complain about some figurehead.

We are only able to empathize with so many people we consider part of our tribe, or as the article calls it, our Monkeysphere. Those within our Monkeysphere are people, those outside it are not really complete people, and are that much easier to hate and, sometimes, kill. We only care about our own Monkeysphere, morality comes from taking care of our brother monkeys.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Morality: Individual survival behaviour decreed by a herd context.

Most of a human's environment is other humans (or the extended phenotypic effects of other human genes if you're a hard line Dawkinsian). Morality is in our genes, because behaviour is. Or genes interact with our environment through behaviour and our environment is largely other genes. Choose one.

 

[rocketdodger]

Morality is in our genes, because behaviour is. Or genes interact with our environment through behaviour and our environment is largely other genes. Choose one.

I disagree. Based on the ability of a human to change their own morality, and based on the immense number of moralities we see across the globe and history, I don't think genes have any more to do with it than the CPU I am using has to do with the behavior of my operating system.

 

[INRM]

Well, morality, I'm under the impression comes from a properly developed frontal lobe and limbic system.

Without the frontal lobe there would be no moral knowledge, without the limbic system thoughts related to morality would have no emotional punch and conduct would be undeterred by moral knowledge. This is why psychopaths act the way they do -- the range of emotion they experience -- both range and depth are much lower than on a standard human and as a result they can understand right and wrong like rules to a game of cards but feel no emotional reason to actually follow them and simply do what they feel like.

INRM

 

[Soapy Sam]

I disagree. Based on the ability of a human to change their own morality, and based on the immense number of moralities we see across the globe and history, I don't think genes have any more to do with it than the CPU I am using has to do with the behavior of my operating system.

But do humans change their own morality? Or is the change required of them by their environment?
We don't really see a huge number of different moral systems; they are all much alike. Property is defended, exclusive male sexual access to a given woman is defended. Killing of "our own" is murder and somehow less moral than killing "them". ("They" are often sub-human, so it can't be murder, can it?) Incest is generally taboo.
Homosexuality is OK at the moment, but why do so many heterosexual men find it disgusting until reeducated ny social pressure?
How long would women's rights last if civilisation fell?

I reckon we're pretty hard wired towards certain types of in-group cooperation and between group hostility. Surely, we can overcome it to an extent. The specifics of local custom are highly variable, but not entirely arbitrary- a moral system based on suicide would be unlikely to thrive in competition with one which did not, for example. That's memetic rather than genetic. Both apply.

My point about a group effect on the individual is that one person whose idea of the correct way to behave differs from the consensus view generally finds himself nailed to something, or at least having a hard time of it. New moral ideas tend to catch on only when those who embrace the ideas work their way up the power hierarchy and achieve influence.

 

[rocketdodger]

I see your point about the environment being responsible. However I think our software, rather than hardware, has more to do with it than you are giving credit for. There might be underlying genetic tendancies, and certainly instinctual urges drive most of our behavior at the lowest level, but above that I think the real meat of morality is probably in the neural pathways that were shaped by experience rather than genetics.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Aye, but experience of what? Mostly , what we experience are the effects of other human genes. Our behaviour must not only be acceptable to the mob, but also non-lethal to us as individuals. Where morality seriously impacts individual welfare, or individual sexual success, we tend to behave immorally by definition. Wealthy men in certain cultures behave morally with several wives. Poor men behave immorally by having affairs with the wives of wealthy men. Women seek a wealthy husband for support, but may prefer the whistling gypsy as a sperm donor.
Where morality clashes with genetics, morality loses. (But it's true that most genes act through environmental effects. You can't have one without the other).

 

[rocketdodger]

I guess what is throwing me off is your use of the term "gene." I don't know that genes do much more (mentally) than architect the raw material for our minds and provide us with some predispositions.

 

[INRM]

The best explanation I've heard was said by Dr. Robert D. Hare.

He was illustrating how genetic potential would be like various types of clay... and the potter molding them into a work of art being the environment.

Some personality types are easily malleable, others are seemingly rock solid and almost impossible to mold into acceptable shapes.


Maybe I'm wrong but it sounded

 

[Folly]

Pssh. All this talk about evolution and cooperation, and greater survival rate of socially stable societies. Everyone knows it comes from psychics and alternative medicine practitioners, who generously give away all of theirs.

 

[arthwollipot]

I guess what is throwing me off is your use of the term "gene." I don't know that genes do much more (mentally) than architect the raw material for our minds and provide us with some predispositions.

I think Soapy Sam is using the same definition of "gene" that Dawkins used in The Selfish Gene. Essentially, the smallest unit of inheritance, rather than a specific sequence of nucleotides. Dawkins' extended definition includes things like genes for beaver dams and genes for adultery.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I vote for morality having several sources.
1) genetic: We evolved to survive in communities and these are still operant today since we still need to live in communities. As we evolved we gained the ability to alter our responses to inherited behaviors in accordance with our thoughts about them and our understanding of the world. Our inherited behaviors are modified so that they are not instinctual. We don't have to react the same way to the same stimulus the way animals with instincts do. This gives us the stimulus to act morally but we modify that by 2) and 3).
2) personal: We think about things and talk to friends and determine what we think is moral. This changes over time.
3) Social organizations: Communities we live in and groups we associate with discuss and create moral codes which are modified over time.

 

[athon]

There's another great article (if no one minds me bringing up monkeys again, and really, who would?) that I refer to all the time with my friends whenever we start to complain about some figurehead.

We are only able to empathize with so many people we consider part of our tribe, or as the article calls it, our Monkeysphere. Those within our Monkeysphere are people, those outside it are not really complete people, and are that much easier to hate and, sometimes, kill. We only care about our own Monkeysphere, morality comes from taking care of our brother monkeys.

Well, the monkeys in my school have filtered the site (it has little to do with the site, per se, and more to do with the stupidity of the filter), so I'll read it later. But the idea sounds rather interesting, and fits with what I've learned about sociology.

Athon

 

[rocketdodger]

I vote for morality having several sources.
1) genetic: We evolved to survive in communities and these are still operant today since we still need to live in communities. As we evolved we gained the ability to alter our responses to inherited behaviors in accordance with our thoughts about them and our understanding of the world. Our inherited behaviors are modified so that they are not instinctual. We don't have to react the same way to the same stimulus the way animals with instincts do. This gives us the stimulus to act morally but we modify that by 2) and 3).
2) personal: We think about things and talk to friends and determine what we think is moral. This changes over time.
3) Social organizations: Communities we live in and groups we associate with discuss and create moral codes which are modified over time.

These are pretty close to the three categories I proposed in the OP, except our #1 and #2 are swapped. I would be very interested to know the mechanisms behind the personal source, since if you ask me it seems to be able to trump the others.