What creates morality?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Gertie »

@ fooloso
Well, you could say that's what Politics is.

I agree to some extent, but we might distinguish the political and moral/ethical along the lines of the public sphere and private sphere.
Yes, and I'd say this is where our increasing scientific understanding is helpful. It explains why we are generally much kinder to the people we know, or are simply in our faces - we care more about them. You can create rough heirarchies of care - family, friends, neighbours, other tribal associations, and so on. In the private sphere we tend to behave much more kindly towards each other in general - barring other 'triggers' and the more complex psychological relationships we're enmeshed in.

If you look at Singer's rigorous utilitarian consequentialism as a contrast, it's hard to argue with the rationality behind it. For example -
To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to imagine that their route to the university takes them past a shallow pond. One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.
I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance.

At this point the students raise various practical difficulties. Can we be sure that our donation will really get to the people who need it? Doesn’t most aid get swallowed up in administrative costs, or waste, or downright corruption? Isn’t the real problem the growing world population, and is there any point in saving lives until the problem has been solved? These questions can all be answered: but I also point out that even if a substantial proportion of our donations were wasted, the cost to us of making the donation is so small, compared to the benefits that it provides when it, or some of it, does get through to those who need our help, that we would still be saving lives at a small cost to ourselves – even if aid organizations were much less efficient than they actually are.
Evolution has 'designed' us to act more morally towards some people than others. We're even starting to understand the mechanisms of empathy, like the mirror neurons firing which urge us to jump to the aid of the drowning boy, but not rush out and donate to Oxfam to help dying children out of sight and mind. The major moral problems we face now, as I said, aren't well served by our anachronistric evolutionary design which isn't suited to vast, remotely inter-connected societies of strangers. That's more likely to invoke our tribal competitive instincts.


You can just say morality is subjective so anything goes, nobody has the moral high ground.


This is the problem of relativism but not the correct conclusion. There is a middle ground. The alternative to absolutism is not nihilism.
That's why I followed the sentence you quoted with an alternative approach.

Which is fine in the halls of academia …

But it is in academia more than anywhere else that we find cogent discussion of these problems. The idea of the Ivory Tower is a pernicious myth. The term academia is a large blanket that covers more than it reveals. Even authors who write for the general public like Sam Harris are reliant on academia.
Fair point. But I'd add that academia has its trends and fashions, and cultural relativism is a major one in some fields. I'd also go back to Singer, who I quoted above (and a moral philosopher I have a lot of time for). Using the same sort of stringent utilitarianism Singer would argue it's OK to kill babies which haven't attained a certain level of sentience. Or at least no worse than killing a cow. It's just as sound an ethical argument within the philosophical system he favours as the one above about saving children. But outside the halls of academe it gives a lot of people the chills.

Of course there are other philosophical approaches to morality - deontology, virtue ethics and variations there-of. But imo they need to be informed by what we're discovering about the way we work, and the realities of the world we live in, or it's just theorising for its own sake. I think philosophers like Rawls, who are challenging the old philosophical orthodoxies of the likes of Hobbes with a more modern understanding of how human nature can be a better fit with the modern world, are showing us useful ways philosophy can help. And the sort of approach I've been talking about ('neuroethics' - yes it's a thing!) is going to be a key part of that. Or should be.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Nick_A »

Philosch wrote:
I must agree 100% with fooloso here. To answer your point, there is no objective conscience. Conscience is the measuring device of what is "good" or "bad", a morality meter if you will. If morality is subjective then so to is conscience.
This is a basic disagreement between us. The only way either of us can verify if there is a difference between man made morality and objective conscience is through sincere efforts to experience objective conscience; a priori knowledge as opposed to a posteriori morality.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
………………….Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature……………………
Plato is describing how I understand conscience which must be remembered and is distinct from indoctrinated forms of external morality.

Since I believe that the dominant motive in Plato’s cave is prestige, obviously external morality is limited and disappears when prestige is threatened. The influence for awakening to conscience comes from grace which the world actively opposes so IMO everything will remain as it is except for the speeches of experts which will get better. Of course we may learn the hard way through the direct experience of a catastrophe destroying the majority of humanity. Then the shock will open a space in the psyche of Man allowing the help of the energy of grace to enter and awaken conscience
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” Simone Weil
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Gertie:

Both Singer and Rawls are relativists, although not cultural relativists as the term is often defined. Their emphasis on moral reasoning, however, is culturally defined and determined.
I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child?


I think that is the wrong question. Singer accepts the idea that moral reasoning should be based on obligations, I don’t. I suspect that at least some of his students are confusing obligation with what they think they would do. How many would first ask themselves “Do I have an obligation to do this?” before acting? Rather than orienting moral reasoning on an abstract concept of obligation, I follow Aristotle and orient ethics around the question of the good life. How we ought to live is determined by the question of how best to live, and how best to live is determined by what it means to live a good life. Rather than attempting to establish rules and principles that will cover every eventuality, I begin with the question of what kind of life I want to live. There will, of course, be differences between how I answer this question and how someone else might, but theories of obligation have not yielded universal agreement either and the principle of self-determination does not require it. Most of us want many of the same things in life and there are restrictions on the actions of others when what they want interferes with the needs and desires of others. Unlike ethics of obligation, Aristotelian ethics does not look of universal answers, but is rather a matter of phronesis or practical wisdom.
We're even starting to understand the mechanisms of empathy, like the mirror neurons firing which urge us to jump to the aid of the drowning boy …
In that case, as I said above, we do not act out of obligation.
But I'd add that academia has its trends and fashions …
Of course. Academician are not in the business of establishing eternal verities.
Using the same sort of stringent utilitarianism Singer would argue it's OK to kill babies which haven't attained a certain level of sentience. Or at least no worse than killing a cow. It's just as sound an ethical argument within the philosophical system he favours as the one above about saving children.
And this is why I am skeptical of moral systems.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Gertie »

@Fooloso

Are you happy to go into more depth on this Fooloso, as it's something which interests me? If not, no worries.

I'm of a utilitarian/consequentialist bent myself, that's what I'm naturally attracted to/makes more sense to me as an approach to moral philosophy. I'm not much familiar with Aristotle or Virtue Ethics, which google tells me Aristotle could roughly be categorised as. What puts me off Virtue Ethics (which I admit I've only 'skimmed'), is that it looks like a morality based on Me. Me achieving a happy fulfilled life via living a certain way. And while I think philosophy has a role in helping individuals finding ways to lead fulfilling lives, that's not what I look to Moral Philosophy for, personally. For me moral philosophy, morality, is at heart about extending that circle of care from self to others. And I've offered a philosophical foundation to justify such an approach based on our shared humanity rooted in the qualiative nature of consciousness. (Animal rights too, but I'll leave that to one side for now).

So I'm starting from a place which is basically antithetical to Virtue Ethics. But I'm open to hearing how such an approach can lead to a more effective ways of achieving 'the greater good'. Well to be honest when I say I'm open to that, I'm also rather resistant, because I see world views centred around Me as part of the problem we have to overcome to live together kindly and well. But I'd like to hear the arguments, from your perspective, because I'm sure that's not how you see it. And I hope you don't take offence at my crude characterisation.

So for me a moral philosophy inevitably infers duties and obligations to others, because morality entails extending my circle of care to others. But I do understand your problem with all-purpose moral systems. I too find they all fall short (or at least jar with my instincts) in some situations. And when pushed, I'll trust my gut. As I pointed out, I find Singer's utilitarian approach admirable, but that sort of intellectual rigidity leads to outcomes which are pretty off-putting. And if we look to consequentialism generally, the obvious prob is that consequences are unpredictable. But in terms of 'rule of thumb' guidelines, I find them to be heading in the right direction, grappling with the real problems morality throws at us. Rights-based approaches I find attractive too, as establishing a bench mark of basic needs being met, for human dignity and flourishing to be a realistic possibility.

Where-as starting with the question 'What kind of life do I want to live?' with no sense of obligation towards those who don't have similar opportunities to me, doesn't click with me as the best route to address morality as anything but a healthy life-style choice. And bottom line, I imagine like most people, caring about my own happiness and welfare isn't much of a challenge, compared to caring about others!


Have to say too, I don't understand your apparent lack of interest in the relevance of understanding how we work, in terms of evolved social (and anti-social/selfish) impulses, their limitations and the problems of anachronistic tendencies still influencing us in unhelpful ways. Because it seems to me that in understanding these things, we can better work around them (or manipulate them) to achieve our goals. For better or worse. And these are really pressing problems. Look at Trump's tribalism, the rise in the rich west of alt. right nativism generally, the global 'clash of cultures', the unequal rights of millions of people, competition-based economic systems, geo-political and territorial disputes, the challenges of globalisation, aid and welfare systems - how we handle these things fundamentally affects all of our chances to live fulfilling lives. Horrible examples of how these things are playing out right now harming countless lives spring to mind immediately. And if we can understand the impulses they're rooted in, and how they historically and culturally play out, we can potentially change things for the better.

Or look at the classic trolly problem for example. If you want to understand why people are happy to pull a lever but not shove someone off a bridge, the answer is going to lie in our evolved biology/neurology, and experiential/cultural shaping of those basic impulses.

Aristotle's views were a product of his times and situation. We all are. Science, knowledge generally, gives us a useful opportunity to re-evaluate how we understand and approach moral philosophy, and I think we should embrace it, incorporate it. Understanding as a component or a tool, not a way to negate moral duties and obligations. Simple example, say you want to raise funds for a cause, you'll probably do better showing a video of a relatable person (or an animal) either suffering or displaying happiness/gratitude resulting from help, than reeling off statistics. Ping our up-close-and-personal empathy/guilt mechanisms, and you more effectively motivate a response. You'll get people to drop bombs from a distance on unseen strangers more effectively than get someone to shoot a person face to face.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Gertie:
Are you happy to go into more depth on this Fooloso, as it's something which interests me? If not, no worries.


Sure, it interests me as well and I have spent a good deal of time and effort wrestling with it. As you read through my response, once certain misconceptions about what Aristotle was saying are cleared up, I think you will find that we are largely in agreement.
What puts me off Virtue Ethics (which I admit I've only 'skimmed'), is that it looks like a morality based on Me. Me achieving a happy fulfilled life via living a certain way.
That is to some extent true, but what I want for me does not exclude what I want for us. My good, my happiness is not achieved in isolation. Our happiness, our ability to flourish is an integral part of my happiness. Yes, we can think of examples where the interests of the individual conflict with those of the whole, but this is true of Utilitarianism as well.
For me moral philosophy, morality, is at heart about extending that circle of care from self to others.
I agree.
And I've offered a philosophical foundation to justify such an approach based on our shared humanity rooted in the qualiative nature of consciousness.
If one begins with the philosophical question of the good life then one should reach this conclusion. Aristotelian ethics is not egoism.
So I'm starting from a place which is basically antithetical to Virtue Ethics.
There is nothing antithetical about it. Your concern with the greater good is part of your idea of what the good life is. Fundamental to your concept is the belief that it is not all about you. I think any thoughtful reflection on the question of the good life leads the same conclusion. One thing that should be kept in mind is that Mill formulated his calculus of utilitarian goods in response to the modern concept of individualism. For the Greeks the individual was thought of not as an individual first but as a member of the whole. Individual identity was part of the group identity. ‘ME’ for Aristotle was not an autonomous, self-determining entity. The good life was not a matter of what is good for me in exclusion from and as separate and distinct from the whole. He emphasized the point that we are social animals.
So for me a moral philosophy inevitably infers duties and obligations to others, because morality entails extending my circle of care to others.
As it does for any virtuous person.
And if we look to consequentialism generally, the obvious prob is that consequences are unpredictable.
Good point. And that is why I point to Aristotle’s phronesis rather than rule governed moral deliberation.
But in terms of 'rule of thumb' guidelines, I find them to be heading in the right direction, grappling with the real problems morality throws at us.


Right. A guideline is something that is useful but can be put aside. Rule governed moral absolutes is something different. What you describe is in line with Aristotle’s practical wisdom.
Rights-based approaches I find attractive too, as establishing a bench mark of basic needs being met, for human dignity and flourishing to be a realistic possibility.
I am somewhat in agreement. Rights should be recognized and honored, but that is not the same as a rights-based approach.
Where-as starting with the question 'What kind of life do I want to live?' with no sense of obligation towards those who don't have similar opportunities to me, doesn't click with me as the best route to address morality as anything but a healthy life-style choice.
Why do you assume that the question of what kind of life I want to live will be addressed without regard to obligations toward others? Yes, there are many who do not have proper regard for others, but that is because they lack education in ethics not because they follow Aristotle’s ethics. They have in inadequate understanding of their own good.
And bottom line, I imagine like most people, caring about my own happiness and welfare isn't much of a challenge, compared to caring about others!
It is actually quite a challenge. Aristotle remarks that we all want what is good but we do not know what is good. What the good life is, what Socrates called the ‘examined life’, is not addressed simply by identifying what you want, for what you want may not be good, it may lead to consequences you do not want. It may cause more harm than good. Caring about others includes allowing them to seek their own happiness as well rather than forcing them to conform to some determination of what the happiness of the greatest number means. It also entails recognizing that we all want many of the same things - good health, food, shelter, freedom. It is not a matter of my happiness versus the happiness of others but of assuring our happiness by promoting the happiness of each of us as each conceives of their own happiness. But as I stated above, we do not all have an adequate understanding of our own happiness and hence the need for education, training, discussion, and reflection.
Have to say too, I don't understand your apparent lack of interest in the relevance of understanding how we work, in terms of evolved social (and anti-social/selfish) impulses, their limitations and the problems of anachronistic tendencies still influencing us in unhelpful ways.
This seems to be based on certain assumptions you have made rather than anything I have said. Aristotle’s ethics is not license to do whatever you want without regard for anyone else.
Aristotle's views were a product of his times and situation.
That is true, but there has been significant interest in recent years in a return to his ethics. And the reasons are in line with what you have said. It is a practical approach that begins by examining the way we live, how we act, with what we want, and what motivates us. We read him necessarily with contemporary eyes. It is not a matter of pretending we are his Athenian compatriots.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Wilson »

Gertie wrote: So for me a moral philosophy inevitably infers duties and obligations to others, because morality entails extending my circle of care to others. But I do understand your problem with all-purpose moral systems. I too find they all fall short (or at least jar with my instincts) in some situations. And when pushed, I'll trust my gut. As I pointed out, I find Singer's utilitarian approach admirable, but that sort of intellectual rigidity leads to outcomes which are pretty off-putting. And if we look to consequentialism generally, the obvious prob is that consequences are unpredictable. But in terms of 'rule of thumb' guidelines, I find them to be heading in the right direction, grappling with the real problems morality throws at us. Rights-based approaches I find attractive too, as establishing a bench mark of basic needs being met, for human dignity and flourishing to be a realistic possibility.

Where-as starting with the question 'What kind of life do I want to live?' with no sense of obligation towards those who don't have similar opportunities to me, doesn't click with me as the best route to address morality as anything but a healthy life-style choice. And bottom line, I imagine like most people, caring about my own happiness and welfare isn't much of a challenge, compared to caring about others!
Gertie, as I think you know, you and I are in general agreement as to what morality is and why we are moral creatures. I agree that morality is mostly concerned with how we treat others. Acting purely in one's own self-interest has nothing to do with morality, as I see it. That's the mindset of a sociopath, who isn't concerned with morality.

An interesting question for me is this. When we talk about moral systems and concepts and try to work out how we should think and behave, what are we attempting to establish? Are we trying to come up with rules of conduct that we should follow? Or that we believe everyone should follow? Or are we saying that these are the standards that will cause us to approve or disapprove of the actions of another person? All of the above? As you said, we mostly trust our gut. We have general moral concepts - empathy and sympathy for others, the greater good, etc. - but I think that talking about moral standards is an effort to explain the moral sense that is already within us individually, rather than laying down rules that we will use as guidelines. In other words, it's explanatory rather than a plan for future behavior. Mostly when we look at a situation and try to figure out what the morally justified action or attitude should be, we do so instinctively, no matter how complicated; we don't consult the rulebook.
Anthony Edgar
Posts: 150
Joined: July 9th, 2016, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Paula Haigh
Location: Forster NSW Australia

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Anthony Edgar »

Dolphin42 wrote:I disagree that the proposed presence of a God results in the existence of objective morality because the question of what those moral principles are is still answered by human beings. Whether they're answered by human beings who claim the principles come from God or humans beings who don't make that claim doesn't alter that. It just changes the arguments from "my morality is better than yours" to "the morality of my god is better than the morality of your god".
Agreed. So here's how Magic Sky Daddy should arrange things:  If you do something morally wrong, a bolt of lightning should come down and strike the offender.  The bolts of lightning need not be fatal (Magic Sky Daddy could arrange this, being omnipotent) and would differ in strength, proportional to the seriousness of the offence.  To differentiate this "moral" lightning from normal lightning, it could come in special colours ... say pink (for girls) and blue (for boys)  - and not nearly so loud.
Now I know what you're thinking, only a genius could think of something of like that.  Yeah, I know, no need to tell me - some things are just too obvious to mention.  But look, all glory to God; I didn't invent my genius brain, after all.  It was a birthday present (for when I turned zero).

Anyway, this lightning-bolt system would put an end to all arguments about what is right and what is wrong, and the world would be a much saner and peaceful place.

-- Updated November 12th, 2016, 8:51 pm to add the following --
Philosch wrote:The idea that something is good or bad(evil) in an objective sense is a fantasy. Goodness and badness are subjective qualities only and as such come from human beings. You can talk about what might be 'good' for a planet or good for the sun or the solar system but it has no meaning in human terms precisely because the state of goodness or badness for such objects is well beyond our understanding.

What appears to be good for the universe in terms of the ways the laws of physics operate are things like "conservation of energy" and other such laws. Biology has only one law that would cover the whole biological landscape and that is "survival". "Survival of the fittest" and other such statements are all merely sublimations of the first law. But in the sense that these laws are either good or bad only matters from their own context. Objectively they simply "are" and therefore neither "good" or "bad" or they are both. Subjective states when applied to physical/biological systems are only reflections of the human beings making the claims about such states, so there is no universal morality, it just doesn't make any sense to propose otherwise.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world in which survival is the only criterion for behaviour.  If I'm hungry, does this mean it's ok to steal food from a child?  Lying and deceiving to cheat people out of their money could be survivally-correct as this means I can buy food for my family.   Murdering my rivals in some cases might increase my chances of survival too - wild animals do often resort tomthis tactic.  Adolf Hitler sparked WWII on the pretext that more land was needed for the survival of his nation.  If my next-door neighbour has a beautiful wife and I'm single, can I use the excuse of survival (as in reproduction) to kill my neighbour and steal his wife?   Come to think of it, why not steal his car and house too?  

 Morality based on the law of the jungle (survival) might make theoretical sense in terms of evolution, but the reality is, it doesn't work for human beings. Besides that, if humans beings are a result of the law of the jungle - i.e., survival - i.e., evolution - why can't they live by the law of the jungle? The evidence doesn't seem to fit the theory.

-- Updated November 12th, 2016, 9:08 pm to add the following --
Philosch wrote:
Nick_A wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Is the following biblical passage pure fantasy or does it contain a deeper meaning most ignore?


(Nested quote removed.)


Can you see any way that this tree represents a reality? Maybe it is pure fantasy? It seems to imply that objective good and evil is a reality that doesn't depend upon humanity but is a universal principal that can even exist for just one man.
Actually what the tree represents in my view IS subjectivity. Man was going to die anyway he just didn't know he was going to die and so he wasn't in a sense until he opened his eyes. ( I know in the story he was supposed to be immortal until he ate from the tree. That is only a symbolic statement as is the rest of the story) I know that sounds strange but the moment man eats from the tree of knowledge he becomes conscious/self aware and the initiator of his own life. Intentionality is born at that moment or in other words subjectivity. Good and evil are born at that moment as concepts in a human mind. Before that we only have raw nature operating unencumbered from concepts such as morality. The story is a symbolic telling of that moment of realization. At that moment he is thrown into the raw nature. He, in other words becomes conscious of his struggle, of his pain, of his own mortality and he must fashion meaning out of all that. It is the moment existential angst is born.

So what that means is there is no objective good and evil, that those notions are born out of human conscious self-awareness and as such must be part of the subjective landscape of our experience. This in no way gets rid of morality, but it puts it in it's proper categorical place.
From an evolution perpective, what is the advantage of humans becoming aware of their morality? All the other creatures on the planet survive perfectly ok without self-awareness, so it seems superfluous.
I wonder what minute cerebral mutation started the process of unconsciousness to consciousness? This first mutation produced no advantage, yet mutations continued millions of years until full-blown self-awareness was reached. Mysterious, to say the least.

-- Updated November 12th, 2016, 9:30 pm to add the following --

Without objectice morality, man is destined to a future of never-ending conflicts between the forces of subjective morality - which all too often lead to violence and war. As the prophet, Amos said, "How can two men walk together if they disagree?"
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell
Philosch
Posts: 429
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Philosch »

Philosch wrote:The idea that something is good or bad(evil) in an objective sense is a fantasy. Goodness and badness are subjective qualities only and as such come from human beings. You can talk about what might be 'good' for a planet or good for the sun or the solar system but it has no meaning in human terms precisely because the state of goodness or badness for such objects is well beyond our understanding.

What appears to be good for the universe in terms of the ways the laws of physics operate are things like "conservation of energy" and other such laws. Biology has only one law that would cover the whole biological landscape and that is "survival". "Survival of the fittest" and other such statements are all merely sublimations of the first law. But in the sense that these laws are either good or bad only matters from their own context. Objectively they simply "are" and therefore neither "good" or "bad" or they are both. Subjective states when applied to physical/biological systems are only reflections of the human beings making the claims about such states, so there is no universal morality, it just doesn't make any sense to propose otherwise.
I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world in which survival is the only criterion for behaviour.  If I'm hungry, does this mean it's ok to steal food from a child?  Lying and deceiving to cheat people out of their money could be survivally-correct as this means I can buy food for my family.   Murdering my rivals in some cases might increase my chances of survival too - wild animals do often resort tomthis tactic.  Adolf Hitler sparked WWII on the pretext that more land was needed for the survival of his nation.  If my next-door neighbour has a beautiful wife and I'm single, can I use the excuse of survival (as in reproduction) to kill my neighbour and steal his wife?   Come to think of it, why not steal his car and house too?  

 Morality based on the law of the jungle (survival) might make theoretical sense in terms of evolution, but the reality is, it doesn't work for human beings. Besides that, if humans beings are a result of the law of the jungle - i.e., survival - i.e., evolution - why can't they live by the law of the jungle? The evidence doesn't seem to fit the theory.

-- Updated November 12th, 2016, 9:08 pm to add the following --
Philosch wrote:
Nick_A wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Is the following biblical passage pure fantasy or does it contain a deeper meaning most ignore?


(Nested quote removed.)


Can you see any way that this tree represents a reality? Maybe it is pure fantasy? It seems to imply that objective good and evil is a reality that doesn't depend upon humanity but is a universal principal that can even exist for just one man.
Actually what the tree represents in my view IS subjectivity. Man was going to die anyway he just didn't know he was going to die and so he wasn't in a sense until he opened his eyes. ( I know in the story he was supposed to be immortal until he ate from the tree. That is only a symbolic statement as is the rest of the story) I know that sounds strange but the moment man eats from the tree of knowledge he becomes conscious/self aware and the initiator of his own life. Intentionality is born at that moment or in other words subjectivity. Good and evil are born at that moment as concepts in a human mind. Before that we only have raw nature operating unencumbered from concepts such as morality. The story is a symbolic telling of that moment of realization. At that moment he is thrown into the raw nature. He, in other words becomes conscious of his struggle, of his pain, of his own mortality and he must fashion meaning out of all that. It is the moment existential angst is born.

So what that means is there is no objective good and evil, that those notions are born out of human conscious self-awareness and as such must be part of the subjective landscape of our experience. This in no way gets rid of morality, but it puts it in it's proper categorical place.
From an evolution perpective, what is the advantage of humans becoming aware of their morality? All the other creatures on the planet survive perfectly ok without self-awareness, so it seems superfluous.
I wonder what minute cerebral mutation started the process of unconsciousness to consciousness? This first mutation produced no advantage, yet mutations continued millions of years until full-blown self-awareness was reached. Mysterious, to say the least.

-- Updated November 12th, 2016, 9:30 pm to add the following --

Without objectice morality, man is destined to a future of never-ending conflicts between the forces of subjective morality - which all too often lead to violence and war. As the prophet, Amos said, "How can two men walk together if they disagree?"[/quote]

I was merely stating there was no universal objective morality, just because morality is entirely subjective and/or man made doesn't detract from it's importance or mean it can't be affective. You have made a false assumption. I didn't say that we should live according to the law of the jungle, merely that is all the biology seems to support as a basic law. We can develop quite elaborate and functional moral systems that benefit mankind greatly and lead to a benevolent peaceful society. All I was stating is that even in such a case it would still be subjective. You have made an assumption that is unfounded. Just because some ancient proclaimed otherwise doesn't make it so. Subjective morality can still be highly principled and affective. You have also made another assumption about the first mutation being of no benefit, I have no idea how you can assert such a thing. One might argue that our self awareness has lead to great evolutionary advantage.

-- Updated November 13th, 2016, 5:46 pm to add the following --

I was merely stating there was no universal objective morality, just because morality is entirely subjective and/or man made doesn't detract from it's importance or mean it can't be affective. You have made a false assumption. I didn't say that we should live according to the law of the jungle, merely that is all the biology seems to support as a basic law. We can develop quite elaborate and functional moral systems that benefit mankind greatly and lead to a benevolent peaceful society. All I was stating is that even in such a case it would still be subjective. You have made an assumption that is unfounded. Just because some ancient proclaimed otherwise doesn't make it so. Subjective morality can still be highly principled and affective. You have also made another assumption about the first mutation being of no benefit, I have no idea how you can assert such a thing. One might argue that our self awareness has lead to great evolutionary advantage.
Philosch Posts: 329 (View: All / In topic)

Joined: July 25th, 2012, 3:42 pm
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Gertie »

Wilson wrote:
Gertie wrote: So for me a moral philosophy inevitably infers duties and obligations to others, because morality entails extending my circle of care to others. But I do understand your problem with all-purpose moral systems. I too find they all fall short (or at least jar with my instincts) in some situations. And when pushed, I'll trust my gut. As I pointed out, I find Singer's utilitarian approach admirable, but that sort of intellectual rigidity leads to outcomes which are pretty off-putting. And if we look to consequentialism generally, the obvious prob is that consequences are unpredictable. But in terms of 'rule of thumb' guidelines, I find them to be heading in the right direction, grappling with the real problems morality throws at us. Rights-based approaches I find attractive too, as establishing a bench mark of basic needs being met, for human dignity and flourishing to be a realistic possibility.

Where-as starting with the question 'What kind of life do I want to live?' with no sense of obligation towards those who don't have similar opportunities to me, doesn't click with me as the best route to address morality as anything but a healthy life-style choice. And bottom line, I imagine like most people, caring about my own happiness and welfare isn't much of a challenge, compared to caring about others!
Gertie, as I think you know, you and I are in general agreement as to what morality is and why we are moral creatures. I agree that morality is mostly concerned with how we treat others. Acting purely in one's own self-interest has nothing to do with morality, as I see it. That's the mindset of a sociopath, who isn't concerned with morality.

An interesting question for me is this. When we talk about moral systems and concepts and try to work out how we should think and behave, what are we attempting to establish? Are we trying to come up with rules of conduct that we should follow? Or that we believe everyone should follow? Or are we saying that these are the standards that will cause us to approve or disapprove of the actions of another person? All of the above? As you said, we mostly trust our gut. We have general moral concepts - empathy and sympathy for others, the greater good, etc. - but I think that talking about moral standards is an effort to explain the moral sense that is already within us individually, rather than laying down rules that we will use as guidelines. In other words, it's explanatory rather than a plan for future behavior. Mostly when we look at a situation and try to figure out what the morally justified action or attitude should be, we do so instinctively, no matter how complicated; we don't consult the rulebook.

I think you're spot on. All of it.

As we've discussed, these instincts were 'designed' by evolution to work for
small tribal groups of people who know each other well and relate very
personally, and rely on each other in very immediate life and death ways. And
strangers are potential death, or competitors for essential resources.

So you could say the whole concept of morality is part of a way to adapt those
impulses to suit large, complex, remote, interconnected and inter-dependent
groups of strangers. A situation where those 'mechanisms of care' simply don't
trigger, or are weaker, have to be more conceptualised, principle-based. And we
have to rely on institutions, politics, laws and social mores/manners to
'enforce' care-at-a-distance.

We've basically codified, formalised, intellectualised and institutionalised
instincts which weren't designed for that. And philosophy tries to come up with
rational systems, rule-books, which aren't a good fit with kludgy evolutionary
utility based adaptations, where what is useful now is different.

If we could all agree on THE rational moral philosophy guaranteed to provide
'the greatest good', it would be hard to argue against, politics (as a mechanism
for consensual systems of how we live together, a social contract) would
hopefully be simpler, and less ad hoc, short term and lurchy as we try one way
for a bit, then another. As it is, Left and Right compete, the Right appealing
to our instincts favouring things like freedom, order, authority, loyalty... and
the Left appealing to our sense of fairness, empathy, guilt, sharing and so on.
The stuff Haidt found in his research, which is pretty universal. And when
times are tough, we're more likely to go with our tribal instincts than less
punchy principles, get more tribal when resources are scarcer. We're watching
the rich West struggle with that right now, as it responds to globalisation.
Not many people will spit in the face of an immigrant neighbour and tell her
to go back to where she came from, it sparks too many up-close-and-personal
responses, but they'll vote for it to happen to strangers and feel they're doing
the right thing.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Belindi »

The original post #1 did not offer an opinion about what creates morality. Instead, the OP discussed what there are different moral systems.

What creates morality is the need for certain species to live together as individuals in social units. Humans, apparently alone among animals use language to codify their moral systems however the basic need to live as mutually supportive collectives is the same for all social animals.

Why there are different moral systems is that social groups' subsistence needs vary according to climate, terrain, traditions, local technological expertise, and accidents such as famines or ingress of foreign moral systems. The moral system either slowly evolved or was forced upon the collective by sudden calamity or foreign invasion such as European colonisation of Africa.

There may be some interesting empirical questions to ask such as "do all societies condemn murder, and incest?" Or "do all societies believe in some form of impersonal almighty creator?" Or "do all societies revere ancestors ?"
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Fooloso4 »

Gertie:
Are you happy to go into more depth on this Fooloso, as it's something which interests me?
I am a bit confused and disappointed. You said you would be happy to go into more depth. In response I spent a good deal of time and effect attempting to clear up some misunderstandings about Aristotelian ethics, which you said you are not much familiar with, and establish areas of agreement between his approach and Utilitarianism. In response, nothing. No comments, no questions, not a word.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Gertie »

Fooloso

Thanks for the thoughtful response! I take the point I might have misconceptions about Virtue Ethics, particularly regarding moral obligations.

To try to sum up your position, you think that moral obligations will naturally emerge from reflecting on what brings an individual happiness and fulfilment, because you can't ultimately be happy and fulfilled without doing what you can to help others achieve happiness and fulfilment too?

If I've got that right, it seems almost too good to be true, too neat a formula, too convenient! I have the urge to say that can't be right! So here goes -

Acknowledging that Aristotle's happiness isn't just having a good time, satiating short-term desires. And might involve sacrifice. And reflection and hard study...

There's an assumption that the hard study will confirm the premise in there isn't there? It looks circular - a good life will result from the 'proper' type of study and reflection which results in a good life? Good and Happy and Kind just naturally (and conveniently) go together if you think about it the 'right' way. But it's only the 'right' way because then they all go together. ?

And I get that this acknowledges we're social animals, hence the thinking goes that happiness won't be complete (the proper type of happiness the considered life brings), without thought and action for the welfare of others, in an overall sort of emergent way. But... as we understand human nature better, we realise we're actually extremely complex. Roughly speaking, my understanding is that we're an evolutionary kludge of competing desires (selfish, but with social adaptations which enable us to think, feel and behave cooperatively and kindly), plus cognitive 'thinky' narratives which construct models of the world and ourselves and try to make it all make sense.

So isn't Aristotle's formula bit too simplistic, for such complex critters? Isn't it inevitable that any lifestyle, no matter how rationally based on certain assumptions, will fulfil some needs and desires, but not others? And simply calling one type of Happiness the 'right one', isn't really getting to some deeper truth?

An obvious extreme example, a psychopath's happiness simply isn't rooted in other people's happiness. Less obviously mine might be more or less so than yours. Depending on all sorts of formative experiences, cultural influences and so on. So isn't Aristotle making assumptions about others too narrowly based on himself, he being the result of his culture, experiences, learning and so on?


What do you think? Am I not understanding it right? Too crudely? Are these obvious objections which ultimately don't matter because in practice it works pretty well? Have I nailed it and changed your whole outlook on morality? :wink:

-- Updated November 14th, 2016, 9:05 pm to add the following --

Fooloso! You posted while I was constructing my response, just seen it!

Apologies for giving you the impression I ignored you! Definitely not my intention, sorry.

I replied first to Wilson cos for me that was the easier response to make, that's all.

I did appreciate your answer, very much. I've kind of summarised what I took from it, and gone with that. Again, not meant to be discourteous, just how I deal with new ideas, get a handle on them. Looking forward to to your thoughts :)
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Wilson »

Anthony Edgar wrote:From an evolution perspective, what is the advantage of humans becoming aware of their morality? All the other creatures on the planet survive perfectly ok without self-awareness, so it seems superfluous.
I wonder what minute cerebral mutation started the process of unconsciousness to consciousness? This first mutation produced no advantage, yet mutations continued millions of years until full-blown self-awareness was reached. Mysterious, to say the least.
As I said above, morality is concerned with how we treat others. In the times that we were hunter-gatherers and evolving to become the humans we are today, we lived in groups of 20-50 individuals, in most cases. A solitary person would have poorer chances of surviving than if he or she joined others, so early humans needed to be social creatures, as are a number of other animals - wolves, gorillas, hyenas, and so on. They needed to cooperate with others in their groups - for the gathering of food, the killing of big game, the building of better shelters, protection from animal and human predators, etc. Without some rules of behavior, such a community wouldn't work very well. If everyone made every decision strictly in his own self-interest, if he felt no responsibility to the group as a whole, who would work hard to protect the band? Who would collect food for the community, rather than eating it all himself? Who would take risks to fight off predators rather than hiding or running away?

The bands of hunter-gatherers in which the members had more empathy and concern for others in the group tended to survive better than those in which the members were purely concerned with their own self-interest. Better survival meant more of their genes passed on to the next generation. That's how evolution works - through increasing the genes resulting in better survival and reproduction in subsequent generations. How do those genes cause particular personality traits - like empathy, sympathy, group identification, altruism, fairness, duty, and so forth? Through wiring the brain in ways that result in those characteristics - although nobody has a clue to how that's done. Maybe someday.

As to self-awareness and consciousness, I don't think that they are confined to the human species, although in us - the smartest animal - they are richer, partly because of our ability to use complex language. But a lot of animal mothers feel love for their offspring and will risk their own lives to protect them, and pack animals will likewise risk their lives to bring down bigger animals, and so on. I suspect that the early hominids - our ancestors and cousins - had more complex self-awareness and consciousness than the animals they descended from, but not as complex as our own. A gradual transition.
Anthony Edgar wrote:Without objective morality, man is destined to a future of never-ending conflicts between the forces of subjective morality - which all too often lead to violence and war. As the prophet, Amos said, "How can two men walk together if they disagree?"
The fact that the history of the world involves "never-ending conflicts" should tell us that there is no objective morality. I agree that it would be better if the world lived in peace, but that sure doesn't prove that objective morality exists, just that it would be nice if it did.

Morality doesn't have to be objective in order to guide our actions. For example, I have strong ideas on right and wrong - but I don't fool myself that they are objective. They are simply the moral sense that I've developed, presumably partly due to genetics, and partly due to life experiences. And I try to live in accordance with my own subjective moral sense. As do we all.

The blueprint for morality is in the brains of most of us, and consists of empathy, a sense of justice, concern for others, and so on. But our upbringings and experiences along the way result in each of us forming opinions as to what's right and what's wrong. The tendency to form moral opinions is programmed into us, but the specifics of those moral opinions are laid on that framework as we go through life. Now there are some people who have very limited empathy and sympathy for others, and their ideas of what should be allowed are quite different from mine. But how can I prove that mine are more valid than theirs? I don't think I can.

Luckily, within a community (large or small) most of us come to similar moral conclusions. So we are able to set up rules of behavior and laws that we all agree on. As long as everybody has similar ideas about whats allowed, the community can live in peace. And since wars are becoming less frequent than they used to be - statistics tell us that - the world may eventually be safer than it is today.
Solatic
Posts: 23
Joined: November 14th, 2016, 5:16 pm

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Solatic »

For me, I believe that what is most beneficial to everyone and everything is the highest morality, while what is most harmful to anyone or anything is the highest immorality.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: What creates morality?

Post by Wilson »

Solatic wrote:For me, I believe that what is most beneficial to everyone and everything is the highest morality, while what is most harmful to anyone or anything is the highest immorality.
Yes, but that is so vague as to be useless. Many actions are beneficial to some and harmful to others. And each of us is more concerned about the welfare of certain people (family, friends, community) than others. How do we fill in the equation? Should something that was beneficial to Hitler have been seen as a moral positive?
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021