My own opinion is that anyone who says that everything we do is in our own self-interest believes that it is a self-evident truth - that since evolution endowed us with strong instincts for self-preservation and acting for our own personal well-being, we must logically therefore always act selfishly. But doing so requires gymnastics of the mind to explain altruistic actions like the ones I mentioned as well as the many less dramatic things we do fairly often. Many of those people also don't believe in the mechanism of group selection, and frankly I think it's pretty obvious that it was group selection by which evolution gave us empathy and our sense of right and wrong and a bunch of other related characteristics. I believe that there are conflicts every day between acting in our own self-interest and acting for the benefit of others. Of course we mostly do what benefits us - it's a very strong drive - but there's also this sympathy for others which pushes us to sometimes go out of our way to assist others even if it's inconvenient or even dangerous. Now obviously there are mechanisms driving us to do that - desire to help others for the good feelings it gives us, guilt if we don't, feeling morally superior if we do, and so on - but these are simply emotional drives, like our drive toward self-interest, that are negotiated in our brains before we act or don't act. Just because we feel good when we do something charitable doesn't mean that it was selfishness that drove that action. If I saw someone beating a child or a woman or a dog, I'd intervene, and I'd do it not because I thought I'd feel good afterwards but because I was feeling the pain of the victim and wanted his or her pain to stop.Ace9 wrote:'
Wilson,...I agree with what you are trying to say, many neuro-biologists, and social anthropologists would hold that Altruism is a de facto act of selfishness. That we have acquired this innate ability that seemingly defies our self interest. When the opposite is true. As social animals we are wired to give up a measure of our individual worth (fitness) to secure the fitness of the group which in turn increases the potential opportunities for reproduction.
What is moral in life?
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: What is moral in life?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
The government will anticipate the whims of the Beast and decide morality for it. Simone Weil explains:Lark_Truth wrote:This seems to be a confusing topic in the world, with the media seemingly promoting things such as procreational activities outside of marriage, gay marriage, teenage love, dating, drinking, smoking, love triangles, swearing, pornography, etc. There does seem to be a lot of people who are preaching against some of this stuff, but they seem to go unnoticed because of the loads of things that I just listed.
The question here is: What is moral? Not just what people say is moral, but what is moral without people's opinions butting in. Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.
Politics will determine morality for you. Anything else is just old fashioned superstition.The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: What is moral in life?
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: What is moral in life?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
Morality has always been a matter of convention, but the authors of convention have often draped their conventions in the absolute authority of gods, either in human or transcendent form.Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.
Today we are aware that there are various conventions and have grown skeptical of absolutist claims gods. The Enlightenment held out the possibility of a morality based on universal reason, but has never been able to establish the firm foundation it requires.
Yes, it is up to us. It has always been up to us. Only “us” cannot be each and every one of us. For two reasons: First, most of us are followers and those who do not wish to follow are often unable to lead. Second, morality is not a private affair. What we do and the choices we make have consequences that go beyond us as individuals.
What is necessary is reject the fiction of an eternal, absolute, and universal morality that yields the correct and proper standards for all of us in all situations. Our moral judgments are always tentative, subject to change, fallible, inconclusive, and irreconcilable. It has always been that way but that truth was not apparent to most.
The question is whether some moral fiction is still a necessity?
The two cannot be separated. What is moral is not something to be found existing on its own independent of us.The question I was trying to ask in life is what is moral in life? Not who or what defines morality in society.
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: What is moral in life?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
It's interesting that you use the word "clean" here when none of the list of things you mentioned there has anything, in itself, to do with dirt. Do you use that word simply because it is the social convention to do so, or do you genuinely associate these things with dirt? Why do they make you feel dirty?I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy reading a good book that has no swearing, sex, people taking the lord's name in vain, showing of skin, mentions to disgusting body parts, or anything that makes one feel unclean while reading the story.
(in answer to Fooloso4)
I would say that the great majority of the world do indeed broadly agree about a large number of what we would call moral questions. I would suggest that the reason for this is, essentially, evolutionary. For example, societies in which the majority of people thought it ok to arbitrarily kill other members of that society simply because they didn't like them or wanted to take their possessions without opposition would tend to be less successful.Okay, but is there already a strict, black-and-white definition of what is moral? Has the line already been drawn - by God perhaps - and does it seem as if a good majority of the world stays on the right side of the line?
I would be interested in considering any widely accepted and successful moral rules that cannot obviously be described as being the result of evolutionary selection.
-- Updated Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:51 pm to add the following --
Actually, having re-read the post of yours from which the top quote was taken it seems clear that "dirt" here is a metaphor. Perhaps standing for something like "destruction" or "disorder"?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
I didn’t ask that question.(in answer to Fooloso4)
I think that biology should not be ignored but that evolution has become the one size fits all solution to a variety of issues. Such accounts are typically fictional. They are not based on evolutionary evidence but rather, one imagines how X might confer a survival advantage, creates a likely story, and concludes that the reason for X is evolutionary.I would say that the great majority of the world do indeed broadly agree about a large number of what we would call moral questions. I would suggest that the reason for this is, essentially, evolutionary.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: What is moral in life?
Evolution and how you describe evolution are two different things. X does not need to confer a survival advantage.one imagines how X might confer a survival advantage, creates a likely story, and concludes that the reason for X is evolutionary.
For example we did evolve morals. But not all behaviour which increases survival advantage is moral behaviour.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
One reason why I said I was interested in examples of morals that cannot be understood in terms of evolution was that, like any theory, we need to attempt to falsify it.I think that biology should not be ignored but that evolution has become the one size fits all solution to a variety of issues. Such accounts are typically fictional. They are not based on evolutionary evidence but rather, one imagines how X might confer a survival advantage, creates a likely story, and concludes that the reason for X is evolutionary.
If we don't think that Evolution, and the associated environmental pressures, are a one-size-fits-all mechanism for explaining the physical form and behaviour of living things, including humans, then we have to posit an additional mechanism. I am currently not aware of one.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
I have not described evolution. I described how others are using evolution as a paradigm in questionable ways. This is most evident in the social sciences. Typically those arguments are framed in terms of survival advantage.Evolution and how you describe evolution are two different things. X does not need to confer a survival advantage.
This use of the term evolve is not the same as how the term is used in the theory of evolution. Those who make evolutionary arguments to explain social behavior do not mean that such behavior developed from simpler to more complex forms, but that the behavior can be explained within the context of the theory of evolution.For example we did evolve morals.
Those who argue for an evolutionary theory of morality says that is does. It is a matter of survival of the species, not the individual. Any behavior that decreases survival advantage of the group decreases the likelihood that those behaviors will pass from one generation to the next.But not all behaviour which increases survival advantage is moral behaviour.
My point is that while biology plays a role in questions of meta-ethics, the role of evolution in the development of moral norms is questionable. Theories of social evolution are long on conjecture and short on facts.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
If we believe that humans were made by a deity that's another thing. But if we don't believe that, and we believe in the concept of causality, then how else could those behaviours exist?
-- Updated Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:30 pm to add the following --
Another thing I accept is that the concept of evolution is frequently misused, sometimes literally and sometimes as an inappropriately extended metaphor. One of the most common ways of misusing it is to treat is as prescriptive instead of descriptive.
Also: I don't want to hijack this thread about morality and turn it into a thread about evolution. I only bring up that subject as it relates to the subject of morality.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: What is moral in life?
I will say that evolution is an oft misquoted and misunderstood concept. Realistically you can't expect to read one sentence about the theory of evolution and think that that means you understand all there is to know (although many people do). Personally I'm interested in what biologists have to say on the subject and I'm also interested in your thoughts on the subject. I'm not clear as to what your beliefs are?I have not described evolution. I described how others are using evolution as a paradigm in questionable ways. This is most evident in the social sciences. Typically those arguments are framed in terms of survival advantage.
Again I'm not 100% sure what you mean. What is the evolutionary theory of morality? As in the theory that morality evolved? Or a theory that all morals increase the chance of survival of the group? Those are two different things.Those who argue for an evolutionary theory of morality says that is does. It is a matter of survival of the species, not the individual. Any behavior that decreases survival advantage of the group decreases the likelihood that those behaviors will pass from one generation to the next.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: What is moral in life?
Moral norms regarding sex and gender relations offer several examples. Is it immoral for a woman to show her hair or face or ankle? Is sex outside of marriage immoral? Is homosexuality immoral? In each case some cultures think it is but others do not.One reason why I said I was interested in examples of morals that cannot be understood in terms of evolution was that, like any theory, we need to attempt to falsify it.
Although I cannot give you specific cases, I suspect that it often involves the politics of power. Those in positions of power established the norms based on their own preferences, beliefs, and interests.... then we have to posit an additional mechanism. I am currently not aware of one.
You took as your premise the commonality of moral norms. Differences also need to be considered. Environmental factors may play a role in some cases where we see differences, such as in prohibitions against eating certain animals.But I would propose that in principle either that link must exist or there must be other factors which went into the 3 or 4 billion year process that resulted in the existence of human beings.
Eduk:
On evolution or on the connection between evolution and morality? I believe that evolution is a fact and that we continue to make progress in our explanation of the evolutionary facts.I'm not clear as to what your beliefs are?
As to evolution and morality, I am somewhat skeptical. I think it is helpful to compare human behavior with the behavior of other species. In other words, we should not limit the question to human behavior unless that behavior or feature is uniquely human. Things like sympathy, empathy, care, compassion, sociality are not uniquely human. If we are to look at them in terms of evolution then it should not be simply in terms of human evolution. If, however, one holds that there are cultural factors involved in morality then any explanation solely in terms of biological evolution must be incomplete.
To be clear, I do not support an evolutionary theory of morality. I think there are several, although it is not something I know much about. From what I have seen they share the notion of survival advantage - that a particular behavior is advantageous to the survival of the group and is at some point codified. It is biological meets cultural evolution. In my opinion, the notion of cultural evolution is problematic if it attempts to explain culture on the basis of behavior that has a survival advantage.Again I'm not 100% sure what you mean. What is the evolutionary theory of morality?
From what I gather it is both. Morality evolves because certain behaviors that favor the survival of the group become the norm.As in the theory that morality evolved? Or a theory that all morals increase the chance of survival of the group? Those are two different things.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: What is moral in life?
I can speak to that. Long study of the subject.Eduk wrote: Again I'm not 100% sure what you mean. What is the evolutionary theory of morality? As in the theory that morality evolved? Or a theory that all morals increase the chance of survival of the group? Those are two different things.
For most things like muscle and bone structure and even our personality tendencies to protect oneself and to reproduce, there's Darwin's basic theory that there are naturally variations in characteristics from one individual to the next, with the variations that improved survival of the individual and/or led to better ability to procreate would become more common in subsequent generations, through the offspring of those with the positive variations.
But for certain other personality characteristics, improving the survival and reproduction of individuals wasn't enough. Humans needed to cooperate and get along with others in the group, because they weren't the strongest or fastest animals, and for best use of their brainpower, they needed to work together. The same is true of a number of other species - those that run in packs or cooperate in hunting. And so for best survival of the species, certain tendencies of personal advantage needed to be sacrificed in favor of benefiting the group they are in. For example, there's no way that altruism, especially risking one's life for the survival of one's tribe, makes sense as promoting the survival of the individual. So a different evolutionary process was necessary. And Darwin himself believed in that process, which is called group selection.
The idea is that when we were evolving into our present species, our ancestors were running around in hunter-gatherer groups of around 20-50 individuals. And those groups which - by chance or by shared family DNA within the group - had more individuals whose DNA gave them the characteristics that promoted cooperation, tended to survive better, because they could hunt big game and build shelters for everybody and fight off predators better than those groups whose members tended to be more selfish. And so the more selfish hunter-gatherer groups tended to die out compared with the more cooperative groups, and the next generations would have more of those genetic mutations which led to greater empathy, cooperation, altruism, and so on.
There were a number of personality tendencies which promoted that cooperation - empathy, sympathy, a sense of fairness, and a built-in sense that certain things were morally right and others were morally wrong. It wasn't so much that we evolved to believe that specific things were right and others wrong, just that we felt instinctively that there was an objective right and wrong. So radical Muslims have a different idea of what's moral than Christians, but both have the conviction built-in that there are objective rights and wrongs. It gets more complicated in that we tend to believe that those in our group (however that is defined) are more worthy of our sympathy than those in other groups, so for some people killing a family member or neighbor is wrong but killing an enemy solider is morally good.
So to sum up, our sense that there are moral rights and wrongs evolved because it promoted survival of the groups and therefore the species at a time when life was dangerous and survival not assured. But the specifics of who's good and bad, which actions are good or bad - there's a huge variation from one culture to another. Looking at it from this point of view, my opinion is that there are no objective and universal moral truths. But within our own societies, we tend to arrive at similar conclusions as to right and wrong, and are able to have a consensus as to what should be allowed and what should be forbidden. And most of us in the developed countries share our belief in fairness, concern for others, promoting the general good, protection of the weak, helping those who need help, and so forth. We also tend to believe that those who don't follow the rules may have to be punished. Those ideas seem obvious and universal to us. They do to me. However, I recognize that I have those ideas because I grew up in a specific situation and developed in a certain way, and my moral beliefs cannot be proved to be better in an objective way than those of people in Russia or Thailand.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023