Morality of id versus morality of ego

[Ozymandias]

I recently came across a thought regarding biological/ evolutionary morality. That is, the view of morality championed mainly by atheists and the like- that it is solely derived from our instincts, developed for the purpose of surviving as a species. After all, the common themes in conventional morality- "don't steal, don't kill (especially not children), help people, etc." are all things that contribute actively to the survivability of a group of humans. It makes a lot of sense, from one standpoint, that morality is nothing special, nothing philosophical, but rather just a slightly confusing set of rules we instinctively follow and enforce.

I'd accepted this position, as it's scientifically supported and to deny it would be folly, but as a theist and a philosopher, I did not feel right about morality being an animalistic feature. It's always seemed more refined and more human to me. In trying to bridge the gap between these two standpoints, I figured there must be two levels of morality- level 1, pertaining to the id (the unconscious, instinctive part of the human psyche), and level 2, pertaining to the ego (the conscious, thinking part of human psyche). The evolutionary, survivalist idea of morality is on level 1; it is morality the way the id sees it, as an instinct for surviving. But instincts don't really define morality. Most of the moral decisions I make are logical, I use judgement to come to conclusions on the hard questions. I read books, and talk to people, and we arrive on conclusions by doing so, and sometimes those conclusions are very contrary to what my instincts tell me. So morality cannot simply be instincts developed by evolution- either we have something else intrinsic to our nature, something more dignified that causes our moral inclinations, or morality is something outside of human nature, be it part of the universe or something supernatural/ godly, whatever. Theist or atheist, pragmatic or romantic, morality is not restricted to instincts we use to pass on our genes. I'm leaving the area of where this level 2 morality comes from open, because I can't really answer it and it's a new topic anyway.

My question is am I on something true here, or have I overlooked some important matter? And can my model be used as an effective argument against evolutionary morality? As far as I can see, it quite clearly disproves the idea that morality is instinctive, but it is still just a new idea so I can't be sure.

[Sy Borg]

I think this pertains to the "human difference" generally, which must first be seen in context with the fact that we out competed or killed Neanderthals and Homo erectus (the latter apparently persisted in SE Asia while H. sapiens lived elsewhere, for a while). It's most unlikely that other human species could have survived modernity and the treatment of those deemed "subhuman", and those other human species certainly didn't make it past the ice age that almost brought all humans to extinctions.

But what if those other human species still existed, living side by side with us? (don't laugh, it's hypothetical :) How might we consider the moral and intellectual gap between ourselves and other living human and nonhuman species? How might we compare modern morality with that of early humans?

[Gertie]

Ozymandias

Personally, I don't see the problem.

As you say the evidence is there that we evolved certain caring and social instincts for utilitarian reasons, which at one point were difficult to understand in terms of 'survival of the fittest', but now we've got a much better idea how it happened. (So these impulses were thought to have some other explanation, must come from some objectively existing source outside of us, perhaps God). Then these impulses became 'institutionalised' as we moved from small tribes who all knew each other, often genetically related, where instincts could do the job, to larger and larger groups of strangers who needed rules, laws, institutions, formalised learning, social mores - all telling us this is Right and this is Wrong. So Morality came to be seen as objective truth, existing beyond what any individual thought. Became entwined with how we think, as well as feel, about things.

Parents, schools, governments, neighbours, etc teach us virtually from birth that some things are right and some are wrong, and brain development is a plastic interactive process, and unimaginably complex. The metaphorical division between animalistic 'id' and rational 'ego' doesn't really do justice the vast complexity of how brain systems interact, and we can't even point to a 'rational' brain system, it might be that's more to do with the thinky voice in our heads which likes to create usefully manageable, coherent narratives about the world and our own impulse driven actions and beliefs. For example, research suggests that when there's a bad smell in the room people make harsher moral judgements, which when asked about they rationally justify. (I think it was Greta who first posted about that). Brains are weird, and incredibly complex in how our systems interact in billions and billions of patterns of 'cross system' neural connections.

So I'd say there's no reason to think it can't all be described in terms of evolved brain function.

However, I do think it's possible to say some things are right and some things are wrong! My own view is that consciousness brings a subjective qualiative property into a universe of objective stuff which is only quantifiable. It brings quality of life issues, happiness and suffering, well-being issues, rights issues, value and meaning, - interests, a stake in the state of affairs. So unlike smashing my toaster, it matters if I kill you, or harm you, or a dog or any critter with a quality of life, and if I do it without a damn good reason then it's wrong. Maybe it should be called Mattering rather than Morality, but that's a technicality imo.

[Ozymandias]

I think this pertains to the "human difference" generally, which must first be seen in context with the fact that we out competed or killed Neanderthals and Homo erectus (the latter apparently persisted in SE Asia while H. sapiens lived elsewhere, for a while). It's most unlikely that other human species could have survived modernity and the treatment of those deemed "subhuman", and those other human species certainly didn't make it past the ice age that almost brought all humans to extinctions.

But what if those other human species still existed, living side by side with us? (don't laugh, it's hypothetical How might we consider the moral and intellectual gap between ourselves and other living human and nonhuman species? How might we compare modern morality with that of early humans?

I'm not sure where you're going with that- I imagine they would have a sense of morality similar to ours, would they not? And what's the implication of that?

Ozymandias

Personally, I don't see the problem.

As you say the evidence is there that we evolved certain caring and social instincts for utilitarian reasons, which at one point were difficult to understand in terms of 'survival of the fittest', but now we've got a much better idea how it happened. (So these impulses were thought to have some other explanation, must come from some objectively existing source outside of us, perhaps God). Then these impulses became 'institutionalised' as we moved from small tribes who all knew each other, often genetically related, where instincts could do the job, to larger and larger groups of strangers who needed rules, laws, institutions, formalised learning, social mores - all telling us this is Right and this is Wrong. So Morality came to be seen as objective truth, existing beyond what any individual thought. Became entwined with how we think, as well as feel, about things.

Parents, schools, governments, neighbours, etc teach us virtually from birth that some things are right and some are wrong, and brain development is a plastic interactive process, and unimaginably complex. The metaphorical division between animalistic 'id' and rational 'ego' doesn't really do justice the vast complexity of how brain systems interact, and we can't even point to a 'rational' brain system, it might be that's more to do with the thinky voice in our heads which likes to create usefully manageable, coherent narratives about the world and our own impulse driven actions and beliefs. For example, research suggests that when there's a bad smell in the room people make harsher moral judgements, which when asked about they rationally justify. (I think it was Greta who first posted about that). Brains are weird, and incredibly complex in how our systems interact in billions and billions of patterns of 'cross system' neural connections.

So I'd say there's no reason to think it can't all be described in terms of evolved brain function.

However, I do think it's possible to say some things are right and some things are wrong! My own view is that consciousness brings a subjective qualiative property into a universe of objective stuff which is only quantifiable. It brings quality of life issues, happiness and suffering, well-being issues, rights issues, value and meaning, - interests, a stake in the state of affairs. So unlike smashing my toaster, it matters if I kill you, or harm you, or a dog or any critter with a quality of life, and if I do it without a damn good reason then it's wrong. Maybe it should be called Mattering rather than Morality, but that's a technicality imo.

Fair enough, I see how it's more complicated than id and ego.

I'm struggling to see that the seemingly logical perspectives of my morality that I and others apply to life are evolutionary brain functions, though. Partly, for circumstantial reasons. For example: many people don't want children, for reasons both moral and pragmatic. They aren't suffering from psychoses, delusions, mental illness, etc, they simply make a logical decision based on their view of morality. I don't see how that ties back to the survivability/ procreation motivation (ooh, I made a rhyme ). I won't overload on examples of this, but I observe that myself and others make morally grounded decisions every day that are contrary to what evolution and social structure should have taught us to do. I think the disconnect I'm trying to get at between instinct and human morality is that we think about our moral decisions. We (well some of us) actually rationalize, study, analyze, and choose our moral decisions. Yes, instinct and social structure have a good deal of input, but if morality is nothing more than an evolved brain function, we should not have the capability to override the preconceived notions we grow up with. I'm having trouble bridging the gap from that, back to the tribal nature of old humanity.

[Gertie]

Ozymandias

I take your point, it does seem odd. (Though I'm not sure if it's what we've come to call our moral sense or rationality which you have trouble believing evolved?). I'm not suggesting our thinky intellecty abilities play no role, just that there's loads we don't understand yet. And I'm just a layperson, I can only tell you how I see it, which I think is pretty much in line with where the science is currently at...

We are animals, whose evolutionary niche is basically our cleverness, -
including what we call our self-awareness, which includes awareness of our own
individual interests, and the interests of others. And our ability to be rational - understand cause and effect, think through consequences, understand the benefits of cooperation as well as competition, defer short term desires for more important long terms goals, and so on.

Babies aren't born with at least some of these abilities, they have all the brain cells, but the neuronal connections start off fairly simple and plastic. There is a lot of room for the interplay between experience and genetics in forming the mature human, learning is a big part of our evolutionary edge. Such big plastic brains are expensive, in terms of using a lot of energy, death in childbirth (have you seen where babies come out??) and years of nurture and learning before they can survive independently. Hugely costly method of reproduction. But that big clever brain has proven its evolutionary worth.

The actual mechanics of this in terms of brain function and development, with 80 billion individual jigsaw pieces (neurons) in play, and many more billions of
ways for them to fit together at any one moment... well maybe one day we will
be able to map that out. But we're just starting, and can only really talk in
fairly broad terms for now. So to take any one specific moral decision, by one
specific individual, and the full backstory of genetics and experiences interacting to create and reinforce certain neural patterns of connections (not all conscious), which 'spark' and adapt others, which do the same in turn, and on and on over years ending in that one decision, would fill innumerable libraries I'd imagine. Not possible for now.

But that's where all the evidence points, and I don't see an in principle reason why it can't explain why some people decide not to have children (possibly considering their own interests or the interests of others, although that might not be the whole underlying story), just like some people decide to have them. Or some weirdos prefer strawberry flavour ice cream to chocolate. Or some people climb dangerous mountains, or ride motorbikes without a helmet, commit suicide because some neural chemical receptors are a bit wonky and they see no good reason to live.

As a species and individually we're a messy evolutionary adaptive kludge of sometimes competing impulses, and rationales (which some evidence hints might actually just be rationalisations, at least sometimes), which do well enough to succeed overall as a species. And all this assumes some degree of free will, which is still an open question.

If you don't think brain processes fully account for our thoughts and
behaviours in essentially the same way as other sophisticated species, or some couldn't have evolved, you have to bring in something external, but where's the evidence? Where all the evidence points so far is that for each specific thought there is a corresponding specific brain state. And brains are evolved organs, like livers and eyeballs. Lots of people don't get how something as complex as an eyeball evolved, but it did.

tldr: it's complicated!

[Ozymandias]

Fair enough, I suppose "it's complicated" is all we can conclude with. I'm still keeping my eyes open for reasons to defend my position, but as of now I don't have any strong way to support it. I do want to point out that I'm certainly not anti-evolution, which this topic seems a bit close to, just in case anyone might interpret me as such.

[Sy Borg]

I think this pertains to the "human difference" generally, which must first be seen in context with the fact that we out competed or killed Neanderthals and Homo erectus (the latter apparently persisted in SE Asia while H. sapiens lived elsewhere, for a while). It's most unlikely that other human species could have survived modernity and the treatment of those deemed "subhuman", and those other human species certainly didn't make it past the ice age that almost brought all humans to extinctions.

But what if those other human species still existed, living side by side with us? (don't laugh, it's hypothetical How might we consider the moral and intellectual gap between ourselves and other living human and nonhuman species? How might we compare modern morality with that of early humans?

I'm not sure where you're going with that- I imagine they would have a sense of morality similar to ours, would they not? And what's the implication of that?

I was pointing to the fact that there is actually a smooth moral gradation between microbes and modern humans. "Cognitive missing links" between humans and other species did exist, but are now long extinct. So, while the "hard gap" between humanity and other species is a practical reality in today's world, it is illusory in terms of ontology. So the morality of, say, a Capuchin monkey is precisely our morality, or rather, that of a small child.

There have been obvious accelerations in human development - with moral development tracking roughly with growing knowledge and understanding. It's easier to be moral, in practice if not necessarily in intent, if one has a realistic sense of likely consequences.

Increasing specialisation in human societies meant that individuals could not look after themselves and were reliant on others to survive. As the societies gained experience in dealing with inevitable conflicts and manipulations, the rules become ever more stringent. Each closed loophole adds to a society's laws and moral canon, one more plank of experience.

The reliance on others raises stakes as regards social order and the consequences of non-cooperation. So, as social systems refine with experience (just as our minds do) there is an ever greater requirement, and demand, for individuals to conform in ever more varied considered ways. Whatever one says, it's a near certainty that someone would find it offensive.

We have an over-excitable predictive mechanism, which harks back to Gertie's comments about the brain.

Trouble is, given the rapid pace of progress, societies are often outstripping some of our long-evolved features. Thus, numerous people regularly fail to exercise the impulse control expected of them, and this generates conflict. Impulsiveness and spontaneity are essential when living rough, but falling into a fight-or-flight state in the office is problematic, and people are judged for their base impulses, written off as "bad seeds" when they are really just very slightly behind in terms of impulse control.

Obviously I do see morality as directly a product of evolution. However, that is not to trivialise morality. Everything in the universe evolves, whether it's biological evolution or any other change. The universe was once apparently a small, super hot and dense zone of plasma. Where is the morality there or in the early expanding universe before it dissipated enough for light to be possible? The only sense of I AM to be found is in the presence of something rather than nothing. The deepest root of morality may simply be that it is better to exist than to not exist but, like the rest of the interested world, I'm only guessing.

My own view is that consciousness brings a subjective qualiative property into a universe of objective stuff which is only quantifiable. It brings quality of life issues, happiness and suffering, well-being issues, rights issues, value and meaning, - interests, a stake in the state of affairs.

Excellent. Yes, the capacity to emote creates importance, priority. Still, many animals, including human babies, experience emotions and have an emotional impact on others, yet they have precious little control over these interactions. It's one thing to have preferences, another thing to be able to do much about it. Once some level of empowerment and control is achieved by a community member, morality begins. That's why we wouldn't convict a three year-old for accidentally shooting a sibling while playing with guns.

So the capacity for self-control seems to be pivotal to human morality. Other social species also display control. It's very easy to be relaxed about letting another eat - even when very hungry - when the alternative is to fight someone twice as strong as you for the privilege of being first to eat. It takes a whole other dimension of self control to allow a struggling stranger to eat first out of compassion.

This brings us to society's current schism. One side might claim that "feeding strangers" is compassionate. The other side says the stranger should be able to feed themselves and so to be helpful to strangers is to be exploited. The former sees the situation from a more global perspective - the good of humanity (or maybe living things generally) while the latter sees things from a local perspective, the good of them and theirs. Each has a point. The former would seem the more likely mindset of more advanced, intelligent species, capable of much more cooperation than we are.

PS. Gertie, the experiment your mentioned in actually involved the perception that a person who handed you a warm drink was a "warmer person" than one who handed you a cold drink. However, leaving a bad smell in the room is certainly not recommended for those hoping to make a good first impression

Gosh, that was all longer than intended

[Ozymandias]

(Nested quote removed.)

I'm not sure where you're going with that- I imagine they would have a sense of morality similar to ours, would they not? And what's the implication of that?

I was pointing to the fact that there is actually a smooth moral gradation between microbes and modern humans. "Cognitive missing links" between humans and other species did exist, but are now long extinct. So, while the "hard gap" between humanity and other species is a practical reality in today's world, it is illusory in terms of ontology. So the morality of, say, a Capuchin monkey is precisely our morality, or rather, that of a small child.

There have been obvious accelerations in human development - with moral development tracking roughly with growing knowledge and understanding. It's easier to be moral, in practice if not necessarily in intent, if one has a realistic sense of likely consequences.

Increasing specialisation in human societies meant that individuals could not look after themselves and were reliant on others to survive. As the societies gained experience in dealing with inevitable conflicts and manipulations, the rules become ever more stringent. Each closed loophole adds to a society's laws and moral canon, one more plank of experience.

The reliance on others raises stakes as regards social order and the consequences of non-cooperation. So, as social systems refine with experience (just as our minds do) there is an ever greater requirement, and demand, for individuals to conform in ever more varied considered ways. Whatever one says, it's a near certainty that someone would find it offensive.

We have an over-excitable predictive mechanism, which harks back to Gertie's comments about the brain.

Trouble is, given the rapid pace of progress, societies are often outstripping some of our long-evolved features. Thus, numerous people regularly fail to exercise the impulse control expected of them, and this generates conflict. Impulsiveness and spontaneity are essential when living rough, but falling into a fight-or-flight state in the office is problematic, and people are judged for their base impulses, written off as "bad seeds" when they are really just very slightly behind in terms of impulse control.

Obviously I do see morality as directly a product of evolution. However, that is not to trivialise morality. Everything in the universe evolves, whether it's biological evolution or any other change. The universe was once apparently a small, super hot and dense zone of plasma. Where is the morality there or in the early expanding universe before it dissipated enough for light to be possible? The only sense of I AM to be found is in the presence of something rather than nothing. The deepest root of morality may simply be that it is better to exist than to not exist but, like the rest of the interested world, I'm only guessing.

My own view is that consciousness brings a subjective qualiative property into a universe of objective stuff which is only quantifiable. It brings quality of life issues, happiness and suffering, well-being issues, rights issues, value and meaning, - interests, a stake in the state of affairs.

Excellent. Yes, the capacity to emote creates importance, priority. Still, many animals, including human babies, experience emotions and have an emotional impact on others, yet they have precious little control over these interactions. It's one thing to have preferences, another thing to be able to do much about it. Once some level of empowerment and control is achieved by a community member, morality begins. That's why we wouldn't convict a three year-old for accidentally shooting a sibling while playing with guns.

So the capacity for self-control seems to be pivotal to human morality. Other social species also display control. It's very easy to be relaxed about letting another eat - even when very hungry - when the alternative is to fight someone twice as strong as you for the privilege of being first to eat. It takes a whole other dimension of self control to allow a struggling stranger to eat first out of compassion.

This brings us to society's current schism. One side might claim that "feeding strangers" is compassionate. The other side says the stranger should be able to feed themselves and so to be helpful to strangers is to be exploited. The former sees the situation from a more global perspective - the good of humanity (or maybe living things generally) while the latter sees things from a local perspective, the good of them and theirs. Each has a point. The former would seem the more likely mindset of more advanced, intelligent species, capable of much more cooperation than we are.

PS. Gertie, the experiment your mentioned in actually involved the perception that a person who handed you a warm drink was a "warmer person" than one who handed you a cold drink. However, leaving a bad smell in the room is certainly not recommended for those hoping to make a good first impression

Gosh, that was all longer than intended

Okay, so I'm going to play off of your "self control" angle, I think that's very insightful and I'm glad you brought it up.

This makes me think of the famous chicken- egg question (Which came first?). The obvious answer is that the egg came first, because when you look at the way evolution works, chickens were descended from another species which was descended from dinosaurs. For sake of convenience, I'm going to pretend chickens evolved directly from dinosaurs. As a chicken is formed in the womb of its mother inside its egg, the egg is formed by the same DNA as the chicken, therefore, the egg is the same as the chicken. As an "egg" is defined as the calcium- rich round thing containing a chick, and "chicken" is defined as the little creature that comes out of the egg, the egg very clearly came first. The bird who laid the egg is not a chicken, it is a dinosaur.

The point of all that is that evolution works in gradations, but there are some qualities that just have to happen immediately. For example, for humans to lose the tails our evolutionary ancestors had, we will have to finally lose our coccyx (the tailbone, which is actually the small, vestigial remnant of a tail). But that will happen by mutation; someone will be born with no tailbone. You can't be born with a 43% transparent, or 43% nonexistent tailbone.

So I believe morality must work the same way. Some human child must have been born with the ability to reason, or the ability to have self control, while his/ her parents did not have that ability, but instead acted purely off of instinct, like other animals. My hold up is that it just seems like a very odd, almost supernatural thing for a species to mutate into. After all, when you discuss morality on the philosophical level, it all gets very cerebral, or metaphysical. Humans are the only creatures with access to metaphysics, and I don't see how metaphysical cognition can mutate from a purely instinctive brain. For the moment I won't jump to conclusions and say morality was given to us by divinity (I believe that for other reasons but that's a matter of theology and philosophy of religion), I'll just say that morality seems to be more spiritual than evolution.

[Sy Borg]

.... the famous chicken- egg question (Which came first?). The obvious answer is that the egg came first, because when you look at the way evolution works, chickens were descended from another species which was descended from dinosaurs. For sake of convenience, I'm going to pretend chickens evolved directly from dinosaurs. As a chicken is formed in the womb of its mother inside its egg, the egg is formed by the same DNA as the chicken, therefore, the egg is the same as the chicken. As an "egg" is defined as the calcium- rich round thing containing a chick, and "chicken" is defined as the little creature that comes out of the egg, the egg very clearly came first. The bird who laid the egg is not a chicken, it is a dinosaur.

Ultimately this is a problem of words, classifications. What we call the birdlike dino or the dino-like bird is academic but the physical reality is that some creatures with qualities lying between those that generally denote "dinosaur" or "bird" laid eggs and the result was animals with more birdlike qualities than usual.

The point of all that is that evolution works in gradations, but there are some qualities that just have to happen immediately. For example, for humans to lose the tails our evolutionary ancestors had, we will have to finally lose our coccyx (the tailbone, which is actually the small, vestigial remnant of a tail). But that will happen by mutation; someone will be born with no tailbone. You can't be born with a 43% transparent, or 43% nonexistent tailbone.

It is true that evolution sometimes appears as though it had been immediate, where an especially advantageous feature sweeps through of population but our coccyx was not one of them, and we still do have this vestigial tail bone.

So I believe morality must work the same way. Some human child must have been born with the ability to reason, or the ability to have self control, while his/ her parents did not have that ability, but instead acted purely off of instinct, like other animals. My hold up is that it just seems like a very odd, almost supernatural thing for a species to mutate into. After all, when you discuss morality on the philosophical level, it all gets very cerebral, or metaphysical. Humans are the only creatures with access to metaphysics, and I don't see how metaphysical cognition can mutate from a purely instinctive brain. For the moment I won't jump to conclusions and say morality was given to us by divinity (I believe that for other reasons but that's a matter of theology and philosophy of religion), I'll just say that morality seems to be more spiritual than evolution.

I can help you out here because I have a couple of unusually early memories, which I've posted on the forum about a year ago:

I was sitting in the high chair being fed by the horrible cranky babysitter. I was eating some mushy stuff in my favourite teddy bear motif bowl. I was refusing to feed for some reason - probably hostility - and the babysitter became angry. She shouted and banged the spoon down hard on my bowl, accidentally breaking it. Now the evil witch had broken my special bowl!! I screamed! I noticed that the babysitter looked worried. She was no longer aggressive but trying to placate me. I screamed more. I "twisted the dagger" as hard as I could. I would not be consoled. I had her under my control and she was going to pay. That's where the memory ends.

The will of a toddler would seem not miles from the will of Stalin! It takes time to develop the restraint needed to become a decent human being - the ability to override our animal impulses. I know from experience that we surely don't start out nice but need to learn niceness. We are initially as selfish, primitive and atavistic as any young wild animal. The chicks that hatch early and push their siblings' eggs out of the nest. The newborns that devour their weakest siblings. The robust piglet that refuses to allow the runts to feed. Young creatures act on impulses with almost no restraint, and that is how they learn, through endless games of trial and error. An attentive parent will be there to prevent them from doing anything potentially serious and to help them when the experiments go awry.

Morality was present - I expected greater cordiality/cooperation from the babysitter - but that's about it. My moral expectation only applied to others, not to myself, which is a typically childish approach to morality (and extremely common today in adults). That imbalance of expectations results from believing that others are adults with control while we ourselves are like children without control.

[Ozymandias]

.... the famous chicken- egg question (Which came first?). The obvious answer is that the egg came first, because when you look at the way evolution works, chickens were descended from another species which was descended from dinosaurs. For sake of convenience, I'm going to pretend chickens evolved directly from dinosaurs. As a chicken is formed in the womb of its mother inside its egg, the egg is formed by the same DNA as the chicken, therefore, the egg is the same as the chicken. As an "egg" is defined as the calcium- rich round thing containing a chick, and "chicken" is defined as the little creature that comes out of the egg, the egg very clearly came first. The bird who laid the egg is not a chicken, it is a dinosaur.

Ultimately this is a problem of words, classifications. What we call the birdlike dino or the dino-like bird is academic but the physical reality is that some creatures with qualities lying between those that generally denote "dinosaur" or "bird" laid eggs and the result was animals with more birdlike qualities than usual.

The point of all that is that evolution works in gradations, but there are some qualities that just have to happen immediately. For example, for humans to lose the tails our evolutionary ancestors had, we will have to finally lose our coccyx (the tailbone, which is actually the small, vestigial remnant of a tail). But that will happen by mutation; someone will be born with no tailbone. You can't be born with a 43% transparent, or 43% nonexistent tailbone.

It is true that evolution sometimes appears as though it had been immediate, where an especially advantageous feature sweeps through of population but our coccyx was not one of them, and we still do have this vestigial tail bone.

So I believe morality must work the same way. Some human child must have been born with the ability to reason, or the ability to have self control, while his/ her parents did not have that ability, but instead acted purely off of instinct, like other animals. My hold up is that it just seems like a very odd, almost supernatural thing for a species to mutate into. After all, when you discuss morality on the philosophical level, it all gets very cerebral, or metaphysical. Humans are the only creatures with access to metaphysics, and I don't see how metaphysical cognition can mutate from a purely instinctive brain. For the moment I won't jump to conclusions and say morality was given to us by divinity (I believe that for other reasons but that's a matter of theology and philosophy of religion), I'll just say that morality seems to be more spiritual than evolution.

I can help you out here because I have a couple of unusually early memories, which I've posted on the forum about a year ago:

I was sitting in the high chair being fed by the horrible cranky babysitter. I was eating some mushy stuff in my favourite teddy bear motif bowl. I was refusing to feed for some reason - probably hostility - and the babysitter became angry. She shouted and banged the spoon down hard on my bowl, accidentally breaking it. Now the evil witch had broken my special bowl!! I screamed! I noticed that the babysitter looked worried. She was no longer aggressive but trying to placate me. I screamed more. I "twisted the dagger" as hard as I could. I would not be consoled. I had her under my control and she was going to pay. That's where the memory ends.

The will of a toddler would seem not miles from the will of Stalin! It takes time to develop the restraint needed to become a decent human being - the ability to override our animal impulses. I know from experience that we surely don't start out nice but need to learn niceness. We are initially as selfish, primitive and atavistic as any young wild animal. The chicks that hatch early and push their siblings' eggs out of the nest. The newborns that devour their weakest siblings. The robust piglet that refuses to allow the runts to feed. Young creatures act on impulses with almost no restraint, and that is how they learn, through endless games of trial and error. An attentive parent will be there to prevent them from doing anything potentially serious and to help them when the experiments go awry.

Morality was present - I expected greater cordiality/cooperation from the babysitter - but that's about it. My moral expectation only applied to others, not to myself, which is a typically childish approach to morality (and extremely common today in adults). That imbalance of expectations results from believing that others are adults with control while we ourselves are like children without control.

So, to clarify, you're explaining that morality is socially learned within one member of a species' lifetime, rather than within the species' lifetime? Or have I misinterpreted? Also, your story reminds me of many times from my childhood when I did the same thing- I had an understanding of morality as "others should" but not as "I should".

[Sy Borg]

So, to clarify, you're explaining that morality is socially learned within one member of a species' lifetime, rather than within the species' lifetime? Or have I misinterpreted? Also, your story reminds me of many times from my childhood when I did the same thing- I had an understanding of morality as "others should" but not as "I should".

Rather than an either/or situation, I was pointing to similarities between the way societies and their individuals developed their morality. Empowerment/control brings forth the need for morality - that one can make a decision, is capable of exerting the control needed to make moral decisions. In the past it was a common insult to declare a person with poor impulse control to be "animalistic" - less than an adult human, since adult humans are capable of certain expected levels of control.

Then, above and beyond control is the decision - to cooperate, exploit or ignore - peer, prey or object. In a civilised society the predator/prey relationships tend to be indirect and sublimated, operating within the social rather than physical realm (the latter, again, is often judged as "animalistic"). Not sure where I'm going with this now. Can you help?

Another relevant aspect of morality is the scale of one's sphere of concern, be it self, family, friends, company, nationality, race, species, or broader again. This is the moral challenge facing humans. We have ignored our moral obligations to the Earth's natural systems because it didn't seem like there were any major consequences for exploitation. It's clearly difficult for many people to extend their sphere of interest, especially when at rhetorical war with other nations. If we can't get interested in all of humanity, then caring about other species and planetary systems would seem a stretch.

[Gertie]

Ozy, Another looong post, but it's just one of those topics it's hard to do
justice to in a couple of paras I'm afraid.

I'd say that impulse control and deferment of gratification, is one vital side
of the coin. There is also guilt and and social shaming. And earliest of all,
most fundamental to the under-pinnings of what came to be called morality - the evolutionary leap from self care to caring for others.

The story goes like this. Unlike earlier reptiles (think of a Mummy turtle who
can lay a bunch of eggs on a beach then buggers off leaving them safe in their
shells with an inbuilt food supply), mammals give birth to helpless live young.
The Mum has to be 'motivated' to care for them until they're able to look after
themselves, she has to form an attachment. Feed them, ward off predators, keep them warm (mammals are warm-blooded, vulnerable to cold) and so on. Evolution does the job, so for example a chemical involved in lactation gets co-opted to have a role in brain chemistry, giving mummy rat a warm fuzzy feeling when her babies are nearby and safe and suckling. When they're out of sight anxiety inducing chemicals kick in. Voila, the bridge between self-care and the
biological mechanisms for caring for another have begun. Some species of voles
pair bond (it's handy to have a helpful food gatherer and protector if you're
caring for babies), but others living in different types of environments don't.
The difference has been located in brain chemistry.

With more and more sophisticated species, more sophisticated brains, the more
sophisticated the bonding mechanisms become. And once the biological mechanisms are in place, it's less of a leap to extend them beyond off-spring, mates and other kin, to others you're in contact with. Supplying material for evolution to work with to produce more and more varied and sophisticated generally social and co-operative tendencies. (Tho often requiring face to face contact to 'fire' these neuro-biological mechanisms, or reciprocal altruism by individuals known to you. Hence they are often tribally based, don't trigger so much with strangers, who might be seen in tribal communities as threats or competition for resources - forms of tribalism or in-group/out-group thinking and behaviour is now a major problem for our species of globally inter-connected strangers).

I assume you're OK with this so far, as you can file it under 'instinct'? But
it's essentially patterns of neural electro-chemical connections.

As species with bigger and more sophisticated brains evolve, culminating in
humans, they acquire more thinky cognitive abilities. Our more instinctive
lizzard brains are still at the core, we're still driven to self-care,
self-gratification, but lumped on are additional systems which enable us to have
self-awareness, and awareness of of others as thinking, feeling critters too.
They enable us not just to empathise, but think through consequences, see cause and effect (incredibly useful skills in their own right), make predictions,
control our impulses for long term rewards, understand how others can suffer
like we do if we gratify our own desires without thought for the consequences.
Or how we ourselves can suffer, if we only eat yummy cake and not our
vegetables. (And then enforce it on it our kids till they're old enough to
control their impulses and think it through themselves - no pud till you eat
your sprouts!) That's intellectualised self-care. What's the mysterious,
spiritual difference between that and intellectualised care for others?

Now I don't know the details of how these more 'thinky' cognitive brain systems
evolved, but I don't see them as essentially different to the earlier ones. The
whole brain is made out of fairly uniform simple cells, neurons. When brains
are scanned, the difference between thinking 'I want cake!' and 'I shouldn't
kill my horrible boss because (insert intellectual moral argument)' is which
parts of the brain show neural activity.

That's the evidence we have. The evolutionary theory follows the evidence and
comes up with an explanation which fits the known facts, with this as elsewhere.
For ages I couldn't understand how an eyeball could evolve in principle, but
the devil's in the detail and bit by bit it did. For ages I didn't understand
how evolution could result in altruism, but bit by bit that story too is being
pieced together, following the evidence. I always recommend Pat Churchland's
book Brain Trust (she's a neuro-ethicist philosopher who's gathered evidence
from various hard science and social science fields to present the compelling
big picture). Totally changed my thinking. Or have a look at this chapter from
Haidt's Righteous Mind as a nice intro to the topic of evolved morality.
http://righteousmind.com/wp-content/upl ... final_.pdf
The info is there and just starting to enter the popular zeitgeist, you just
have to know where to look. And personally I find it fascinating, if a bit
disconcerting to our sense of moral virtue!


tldr: you presumably agree brains evolved in much the same way as other organs. You agree caring and co-operative instincts can evolve. These instincts correspond to patterns of neural connections in brains. Rational thoughts about about moral concepts also correspond to patterns of electro-chemical neural connections in brains. If brains evolved, then the ability for all these patterns of neural connections ('instinctive' and 'rational') to form also evolved. The 'instinctive' and 'rational' attitudes tend to tally pretty well, but not always. We're clever, complicated, kludgy critters, so that's not really surprising.

-- Updated February 14th, 2017, 10:57 am to add the following --

Greta

PS. Gertie, the experiment your mentioned in actually involved the perception that a person who handed you a warm drink was a "warmer person" than one who handed you a cold drink. However, leaving a bad smell in the room is certainly not recommended for those hoping to make a good first impression

haha oops sorry! I remember now I read that elsewhere, a paper on our disgust responses, how perceptual responses can bleed into our rationalising about moral issues.

You might also be interested in the chapter I linked to Ozy, as I think you're spot on about how these things play out socially and politically. The author, Haidt, identifies 5 or 6 broad categories of universal cross-cultural moral impulses, outlines their evolutionary usefulness, then goes on to explore how they are reflected in US Left-Right politics. All analysis of politics suddenly looks dated now, but the link's towards the bottom of the ginormous post above if you're interested

Btw there are studies which show we start to develop impulse control as toddlers around age 3 or 4, but our controlly frontal cortex doesn't fully develop until our twenties. Hence reckless teenagers who won't be told. Anyway, they followed up on the toddlers they tested, and apparently if you can resist a cookie for 10 mins at age 4, on the promise of extra cookies later, then your chance of leading a 'successful' life are much higher! (better job, richer, smarter, etc)

mmm cookies...(dashes off to the kitchen)

[Fooloso4]

Gertie:

righteousmind.com/wp-content/upl%20...% ... final_.pdf

I agree in general with the idea of looking at morality in terms of our biology, but have some reservations regarding the evolutionary story. We are pack animals and while we might have a evolutionary narrative emphasizing the advantages of living in groups, not all mammals are pack animals. And so, a different narrative must be invented to explain how this too is an advantage. While I think it obvious that there are inherited behavioral traits, I am a bit skeptical of the narratives of origins. No doubt these will develop and change over time.

Te other problem I have is that it seems to me that the analysis of conservatives versus liberals is too facile. The conclusion that the right uses all five foundations while the left only the first two is questionable.

The loyalty foundation seems less about loyalty and more about what one is loyal to. What is described is more like tribal or gang identity, an us versus them mentality. If there is a divide between the left and the right with regard to universalism versus nationalism, it may have more to do with differing views as to how best to achieve peace and prosperity rather than care versus loyalty.

The authority foundation cuts both ways. Conservatives today, for example, are suspicious of the authority of government and strong on individual rights. Individual rights are derived from the philosophy of Liberalism, and to that extent, many conservatives are liberals. They are in some respects anti-authority. But while conservatives advocate less government interference they are often in favor or more interference when it comes to reproductive rights. It might be said that they appeal to a higher authority, and, of course, their higher authority is tied to their loyalty foundation, that is, the authority of their group. But there is also liberation and universal theologies that emphasize universalism and the plight of those in need

The sanctity foundation does not cut neatly either. Is the liberal vegan less concerned with the sanctity of the body that than person whose diet consists of meat, processed foods, and sugar as staples? The “ethics of divinity” is not a conservative value but rather a matter of what is held to be divine - the virgin Mary versus new age spiritualism, for example. A point that is made in the book.

I find Leon Kass’s “The Wisdom of Repugnance” repugnant given his educational pedigree (Leo Strauss), although also a common trait of that pedigree (Straussians). He reduces and attributes what may be a culturally learned repugnance to human nature.

[Belindi]

Given that the individual human in question is not a brain-damaged psychopath, the more they acquire knowledge and ability to reason the more they become kindly and understanding . True, to be kindly and understanding often also requires sufficient courage to disagree with the crowd to the point of self sacrifice.

The human individual who reacts to their emotions without first refining and controlling them by means of reason and knowledge is an overly impulsive person who will get into trouble sooner or later and may even become a criminal.


Freud's model of id, ego, and superego is useful for describing the influence of orthodoxy (superego) upon the basic instincts thus resulting in ego. However I distance myself from equating orthodoxy and goodness. Indeed orthodoxy needs frequent inspections with a view to updating or paradigm shift according to new insights of science, psychology, anthropology, and moral philosophy.

[Gertie]

Fooloso

I have issues with Haidt's inferences too, and how he applies it to Left-Right US politics. The link isn't a wholesale endorsement, it's a shortish intro to an approach which is promising.

What I like about it is it's an admittedly crude early attempt to get a handle on auditting and categorising such a large and ephemeral seeming topic. And showing how it's possible to start understanding universal impulses in terms of evolution. As a rough n ready first draft, I think it helps us get a handle on the big picture.

Personally I've found Haidt's research, and Frans de Waal's work with other smart apes, and mostly Pat Churchland (and others) drawing together findings from different fields, combined give a pretty good picture of the evolved under-pinnings of what came to be called morality. Once you get your head around how evolution can lead to care, altruism and co-operation as well as self-care and competition, I think the biggest hurdle is overcome. Churchland might be more your cuppa too, being a philosopher (review of her book Brain Trust here, she has youtube lectures too https://www.timeshighereducation.com/bo ... 03.article# ) . It's very early days, a new field, I don't expect a perfect accounting of everything, but a plausible Big Picture account is coming into focus, with some fascinating detailed examples.

As for co-operation specifically, with super smart and super complex social mammals like us, it's an incredibly complex story. But the evolutionary benefits of co-operation are pretty obvious for a clever, adaptable, learny species like ours. Division of labour, specialisation, skill sharing, group projects (from hunting to building a raft or shelter), fighting off predators (human and other), childcare, etc which might not be possible without co-operation. It's thought key developments like language and memory are part of the back and forth interplay emerging from co-operation. Language is obvious, but also remembering who is trustworthy, a tit for tat co-operator in acts of reciprocal altruism for example - we even have a part of our brain which specialises in identifying faces. The emergence of the importance of reputation (think Virtue Ethics), being known as a trust-worthy co-operator. Of private guilt and public shaming. An abhorence of cheaters, judgementalism, punishment, ostracism. Theory of mind - understanding others have fears and desires like you do, the ability to predict behaviour based on that. Empathy, mirror neurons. Tribalism. All key to the evolutionary history of co-operative human behaviour.

And then the chronological and environmental happenstance of how this plays out in different cultures. Including the need, as we move from small tribal groups to larger, unrelated and unfamiliar groups, for these more natural responses to become formalised, institutionalised. Laws, customs, mores, archetypal stories/myths/prototypes, religion, formalised teaching - embedding the instinctual functions in a more abstract, conceptualised, reasoned way within cultures. Until morality becomes seen as 'a thing in itself' to be discovered, gotten right or wrong, with its own objective existence. Whether god given by a perfect law giver, or through reason (and I think you and I agree philosophy has failed in the latter).

Make more sense?



Co-operation in action

-- Updated February 17th, 2017, 10:06 am to add the following --

Churchland talk introducing ideas she covers in her book Brain Trust

starts around 8.30 mins