Where did morality come from?

[Wally]

Please bear with me as I'm no expert on either evolutionary theory or creationism. I simply have a question that's been bouncing around in my head for some time now and I hope that someone here can help me out with it. This question is more philosophical in nature than scientific.

If human beings are simply the products (byproducts?) of random processes and chance biological happenings and, like every other species on the planet, arose from earlier species that concerned themselves with little more than survival at all costs, then where did our sense of morality come from?

How is it evolutionarily advantageous to feel sympathy for your fellow human beings and even help them if there is absolutely no benefit for yourself or your immediate offspring? Why did humans develop the capability for sympathy for total strangers when this doesn't seem to provide any survival advantage at all?

If anything, this would seem to be a hindrance that would increase the likelihood that you would NOT survive. It would seem that any early human that had developed feelings of compassion and empathy towards his fellow men, as opposed to having simply a "survive at all costs" mentality, would be much more likely to put himself in unnecessary danger (by sticking his neck out for someone else, for example) or would be less willing to harm someone else to forward his own lineage, thereby drastically reducing the likelihood that these higher feelings of compassion would be passed on to subsequent generations.

Man has taken on habits that are in direct conflict with the "survival of the fittest" idea. We've devised methods of keeping people alive that have "defective" genes (diabetes sufferers, babies born with defective hearts, etc.) thereby weakening the gene pool with human lineages that mother nature is trying to get rid of. Why is it that humans, alone on the planet, have progressed past our base survival instincts?

Where did all this morality come from? Why did man alone develop these qualities in what is otherwise a sea of unadulterated survivalists?

Wally

[Jose]

You are absolutely right. At present, there is no proof of this particular hypothesis.

Seems hard to believe in it... Unless you had that nasty little thing... Faith.

You've been too cryptic for me here. Can you elaborate?

[TQWcS]

You said at this point all the evolutionary theory of morality is is a hypothesis. So if there is no proof to back anything and you believe that we derive our morality from genes without proof you are basing that belief on faith.

[Jose]

You said at this point all the evolutionary theory of morality is is a hypothesis. So if there is no proof to back anything and you believe that we derive our morality from genes without proof you are basing that belief on faith.

You keep saying these really interesting things! Thanks. I see what you are suggesting, but you’ve come to the wrong conclusion, probably as a result of simplifying the argument. "Evolutionary theory" is a set of explanations for how living things have come to be the way they are. Each aspect of the theory has been tested in many ways, and has not yet been disproved. This is what classifies it as "a theory." The evolution of morality is thus far hypothesis, since it has not yet been subjected to sufficient tests to warrant the name "theory." However, each aspect of the hypothesis is based on well-founded evolutionary theory. That is, each of the necessary steps is known to occur in some context or another. One aspect that is known is that many behaviors are indisputably genetic. We call them instincts. Even animals that do not seem (to us) to have self-awareness have genetically-coded instincts.

This leads us to two questions. First, how can we explain behaviors in other species that we could call "moral" in humans? Second, what instinctive behaviors do we have, and could similar "moral" behaviors be among them?

We arrive at answers to these questions by application of logic. In these other species, where the behaviors seem to be innate, we can apply fairly simple aspects of evolutionary theory to arrive at an explanation--which we call a “hypothesis” in order to use a big word. We won’t be able to "prove" this hypothesis to your satisfaction until we know every single DNA base change that occurred over the millennia to cause this behavior to arise. That’s going to take a long time, and may not be possible. Until then, we accept the hypothesis as provisional, awaiting new data that may help to support it, or may refute it. This is the case with virtually every explanation in science. That's how science works.

What behaviors in humans are instinctive? Well, certainly eating and having sex are instinctive. Being afraid of things is also, though here we have both hard-wired fears (basically, fear of being eaten), and general fears that we add subjects to based on experiences (like fear of birds, or fear of dogs, or fear of pumpkins). There are others. The fact that there are some instinctive behaviors indicates that, like other animals, we have instincts. There is no reason to say, a priori that moral behaviors for which evolutionary explanations exist simply cannot be among them because we are human.

To say that there are good evolutionary explanations for moral behavior in humans is not saying "I believe this is fact." It is not "belief" in some vague concept of "genetic morality" based on faith. It is logic, based on precedent, drawing from a variety of arenas. It is a conclusion that awaits additional data before it can be refuted or supported. It is an interpretation of existing data, not a "belief."

Therefore, the best way to argue against what I have proposed is to find additional data that can refute the explanation. Simply calling it "faith" (perhaps in order to put it on a par with a religious belief?) doesn’t get us closer to figuring out whether it might be true, or whether we can falsify it. You are always free not to accept the explanation, of course, but finding data that can falsify it would be the most valuable.

[TQWcS]

but finding data that can falsify it would be the most valuable.

I don't believe that only scientific evidence should apply in this argument I believe logic should apply as well. I will dig through my psychology textbooks to produce some good debate anyhow!

[Jose]

but finding data that can falsify it would be the most valuable.

I don't believe that only scientific evidence should apply in this argument I believe logic should apply as well. I will dig through my psychology textbooks to produce some good debate anyhow!

Good debate is what we need! That's why we're here. Hmmm...I don't think it's possible to use only scientific evidence and not use logic also. Logic is necessary to sort through the evidence and figure out how it fits together. On the other hand, since I'm suggesting a "scientific" explanation, rather than a religious one, we need to address it using "scientific" refutation, rather than religious. That actually makes it easier, since we don't have to say "I believe that" ... but instead, we can say "this observation seems to point to" ... and we can quibble with the fine points of the interpretation of the observation without implying that anyone's fundamental beliefs are "better" than anyone else's.

I will look forward to what you find!

[TQWcS]

Thought I would try to get this thread going again.

If "do unto others" was programmed into us via evolution then explain how homeless or impoverished people view the world as dog eat dog. In that they do not see anything wrong with taking things from other people. I would argue that the behaviors we observe in these people that live on the fringe of society are as close to natural human instincts as you will find. If this is our natural behavior then our moral behavior would have had to been rationalized then socialized. Which is what Frued states in Civilization and its Discontent- He states that man has built civilization and ethics by giving away freedom in exchange for protection.

[perfessor]

If "do unto others" was programmed into us via evolution then explain how homeless or impoverished people view the world as dog eat dog. In that they do not see anything wrong with taking things from other people.

Sorry - I gotta question you on this one. Have you ever been homeless? I haven't, so I would not presume to explain to others how they think, or view the world. You'll have to explain to us how this broad generalization is applicable in any way.

I would argue that the behaviors we observe in these people (i.e. the homeless) that live on the fringe of society are as close to natural human instincts as you will find.

Frankly, I find this preposterous. As an illustration from a "dog-eat-dog world" - Wolves, in their natural state, live in a pack in which feeding and mating behaviors take place within the boundaries of a well-established social structure. A "lone wolf" would be an anomaly - yet by your logic, would represent the wolf in its natural state. You would learn little about wolves by studying such a specimen. Likewise, a person living outside the norms of human society has little to tell us about our natural state.

If this is our natural behavior...

I contend that it is not

... then our moral behavior would have had to been rationalized then socialized. Which is what Frued states in Civilization and its Discontent- He states that man has built civilization and ethics by giving away freedom in exchange for protection.

The "freedom in exchange for protection" myth is not tied to civilization. You could as well say that mankind took to living in social groups (long before civilization) to effect this same tradeoff. But I don't see how it relates to morality.

[TQWcS]

Sorry - I gotta question you on this one. Have you ever been homeless? I haven't, so I would not presume to explain to others how they think, or view the world. You'll have to explain to us how this broad generalization is applicable in any way.

Yes it was a broad generaliztion. What I'm trying to say is that some people that are never socialized to view stealing and killing as immoral will not see at is so. Gang members have a totally diffent moral code than we do. If anyone lives in a state of anomie doesn't that prove the genetic basis of morals wrong?

Likewise, a person living outside the norms of human society has little to tell us about our natural state.

Wrong. In order to understand our basic instincts we can not study people that are a part of the mainstream society because they have all been socialized.

The "freedom in exchange for protection" myth is not tied to civilization. You could as well say that mankind took to living in social groups (long before civilization) to effect this same tradeoff. But I don't see how it relates to morality.

It is Freud's idea not mine. By adopting morality we gave up our freedom to what we wish.

[perfessor]

Sorry - I gotta question you on this one. Have you ever been homeless? I haven't, so I would not presume to explain to others how they think, or view the world. You'll have to explain to us how this broad generalization is applicable in any way.

Yes it was a broad generaliztion. What I'm trying to say is that some people that are never socialized to view stealing and killing as immoral will not see at is so. Gang members have a totally diffent moral code than we do. If anyone lives in a state of anomie doesn't that prove the genetic basis of morals wrong?

Hmmm - I'm not sure what you mean, since "anomie" is not in my dictionary. But no, I don't think it proves anything. Gang members probably do have a moral code, although it is probably one that you or I would not recognize. We were not made by cookie cutters, after all.

Likewise, a person living outside the norms of human society has little to tell us about our natural state.

Wrong. In order to understand our basic instincts we can not study people that are a part of the mainstream society because they have all been socialized.

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. Our "natural state" is to be part of a social group.

The "freedom in exchange for protection" myth is not tied to civilization. You could as well say that mankind took to living in social groups (long before civilization) to effect this same tradeoff. But I don't see how it relates to morality.

It is Freud's idea not mine. By adopting morality we gave up our freedom to what we wish.

Since it is Freud's idea not yours, I hope you won't mind too much if I call it "bogus". What if "doing what we wish" tends to line up with "moral" behavior? Because I think it does. Of course, it requires teaching, or shaping, or indoctrination, or socializing, whatever term you want. But to discuss what a person would be like, in the complete absense of such influences, is fruitless.

So, how do I argue for a genetic basis if socializing is required? For the same reason that I would say that a redwood sapling is geneticaly predisposed to grow very tall. But this will not happen if I withhold water etc. - it will only happen in the right environment. But the genetic basis is still there.

[Gaunt]

Our "natural state" is to be part of a social group.

I agree with perfessor here. Humans are very much social creatures. We need to be. Consider, as children we are helpless for years. It is not until more than a decade has passed that we are able to survive through our own means, and even then we are relatively weak and frail compared to where we are after 2 decades. Most other animals are able to survive on their own much sooner comparativley speaking. Social groups are a natural part of the human makeup, as without them, we would not have survived. Consequentially, if you study a single human alone, on the outside of that group, you cannot expect to gain insight into the "normal" behaviors of humanity.