Can Morality be explained through Psychological Evolution?

[QED]

In the topic titled Can mutations be random? we side-tracked to the question of morality. Here 4gold stated that morality is outside the laws of physics, and therefore outside the scientific method. Goat and I disagreed citing Evolutionary Psychology and the application of Game Theory as providing satisfactory explanations for the origin of morality. To pick up the debate here I will quote 4gold's response:

To goat and QED:

I must respectfully disagree. I believe that you are confusing psychology for morality. While it is true that you can observe behavior X, measure its results, and determine whether it is destructive or not, I believe this falls under the category of sociology or psychology.

In QED's link, it states, "Game theory consequently is relevant to ethics, and it is used in moral and political philosophy in a variety of ways." I reject this premise.

The assumptions beneath this sentence are:

(1) Human behavior can be evaluated as positive or negative (a true statement)

(2) The outcome of actions is interdependent on several outside agents (true)

(3) Choices are dependent upon others' actions (true)

(4) Therefore, game theory applies to morality (false, IMO)

This assumes that good and bad can be intrinsically established within human behavior.

Suppose, as Christians do, that there are angels and demons that also influence good and bad within the world. How would this be covered by Game Theory, or psychology, or even science? Science is only able to observe those things within the physical world.

Now, let's suppose that there is a world with no angels or demons. I would still argue that Game Theory would only apply to human behavior, but not to morality.

As an example, let's take the example of bravery. Bravery is universally recognized as moral. No matter which culture, time period, religion, or geographical location, humans of all kinds have upheld bravery as moral.

Let's suppose you encounter a burning house with screams for help coming from inside. Your brain will instantaneously provide two simultaneous instincts: one is an instinct for self-preservation and the other is an instinct to help your fellow man. Without going through the thought process of weighing the two possibilities, you decide to rush into the building to help your fellow man. This decision has nearly equal potential for either positive or negative results, but either way, you will be acknowledged by your fellow peers as "doing the right thing".

This seems to overlook the potential for bravery to be recognized as a positive attribute by potential sexual partners. If our brave souls act in ways that help to preserve the family or society that supports their family then theirs will be the "blueprint" that will prevail in future generations. This is precisely why we would expect something like bravery to be universally recognized as moral... no matter which culture, time period, religion, or geographical location. This "universality" arises because the potentials and the mechanisms of evolutionary psychology that gives rise to the morals are also universal. Of course it could be confused with a mysterious, absolute code, imprinted on all men -- but in the presence of the mechanism described I think it would be a redundant explanation at best.

[4gold]

4gold:

Is self-sacrifice a conscious decision that overrules our instincts, or is it an extreme on one end of selfless instincts?

If you affirm the former, what is the ontology of such decisions?

If you affirm the latter, why isn't this extreme observed within other animal species that exhibit the selfless instincts/bravery trait?

You seem to be creating a false dilemma, It maybe neither or some of both.
As humans we give meaning to bravery and self-sacrifice while the instinct for self preservation as well as preservation of others has developed over millions of years. We are social creatures and create social bonds. Even as mammals we need to feed and protect our young. Animals display great bravery doing the same. They may not make conscious choices as we know them because we are more complex and we do not know to what degree other animal have consciousness or self awareness. You seem to be trying to create a problem where there isn’t one.

I understand that this could be a neither-nor or both-and situation, instead of an either-or situation. However, both you and QED brought up instincts and cognitive reasoning as possible explanations, so the neither-nor situation doesn't seem to fit here.

If it is the both-and situation, it requires a qualifier in order to follow the law of noncontradictions. This is why I posed the question. It gives you a chance to explain your point-of-view. I'm not saying your POV is incorrect. I am saying I don't follow your logic...yet.

If self-sacrifice is an extreme on a range of instincts, why is this not observed in the animal kingdom?

If self-sacrifice is a cognitive decision to override animal instincts, what is the ontology of this decision?

Or, as you put it, if it's both a cognitive decision that overrides instincts and an animal instinct, what is the qualifier so as to not violate the law of noncontradictions?

This might be why you are so confused. You are reading your belief system into something you have not made a clear question or problem.
Granted there is a story of Jesus self-sacrifice but many Jews did the same and died for their beliefs. They did it out of duty and love of God and the Law. The myth is that he gave himself as a sacrifice to appease God out of what you call love seems largely non-cognitive and arbitrary.
It is possible that Jesus gave himself up after finding out he was wanted and Judas gave him over as opposed to betraying.
Thus saving his followers from being killed as criminals as he was. It seems your whole point is the opportunity to say God so loved the world that he gave himself as his son so you could be forgiven and saved. This is a personal belief that you share with others. Here is something I wrote in another thread but I think it is relevant. It happens to be addressing scripture but it is equally fitting as an understanding of belief.

It seems to me scripture for the believer is inspiring.
This will all depend on the believer and their beliefs. It is learned and shaped by culture, family, community and experience. There are no other sources we could recognize.
It is contradictory, wrong and contains errors because we do and even if there were a God of the Platonic sort or a Personal YHWH there is no evidence he/she was in charge or had it under control. Despite the committees and the adoration, the selection is a haphazard affair and historically accidental.

Actually, I think you have my belief system wrong. I believe in universal truth and universal morals. I believe all humans appeal to the same truth and to the same moral code, whether Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic, or Atheist. As such, I do not believe that the Bible, the Qu'ran, or any other text contains Absolute Truth. Rather, you can find within each of them a perspective on the Truth. Sort of the six blind men describing the elephant, if you will.

My stance has nothing to do with Biblical apologetics. I really, truly believe, from a transcendent perspective, that morals and truth are universal. And I also believe that the ontology of morals cannot be determined through science. I believe morality is part of the non-physical realm...thus the purpose of this whole debate.

[QED]

Okay, here is where I am getting confused by your reasoning. In your first quote above, you make self-sacrifice appear as an extreme on a range of "selfless instincts".

This is the trouble we get into when using loose terminology. Instincts could describe reactions coming from all reactive areas of the brain. It is quite clear from the physiology (and our own daily experiences) that, in the broadest of terms, we react both consciously and unconsciously to things. Some unconscious reactions happen so fast that we only become aware of our actions after they have happened. These could be termed instinctive -- like the reaction to close our eyes to a camera flash. An examination of the routing of the optic nerve bundle confirms parallel processing of the sensory data that elicits such a reaction. A conscious decision to override this reaction can be made (with varying degrees of success - mostly failure in my case!) and I think we might well say that celebrities have consciously managed to develop an instinct for keeping their eyes open in the same circumstances.

I would certainly describe the willful laying down of one's life in order to save others as an extreme end-point on a line of heroic behaviours. I would imagine that we all know to some degree the sort of thought processes that accompany similar crisis decision making. The process is established in our minds through various factors, some of which would certainly seem to be potentially inherited. I would describe these factors as leading to the development of personal instincts.

In your second quote above, you make it appear as though self-sacrifice is not within the instincts of humans, but rather a conscious decision that originates from within the cerbral cortex that "overrule[s] the instinctive reactions".

Self-preservation undoubtedly ranks high on the list of powerful instincts for all living things. Natural selection simply wouldn't have it any other way! But the ability of the higher brain functions in humans to modulate these primal instincts can also be seen as instinctive as I have explained above.

Is self-sacrifice a conscious decision that overrules our instincts, or is it an extreme on one end of selfless instincts?

My explanation renders this a false dichotomy as it is both.

If you affirm the former, what is the ontology of such decisions?

Selection favouring inherited tendencies towards bravery in complex societies.

If you affirm the latter, why isn't this extreme observed within other animal species that exhibit the selfless instincts/bravery trait?

Because primitive social structures do not support sufficient complexity to allow the expression of such bravery to be selected for. The primitive nature of the social structures can, of course, be accounted for by the difference in brain development between humans and other animals.

[QED]

4gold - I didn't see your last post before I submitted mine. I think my previous post confirms what you said though.

My stance has nothing to do with Biblical apologetics. I really, truly believe, from a transcendent perspective, that morals and truth are universal. And I also believe that the ontology of morals cannot be determined through science. I believe morality is part of the non-physical realm...thus the purpose of this whole debate.

Fine, but I think I have presented an explanation of why this so called "universal" could emerge: all humans have a common descent to an ancestor with a characteristic brain makeup, all humans exhibit common societal tendencies, so common strategies for behaviour should be expected to emerge. Optimal strategies also emerge in Game Theory when initial conditions are the same.

[4gold]

This is the trouble we get into when using loose terminology. Instincts could describe reactions coming from all reactive areas of the brain. It is quite clear from the physiology (and our own daily experiences) that, in the broadest of terms, we react both consciously and unconsciously to things. Some unconscious reactions happen so fast that we only become aware of our actions after they have happened. These could be termed instinctive -- like the reaction to close our eyes to a camera flash. An examination of the routing of the optic nerve bundle confirms parallel processing of the sensory data that elicits such a reaction. A conscious decision to override this reaction can be made (with varying degrees of success - mostly failure in my case!) and I think we might well say that celebrities have consciously managed to develop an instinct for keeping their eyes open in the same circumstances.

I would certainly describe the willful laying down of one's life in order to save others as an extreme end-point on a line of heroic behaviours. I would imagine that we all know to some degree the sort of thought processes that accompany similar crisis decision making. The process is established in our minds through various factors, some of which would certainly seem to be potentially inherited. I would describe these factors as leading to the development of personal instincts.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Allow me to re-word what you just said so that I can understand it. You are saying that self-sacrifice is like training yourself to not blink after a camera flash. In other words, those who practice self-sacrifice have trained themselves to override their instinct for self-preservation. Have I read you correctly?

Let me make sure I have the premise correct, before I respond to the rest of your post.

[Bugmaster]

You [QED] are saying that self-sacrifice is like training yourself to not blink after a camera flash. In other words, those who practice self-sacrifice have trained themselves to override their instinct for self-preservation. Have I read you correctly?

I don't know if that's what QED is saying or not, but I personally would disagree with this statement.

I'd say that self-sacrifice is, at least partially, inherited; thus, it is not trained by a single individual, but embedded in the genome of the entire species (by now). Obviously, human behavior is extremely complex and is greatly affected by social pressures (i.e., "nurture"), not just genetics (i.e., "nature"), but I still wouldn't be surprised if compassion had a genetic component to it.

It makes good evolutionary sense for a species to evolve instincts that allow them to cooperate. Even wolves, who are basically furry killing machines with claws, rely on cooperation to hunt down their prey -- just as herds of herbivores stick together for protection, or even geese, who fly in V-shaped formations to reduce air drag (IIRC).

At the extreme end of the cooperation spectrum, you have ants and bees, who are virtually worthless when alone. At the other end, you have sharks, who will happily eat each other (insofar as a shark can be happy). Humans fit somewhere in between.

[4gold]

I'd say that self-sacrifice is, at least partially, inherited; thus, it is not trained by a single individual, but embedded in the genome of the entire species (by now). Obviously, human behavior is extremely complex and is greatly affected by social pressures (i.e., "nurture"), not just genetics (i.e., "nature"), but I still wouldn't be surprised if compassion had a genetic component to it.

It makes good evolutionary sense for a species to evolve instincts that allow them to cooperate. Even wolves, who are basically furry killing machines with claws, rely on cooperation to hunt down their prey -- just as herds of herbivores stick together for protection, or even geese, who fly in V-shaped formations to reduce air drag (IIRC).

At the extreme end of the cooperation spectrum, you have ants and bees, who are virtually worthless when alone. At the other end, you have sharks, who will happily eat each other (insofar as a shark can be happy). Humans fit somewhere in between.

I disagree that morality is contained within a human, and I think it might be easier for me to explain why I believe in my philosophy, and implicit in that reasoning will be reasons why I think morality cannot be explained by science, evolutionary psychology, or Marxist philosophy.

Every human on the planet is able to adhere to the same moral code. The example I gave earlier was bravery. Bravery is considered to be moral by all cultures, religions, geographical locations, and periods of time in history. This tells me that there is a universal moral law to which we all adhere.

On the same token, there are arguments all the time on morality. It is not clear whether a certain action taken is moral or immoral. The hottest issue of the day is whether it is moral or not to spread democracy into other countries via the military. Some argue yes, some argue no. This tells me that the universal morality is not clearly defined.

The very fact that we each appeal to each other on our moral arguments is enough to prove to me that morality is not just the view of the individual. We honestly believe that the other person has the exact same capacity to evaluate the universal moral law, or else the argument itself would be vain.

My theory on morality is that the universal moral law is something (let's call it a force) outside of humans. Do not presuppose that this force is supernatural, although this is an argument that could lead to theism.

We all have the innate ability to recognize this moral force. But this moral force is so much bigger than humans. Thus, we are like the six blind men who tried to describe the elephant. One man looks at the moral force and says, "I think this morality looks like Jesus Christ!" Another man looks at the moral force and says, "No, it looks more like Buddha." Yet another man looks at the moral force and says, "No, you have it all wrong. It looks more like Marx."

We all appeal to the same moral force. Each of us have the same epistemological capacity for morality. This is why no particular philosophy has historically been more moral than another.

My thesis on morality also explains why Game Theory works. We all play games with this moral force that others can identify as "good" or "bad". What happens if I tell a white lie? Virtually nothing. What happens if I tell multiple white lies? It catches up to me. The reason that all of us can determine what is "good" and what is "bad" is that each of us have the innate ability to recognize this superhuman moral force.

This is why I brought up the idea of self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice demonstrates that morality is outside of humans. Self-sacrifice is a conscious choice to put this moral force ahead of your own life. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "A man who won't die for something isn't fit to live." No one consciously chooses dies for something they believe is equal or lesser than themselves. They die for something they believe is greater than themselves.

More explicitly why I do not believe the whole of morality is contained within humans is that if the entire moral code were inside our brains, how would you explain the following:

(1) Why would people argue morality? If morality is wholly contained within the human brain, then if one person views an action as moral, and another person views it as immoral, the discussion must end right there. Your brain is different than the others' brain. If your impulse tells you that something is good, and another's impulse tells him it is bad, you cannot appeal the natural impulses.

(2) When you make humans as equals to the gods, there is no more need for desire. This is the thrust of Buddhist philosophy. If morality is wholly contained within my head, what purpose would there be for me to desire to be more moral? Rather, the desire would be for me to choose those courses of actions that most benefit me or my family (we usually call that selfishness, which is ironically an immoral trait).

I already know that a counterargument to No. 2 is going to be that selfishness does not work out in the long-term, and so we do not appeal to selfishness. But is that true? While it is true that sometimes selfishness comes back to bite you, sometimes constant acts of selfishness ends in success.

(3) Can there be an ontology for a human-contained morality that is not circular? "The reason we call Action X good and Action Y bad is because Action X has good consequences and Action Y has bad consequences."

[QED]

You [QED] are saying that self-sacrifice is like training yourself to not blink after a camera flash. In other words, those who practice self-sacrifice have trained themselves to override their instinct for self-preservation. Have I read you correctly?

I don't know if that's what QED is saying or not, but I personally would disagree with this statement.

I'd say that self-sacrifice is, at least partially, inherited; thus, it is not trained by a single individual, but embedded in the genome of the entire species (by now).

I think 4gold can't see how self-sacrifice can be inherited as the formation of such a specific trait would appear to deselect any individual exhibiting the trait.

4gold - I would say that the instinctive reaction to blink at a camera flash is like the instinctive reaction to avoid self-harm. As with the flash it can be overridden by the will of conscious thought. For countless generations, people with the sort of conscience that results in selfless actions have been positively selected for throughout the development of the human brain. Brains are not like computer chips which are totally blank slates at "birth". A certain amount of "skeletal firmware" is inherited that predisposes each individual towards particular behaviour patterns. This has been going on for a vast amount of time such that the tendencies are just as strong (and universal) as the tendency, say, for opposable thumbs.

What I think we're seeing that is so firm is a common strategy that has been worked out countless times in countless situations. This is what repetition does -- it averages out all possible strategies in a complex game (e.g. living in human society) until the best strategy emerges as it does so readily in a trivial game like noughts and crosses. I can understand this explanation which seems quite sufficient to explain the universality of the morals we are discussing. Your explanation employs many unknown mechanisms chiefly the "channel" through which the external universal is communicated to all human minds. Plus it seems to ignore the "regional variations" that characterize other morals that appear to develop in closed societies.

I see your central icon of Jesus as potentially representing the exemplar of an optimal strategy for human coexistence. The example can be repeated in any number of different individuals precisely because it can be encoded in many different forms. Algorithms are like this.

[4gold]

I think 4gold can't see how self-sacrifice can be inherited as the formation of such a specific trait would appear to deselect any individual exhibiting the trait.

You are correct. I promise you I am not trying to be hardheaded, or obtuse. I simply do not see where you are coming from on this trait. I am trying to figure out the logic behind it, but for some reason or another, that synapse has not yet occurred within me.

4gold - I would say that the instinctive reaction to blink at a camera flash is like the instinctive reaction to avoid self-harm. As with the flash it can be overridden by the will of conscious thought. For countless generations, people with the sort of conscience that results in selfless actions have been positively selected for throughout the development of the human brain. Brains are not like computer chips which are totally blank slates at "birth". A certain amount of "skeletal firmware" is inherited that predisposes each individual towards particular behaviour patterns. This has been going on for a vast amount of time such that the tendencies are just as strong (and universal) as the tendency, say, for opposable thumbs.

What I think we're seeing that is so firm is a common strategy that has been worked out countless times in countless situations. This is what repetition does -- it averages out all possible strategies in a complex game (e.g. living in human society) until the best strategy emerges as it does so readily in a trivial game like noughts and crosses. I can understand this explanation which seems quite sufficient to explain the universality of the morals we are discussing.

Your law of averages theory makes more sense to me than the inherited trait v cognitive decision analogy. What you are saying is that the scenario has played itself out enough times that we are able to cognitively decide the best course of action. The odd things is that this is exactly the same theory that is involved in my external force theory.

Your explanation employs many unknown mechanisms chiefly the "channel" through which the external universal is communicated to all human minds. Plus it seems to ignore the "regional variations" that characterize other morals that appear to develop in closed societies.

I see your central icon of Jesus as potentially representing the exemplar of an optimal strategy for human coexistence. The example can be repeated in any number of different individuals precisely because it can be encoded in many different forms. Algorithms are like this.

This external force is communicated to all humans in various ways.

I made up a story when I was trying to communicate my theory, so please indulge me for a second.

Two dogs are walking along, and one dog says to the other, "I believe the color orange exists."

The second talk laughs. "What makes you believe the color orange exists? We cannot see it, taste it, hear it, smell it, or touch it. The color orange must not exist, because everything we observe in the universe can be explained by what we can observe."

In the same way, I believe there is a superhuman force (not necessarily supernatural) that cannot be observed by the human species. Just like we would never know that the color orange exists without irises, we do not have the perception senses to see this external moral force. But we can theorize that it's there, because of its effects.

Regional variances can be explained by the law of averages, explained above. In a closed system, they have not had similar opportunities to explore the vast number of attempts against this force.

I still believe that the ontology of your self-system of morality is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying, "We call Action X good, because consequence X is good." Well, how do we know consequence X is good? Because consequence X produces good results? That's circular reasoning.

You could state that Natural Selection plays a part in determining how humans decide that something is good, but as soon as you say that, you are acknowledging an external force that is superhuman, just like me.

[QED]

I promise you I am not trying to be hardheaded, or obtuse. I simply do not see where you are coming from on this trait. I am trying to figure out the logic behind it, but for some reason or another, that synapse has not yet occurred within me.

Perhaps you have it in mind that a specific behaviour rather than a class of behaviour is all that can be "fixed" by natural selection. Recall the expression "curiosity killed the cat". I would say that curiosity is a class of behaviour that benefits domesticated cats as it leads them to useful discoveries. The role played by cats in purging vermin from human habitations may have a significant input to this particular inherited trait. But as with all risky behaviours, it can be taken too far by some individuals and lead to their own personal demise. This doesn't instantly deselect the entire class of behaviour though as the many individuals who do not take it to the extreme get to reap the rewards. Natural selection will always establish a balance point between risk and reward but this leaves the way open for a few extreme situations (e.g. self sacrifice as an extreme of heroic behaviour). The less often such extremes are played out, the longer it takes for them to be erased from the organisms genome.

Your law of averages theory makes more sense to me than the inherited trait v cognitive decision analogy. What you are saying is that the scenario has played itself out enough times that we are able to cognitively decide the best course of action. The odd things is that this is exactly the same theory that is involved in my external force theory.

I'm afraid to say that's why some of us prefer this type of interpretation -- it provides an explanation without resorting to the supernatural.

This external force is communicated to all humans in various ways.

I made up a story when I was trying to communicate my theory, so please indulge me for a second.

Two dogs are walking along, and one dog says to the other, "I believe the color orange exists."

The second talk laughs. "What makes you believe the color orange exists? We cannot see it, taste it, hear it, smell it, or touch it. The color orange must not exist, because everything we observe in the universe can be explained by what we can observe."

In the same way, I believe there is a superhuman force (not necessarily supernatural) that cannot be observed by the human species. Just like we would never know that the color orange exists without irises, we do not have the perception senses to see this external moral force. But we can theorize that it's there, because of its effects.

Regional variances can be explained by the law of averages, explained above. In a closed system, they have not had similar opportunities to explore the vast number of attempts against this force.

You're effectively appealing to a Platonic existence for certain things. The universals that exist in geometry math etc. can all be viewed as having some sort of independent, external, existence. But there is no agreement on what, if any, significance this has. The same thing is going on in the Game Theory that can be used to evaluate the emergence of morality. As I mentioned behavioural strategies can be reduced to algorithms and this implies "platform independence". Trying to follow any of this (including moral constructs) back to some sort of supernatural source is, in my view, a purely arbitrary exercise. Before your theory can be established I think it would first be necessary to demonstrate a definite independent Platonic existence for all things that we hold to be abstract.

I still believe that the ontology of your self-system of morality is circular reasoning. You are essentially saying, "We call Action X good, because consequence X is good." Well, how do we know consequence X is good? Because consequence X produces good results? That's circular reasoning.

No, I have been trying to show you the existence of universals in the behavioural strategies that can be adopted. The existence of optimum strategies in "games" is an example of such a universal. So long as the rules remain the same, there can be an optimum strategy that always delivers the best results. "Best results" are not arbitrary either. In the case of natural selection, the persistence of any given strategy demands and defines what is "best".

You could state that Natural Selection plays a part in determining how humans decide that something is good, but as soon as you say that, you are acknowledging an external force that is superhuman, just like me.

Why, when "Good" might be defined as the only strategy that can persist in a given game? The closest we can get to your line of reasoning is by seeking the origin of the game and its rules. As it happens, all of this is encoded into the very physics of our universe. If it is all contingent then there is no mysterious force. If not, then the mysterious force can be characterized to a certain extent and I think that the character is one that would not be particularly palatable to the average theologian! The harsh reality that I can see is that there are too many ambiguities to decide which way things actually are.

But either way, the mysterious force in your theory looks very mathematical/logical to me and entirely withing the scope of the natural sciences to explain.

[Cathar1950]

I was looking at some things my daughter was studying and the subject was evolution.
They were trying to show the difference between marsupials and placentals as it related to phenotype and genotype. I was explaining that placentals do not change into Marsupials or vice versa even if the animals in the same environmental niche look much alike. At some time in evolution “marsupial and placental mammals diverged from a common ancestor more than 100 million years ago”, and have evolved separately. When they separated they took different paths that are basic to their decedents but also to the ancestors. They took it with them. What ever Is passed on will relate to their environment and their ancestry because to not be related is to be dead and dead things do not pass on offspring.
Evolution seems to be open ended and unpredictable given the environment and ancestry it is also closed for that line.
Even morality evolves much the same way ideas evolve. Whatever ethics or morality evolved because it works so far in a way that benefits something it continues ever changing because things change. I think when one passage says, “There is nothing new under the sun” it should say everything is new under the sun it just goes back a very long ways. It may not be the best or perfect as animals, even as adapted as they may be, can always with a little imagination be improved. Instincts too evolved and as humans we are social animals. As primates we nurse our young. There is enough social bonding that is instinctual that any need for a universal morality would be meaningless and useless because it would be void of content. Not every culture thinks bravery is a good thing and what would you mean by bravery? I see no reason for morality to be beyond us collectively, which is what I would call universal, or for purpose and meaning to be beyond us. Whatever psychological need we may have or preserve to have is capable of being met on human terms or it would not be a requirement, which would cause culture, society and persons to cease. In a sense it seems to speak of universals beyond abstractions is meaningless.
To think of bravery as universal with out understanding what is brave and for what reason is meaningless. All, which are acquired from cultural, social, familial, and personal experiences, in other words subjective and relative, behaviors beyond instinct, is learned.