Agnostic.com

13 0

Is human morality (ethics) hard wired or is it a learned behaviour? Or an a adaption of both?

Atheist3 7 June 9
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

At some level there has to be an instinct for cooperation. It appears that intellectual greed overwhelms that in most cases.

The instinct for survival has morphed into greed.

1

Studies with very young children (toddlers) show definite tendencies to help/assist others!

I found those studies with toddlers (and even infants) using puppetry to monitor emotional responses fascinating! It seems clear that, unless one is destined to become a sociopath, we are hardwired for empathy and a sense of fairness, or reciprocity.

@p-nullifidian Or these behaviours are driven by survival of which some are better than others.

0

Since all higher social animals show some forms of morality, which is to a degree certainly hard wired, the real question is. Why would humans be the exception ?

Everything has to be hard wired at the bottom of it. As Marionville below says. "Human survival from out earliest ancestor's time has relied on co-operation and reciprocity" But if we were not hard wired to value survival itself at the very least, then why bother with anything at all ? (Why bother eating and drinking, and why be afraid to end all our pains by jumping of a cliff ? )

And it would also I think be very hard for those (often theists) who like to argue there is no hard wired basis to morality, to argue well enough, to persuade most thinking people that we are not hard wired to value things like social status, which is often won through kindness and fair play, or that the emotional feelings like, pride, love, hate, pity and empathy for example are learned, because we all know that, for example, another's cry of pain triggers a purely emotional response in the first instant.

To that we then add the benefits of personal experience, we learn the things which earn us respect and social status, cultural experience, we learn culturally from the experiences of others solving the same problems, and reason, we can work out how much better it is to live in a society which knows and respects ideas like the golden rule.

Things like morality are complex and factors like culture, experience, reason, and hard wired emotions, weave together in complex knots , so that the whole structure is hard to see or untangle. This makes it easy for those who wish exploit others by using untruth, to use our natural laziness and fear of uncertainty, ( two other things that are hard wired), to persuade people to buy into their easy simple ready made answers, like, 'god gave us morality.'

But what is hardwired is predation for survival. Regardless of sentimentality.

@Atheist3 Please enlarge on why that should be important.

@Fernapple Survival of a species?

@Atheist3 Sorry there is no basis for species level sellection or evolution, species survival does not exist in evolutionary terms.

@Fernapple Let me clarify: survival of a species through the process of natural selection.

@Atheist3 No natural selection does not insure, species survival, all natural selection is at the genetic or individual level. The idea that species are favoured by natural selection is considered discredited.

@Fernapple You're words 'insure' & 'favoured' are generic. The species with an evolutionary, genetic predisposition will most probably survive. Unless of course there is some catastrophic, cataclysmic event that terminates the species.

@Atheist3 No, evolution by natural selection can be and perhaps usually is a factor causing extinction. Competition between members of the species, will often drive it to develop extreme adaptions, until a point is reach where even a slight change in the environment, which are not even remotely catastrophic for most species, will cause extinction.

3

Human survival from our earliest ancestors’ time has relied on co-operation and reciprocity. Societies developed from collective groups or tribes, and to be cast out from said groups meant certain death. That was a strong motivator to not transgress the rules and mores of the tribe. Stealing and killing within the group were therefore taboo, and from that understanding I believe morality sprung, It didn’t extend further than their own tribe of course, because they fought and killed other tribes and stole their property, enslaved them and generally behaved barbarically towards them in the pursuit of increasing their territory and preserving their own. . That has been the general template of human behaviour since earliest times and is still the case, even in the 21st century, only we have developed international laws and conventions to prevent this behaviour, not always adhered to by every country unfortunately.

3

In my opinion, the foundations of morality are evident in other species, particularly our closest relatives. And just what are the foundations of morality? I have come to believe that there are only two pillars (or core thinking processes) upon which ALL morality is based: 1) Empathy; and 2) Reciprocity. Humanity's excruciatingly detailed latticework of ethics and morays are founded on those two basic principles. Clearly, an evolutionary advantage was conferred to hominids who developed empathy and who adhered to reciprocity, or fairness.

Not sure if it maps perfectly to Kahneman’s two systems, but one could break morality down into intuitive and deliberative components. The first is gut feeling, a quick on the fly emotive response. The feeling of disgust comes to mind which I might be getting from Haidt (moral taste buds?). The second is slower and more measured, weighing alternatives and perhaps adhering to the impartial spectator approach of Adam Smith. This might map to the escalator of reason Pinker gets from Singer.

Hard to pin the dichotomy entirely to genes or society. Adaption is implicit, but the moral framework could stem from traits selected for other reasons, as in Gould's and Lewontin’s spandrels.

There are personal developmental factors. People have to reach a sufficient state to have capacity to reflect on duty, value, virtue, and consequence to the extent we can attribute responsibility. Some insert the troublesome “free will” argument here. There is a social or culture component as cultures can develop differing moral outlooks. And there is a historical component in that over time the moral outlook of a given society may change. I think that last aspect is Pinker’s hobbyhorse. But the danger here is getting too teleological or Hegelian in thinking there is an inherent progressive unfolding at play.

@Scott321 With respect, it seems you're making this discussion more complex than it need be. As numerous studies using puppets with infants and toddlers have revealed, we are hardwired for these foundational ethics of empathy and reciprocity, or fairness. If babies who have yet to utter their first words are able to recognize and emote over morality plays with puppets, this capacity is innate.

Interestingly, there were a small number of babies who did not seem to react with the same care or compassion as their peers toward the puppet who was mistreated or behaved affectionately. Perhaps these babies are future sociopaths and narcissists?

@p-nullifidian OK I may have lost the plot a bit.

Lack of empathy may indicate future sociopathy, but I kinda recall one predisposition being lacking fear of consequences. Empathy, or capacity to model the mind of others, could be beneficial to a sociopath who is constructing a manipulative strategy (or selling a house or car).

Empathy may be necessary but insufficient to develop a strong moral sense. That’s where environmental input comes into play and accounts perhaps for some variation between people and between cultures as to what morality entails or means intersubjectively.

One could be empathetic (or sympathetic) towards ingroup members and collaborate against the Other. Identity perception is a powerful thing (Tajfel on minimal groups). We see such tendencies amongst cops with their “thin blue line” or union solidarity in having the back of cops engaged in questionable behavior towards members of the public. Cops empathize with the plight of other cops, despite what members of the general public think. Is police tendency to come together over socially controversial issues moral? Or a counter tendency of some to break the mold and recognize the problems and in some cases join the marches or kneel in humility themselves?

Now your previous point about fairness is something to consider. Impartiality may help break the grip of shortsighted ingroup bias.

1

There is evidence that some "morality" is hardwired. Instincts to protect young and instincts against killing are evident but can obviously be overridden. There is also likely to be an evolutionary aspect to ethics in society, in that societies which didn't have some particular rules don't survive. For instance the inhibition about incest in the general population is postulated to have come about through the destruction of societies that allowed it (if only because of the imbalance to family dynamics) although it is known to have been tolerated in royal families.

0
0

there's no "ethic gene"

lerlo Level 8 June 9, 2020

So being kind is a learned behaviour rooted in positive reinforcement?

@Atheist3 Ethics is learned, yes. No positive reinforcement needed.

2

I think Pinker tried to make something out of Peter Singer’s expanding circle in an arc spanning several books. Start with Hobbes’ war of all against all or Tennyson’s nature red in tooth and claw or Kant’s dictum: “Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made.” Well people obviously care for themselves in an egoistic manner. And they care for family because implicitly shared heritage and recognize doing favors for less related others in immediate vicinity in smaller groups with reputation based on word of mouth may be reciprocated.

Slights work the same way which escalate into vendettas. Retributive justice is ugly.

Cooperation touted by scholars such as Kropotkin sounds better than pure selfishness but has dark implications considering through history such tendency remained parochial instead of being universalized beyond the ingroup. The question remains how does someone transcend interests of self and ingroup? And think of the dark political artwork Machiavelli related based on observations of behavior of popes and condottieri. That’s a kernel of human nature, but not justifiable as such. I go with Bulldog Huxley in that we must battle cosmic nature rather than emulate it.

"The end justifies the means." 🥶

1

I’m guessing both.

There is a genetic predisposition for social animals to behave more or less socially. That should be obvious. But there is also pressure from the group that discourages selfish, harmful behavior. Puppies can be observed to get in trouble when they get too rowdy. Their mamas nip their ears. Human toddlers have been seen getting swatted on the buttocks. Adult humans that cause harm can be observed to be locked up in cells.

There is a third possibility also: trans-personal awareness. In this mode individuality becomes softened. Individuals are guided by universal consciousness rather than by ego alone. An organism with trans-personal awareness acts in concert with others and is imbued with a sense of oneness.

Examples abound.

Sounds good, but what about all the fucked up people in the world ?

Quoting Kant: “Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made.”

@Atheist3 “Fucked up” is a subjective value judgment and encompasses a broad spectrum of behavior patterns. There are reasons why some individuals are more aggressive and selfish, and in fact, we are all a mix of all types. A primitive tribe would probably kill or kick out anyone who was a threat, but yet a certain degree of self-assertion is needed by all.

I think I follow you. Some people are born criminals or they learned criminal behavior from others. Maybe it’s a combination. They face a rough life.

@Scott321 Kant was correct, however many a ship’s curved rib has been shaped from a crooked oak.

2

Well the precursors to morality are kin altruism and reciprocity and they seem largely inborn. And I wouldn’t equate them with morality proper as they each are insufficient, leading respectively to nepotism and cronyism without something breaking the mold of such ingroup biasing.

Interesting, however, while kin relationships (tribal mentality) still dictate social behaviour, it doesn't explain altruism.

1

Morality in part (as explained below) is dependent upon rules/laws imposed upon someone and their ability or lack of ability to follow those rules/laws. The issue about this part of morality is that rules/laws can be arbitrary.
arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

With rules/laws being arbitrary this means that the fact of non-sense laws can affect the apparent morality level that a person has. I could argue that the traffic laws of a stop sign requiring a complete and total stop is at times not so hard set necessary for a driver given some situations. However, in view of such a law, the law itself does not care if the stop sign is out in the country 20 miles from any other stop sign and only 5 cars a day drive down the road. A local farmer living near the stop sign and not coming to a total complete stop ever time makes for the farmer to have technically a lower level of morality because the farmer "rolls" thru the stop sign because he can see for miles either way to know that no cars are crossing the intersection.

You say, "Richard Dawkins says that some people believe that they draw their morality from Science and some say you cannot draw morality form science."

Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Principle is defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. www.lexico.com

Moral comes from the Latin word mores, for habits. The moral of a story is supposed to teach you how to be a better person. If moral is used as an adjective, it means good, or ethical. If you have a strong moral character, you are a good member of society. If someone is a cheat and a liar, you might say, "She is not a moral person." [vocabulary.com]

"... draw their morality from Science" Science is the study of nature. People do learn things from observation of nature.

Moral/morality is viewing the actions, activity, habits, etc. of a person and then comparing those to 2 different things.

  1. First, those things are compared to standards, rules, or laws that establishes 'RIGHTS AND WRONGS".

Example: The rules says: no chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue was seen chewing bubble gum while walking. Sue violated the rule. Sue would have low morals in view of the rule of "no chewing bubble gum while walking".

OR

  1. Second, those things are compared to good and bad (evil).

Example: Sue walked while chewing bubble gum. While walking works out leg muscles it does not specifically work out facial muscles. Chewing gum gave the added benifit (good) for Sue to get her facial muscles worked out while walking. No one was harmed(suffered an evil) by the fact that Sue chewed bubble gum while walking. Sue would have high morals( good health habit) for chewing bubble gum while walking.

Sue was immoral for violation of the rule but was moral in view of a health benefit.

etymology moral(adj):
mid-14c., "associated with or characterized by right behavior," also "associated with or concerning conduct or moral principles" (good or bad), from Old French moral (14c.) and directly from Latin moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," literally "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Greek ethikos (see ethics) from Latin mos (genitive moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (n.1).

From late 14c. as "of or pertaining to rules of right conduct" (opposed to non-moral, amoral) and "morally good, in accordance with rules of right conduct" (opposed to immoral). Of persons, "habitually conforming to moral rules," 1630s. From 1680s with reference to rights, duties, etc., "founded on morality" (opposed to legal).

Applied to indirect effect in moral support (1823), moral victory (1888), where the notion is "pertaining to or affecting the character or conduct" (as distinguished from the intellectual or physical nature), a sense attested from 1590s; in this sense, compare morale. Related: Morally.

moral(noun):
"moral exposition of a story, the doctrine inculcated by a fable or fiction, the practical lesson which anything is designed to teach," c. 1500, from moral (adj.) and from French moral and Medieval Latin moralia. In this sense, morality was used from late 14c. The earlier noun use of moral was "a commandment pertaining to morals."

[etymonline.com]

Word Level 8 June 9, 2020

In 25 words or less.

@Atheist3 To me science can inform but not determine moral evaluations. Or facts are to be taken into consideration and weighed against ones value system, which itself may have competing components. WD Ross nailed it with prima facie duties:

[people.wku.edu]

2

I have often pondered the same questions. I don't have the answers, but the subjects that most fascinate me are the ones who appear to be nurtured one way and somehow (instinctively? intuitively? via external circumstances?) go the opposite direction.

I'm so confused! Would you like some wine?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:504579
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.