June 2004 - Soldiers' Morality

Doc Tiessen · Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:01 am Post subject: Re: Morality

MadA,

you cannot recall Interbane saying something of a spectrum because of a problem with the arrow of time. It is due a desynchrony between the event of Interbane explaining his spectrum of truth and the event of your arrival at Booktalk.

Let me quote some of his old passages from the Belief in God tread:
Interbane (10.10.04)
There is an absolute truth to everything in the universe. This truth transcends all of our individual beliefs. (...) I am talking about the absolute truth that exists regardless of individual bias. In almost all cases, there is no way to know the absolute truth, we can only speculate and deduce and assume.

Whenever I learn new stuff or hear opinions or supposed facts, I let the information percolate and assign it to a hypothetical true/false spectrum in my head. Some information is more likely to be true, and some is more likely to be false. If I heard that Madonna had quintuplets, I'd place that very near the false end of the spectrum. If I heard that the sun is going to come up tomorrow, I'd place that right at the true end of the spectrum.
(...)
in all my experience one of the very few things that falls right in the middle of the spectrum is whether or not god exists (...)

Interbane (10.11.04)
As I said before, I place the existance of God in the middle of my true/false spectrum. The Bible is near the false end of my mental spectrum. Whether or not the Bible is true does not weight on my beliefs about God.

I like Interbane's analogy of a continuous spectrum of truth... and if you read carefully his posts (also between the lines), you will notice that his thoughts and arguments are always bearing some of this spectral attitude. He seldom wants to be radical or extreme. I could also say that Interbane is a good mediator, a kind of diplomat. Maybe he should consider this for his future career, that he might have some negotiating ability of bringing two opposite sides together.
In any way, I like most of what Interbane says, and I think he has a great potential of developing his ideas further. We all evolve with our life experiences as the years pass.

MadA, I consider you as an intelligent and very literate person. But I think that I do not need to hide the fact that I do not have the same high level of admiration for your way of arguing and discussing. I think you have a slippery attitude, you never want to get caught, and sometimes you like to confuse rather than to clarify. You have a big phobia of fully agreeing with others at BookTalk. I have the impression that you like to discuss the ideas of others, and you sometimes answer with the ideas of others... the most prominent custom being the quoting of who knows which authors and books... but one never knows which is your real opìnion. You are like hidding behind a mask... I do not know why you are so afraid of letting something from your real self out. In your posts, one seldom can distinguish between an idea that comes from your extensive readings, or one that comes from the depths of your hearth. Maybe you are timid in reality, and you feel much safer behind a trench of books.

I really do not have time to find all the quotes from your previous posts to substantiate all my claims... I do not recall where you mentioned that morality had an external standard... and also somewhere else, where you explained your beliefs in God... and how God could be considered as an external standard. Sorry if you have the impression that I put words in your mouth...

But maybe you remember better the things you said about God and morality... and instead of talking about pèanut butter or only complaining about words being put in your mouth, you can requote or rephrase your ideas. Tell us which where the right words? Was untrue what I said about the external standard?
Is there a universal morality independent of the social context of humanity? Is there one morality for God and another for humans? Which are the common elements between the moral rules of a Deity and the ones of animals like us?

Diversity is Good!

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:23 am Post subject: Re: Morality

Massimo Pigliucci has agreed to a live chat session. I'm not sure when we'll schedule it, but more than likely it will be on a Thursday evening at 9:00pm eastern. ::121

Chris

badmendicant · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:10 am Post subject: Re: Morality

I think that this debate is needlessly complex. Human primate groups, whether they be family clans, tribes nations or cultures, evolve survival stategies.

The survival strategy devised by any given group will not neccessarily be the best possible strategy, but will simply be the first successful strategy they have hit upon. Having invented survival strategies which have at least baseline utilitarian value, human groups tend to cling rigidly to them.

Moral behaviour is just behaviour which conforms to the chosen group evolutionary strategy. Immoral behaviour is just behaviour which challenges the established group evolutionary strategy.

I think that in the case of Iraq, we are applying moral standards which are devised for application at a domestic in-group level, to an inter-group conflict in which the enemy is not applying the same standards.

Bringing moral restrictions into a conflict with an enemy who does not place any moral constraints on himself is like playing chess against someone who insists in allowing all of his pawns to move like kights.

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

Badmendicant's simplification may be useful, but rather than talking about the group's evolutionary strategy, I'd say it's more tenable to speak of their "cultural strategy". The cultural strategy may play into the survival of the group, but it implies consequences and traits that are not necessarily related to survival or evolutionary development along contingent lines. In fact, the cultural strategies may work against the survival of specific gene types, individuals, imbedded groups and, ultimately, the entire groups itself, but such strategies should at least serve the cohesiveness of the group, if not it's long-term survival. It's possible to see how this works by looking at any number of the small utopic communities that have formed throughout written history.

Interbane · Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: Re: Morality

BadM: "The survival strategy devised by any given group will not neccessarily be the best possible strategy, but will simply be the first successful strategy they have hit upon."

How does that explain the provisionally universal nature of percieving killing as immoral? Did every single tribe on earth simultaneously come up with this guideline? The explanation may be complex, but it's been the norm for simple explanations to be failures when dealing with morality.

Why is it that we as people adhere to morals even if we are in a situation where we would never get caught, and no one would ever know? Are the cultural strategies so ingrained into our brains that it's difficult to go against them?

One thing lacking in Shermer's book is that society does indeed have an influence on morals, and a great influence. Because, even if we were to accept the evolutionary model of morality, how could we feel guilty about an immoral act if we didn't know it was immoral? There are some moral guidelines which are more of less universal, and apply uibiquitously. Then there are those moral guidelines which have evolved with our increasingly complex society, and that is the dynamic that Badm speaks of. But there is still an evolved psychological reason that we follow moral guidelines, it's not 'simply' the pressures of society that demand moral behavior from us, it's our own brains.

badmendicant · Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

Interbane

You make a couple of very good points.

I think that the almost universal human taboo against killing is indeed a manifestation of an inhibition which is to a great extent hardwired into the human brain, rather than socially conditioned. Despite this, however, history shows that killing has, in one way or another, at one and the same time been virtually a constant occupation for humans.

I would suggest that the inhibition against killing is an evolutionary defence mechanism which allows humans to exist in the types of small interrelated groups which were the predominant type of social organization for most of human history. This inhibition was intended to protect the group by preventing an angry parent from killing a child or an angry dominant male from killing a non-dominant in-group male. This inhibition was intended to ensure group survival. The inhibition against killing can be overcome with relative ease given the right circumstances. If something or someone is thought to be a threat to survival potential of an established human group, clan, or tribe, killing becomes almost guranteed.

I think that the inhibition of anger that prevents parents from killing their children and impels them to prioritise food provision for their children must be natural and innate behaviour. I would take it further and even say that it is the extension of these standards of behaviour to out-group members which is unnatural and regressive.

MadArchitect · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

It would seem to me that the possibility of overriding the "inhibition" to kill would suggest that the inhibition itself is not hard-wired, but that the possibility of producing such an inhibition is a biological determinant. It's difficult to negate the assumption of a social influence so long as all of your test cases are members of a society. In order to test whether or not humans really have a biological disposition to avoid killing one of their own species, as against the view of a social disposition, you would presumably need a test case in which the potential killer were not raised in a human society. Even then, the subject would presumably need a good reason to kill, as there are very few, if any, species that attempt to kill everything that comes along. The subject would have to consider the potential victim a source of food, a dangerous agggressor, or something of that sort. And at the same time, you'd want to be sure that the pressure to kill is not of the kind that would normally drive even a socially-integrated person to trangress the murder taboo, else the experiment would fail to demonstrate anything really conclusion about social influence.

badmendicant · Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

That's reasonable enough, but my main claim is that morality was exists as a device to increase human survival potential. I think that this view refutes the romantic notion of a degree of innate human goodness. Human beings have simply learned to arrest their aggressive impulses when there is the opportunity for long term reward. That's not morality. Its utility. I don't believe in morality as an abstract concept.

Interbane · Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

Bad: "I think that the almost universal human taboo against killing is indeed a manifestation of an inhibition which is to a great extent hardwired into the human brain, rather than socially conditioned."

Hardwired may be the wrong word to use, but definitely ingrained. "Hardwired" gives the sense that we cannot overcome the moral instinct to not kill. We can, and we have, of course. But it does not need to be absolute within our brains in order to be the prime influence behind morality. All that it needs to be is a strong enough influence that the majority of people allow their actions to be manifested according to that influence. That is also the case, of course.

Bad: "I would suggest that the inhibition against killing is an evolutionary defence mechanism which allows humans to exist in the types of small interrelated groups which were the predominant type of social organization for most of human history."

Murder is the best example, but other actions we do may have evolutionary influence, although not as great as the act of murder. Yet, even less influence is still influence, and is likely enough to persuade the majority of people to act in a moral fashion the majority of the time.

MA: "It's difficult to negate the assumption of a social influence so long as all of your test cases are members of a society."

Who's to say a person who is raised outside of any human interaction would adhere to any evolutionary behavior? Your point seems valid at first, but evolution selects for people being around people. What you present is a situation that humans may have never encountered in their evolution, so for an evolutionary explanation, it's most likely irrelevant.

But it piques my curiosity. Any person who is raised with other people, in isolation from greater society, would not kill their own people(it's still provisional, a warped mind may be born). Outside of that small in-group, the person may kill however. Yet, the model is mostly limited to a person's in-group, so eliminating even that in-group and letting a person raise themselves(if that's possible), may make everyone part of their out-group. In that case, the model still holds.

Then the question is how much influence the in-group has on the person through lifetime development of behavior. If it is the in-group that is the cause of moral behavior, then it must be taught. Every single person must be taught not to kill, otherwise the tribe risks the chance of having a killer in their midst. This is of course not the case, there would be exceptions, if not numerous people who go through their learning stages without the strict lesson not to kill.

Those people who are taught and still kill... they are booted from the tribe, left with minimal chance of survival, or they are killed. If you repeat this enough times, you are left with a selection of people who are less likely to kill, for the simple fact that the ones who are more likely to kill are weeded out over thousands of years. (The gene that is)

The natural progression of human social structures is of greater and greater populations, which must as a whole be considered one large in-group to survive. This is how tribal moral evolution may show itself in larger populations. Shermer actually has a pyramid which shows strength of morality as inversely proportional to the group in question. Very strong with friends and family, slightly weaker with distant relatives and acquaintances, and weaker still toward people in your own town or your own nation, all the way to the biosphere level.

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:47 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

badmendicant: That's reasonable enough, but my main claim is that morality exists as a device to increase human survival potential.

I wouldn't argue with the idea that morality may serve incidentally to increase human survival potential, but I'm skeptical of the idea that it developed or exists specifically for that purpose. On the whole, I would say that a great deal of evolutionary thought suffers from a sort of cloudiness that suggests that evolution accounts for the purpose of things -- it may account in an incidental way for the survival of something like morality, but it doesn't necessarily account for its genesis, nor for its continual renewal in successive generations. It's better to look at natural selection as a kind of sieve than as anything particularly constructive.

Human beings have simply learned to arrest their aggressive impulses when there is the opportunity for long term reward.

That seems to me the sort of conclusion that's only tenable when you look at humanity as the broadest sort of generality, excluding a great deal of evidence. From my point of view, we haven't learned to arrest our behavior at all. We, as a species, may have developed the capacity to resist aggressive impulses (though it isn't necessarily given that all morality deals with aggressive impulses) but capacity is not the same as arrestation. Part of what makes morality so difficult to deal with from the viewpoint of biological determinism is that it remains so permeable, flexible in a way that is not generally characteristic of instinct. To my mind, there is no evidence for a "moral instinct".

Interbane: Who's to say a person who is raised outside of any human interaction would adhere to any evolutionary behavior? Your point seems valid at first, but evolution selects for people being around people.

Then along the lines set by Ockham's razor, I see no real reason to posit both evolutionarily evolved moral instincts and social indoctrination. It makes far more sense to me to say that either evolution predisposes us to social groupings and that the social environment determines to morally to which we may subscribe, or our morals are evolutionarily evolved instincts. You can posit something like empathy as an evolutionary trait, but I see no reason to posit morality as one if we've already assumed that evolution makes us social creatures and society is capable of ingraining morality. In fact, there is an advantage to the view that we have no moral instincts as such, but that we're instinctually predisposed towards group identification -- it explains the relativity of moral norms not only across social lines but along temporal lines as well. It might also account for the fact of mass movements, which a biologically-inclined in-group model might have some trouble accounting for. In short, group identification tends to be mutable, such that a person can sever themselves entirely from the in-group into which they were born and attach themselves to a new in-group. Along with that change of group identification may come the adoption of an entirely different set of moral standards. History affords any number of examples: Christianity, Communism, Nazism, any number of idealisms, the Enlightenment, and so on.

Any person who is raised with other people, in isolation from greater society, would not kill their own people(it's still provisional, a warped mind may be born).

I sitll say that involves an assumption to which we're not necessarily entitled as yet. Why should we attribute deviations to mutation alone? It stands to reason, of course, that mutation could lead to deviation, but that ought not lead automatically to the assumption that deviations are obviously the result of mutation. If morality is something that must be learnt, then the deviation may also take place during the process of socialization. The underlying assumption there seems to me fairly obvious: that a person's behavior towards the social group is in large part contingent on the social group's behavior towards the person.

Those people who are taught and still kill... they are booted from the tribe, left with minimal chance of survival, or they are killed. If you repeat this enough times, you are left with a selection of people who are less likely to kill, for the simple fact that the ones who are more likely to kill are weeded out over thousands of years. (The gene that is)

This doesn't strike me as an evolutionarily stable strategy. The process would eventually produce a society in which the resistence to the instinct to kill is almost entirely muted. Any individual born with a mutant gene that did not conform to that resistence would have an overwhelming advantage -- he could kill at will, and the genetic disposition against killing would leave the rest of the population ultimately defenseless. It would be more viable for the tribe to maintain the willingness to kill but to temper it by other means. I would say that morality does essentially that, and that moral tribes remain more evolutionarily viable than instinctually pacifistic tribes precisely because they maintain the capacity to act outside that moral framework. In that sense, morality as an aspect of culture rather than instinct seems entirely more sound that a biologically deterministic morality.

Interbane · Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:20 pm Post subject: Re: Morality

MA: "Then along the lines set by Ockham's razor, I see no real reason to posit both evolutionarily evolved moral instincts and social indoctrination."

Social pressure to do the right thing may account for some morally correct actions, but there's nothing holding the integrity of our character together unless we have the state of mind to do the right thing even when no one is around. Guilt is not necessary in a model with only social indoctrination. There's no reason for me not to go around swearing at every old woman I see. No reason to leave a tip for a waitress I don't know. No reason to give back a person's wallet after I find it on the side of the road. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Social indoctrination alone can't account for that behavior, and the majority of people do possess that behavior.

MA: "It stands to reason, of course, that mutation could lead to deviation, but that ought not lead automatically to the assumption that deviations are obviously the result of mutation."

Absolutely, it was just an example. Think of your own example if you'd like.

MA: "This doesn't strike me as an evolutionarily stable strategy. The process would eventually produce a society in which the resistence to the instinct to kill is almost entirely muted. Any individual born with a mutant gene that did not conform to that resistence would have an overwhelming advantage -- he could kill at will, and the genetic disposition against killing would leave the rest of the population ultimately defenseless."

You missed something I said earlier. That killing within one's own in-group is bad, immoral. Why kill relatives? They have similar genes as yourself. What would stop this person from killing his own kids? What would stop him from killing the best hunter in his tribe, leaving his tribe with potentially less food. Why would he kill other men in his tribe, leaving his tribe less prepared to defend against other tribes? Why would he kill the best suited women for his offspring, leaving his children with potentially less genetic benefit?

Now, killing outside of the person's in-group is perfectly acceptable. It was the normal course back in tribal life that people from different tribes would kill each other on sight. If people were pacified in this respect, you're right, they'd have less potential for survival. All it takes is the knowledge that you won't be hurt by the other person, and possibly a brief acquaintance to extend your in-group to include him.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT