Joined: May 2005 Posts: 80
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
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.
Joined: Nov 2004 Posts: 2557 Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
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.
Joined: May 2005 Posts: 80
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
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.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
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.
Joined: Nov 2004 Posts: 2557 Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender:
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.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3719 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 748 times in 563 posts
Gender: Country:
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
“The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnÂ’t
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
EbrimaÂ’s house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnÂ’t
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
‘Sacred Are the Brave’ a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend TrippersÂ’ is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on TedÂ’s diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
