Morality: Both universal and subjective

[marcinmoka]

Morality as an evolutionary principle

Despite the constant haggling over the validity of morality in law, it seems that few have dared to attempt to define morality, or at least not in less esoteric mediums. Some suggest that there does indeed exist a universal morality, while detractors suggest that morality is strictly subjective. But why must they be presented in as dichotic relationship. Is it not possible that morality can be both universal and subjective at the same time? I believe so, however this leads to us to attempt and define morality.

Some might view my definition as rather “simplistic”. Perhaps so, but why must this definition of morality be complicated in the first place?

I believe morality is nothing more than an innate survival tool and accurately exemplifies the specific” wiring” of our brains, as acquired through evolution. While morality is often associated as a tool for discerning right and wrong, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of creating this distinction.

As mentioned earlier, it pushes us to do the right thing, and in all cases, the right thing is equated with survival, be it as individuals, or as groups of differing sizes and common bonds.

Let us take a primary example, and study it from both a Darwinist point of view and a moral one as well. For example, the act of murdering our non-threatening caregiver(s). From a moral standpoint, this is clearly wrong, and we haven’t even the need to think about it, for it is an intuitive feeling we posses.

But from a rational standpoint, it would also be a senseless act which undermines our own survival, (especially dependant on our stage of development). Perhaps the reason that we did not even require a thorough evaluation of this act in a moral sense was our brains natural disposition to reject notions that threaten our survival. It’s innate as natures little way of saying "Don't do it".

Theft can also be linked to this universal sense of morality and desire to survive as a group. To ensure a cooperative societal life, there must be a sense of trust within a community. The act of theft is universally condemned since it too is a threat to our survival as it weakens the trust within a community (which has implications on group security and so forth).

How would such a principle apply itself to morally contentious issues, such as abortion? Some consider abortion as tantamount to murder. Others agree on the choice of mothers on whether or not to bear and raise a child. But unlike the preceding clear-cut realizations that such “immoral” and “irrational” act threaten our survival, abortion / forced unplanned birth risk being seen as more” derivative” or indirect threats. Pro-lifers see abortion as a threat to our survival as a species in a much more linear manner, i.e. death of “human” life is death, plain and simple.

Pro-choice supporters however, see unplanned and forced births as a greater threat to our collective society since they associate unplanned or even unwanted parenthood as incapable of raising children to lead a productive life in society (in support of this claim was the work of Stevin Levin, who demonstrated a notable correlation between the drop in American murder rates and the infamous Roe vs. Wade abortion decision).

While they are completely opposing, both of them consider their views to be covering the moral high ground. How can that be? Simple. Both believe they are fighting for the right thing and view their opponents cause as wrong, or immoral. But in reality, they are just different paths taken in hopes of attaining the same end.

* Even the most atrocious acts of genocide were acted out under the pretext of “survival”, where one ethnic or religious group saw the others existence as a threat to their own.

[EchoesofMourning]

First of all, this is an extremely well thought out theory - did you get this from somewhere, or is it the result of personal reflection?

I agree almost completely, suvival instincts would fill the gap here extremely well. The only problem that I see is explaning immoral people - people who disregard any commonly held moral system. If it is a survival instinct guiding our morals, then it should be nearly impossible for one to ignore it. It should be 'hard-wired', if you will, into our brains and subconcious.

[marcinmoka]

First of all, this is an extremely well thought out theory - did you get this from somewhere, or is it the result of personal reflection?

Thanks. It stemmed from a comment a prof. made this morning, that judging by our essays, one would think that our entire class denounces morality in any shape or form. That, coupled with too much caffeine got me thinking.

If it is a survival instinct guiding our morals, then it should be nearly impossible for one to ignore it

Most of the time, yes. But we all engage (to varying degrees) in some sort of self destructive behavior from time to time (Fast food, speeding, lethargy, etc). Some, more then others. Those who do it too much...end up being "rooted" out by the evolutionary process.

[Liam]

"Morality" is the embodiment of our social compact -- the thing that makes the herd able to function and unite. I'm sure that during our evolutionary process our morality and, likewise, evolved but I see it little more than a social convention. I'm not treating it lightly, I think it is important, but I don't think morality has divine inspiration, or anything.

[August1991]

Unless you understand the Coase Theorem, I don't think you can say much original about morality.

As a first approximation, your idea Marcinmoka is not bad. It amounts to saying that an act is moral if it works. If one broadens "what works" to a collective, then the idea of morality comes into focus. (I think that comes closer to what Liam states.)

By that definition, nature (and evolution) are remarkably immoral.

Liam also avoids the practical question of what this all means.

Finally, you'll have to ensure that your definition can do better than (or at least as good as) Kant's definition of ethics.

Let me take your idea of theft:

Theft can also be linked to this universal sense of morality and desire to survive as a group. To ensure a cooperative societal life, there must be a sense of trust within a community. The act of theft is universally condemned. But it too is a threat to our survival as it weakens the trust within a community.

A society of thieves would produce nothing. They'd spend their time stealing from one another. They'd be wasting their time.

[marcinmoka]

Sorry. Bad sentence structure. I hope this didn't cause any confusion.

The act of theft is universally condemned. But it too is a threat to our survival as it weakens the trust within a community.

Should read.

It’s innate as natures little way of saying "Don't do it".

Theft can also be linked to this universal sense of morality and desire to survive as a group. To ensure a cooperative societal life, there must be a sense of trust within a community. The act of theft is universally condemned since it too is a threat to our survival as it weakens the trust within a community (which has implications on group security, amongst others).

I wrote this very, very quickly, so I did risk missing out on a few relevant points, such as explicitly stating the economic effects of theft. Mind you, I didn't want to bore you any more than I had to, but cheers for at least pointing that out. Rest assured, had this been a graded assignment, I probably would of put in a dash more effort, mais c'est la vie.

[myata]

I believe morality is nothing more than an innate survival tool and accurately exemplifies the specific” wiring” of our brains,

How would such a principle apply itself to morally contentious issues, such as abortion? Some consider abortion as tantamount to murder.

Would that mean that some brains are wired differently than others? (quelle nouvelle!)

Also, have you considered evolution of "moral" e.g. even through last century? Evolution works over much longer timescales.

I agree with Liam, morals are no more than a convention imposed by the society on the individuals with an aim to achieve cohesion and order. And certainly, bad (i.e counter productive, overly restrictive or plain stupid) morals would probably make the society less competitive among its peers.

[Figleaf]

Morality as an evolutionary principle

I believe morality is nothing more than an innate survival tool and accurately exemplifies the specific” wiring” of our brains, as acquired through evolution. While morality is often associated as a tool for discerning right and wrong, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of creating this distinction.

As mentioned earlier, it pushes us to do the right thing, and in all cases, the right thing is equated with survival, be it as individuals, or as groups of differing sizes and common bonds.

What then, about things which are clearly contrary to survival which some consider moral -- Holy War, self-mutilation, martyrdom, marriage restrictions, etc.

How would such a principle apply itself to morally contentious issues, such as abortion? ...

Both believe they are fighting for the right thing and view their opponents cause as wrong, or immoral. But in reality, they are just different paths taken in hopes of attaining the same end.

Shouldn't your theory lead everyone to be able to tell correctly what is moral or not based on an innate instinct for survival?

[marcinmoka]

What then, about things which are clearly contrary to survival which some consider moral -- Holy War, self-mutilation, martyrdom, marriage restrictions, etc.

Like I said. It is a survival tactic. The one common bond between all those who pursue issues they deem as moral (though self mutilation is beyond me) is that they all believe they are doing the right thing to ensure the survival of a certain group. What makes the "right thing" be so different in execution is our freedom of perspective, i.e Holy Way and Martyrdom, where the participants have a firm belief that their actions are calculated for the survival of their ethnicity or religion, and therefore take part in said actions to prevent other "threatening" groups from dominating them.

Shouldn't your theory lead everyone to be able to tell correctly what is moral or not based on an innate instinct for survival?

I don't understand. Could you explain?

[Mad_Michael]

* Even the most atrocious acts of genocide were acted out under the pretext of “survival”, where one ethnic or religious group saw the others existence as a threat to their own.

Really? That sounds trite - like the propaganda of the victor.

What I notice is that all the victims of genocide were always a small minority - the perpetrators always in a strong position of majority (Jews in Germany, Natives in USA, and Armenians in Turkey to use the three most famous examples).

This 'pretext of survival' crap is nothng more than propaganda used to justify the act.

And simple animal instincts are NOT moral acts. A mother sacrificing herself to save her child is not engaged in a moral act. Anyone engaged in 'survival' is not engaged in moral acts. If the building catches fire, those that run for safety are not engaged in a moral act.

[Figleaf]

What then, about things which are clearly contrary to survival which some consider moral -- Holy War, self-mutilation, martyrdom, marriage restrictions, etc.

Like I said. It is a survival tactic. The one common bond between all those who pursue issues they deem as moral (though self mutilation is beyond me) is that they all believe they are doing the right thing to ensure the survival of a certain group. What makes the "right thing" be so different in execution is our freedom of perspective, i.e Holy Way and Martyrdom, where the participants have a firm belief that their actions are calculated for the survival of their ethnicity or religion, and therefore take part in said actions to prevent other "threatening" groups from dominating them.

I thought you were trying to describe a universal and subjective morality, but based on what you're saying here I can't see the universal part.

[Mad_Michael]

Universal morality requires a universal God.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[marcinmoka]

This 'pretext of survival' crap is nothng more than propaganda used to justify the act.

I agree. But millions were led to believe and support this, all of them duped into thinking their actions were moral.

I thought you were trying to describe a universal and subjective morality, but based on what you're saying here I can't see the universal part.

While the universal "morality" we abide by is not the easiest to point out, it's also the one which is the most prevelant in our society such as the negative associations we form in regards (in an extra-legal context) to theft or violence/murder in situations were one is not under any form of threat, as is visible in shall I say, more primitive societies.

[DarkAngel_]

Following this topic i cannot help but comment, this is genius! my brain is firing off like fire crackers!!!

As well, morally, if information is correct and not vague or scrambled, a decision is easier to reach. but in the act of genocide it could be information was lacking and a collective or even selective leader choose an action based on the threat and information present, and not to mention the threats perceived by that individual or those individuals being very different in structure, agenda, and motivation from one another.

like maybe Hitler had the motivation to kill the Jews as a religious threat against his agenda, to make a paradise or his collective image of the most likely structured society to survive, peace is the result of survival, so he waged war to create a peace...(to elliminate the threat) that in his mind was the best way to survive, no excuse intended.

or on a stranger topic it could be; the focus of the minds survival and threats based on information feed by propaganda, parents, religion, culture, history, and former actions and experience, perpetuate a moral structure that puts defense of there defined 'kin' as top priority, or even just as self preservation.

as well, good actions can be based on this as well.

the moral definition for protecting the 'mundane' and non-related... even awkward like protecting a bear from being shot, or saving a cat from a speeding vehicle are mostly a puzzle to me, maybe the familiarity is a means to define them as not a threat, and should be preserved as 'fellow pray' so to speak? Or maybe past down like that information, some hit cats for fun, some protect them, based on what 'morals' where passed by the parents, maybe there are 2 kinds of morals, instintual and artifical.

See what I’m saying?

[PolyNewbie]

Despite the constant haggling over the validity of morality in law, it seems that few have dared to attempt to define morality, or at least not in less esoteric mediums. Some suggest that there does indeed exist a universal morality, while detractors suggest that morality is strictly subjective. But why must they be presented in as dichotic relationship. Is it not possible that morality can be both universal and subjective at the same time? I believe so, however this leads to us to attempt and define morality.

To me morality can be summed up by one of the two interpretations of what is often called "The Golden Rule"

The first interpretation is: "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"

This ensures the survival of society and a mutual understanding of ethics. This is believed to be a dangerous belief for those who wish to maintain their concentrations of power and / or destroy society as we know it.

The second interpretation is: "He who has the gold rules"

This is the golden rule that is followed by Weasel Wonderland the courts and the people that have concentrated power. Its why the courts will never give us monetary reform and why lawyers are often regarded as a lower life form than the rest of us in jokes and in truth when you get experience dealing with them.

My fear is that too many powerless people have also embraced this form of morality and that our civilization is headed to a downturn because of this - which is caused by a concentration of wealth and greed. Greed is necessary for survival and its a survival instinct but it gets taken too far when people are isolated from one another.

[PolyNewbie]

Justice & morality are to the courts what a fine steak is to a pile of schitt and we depend on the Weasel Wonderland courts for justice morality. In a sense we are in a moral crisis where he who has the gold rules because we have let the courts and their appointed weasels take over the justice system.

[Figleaf]

Justice & morality are to the courts what a fine steak is to a pile of schitt and we depend on the Weasel Wonderland courts for justice morality. In a sense we are in a moral crisis where he who has the gold rules because we have let the courts and their appointed weasels take over the justice system.

To the extent we depend on the courts for morality, we are asking the court something we should not.

As for justice, I think Larry Niven said it best -- TANJ.

[DarkAngel_]

To me morality can be summed up by one of the two interpretations of what is often called "The Golden Rule"

The first interpretation is: "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"

That still does not explain a moral presents in instinct and logistics, as well as other moral codes being greater even in standards then the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy, with the golden rule obviously follows. Though it is better to treat people well, and hence be treated well, that is very uncommon due to our grouping and isolation in socially interactive cultures like our own. Though widely excepted morals that have instinctual obstacles like killing and rape, are rejected by the collective and could be due to 'the golden rule,' biblical, piety is not the source of this common moral, or in my definition being re-worded to; 'the common rule,' so i do not believe the golden rule is the most common, if that’s what you mean.

My fear is that too many powerless people have also embraced this form of morality and that our civilization is headed to a downturn because of this - which is caused by a concentration of wealth and greed. Greed is necessary for survival and its a survival instinct but it gets taken too far when people are isolated from one another.

I agree, the powerless, and other words careless people in the world have become weak, greedy, and over passive, even in war and violence, we should try to not rely so heavily on the state or government for food, shelter, and protection,

People seem to have become slaves of their money. Though the weak do need to be protected meaning they crowd around the strong, governments seem to use that to strengthen their position against one another. To add to your point, those morals have a code of justice, at least in giving the criminals a chance to prove innocence, but in all essence not even the civil citizens are innocent to the state because the only propeller of our justice today is greed.

[Catchme]

To me morality can be summed up by one of the two interpretations of what is often called "The Golden Rule"

The first interpretation is: "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"

My fear is that too many powerless people have also embraced this form of morality and that our civilization is headed to a downturn because of this - which is caused by a concentration of wealth and greed. Greed is necessary for survival and its a survival instinct but it gets taken too far when people are isolated from one another.

I agree, the powerless, and other words careless people in the world have become weak, greedy, and over passive, even in war and violence, we should try to not rely so heavily on the state or government for food, shelter, and protection,

People seem to have become slaves of their money. Though the weak do need to be protected meaning they crowd around the strong, governments seem to use that to strengthen their position against one another. To add to your point, those morals have a code of justice, at least in giving the criminals a chance to prove innocence, but in all essence not even the civil citizens are innocent to the state because the only propeller of our justice today is greed.

The problem is NOT the powerless people in the world, the problem is the people who have the power who prey upon the weak and who are creating the wars to concentrate more wealth and power. Good try blamming the victims.

The ideas of morality and equality existed long before the advent of Judaism and Christianity.

[marcinmoka]

As well, morally, if information is correct and not vague or scrambled, a decision is easier to reach. but in the act of genocide it could be information was lacking and a collective or even selective leader choose an action based on the threat and information present, and not to mention the threats perceived by that individual or those individuals being very different in structure, agenda, and motivation from one another.

Bingo.

[PolyNewbie]

Good try blamming the victims.

Not that hard - people are willing victims or just choose to keep their heads in the sand. If you don't stand up you will be a victim.

It may not be the fault of the victim, but the victim bears the responsibility. A failure to acknowledge this just leads to further victimization.

[DarkAngel_]

the problem is the people who have the power who prey upon the weak

if they have power, why prey on the weak? countries don't go to war with farmers and merchants, they go to war with people who have some measure of power... the only reason to go after the weak is to round them up and use them to be pee-ons and builders of power, 'together the weak can be strong' and i have no idea who said this quote, i'll look it up some time.

The ideas of morality and equality existed long before the advent of Judaism and Christianity.

agreed. i'd never say other wise. but some morals are spawned and tought by the church.

as well, to add to PolyNewbie's comment, if we where all 'weak' who would stand against power? power is always perceived as evil, or driven by malice, but i think evil is an action, it is not laughing in the dark wanting to kill children, that's insanity these days remember? lol

and in addition, people are becoming pathetically weak, like 'im 21, lazy, stupid, and cant walk one mile without rest' kind of weak, also people are too concerned with the mundane and unadorned, though this is good in peace, we are forcing an artificial peace by isolation and pushing war on everyone else’s land, that means if the front line breaks, the weak will die. (seeing as how hundreds of factions in the world want to take us apart piece by piece and burn all us non-believers, to be blunt)

i do understand where you are coming from, some are weak and stay weak from the events that unfold, if too much pressure is built up, often people do not learn, but imagine what its like to be strong and be needed everywhere at once, that means too many weak spots have grown, so they need enforcing, fortification, and help becoming strong, that way we can fight together, agreed?

and yes to a certain point i am saying its always a fight, peace doesn't last long, but we can make the wars less bloody in my opinion.

but back on to this topic, what of moral status according to class? is there a difference based on your social position? The only reason this confuses me is it seems like if morals are natural, would a certain job change it’s chemistry so-to-speak? I don’t think it would…