luvluv

Hi folks. I just had a humdinger of a discussion on another thread about where the human trait of a moral sense came from. I was wondering if you guys had any opinions on the subject or a link to any literature on it?

Here is the discusion over on the insidecarolina.com politics message board:

<a href="http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1895. topic&start=1&stop=20" target="_blank">http://pub93.ezboard.com/finsidecarolinafrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=1895. topic&start=1&stop=20</a>

luvluv

Here is the basic cornerstone of my argument, from page 3:

1) If I understand evolution correctly, one organism develops lets just say lungs as a result of a beneficial accident. It is able to survive better than its peers who die off. As a result, his progeny goes on to have lungs, and his lung-less peers die before they can reproduce. Gradually, the whole species comes to have lungs.

Now if we are to assume that morality evolved in a similar way, we would have to start off with their being beings without morality. Then one man, by a complete accident, happens to have a moral sense. Whereas the other "moral-less" men have no compulsions whatever about killing, raping, stealing, etc... this one creature by accident does. Is it at all likely that a moral being in a society of moral-less savages would have a greater chance of survival than his peers? Is it at all likely that the moral man would have such an advantage over his peers that eventually all men with no innate moral sense would die out?


2)Also, it would be a mistake to say that all morality comes from a cold calculation of cost-benefit analysis. We all know morality is not experienced in an intellectual way. When you don't call your mother on her birthday, you FEEL bad. Where did this feeling come from? What is the selective advantage of the feeling of guilt? Humans make a million cost-benefit analysis decisions a day about different stimuli, not one of them has evolved into a moral compulsion. For instance, it is just as disadvantageous for me to go out in the cold with only underwear as it is for me to try to sleep with many women. Yet I do not feel moral SHAME at going outside in the cold and I DO feel shame for mistreating many women. Why does the moral sense (i.e. feelings of guilt) not accompany ALL human activities which are disadvantages? If all morality is simply the result of cost benefit analysis, why don't I feel the emotion of shame everytime I make a decision which does not benefit me directly?

So in short:

1) What is the selective advantage of morality to the individual group member who first exhibited it?

2) If morality is simply the result of cost-benefit analysis, why don't I have a moral sense about every cost-benefit decision I make?

Thanks.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Karen M

Greetings luv


&gt;&gt;&gt;Here is the basic cornerstone of my argument, from page 3:
1) If I understand evolution correctly, one organism develops lets just say lungs as a result of a beneficial accident. It is able to survive better than its peers who die off. As a result, his progeny goes on to have lungs, and his lung-less peers die before they can reproduce. Gradually, the whole species comes to have lungs.

Now if we are to assume that morality evolved in a similar way, we would have to start off with their being beings without morality. Then one man, by a complete accident, happens to have a moral sense.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Why do you assume it started with humans? Other animals have emotions and moralities of their own too.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Whereas the other "moral-less" men have no compulsions whatever about killing, raping, stealing, etc... this one creature by accident does.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Why do the other ones have no compulsions about it? Why do you believe it is beneficial to not feel anything about killing, raping, and stealing from people? If anything, it would be beneficial to not want to do these things [because if you do these things than there is a large chance of retaliation]. People are more likely to survive [assuming your stace that humans were the ones who started morality, which I believe it evolved in animals long before humans existed] if they stay away from danger and generally avoid conflict until it is necessary [such as needing food].

The first part of emotions to evolve was probably parent-child morality and mate morality. This would be very beneficial because it would make offspring more likely to survive and it would make the couple more likely to reproduce again. Then, lets say that there was a group that was all related to one another [as in it started with two parents, and they have 5 children, and then the 5 children would have kids and they would take care of the children to and so on]. Then other types of emotional benefits could more easily evolve.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Is it at all likely that the moral man would have such an advantage over his peers that eventually all men with no innate moral sense would die out?&lt;&lt;&lt;

It would be if there were many moral people. The people who could work together in a group would be more likely to survive than those that attempted to survive alone.

&gt;&gt;&gt;2)Also, it would be a mistake to say that all morality comes from a cold calculation of cost-benefit analysis. We all know morality is not experienced in an intellectual way. When you don't call your mother on her birthday, you FEEL bad. Where did this feeling come from? What is the selective advantage of the feeling of guilt?&lt;&lt;&lt;

Because if you help your mother or make her feel better about something it will improve your relationship.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Humans make a million cost-benefit analysis decisions a day about different stimuli, not one of them has evolved into a moral compulsion. For instance, it is just as disadvantageous for me to go out in the cold with only underwear as it is for me to try to sleep with many women.&lt;&lt;&lt;

But going out in the cold with only underwear does not effect your relationship with any of the humans around you.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Yet I do not feel moral SHAME at going outside in the cold and I DO feel shame for mistreating many women. Why does the moral sense (i.e. feelings of guilt) not accompany ALL human activities which are disadvantages?&lt;&lt;&lt;

This moral sense works for advantages and disadvantages when dealing with other humans. It doesn't neccessarily work if the advantage or disadvantage in question is not something dealing with a relationship with another person.


I hope that answers your question

Karen

luvluv

Okay, thats a very good point about some moralities evolving before others, instead of all morality evolving at once.

1)Any theories about how exactly the emotion of "feeling bad" came to be?

2) Also, aren't there animals in the wild where both the male and the female participate in the raising of their off-spring? Like birds, for example? Wouldn't the very old trait of parent-instinct be enough to make parents care for their young? After all, birds, it seems at least, do not need a moral sense to care for their young. And aren't there animals that mate for life without any "morality" simply from instinct? Is morality more efficient than instinct? It wouldn't seem to be the case, since animals always obey their instincts and humans quite often disobey their morals.

3) You said:

"It would be if there were many moral people. The people who could work together in a group would be more likely to survive than those that attempted to survive alone."

That's kind of my point. Wouldn't the first moral CREATURE by definition have been alone in an immoral society? What advantage would that first moral creature have, if there were no like-minded creatures?

4) So I guess an unstated but implied crux of your argument is that morality only operates around relationships i.e. social interactions and not strictly survival?

5) Okay there is no other way to ask this question but to get religious, so I hope you are not easily offended. I am a Christian, and as such believe in the Christian morality as spelled out in the sermon on the mount. This particular sermon argues out some very extreme moral doctrine. It calls for the forgiving of enemies, non-retaliation, feeding of the poor, visiting those in prison, etc. Many of these, particularly the one about non-retaliation, would seem to be disadvantageous to the individual and the species as a whole. Yet most people when confronted with this morality agree that it is a better one than the ones that existed previously to it (even if it is, unfortunately, rarely practiced). How could excessive morality have evolved, and by excessive I mean morality that goes well beyond co-operation and co-existence. Also, how is it that we recognize morality that is excessive as still being the best kind. That is to say how is morality that is very hard for us to perform (forgiveness and non-retaliation) and which has little selective advantage (particularly non-retaliation) still generally recognized as sound morality by most people? It seems to go above and beyond the call of duty, if the reason morality evolved was just to have a co-operative society.

luvluv

I thought for a few seconds and decided to really emphasize point 2.

A casual look around modern society would suggest that parent morality is vastly inferior to parent instinct. Without getting preachy, it is pretty evident that much of the social pathologies in the world today are the result of parents (particularly fathers) not caring for their young. It's getting to the point that it could actually threaten the species.

It being that it is possible to disobey morality, and not possible (seemingly) to disobey instinct, isn't morality an evolutionary REGRESSION?

tronvillain

I would suggest reading The Origins of Virtue.

Karen M

Hello again luv


&gt;&gt;&gt;Okay, thats a very good point about some moralities evolving before others, instead of all morality evolving at once.

1)Any theories about how exactly the emotion of "feeling bad" came to be?&lt;&lt;&lt;

As in feeling guilty? Or feeling sad? These emotions probably evolved later [once a society had been built, whether it was a wolf pack or a lion pride or whatever...] because they promote working within a group [you feel bad if you have done something to harm your relationship].


&gt;&gt;&gt;2) Also, aren't there animals in the wild where both the male and the female participate in the raising of their off-spring? Like birds, for example? Wouldn't the very old trait of parent-instinct be enough to make parents care for their young? After all, birds, it seems at least, do not need a moral sense to care for their young.&lt;&lt;&lt;

? I'm sorry, I don't see the point here? From my view, emotional morals ARE instinctive. I really do think that that Momma bird and that Daddy bird care about their baby bird. That is what the instinct IS.


&gt;&gt;&gt;And aren't there animals that mate for life without any "morality" simply from instinct?&lt;&lt;&lt;

They may mate for other emotions rather than relationship or helpful reasons, yes. Mating is promoted by many, many things because it is crucial for evolution.


&gt;&gt;&gt;Is morality more efficient than instinct?&lt;&lt;&lt;

I believe some evolutionary instincts [such as most emotions] are part of morality. If you are asking whether moral instincts [ones that promote relationships and help within a society] are more efficent for mating than simple instincts to reproduce, then I would have to say yes. If the animals grew a relationship between themselves then they would be more likely to mate again, and therefore produce more offspring.


&gt;&gt;&gt;It wouldn't seem to be the case, since animals always obey their instincts and humans quite often disobey their morals.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I do not believe humans actually disobey their morals; I just think that, sometimes, their morals change or turn out to be different than what others would prefer.


&gt;&gt;&gt;That's kind of my point. Wouldn't the first moral CREATURE by definition have been alone in an immoral society?&lt;&lt;&lt;

I suppose you could look at it that way, but, remember, just because this society would not have emotions promoting relationships does not mean that they are ruthless murderers [in other words, just because this orignial creature showed the first tendency to take care of its young or the first tendency to protect possible mates doesn't mean that it is going to be attacked by others of its kind or that it suddenly has no survival instincts]. Also, we are probably talking about very, very early on here [even goldfish probably have moral instincts that help them get along with eachother].


&gt;&gt;&gt;What advantage would that first moral creature have, if there were no like-minded creatures?&lt;&lt;&lt;

At first, I guess it would probably have been closer to a neutral mutation than a beneficial one [though perhaps it could gain a very slight advantage depending on what this particular instinct that it evolved was].

The instinct would become much more beneficial once the orignial one reproduced a bit more and once its decendants could get along together and be helpful to eachother.


&gt;&gt;&gt;4) So I guess an unstated but implied crux of your argument is that morality only operates around relationships i.e. social interactions and not strictly survival?&lt;&lt;&lt;

I suppose in some cases you might also get a moral instinct towards other tendencys of suvivial, but, for the most part, yes, I think these morals mostly evolve to promote societies and teamwork.


&gt;&gt;&gt;5) Okay there is no other way to ask this question but to get religious, so I hope you are not easily offended.&lt;&lt;&lt;

Why would I be offended by religion?


&gt;&gt;&gt;I am a Christian, and as such believe in the Christian morality as spelled out in the sermon on the mount.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I see. Are you a creationist or do you believe theistic evolution [in which case God could have made morality through evolution if that is what you are asking in this thread? ]


&gt;&gt;&gt;This particular sermon argues out some very extreme moral doctrine. It calls for the forgiving of enemies&lt;&lt;&lt;

This is beneficial if they can be helpful in society and are no longer dangerous. For example, I think that Andrea Yates was clearly insane and that she had no control over her actions at the time of her crime. I therefore think that she should get a few years in jail for endangerment [for purposely not taking her medication] and then should be let out to get a job and help the country [because I do not believe she will hurt anyone else now that she is sane].


&gt;&gt;&gt;, non-retaliation&lt;&lt;&lt;

This can be good in some cases [like the example I just gave above of Yates].


&gt;&gt;&gt;, feeding of the poor&lt;&lt;&lt;

This comes from instincts which promote empathy. Empathy is a very useful instinct in promoting relationships. Also, feeding the poor will help your relationships with those people.


&gt;&gt;&gt;, visiting those in prison&lt;&lt;&lt;

? Why would you think this would be detremental? Prisoners have friends and family too.


&gt;&gt;&gt;morality that is very hard for us to perform (forgiveness and non-retaliation) and which has little selective advantage (particularly non-retaliation) still generally recognized as sound morality by most people?&lt;&lt;&lt;

I would disagree that it these have no advantage. But, even if they didn't, many people base their morality on how they would like others to act towards them [which also comes from empathy]. I'm sure people imagining themselves to be in those situations have thought out how they would like to be treated and incoded that into morality.


&gt;&gt;&gt;A casual look around modern society would suggest that parent morality is vastly inferior to parent instinct.&lt;&lt;&lt;

I believe parent instinct is a part of parent morality?


&gt;&gt;&gt;Without getting preachy, it is pretty evident that much of the social pathologies in the world today are the result of parents (particularly fathers) not caring for their young.&lt;&lt;&lt;

This is because one part of this morality has overridden another part. For example [and please note that I am NOT condoneing this], lets say Sam really likes his friends, only his friends are drug addicts. Sam is pressured into drugs and eventually gets addicted. Lets say his Girlfriend now gets pregnant. Though Sam, had he not become a lazy drug-addict, would probably have helped to take care of the child, because he felt the need to strenghten his relationship with is friends and is now addicted to drugs, the drugs have probably taken over and he will probably not take care of the child because he wants to save money for more drugs.

Now, I do not agree with this, and I think we need to educate people about the harm drugs do to your life, but this is an example of how one action can override another instinct. And, I would consider Sam's behavior to be bad because if I would not want to be in the girlfriend's possition and he has also ruined his life.


&gt;&gt;&gt;It being that it is possible to disobey morality, and not possible (seemingly) to disobey instinct, isn't morality an evolutionary REGRESSION?&lt;&lt;&lt;

It is possible to "disobey" instinct. There is not just one, single, all-powerful instinct...there are many, many different types of urges and instincts and whichever one happens to be the strongest is probably the one in control that day [in which case you would be "disobeying" the instincts that are not in control]. For example, lets say your are very, very tired, but you are also minorly thirsty. You decide to go to sleep to ease your extreme tiredness rather than drink something to ease your minor thirst.


On another note: Only instincts that promote relationships with others are part of morals and not all morals are based on instincts [in the case of humans].


Parts of this may get sketchy because I wrote this pretty fast; I hope its coherent though. :]

Karen

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Karen M ]</p>

Coragyps

A fairly random thought: birds, even the strictly "monogamous" sorts, fool around on their mates fairly frequently, and seem to try to avoid being detected while doing so. Does that seem an awful lot like country-and-western-song human morality to you all too? Are the birds moral/immoral, or are we humans trying to up our reproductive success, with only modern latex technology interfering with the actual "reproductive" part?

luvluv

Hi again Karen:

"2) Also, aren't there animals in the wild where both the male and the female participate in the raising of their off-spring? Like birds, for example? Wouldn't the very old trait of parent-instinct be enough to make parents care for their young? After all, birds, it seems at least, do not need a moral sense to care for their young.

? I'm sorry, I don't see the point here? From my view, emotional morals ARE instinctive. I really do think that that Momma bird and that Daddy bird care about their baby bird. That is what the instinct IS."

Hi Again Karen:

But my point is that humans also instinctually care about our offspring, but that doesn't mean we always stick around and take care of our young. But if I understand instinct correctly, birds ALWAYS take care of their young. In other words, there is no fatherlessness among birds, and no evidence of birds arbitrarily abandoning their young because they don't want the burden of caring for them. It would seem the instinct to take care of the young is more compelling in birds than the emotions of guilt surronding human behavior about his family.

"I believe some evolutionary instincts [such as most emotions] are part of morality. If you are asking whether moral instincts [ones that promote relationships and help within a society] are more efficent for mating than simple instincts to reproduce, then I would have to say yes. If the animals grew a relationship between themselves then they would be more likely to mate again, and therefore produce more offspring."

No my argument is strictly about the parenting instinct, not just the instinct for sex. The instinct that makes the male bird stick around and care for his kid, and defend his family with his life if necessary. Wouldn't it be more efficient for human fathers to have an instinct with this kind of, for lack of a better word, compulsion. I know all human fathers BELIEVE they would do these things before hand, many human fathers abandon their children. Is there an observable phenomenon amongst mating animals of them ever simply abandoning their off-spring? I am saying that whatever instinct is in bird's heads, it obviously works better than whatever instinct is in a human's heads, because human fathers routinely take off. (And women often abandon their children).

"I do not believe humans actually disobey their morals; I just think that, sometimes, their morals change or turn out to be different than what others would prefer."

I very heartily disgaree. There are anguished fathers who feel tormented over abandoning their children years earlier. Or think a soldier who runs away from his platoon in a fire fight out of fear. All these people are disobeying their moral instincts. The father's morality is telling him to stay and raise his children. The soldier's instinct is telling him to stay and fight. Yet they disobey and feel guilty about it. The very "feeling guilty" is proof that humans often do disobey the morality they hold for themselves.

"just because this society would not have emotions promoting relationships does not mean that they are ruthless murderers [in other words, just because this orignial creature showed the first tendency to take care of its young or the first tendency to protect possible mates doesn't mean that it is going to be attacked by others of its kind or that it suddenly has no survival instincts]."

Nevertheless, I would always see that as a strict disadvantage this creature would have to it's fellows. I can't see how for the first moral creatures it would at all have been an advantage to it personally to protect it's mate or care for it's progeny. I don't think it is neutral because anyway you slice it caring for two or more beings as much as yourself, and defending them as you would defend yourself, is a risky proposition. For example there is a bird who builds a nest near my house every year, and who engages in very dangerous confrontations with my cat. Now the first bird (or whatever) to display this kind of willingness to defend his mate must surely have had a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the birds (or whatever) who didn't care.

Also, most conflict does not originate from an animal being a murderer or having evil intent, it simply evolves from selfishness, which ALL animals are unless that selfishness is checked by some other instinct. If you need evidence of this, go to a local nursery A parent defending her young would have to defend it against it's fellows or predators, simply becase it's fellows and predators all have a "me-first" mentality.

"This is because one part of this morality has overridden another part. For example [and please note that I am NOT condoneing this], lets say Sam really likes his friends, only his friends are drug addicts. Sam is pressured into drugs and eventually gets addicted. Lets say his Girlfriend now gets pregnant. Though Sam, had he not become a lazy drug-addict, would probably have helped to take care of the child, because he felt the need to strenghten his relationship with is friends and is now addicted to drugs, the drugs have probably taken over and he will probably not take care of the child because he wants to save money for more drugs."

With all due respect, I believe this is wrong. I've been around recovering addicts and they have OVERWHELMING feelings of guilt. They don't simply believe they choose one instinct over another, they believe they chose the WRONG instinct. Also, in that case it is not a case of one natural instinct being overriden by another, but of all natural instincts being overcome by a chemical addiction.

Also, we both know it does not take drug addiction for a man to abandon his family. Often just pure selfishness will do.

I think you are ommitting feelings of guilt from your arguments, and that actually is what I am most concerned about: where did these feelings of guilt come from and what is the advantage of having them?

As to my official affiliation, I am somewhere in between being and Old Earth Creationist and a Theistic Evolutionist. I guess you could call me an evolution agnostic . Most of the theories of evolution make sense to me except the origin of life theories. I have a hard time believing that life originated from non-life. Evolution being true wouldn't destroy my theology, but I am skeptical of large portions of it.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Coragyps

Urban myth, unfortunately. There was an article in Science in the last two or three months that reported on a fairly detailed study of when and why birds abandon their broods in response to the threat of predation. I'm too sleepy to find the ref. at present, but I could try to tomorrow if you are interested.