Re: The topic's question

I believe individual morals come by a combination of: 1) What we're taught. 2) Our experiences. 3) Observing the results of our actions. 4) The measure to which we feel empathy or compassion (as a result of our experiences). 5) The nature and intensity of our needs, desires, weaknesses and dispositions.

As far as this goes...



... I'd have to say, "Of course not". But that; obviously, would depend on what problem we're talking about here.

To which problem are you referring, Lixunzhe?

Thanks

OK, Consider (3) , my mean is that the process of moral's formation when people from animal become human.
Thanks.

Well their are obviously different opinions towards this topic as many people have different presuppositions. Someone who presupposes the world being created by an intelligent designer will probably say that the designer instated those morals in everyone. Someone who presupposes the world as coming into being on its own and everything created by chance etc... I don't know exactly what they would say since its a little more difficult then just saying they exist. It seems as by your post that you are asking from an evolutionary perspective. So you would be looking for an explanation that is derived from that presupposition. I think also it depends on if you are a materialist person. One who believes nothing exists but physical matter. To say that morals are materialistic or are derived from material beings would I think make it viable to say that they are changeable. Maybe that they only depend on the popular opinion of many people. Though that begs the question why do all of those people have that opinion. Why is is that everyone believes that rape is wrong while it is ok for animals to do it? I can't think of a good answer to that question from an evolutionary standpoint so I will leave that to someone else.

It is probably easy to determine how Peter or Paul came to the moral position they did, but very difficult to give a satisfactory account of how man came to have morality as such. We cannot turn to history for the answer, because it seems that this phenomenon predates any sort of recorded history. Further, the same problem arises when we turn to other social sciences which can describe morality in primitive or ancient societies, but only conjecture about how it came to be from these studies.

Philosophy can attempt to account for morality, but only on non-moral assumptions and grounds; and since these grounds differ, so do the accounts. Unless one wants to argue for some kind of absolutist position, the question or origin seems unimportant. It seems more to the point to provide an account of the different values evidenced by morality than morality itself.

When you say the question or origin seems unimportant are you referring to morality as a whole's origin being unimportant? If so how can you say one way or another as to whether or not it is important. Only if you know the origin can you be 100% sure that it is unimportant where it came from. From the religious point of view, for example, it is quite important where the origin came from. It would be clear that it is coming from the creator and in many religious cases following those morals is mandatory for the religion. So to those people the origin is quite important. If I can come up with one possible reason why it may be important to know the origin then it can not be known to be unimportant.

Course I could have completely misunderstood what you said.

Although I framed my post from a strictly philosophical point of view, I did acknowledge that any absolutist position might consider the question of origin important. To the extent that that some religions have an absolutist position, then this exception would apply to them.

Oh ok I see what your saying thanks for explaining.

I have heard some people argue that morals are just what a large group of people agree upon for best survival of everyone. Does this have any philosophical validity or is it just hog wash? It seems to me that if it where that way then morals are simply just rules and nothing else. There would be a blending between the 2 I would assume. What's the popular thought towards that idea?

This is a explanation for what kinds of morals a society may have, and seems to account for almost universal values across many groups as well as unique values within each group. When discussing, for example, the origin of laws, this turns into a social contract theory where men agree to give up certain rights and liberties natural to them in order to secure a safer existence and to be able to practice thereby the peaceful arts (Hobbes, for example argues this). One could argue that if laws and morality are intertwined, then some important moral values owe their existence to the promotion of survival, while other values seem to defy that explanation (for example altruism or sacrificing one's life for another).

One the other hand, for example, Nietzsche traces the historical origins of morals to a conflict between the noble type of human and the slavish type.

I think it is safe to say that any explanation for specific values has to take into account many factors from different perspectives.

I seem to think that there is a very simple answer for this. How did morality come to be is the question at hand. We merely need to evaluate mankind to determine this answer. Mankind is good at one thing, doing what it takes to move forward. We will blow up mountains if it means progress.

Consider, if you will, a small hunting village; possibly nomadic, possibly not. This is the best example of a pack predator that I can give. Most animals of the time were much larger and much more ferocious than man. We do not have claws or sharp teeth or any physical tools for hunting so we learn to create our own. Still, this is a difficult task and one that cannot be completed by one person. We require more than one hunter. Of course, with the split of workload, the split of the profits must also be considered. You must keep your hunters healthy. So the first* moral set of sharing was created to parse out the food amongst the people in order to survive. It is also important to live close to each other for protection and to provide for the women for propagation. In the end, morality was created to allow us to live together more effectively and more efficiently.

* Possibly not the first moral but surely close to it

So laws and morals presuppose safer existence being a beneficial thing. If everything is just atoms/physical stuff then why is life any different then death? What makes survival a "good" thing. What makes flourishing and social contracts a good thing? Isn't that just presupposing all of those all ready being good things?

If things are all atoms and physics then we must consider life a s a process. It begins with the formation of the cells and move to the physical creature being formed, growing, learning, living, degrading, dying, decomposing. It is in our nature to hold on to life as long as possible because it is the most pressing issue of the moment. When we are alive, we strive to continue being alive and to better our lives as a natural reaction, just as cells do what they must to grow and split, just as atoms do what they must to maintain energy. Each step is a series of necessities which form the reason for being in the state that we are in until the next step becomes inevitable and unavoidable.

It is easy to say that life is desired but answer me why it is desirable. Where does our nature come from that says that survival is so pressing?

The simple answer is nature. In all of nature, each object is in a constant state of fluxuation and thusly is required to attempt to maintain a constant in order to create balance as to not go wildly out of control and explode. The idea of equal and opposite reactions. We are dying so we attempt to stay alive.

Altruistic behavior is only possible if is beneficial to the genetic material that brings it about and if the possessor is able to discern between a person who possesses it and who doesn't.

Morality is the prototypical expression of this genetic material. Morality has been formed both by being the most successful manner in which genes are able to support themselves and to not support others.

Take Icon's example. When we separate the evolutionary fitness of a gene from the reproductive fitness of the holder, we can see that an individual gene can be present in many people and can exploit the fitness of the entire group. So it is not surprising that early human communities were tightly-knit affairs revolving around kin (the obvious sharers of genetic material) who often completely sacrificed themselves for another, a mother for a child, for example. Morality is the guideline by which genes exploit the benefits of using several people to support its own survival. This explains somewhat universal tendencies towards fairness, sharing, property, and opposed to harm, theft, and other detracting actions.

Over the top of this, we can see the role of memetics in bringing about morality. The history of human civilization has generally been the history of the benefits of the coordination of labor within sedentary societies over the limitations of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. We have certainly adopted moral memes over time simply because certain methods of organizing society are not more right than others, but simply because they are more efficient and successful.

So basically, the study of modern ethics is a study of the role in which our ancestors interacted with each other and who was more successful, and not a metaphysical wrangling of propositions (although these are important at a level).

Living isn't a "good thing".

Its just that those who thought dying was a good thing generally didn't pass on their proclivities towards that idea to the next generation.

Switch your thinking around. Nothing is teleological, nothing really even moves forward.

Nothing is self-causing. Survival is so pressing because non-survival ends the line.

All animals by nature act to preserve themselves, and hence, their species. When faced with danger, some animals rely on their ability to hide and have camouflaged exteriors, others on their speed, and still others on exuding odors. In many cases, these same characteristics or instincts also provide sources for food. So prevalent is this instinct for self-survival that we take it to be a "law of nature" that transcends human moral evaluation.

Insofar as men and women are a part of nature, this instinct applies to them. One evidence of this is that society and its laws generally recognize that all individuals have a "right of self-defense" that overrides the prohibition of taking another life.

So are ethics then just merely opinions that are passed on to offspring? Why do animals not have morals? Why is it wrong to rape? (excluding murder after rape, just speaking of rape itself right now) If we are no different then animals then all rape is is merely procreating. When a female dog is in heat the male dog has an immense desire to mate with the said female dog. The female does not get a say in the matter. If she can't get away or fight back, and an egg was successfully fertilized, then she will give birth.

Why is that wrong for us humans?

Why do we unlike many other animals not always follow the survival of the fittest? Why is it wrong to take someone's stuff? What makes it theirs in the first place? If an animals steals anothers food (which happens all the time) is it wrong? The animal that had its food stolen can possibly go out and get more food so in this situation he won't die because of it. Simply stealing someone's TV does not make survival an issue. Torturing someone and then setting them free. That doesn't make life chaotically spin out of control and down the drain.

It's unlikely, but still possible to have a society that prospers while still allowing anyone and everyone to periodically torture, rape and steal from each other. In that society everyone just goes about their daily tasks but you have to put those tasks asside for a minute or 2 while someone who is angry burns you with something. It's a little painful but thats how life works. You'll probably rape his child the next day anyway.

You can not say that that society could not exist at all. I stated things that are physically possible. I did not state anything physically impossible. Everything in that society is physically possible so it has to be a possibility. Thats if you believe that morals are simply conventions.

Maybe I missed what someone said earlier but I can't remember if someone said that morals are non tangible laws that are unchanging or if they are merely conventions that people come up with.

When some of you are saying that killing someone ends the survival. Yes offcourse it does but that doesn't make it wrong. Just because someone kills someone for no reason doesn't make it wrong if you simply believe they are conventions. They are maybe conventions for some people but they do not cover those that do not agree with them. So to you who falls under belief that those acts done are wrong. You have no grounds to say that. Right or wrong have no acctual definition. Its just your opinion and its variable from person to person. The person who committed the act of murder is not wrong or right. The act is neither. It is just an act. You do not say that blinking your eyelids is wrong or right. It is just something that happens. I agree that killing someone makes living difficult. But that does not make it wrong.

Unless you believe that morals are untouchable laws that everyone inherently believes to be true then you can not say someones act is acctually wrong. No one here from what I've read that I can remember has said that morals have always been and that they are unchangeable. All I can remember is people saying how they developed. If everyone believes that then morals are just merely opinions and in their true nature are neither right nor wrong.

But idk thats just how I'd annalyze the situation. I can't quote famous philosophers and scientists like many of you because I don't know squat about philosophy. This is simply how I think of it. Makes sense to me. But I haven't heard what you have to say about it yet. :bigsmile: I'm eager to learn from this forum about philosophy thats why I'm here.

I'd like to try and answer your questions. But I'll start with a disclaimer: This is how I see this process and these concepts within the context of my understanding of your questions. I, like you, am a flawed being. So take this for what you think its worth - I have no illusions of Ultimate Knowledge (being no smarter nor any dumber than anyone else here).



I suppose you could call them "opinions"; but this would be only half the story. Saying this minimalizes what they are and what they're for. Its important to now that cannot remove ethics from its context (except to, perhaps, try and postulate a universal ethic in some way). Chances are you have your own set; think about it. Whenever you've said "That's just wrong..." you are stating your opinion, but that opinion's based on your ideas of what's not right.



In order to have morals (and be able to rightly call it a "moral"), I believe there needs to be a conscious or subconscious mental process that forms subscription to a principle; a notion of "wrong or right". Without such principles, the word "Moral" wouldn't apply (thus there'd be no "ethics" per say). Animals, insomuch as we know, aren't self-ware nor intelligent enough for the necessary mental-processes; not the least of which is the ability to conceptually use "reason". In a sense, I suppose, you could say that the things they "won't" or "will" do could be construed as a moral, in a broad and vague sort of way, but that seems to be something different all together. My cat won't eat lettuce, but that's not a "moral", it's what he isn't hungry for. I've taught him to not jump onto the kitchen counter and now he doesn't. That's not my kitty's "moral", it's what he's developed a negative association with (with my help, of course).



You're incorrect in saying, "... we are no different than animals". Yes, we are animals, but we just a wee bit different mentally. This difference drastically changes our behavior. Yes we have instincts just like animals; our bodies are extremely similar in how they work, but we're comparatively much more intelligent, self-aware animals - and this changes everything (in regards to ethics and morals).

In the society in which I live both of these are considered wrong (and are just so in most cultures, to my knowledge) for the same reason and based on the same principle: Mutual coexistence. The overwhelming majority of people want to live and would prefer we not be done violence. They have this trait because (as someone replied earlier) those that didn't have a desire to live, didn't... and thus there was a decreased chance to procreate and pass on that propensity to their offspring.

It is a trust issue for individuals within a community (of any kind): We can work together to live peacefully if we agree not to hurt each other. In so doing, we "set up" our own ethic. Now, for both offenses you mention, it's important to note again that Ethics is dependent on Context; what community, tribe, country, state, enclave, hovel, province or clan are we talking about? Ethical notions are developed, flourished, redefined, dictated and enforced at multiple levels throughout humanity. Many of these can have vastly-different notions of what's ethical. I believe; however, that by-and-large most are similar with regards to what they're striving to achieve: freedom from pain and death and some measure of respect (either for the individual, the community, a deity or some combination of the three).

You could apply this same concept as your answer to the 'why is it wrong to steal'-question.



Actually it does. Over time, allowing this (i.e., not removing folks who do this and giving no deterrent to this kind of behavior) would, over time, lead to a breakdown of any kind of mutual-coexistence. In this setting, people would have no reason to trust or support; pain, death and assaults erode any semblance of trust. What lies at the basis of this, and is the reason underpinning this is this central principle: Human Beings need Each Other. We, by ourselves in the solitary state, are not much more than zip-locks filled with sticks and jello. By and large, We don't prosper, flourish or even very-well survive without the cooperation of others.

Even the smallest of communities throughout the world; these too are "communities" that need each other. One person, along in the wild, can perhaps survive a great deal of time, as long as they have the tools that were made when people *did* cooperate. Of course, these wouldn't last. Similarly, place yourselves back in the earliest days of our species' existence (say, 12,000 years ago); you might survive for a time, but you're not going to flourish and you're certainly not going to procreate; step back and imagine everyone going off on their own - not cooperating - and you'll see the human race not lasting very long at all. Our instincts to survive drive our need for cooperation; much of this cooperative need is enforced by various levels of "ethical" standards.

When you think about the morals that do exist, many of them (I believe) can be traced back to this idea: How can we best get-along?. In that, you'll find many of the answers to your questions.

Now, a couple of clarifications if I might:

• I believe that one almost cannot avoid developing their own morals; even if completely out-of-whack. Its part of how we order our worlds and dictate our own behavior.
  

• Many ethical ideas don't have any direct relation to survival or cooperation. What I've talked about at length above centers on this, but tradition, religion, concepts of roles, economic considerations, notions of the family, gender and much more can all form "ethics" of all types. Depending on what's being discussed, it's also quite likely that in the eye of the perceiver these may also lead back to survival, cooperation and peaceful coo existence.
  

• A central formative concept to ethics, in my opinion, is compassion or empathy. If you don't feel anything for the "hurt" or if you have no concept what it's like to have been hurt, pained, tortured or rape (and you haven't the ability to envision how badly these might feel), you're not likely to appreciate the "human impact" of such actions. From what I understand, many animals have what could be termed "compassionate behavior" (even possessing some measure of emotion). Lacking the necessary mental processes; however, I think it's inaccurate to call this animal's behavior "moral" or "ethical".
  

In any case, I've droned on enough. Your questions are basic and probative; they hit right to the heart of what ethics really are - an aspect I fear most of us really haven't much thought through.

Thanks