Where does morality come from?

[The Pixie]

Theology offers one explanation for morality; here is an alternative, an entirely naturalistin explanation. I cannot prove it is true, but there is some reason to think it, and so that gives so-called "rational warrant". This is important because the Argument for Morality is founded on their being no naturalistic explanation.


Evolution

Firstly, evolution gave us the basics. Our morality is based on empathy and a sense of fairness. We want the best for ourselves, but we can appreciate that others want - and deserve - the same. That empathy and sense of fairness is something we have got from evolution.

Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share.

Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for.

Is there a reason to think this is true? Absolutely! Chimpazees, our closest relatives, have empathy and a sense of fairness, as these links show.
http://www.onekind.org/education/animal ... impanzees/
http://www.livescience.com/26245-chimps ... rness.html

This indicates that empathy and a sense of fairness are indeed inherited traits. However, we would also expect our nearest relative on the evolutionary tree to be similar in this regard, so this is also a confirmed prediction. Two good reasons to think this evolutionary scenario is true.


Culture

We have a much more advanced morality than chimpazees. Can we really credit evolution with that? Perhaps not, but we do not need to. What sets mankind apart from chimpazees is the ability to preserve ideas from one generation to the next. We live in a world of computers and aerolanes and skyscrapers! But we do so because of the achievements of the last generation, who in turn relied on the generation before that.

Our morality is the same. It has developed over millenia, just as our building skills have. Primitive man lived in crude huts and had a crude morality that encompassed his own tribe only (and we can see that in the Old Testament, when the Israelites would cheerfully slaughter an entire tribe to capture their lands).

The advanced morality we have today is not a product of evolution, not directly anyway, but a product of our intellect. If there is an objectve morality, it is an abstract concept, like mathematics. If morality is grounded, it is grounded in mankind and nothing more than that. We "ought" to behave morally because people have value, and they have value because we say they do. People have rights because mankind says they have rights.

[Metacrock]

I already covered that in my argument you say this why we certain behaviors that doesn't ground the axiom in other words ,why is it whatwe should do? where does the should come from?

[met]

Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share.

Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for.

I think this is merely selective observation. Yes, that's partly true, but there's a very high probability that survivability is also enhanced sometimes by so-called "bad" behaviours: cheating, sneaking, murdering and failing to co-operate. In fact, it could well be the case that humanity's aggression and adeptness at those latter things is the reason for our dominant presence in the world now (instead of some more placid species like chimps dominating).

Furthermore, trying to wave this issue away by claiming "but now we have intellect" is also not only vague, but also overlooks the ( rather self-apparent) fact that our increased "intellect" has also made us quite a lot more efficient at lying, sneaking, cheating, murdering, and all that other lovely stuff too - so how does improved intellect enhance morality?

Also, you can't say "geometry is grounded in mankind and objectively true also". Seems most likely that it's either one of the other. So, unless you can show otherwise, seems like you can't say just claim that about morality either....

[The Pixie]

I think this is merely selective observation. Yes, that's partly true, but there's a very high probability that survivability is also enhanced sometimes by so-called "bad" behaviours: cheating, sneaking, murdering and failing to co-operate. In fact, it could well be the case that humanity's aggression and adeptness at those latter things is a reason for our dominant presence in the world now (instead of some more placid species like chimps dominating).

Absolutely. All these apparently contradictory behaviours will aid survive, and all are inherited, and so all are selected for. This is why we have wars and peace campaigners. This is why people are great at co-operating, but also sometimes cheat, steal and murder.

Furthermore, trying to wave this issue away by claiming "but now we have intellect" is also not only vague, but also overlooks the ( rather self-apparent) fact that our increased "intellect" has also made us quite a lot more efficient at lying, sneaking, cheating, murdering, and all that other lovely stuff too - so how does improved intellect enhance morality?

Our improved intellect, compared to chimps, has allowed us to do a lot of great things, building on what the previous generation achieved. Chimps cannot do that because they lack the ability to communicate and store ideas efficiently.

That includes building better houses and building better weapons. That is pretty much historical fact, I think. Similarly, I think it is clear that mankind's morality has also progressed from the genocidal tribalism seen in the Old Testament, to the rights we all take for granted today. Again, I do not see this as contentious; a look at history shows this is the case.

So I am not sure quite what you are objecting to. Indeed, your claim of vagueness would seem more applicable to your objection here.

[The Pixie]

I already covered that in my argument you say this why we certain behaviors that doesn't ground the axiom in other words ,why is it whatwe should do? where does the should come from?

Why suppose there is any grounding (outside what man invents himself)?

This is an assumption you have built you argument on, but it is, as far as I can see, entirely unfounded.

[Jim B.]

Theology offers one explanation for morality; here is an alternative, an entirely naturalistin explanation. I cannot prove it is true, but there is some reason to think it, and so that gives so-called "rational warrant". This is important because the Argument for Morality is founded on their being no naturalistic explanation.


Evolution

Firstly, evolution gave us the basics. Our morality is based on empathy and a sense of fairness. We want the best for ourselves, but we can appreciate that others want - and deserve - the same. That empathy and sense of fairness is something we have got from evolution.

Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share.

Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for.

Is there a reason to think this is true? Absolutely! Chimpazees, our closest relatives, have empathy and a sense of fairness, as these links show.
http://www.onekind.org/education/animal ... impanzees/
http://www.livescience.com/26245-chimps ... rness.html

This indicates that empathy and a sense of fairness are indeed inherited traits. However, we would also expect our nearest relative on the evolutionary tree to be similar in this regard, so this is also a confirmed prediction. Two good reasons to think this evolutionary scenario is true.


Culture

We have a much more advanced morality than chimpazees. Can we really credit evolution with that? Perhaps not, but we do not need to. What sets mankind apart from chimpazees is the ability to preserve ideas from one generation to the next. We live in a world of computers and aerolanes and skyscrapers! But we do so because of the achievements of the last generation, who in turn relied on the generation before that.

Our morality is the same. It has developed over millenia, just as our building skills have. Primitive man lived in crude huts and had a crude morality that encompassed his own tribe only (and we can see that in the Old Testament, when the Israelites would cheerfully slaughter an entire tribe to capture their lands).

The advanced morality we have today is not a product of evolution, not directly anyway, but a product of our intellect. If there is an objectve morality, it is an abstract concept, like mathematics. If morality is grounded, it is grounded in mankind and nothing more than that. We "ought" to behave morally because people have value, and they have value because we say they do. People have rights because mankind says they have rights.

If all you're saying is that God is not necessary to explain or ground morality, I might agree with that. If you take the further step and say that evolution can explain morality, I remain skeptical. But you seem to concede that where you say that "it's not the product of evolution, not directly anyway..." I doubt that chimps have morality. Morality requires language, culture, and the reflexive turn, none of which could exist without the others. It requires the ability to see oneself and one's actions from outside, to see them as particular instances of types of selves and actions.

[The Pixie]

If all you're saying is that God is not necessary to explain or ground morality, I might agree with that. If you take the further step and say that evolution can explain morality, I remain skeptical. But you seem to concede that where you say that "it's not the product of evolution, not directly anyway..." I doubt that chimps have morality. Morality requires language, culture, and the reflexive turn, none of which could exist without the others. It requires the ability to see oneself and one's actions from outside, to see them as particular instances of types of selves and actions.

Agreed.

[Jim B.]

Man is a social animal; he survives best by co-operating in a group or tribe. And co-operation is going to work best if members of the group get on with each. If in one tribe the members empathise with each other, and so share food fairly, they will co-operate better than in a tribe who do not share food fairly, but are constantly fighting each other for the better share.

Thus, if empathy and a sense of fairness are inherited, they will be selected for.

I think this is merely selective observation. Yes, that's partly true, but there's a very high probability that survivability is also enhanced sometimes by so-called "bad" behaviours: cheating, sneaking, murdering and failing to co-operate. In fact, it could well be the case that humanity's aggression and adeptness at those latter things is the reason for our dominant presence in the world now (instead of some more placid species like chimps dominating).

Furthermore, trying to wave this issue away by claiming "but now we have intellect" is also not only vague, but also overlooks the ( rather self-apparent) fact that our increased "intellect" has also made us quite a lot more efficient at lying, sneaking, cheating, murdering, and all that other lovely stuff too - so how does improved intellect enhance morality?

Also, you can't say "geometry is grounded in mankind and objectively true also". Seems most likely that it's either one of the other. So, unless you can show otherwise, seems like you can't say just claim that about morality either....

But he could say that through culture and cumulative learning over thousands of years, humans have learned that lying, cheating, etc have bad consequences in the long term for the group, even if it benefits the individual immediately. But you're right that with greater intellect and learning, people get better at knowing when and how to take advantage of a 'loophole', say to cheat where it will go undetected (probably) and not be disadvantageous for the group. But these situations would be probably be the exceptions.

[The Pixie]

But he could say that through culture and cumulative learning over thousands of years, humans have learned that lying, cheating, etc have bad consequences in the long term for the group, even if it benefits the individual immediately. But you're right that with greater intellect and learning, people get better at knowing when and how to take advantage of a 'loophole', say to cheat where it will go undetected (probably) and not be disadvantageous for the group. But these situations would be probably be the exceptions.

I am talking about people as in a culture, not an individual. Our culture has a great fund of knowledge in science, engineering, philosophy, etc. People are better at building houses because of that fund of knowledge. I do not think there is a fund of knowledge in that way for murder, cheating and stealing.

[Jim B.]

But he could say that through culture and cumulative learning over thousands of years, humans have learned that lying, cheating, etc have bad consequences in the long term for the group, even if it benefits the individual immediately. But you're right that with greater intellect and learning, people get better at knowing when and how to take advantage of a 'loophole', say to cheat where it will go undetected (probably) and not be disadvantageous for the group. But these situations would be probably be the exceptions.

I am talking about people as in a culture, not an individual. Our culture has a great fund of knowledge in science, engineering, philosophy, etc. People are better at building houses because of that fund of knowledge. I do not think there is a fund of knowledge in that way for murder, cheating and stealing.

Right, and the reason there isn't is because those things work, in the long run, against social cohesion and cooperation. Even a band of thieves wouldn't last long if each thief was out to cheat all the others.