Debates
20 Aug 07
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'd go further and say that morality did not exist before society. Of course that goes for any society, animal or human, but that morality is a construct to aid in producing group mentalities, rules which have evolved in the way they have to provide the maximum benefit to human society. Richard Dawkins quoted some excellent studies on this in his book, The God Delusion, where it was shown that regardless of geographical location or racial origin, all human societies share certain common moral principles, I'll look up the reference he gave later, it was a fascinating read.
Morality did not exist before the nervous system, because there was no suffering or happiness before it.
Discuss.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonThat's not going further, that view is quite conventional.
I'd go further and say that morality did not exist before society. Of course that goes for any society, animal or human, but that morality is a construct to aid in producing group mentalities, rules which have evolved in the way they have to provide the maximum benefit to human society. Richard Dawkins quoted some excellent studies on this in his book, The G ...[text shortened]... common moral principles, I'll look up the reference he gave later, it was a fascinating read.
ATY's proposal is a bolder one. If I interpret him correctly, he is claiming morality stems purely from hedonism (pain/pleasure). Of course, by re-writing it as suffering/happiness he tries to avoid the obvious critique that pain/pleasure only seem to have developed very basic (if any) sense of morality in other species.
The obvious lacking ingredient is, in my opinion, consciousness.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaBy further I meant it was a later development, i.e, morality in some form came much later than simple nervous systems. But it is definitely a result of evolution, though I can't see the evolutionary advantage of morality outside of a society.
That's not going further, that view is quite conventional.
ATY's proposal is a bolder one. If I interpret him correctly, he is claiming morality stems purely from hedonism (pain/pleasure). Of course, by re-writing it as suffering/happiness he tries to avoid the obvious critique that pain/pleasure only seem to have developed very basic (if any) sense of morality in other species.
The obvious lacking ingredient is, in my opinion, consciousness.
Also, I think morality cannot be a result of the nervous system alone i.e. pain pleasure, that's the cart leading the horse. We feel pain and pleasure in the face of moral and immoral acts because we have been naturally selected to do so since moral acts help the genome while immoral ones hinder it. (so to speak)
20 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonYep, it does, so it's more than the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure and it's more than consciousness. Perhaps a definition of morality would be a good start. It's more than a list of "thou shalt nots".
Does morality not require an ability to make decisions?
Dawkins is all at sea on the source of morality, it is the low point of his book.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by WajomaI found his piece on morality excellent, I tested out his "fat guy on a bridge" vs. "one guy tied to tracks" moral question on a few friends of different religious persuasion, and also my little brother, everyone came to the same conclusion. Yes, he didn't go into any depth as to why it evolved, but his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did not affect your moral compass, to delve into potential origins would have detracted from the argument. But to me at least it seem sobvious enough that it has to evolved from a close to "thou shalt not"/"thou shalt" route.
Yep, it does, so it's more than the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure and it's more than consciousness. Perhaps a definition of morality would be a good start. It's more than a list of "thou shalt nots".
Dawkins is all at sea on the source of morality, it is the low point of his book.
If you perform an "immoral act" it tends to harm the genome.
If you perform a "moral act" it does not, or it promotes it.
This binary would mean that their are black and white moral answers in any situation, but that it is merely the complexity of the situation that introduces the grey shades, not the morals.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonIn what sense are you using "evolution" here? Because you seem to muddle concepts of social darwinism alongside standard biological evolutionary ones.
I found his piece on morality excellent, I tested out his "fat guy on a bridge" vs. "one guy tied to tracks" moral question on a few friends of different religious persuasion, and also my little brother, everyone came to the same conclusion. Yes, he didn't go into any depth as to why it evolved, but his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did ...[text shortened]... ly the complexity of the situation that introduces the grey shades, not the morals.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by PalynkaSorry, I'm using it in the sense of biological evolution, not social darwinism. I believe that if morality did not confer a genetic advantage, we wouldn't have it.
In what sense are you using "evolution" here? Because you seem to muddle concepts of social darwinism alongside standard biological evolutionary ones.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agryson"...to delve into potential origins would have detracted from the argument."
I found his piece on morality excellent, I tested out his "fat guy on a bridge" vs. "one guy tied to tracks" moral question on a few friends of different religious persuasion, and also my little brother, everyone came to the same conclusion. Yes, he didn't go into any depth as to why it evolved, but his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did ...[text shortened]... ly the complexity of the situation that introduces the grey shades, not the morals.
That's an odd statement, morality need not have a religious basis but offer nothing in it's stead. He makes some mention of "zeitgeist" but dosen't bother to clarify it.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonBut how does natural selection then occur within a society or, even more to the point, between societies? And how is this compatible in a historic perspective?
Sorry, I'm using it in the sense of biological evolution, not social darwinism. I believe that if morality did not confer a genetic advantage, we wouldn't have it.
I think that from the moment societies began to survive on a large scale, natural selection has clearly a low key role in the social evolution that followed. Take, for example, the extremely fast development of law, morality and religion. The societal evolution that started near the banks of Tigris and Euphrates has been lightning fast for biological evolution. It is surely impossible that the (small) genetic change that has occurred since the dawn of society can explain the speed of these developments. Biological evolution is very slow when compared to recorded history.
20 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonYes, but decision making does not require a nervous system. Plants make decisions all the time.
Does morality not require an ability to make decisions?
I would break morality down into two components:
1. A general rule of: 'do not harm my genes or genes related to me, giving preference to the genes most closely related to me.'
2. A recognition by a consciousness A that another entity B has consciousness and in sympathy with B a desire in A not to cause B to experience anything that A does not desire to experience itself.
I would say that 1. applies to all living things and 2. requires a certain level of consciousness which goes far beyond a basic nervous system. It would have made more sense if you said that 2. type morality is dependent on a certain level of consciousness. Surely a computer might attain consciousness without a nervous system? Are you claiming that such a computer would have no morality?