The Nature of Morality

[Lady Revel]

Well, this is a truly tricky question, there is no doubt about it.

Yes, I do think that morals need to be taught. Why are children not as efficient as adults when thinking through behavior choices in regards to consequences? Why are they not as able to resist temptation? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is because their prefrontal cortex doesn't mature until they are older.

If morality is nature as opposed to nurture, why are morals so different amongst cultures? Yep, a very difficult question.

I think it is pretty clear that a brain injury of some sort, prefrontal lesions, perhaps, or a lack of dopamine, norepinephrine or a myriad of other things allow a person to deviate from social norms without qualms. Which would be an arguement, I suppose, to think that morality stems from nature, if nature could make a person's ability to conform to social norms go haywire so easily.

But somehow, and I don't have proof of this, in fact, everything I am saying is opinion based (yes, my get out of jail free clause ), I think we USE our brains to make moral decisions, but that these decisions are not inborn. Basic morals are taught to us when we are young, and they carry over to our adulthood.

Sometimes adults use their reasoning skills to deviate from morals that were taught to them. "Killing is bad." Some folks take this as killing another human is bad. Others carry it further, the killing of any animal is bad. Some go to extremes, and try to kill as few things as they can.

If morality was hard wired, wouldn't we all have the same morals, ethics, mores, norms, or what have you, except for those with brain abnormalities? Or not?

Let me know what thoughts I am missing.

[Plissken]

Well, I'm thinking of morality as more than specific social customs - which are obviously artificial. I'm thinking more in terms of empathy and compassion - which could be argued to be a part of processed experience.

This doesn't mean that their opposite numbers - fear and selfishness - aren't also a consequence of higher brain function (although my personal belief is that they stem from lower brain function), just that the ability to learn from our own experiences and use that information to project the lessons learned from that experience into how we treat others might be a natural part of higher intelligence. In other words, the same mental tools that allowed us to survive might also be the basis for morality.

(I'm making this up largely as I go along...)

[Lady Revel]

Oh. Well. Okay.

You are allowed to feel empathy and compassion because of your brain. I am going out on a limb here, but I think both higher and lower brain functions are used, not just one or the other.

For something simple, like seeing someone be hugged, well, I don't think it takes much to imagine yourself being hugged. If you are a regular person, you have been hugged many, many times, you know the feeling, and it is easy to understand what the hugged person is feeling.

However, if someone's parent dies, and that has never happened to you, it takes more thought to put yourself in their shoes. You know it must feel terrible, but you have to keep reaching to understand how terrible it is, imagining what it would be like without one of your parents. Therefore, your must use higher brain functions.

I'm making this up as I go along as well

And just for the record, Av.....I don't think stealing an apple for a starving child is immoral. I know if I had no other alternative, I would do it every time. And because I know this is what I would do, I have a hard time viewing it as immoral. It would be very easy for those watching me do it to consider it immoral, though. And certainly the owner of the apple would consider it immoral. I imagine obvious things, like explaining to the owner of the apple that a child is starving and needs the apple and the owner refusing to give the apple to the child has been done first.

If everyone around, including the owner of the apple were starving too, the question gets tougher. But, after much thought, I still think I would steal it for the child.


Sorry for using all those "you's", my high school English teacher would faint!

I'm off to play golf now, wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Prebe]

And just for the record, Av.....I don't think stealing an apple for a starving child is immoral. I know if I had no other alternative, I would do it every time

Depending on the punishment I suppose?

[Lady Revel]

Who says I am going to get caught???

Well, punishment does tend to make one think twice, but I don't think I could watch a child starve to death and do nothing. Honestly, if the punishment was death, well, I suppose I would set my sights higher than an apple, but I would still steal some type of food in order to keep that child alive.

[hierachy]

So you value a random child's life more than your own? Or at least, highly enough to put your own in very real danger. Interesting.

Why?

And why, then, are you spending money on on a computer when you could be giving it to children's charities?

[Prebe]

Those are very good questions James. I was thinking something along those lines when I mentioned the concept of punishment. Mainly I was trying to focus on two things:
1: Morality does not exist without society.
2: Moral often depends on personal risk and gain. The rules, be they written or not, usually have a practical justification somewhere.

[Lady Revel]

James, I am going to attempt to answer your questions. Whether or not they will be satisfactory to you, who knows?

James wrote:

Why?

I am not married, I don't have any children and I am past childbearing years.

James wrote:

And why, then, are you spending money on on a computer when you could be giving it to children's charities?

Well, this may spin off a whole other line of thought, and most people will probably think I am a monster when I answer, but, here goes.....what happens in front of my eyes affects me much more than something I know is going on but have never seen, nor will see.

There, I said it, for better or worse. Its not hard to ignore something that is not right in front of your face, and/or doesn't have direct consequences. Am I being immoral in admitting the truth? Certainly I am immoral in attitude.

That doesn't mean I don't donate to charities, either. I do. But it is easy to think of other things, and focus my attention elsewhere. But watching a child starve right in front of my eyes would prompt me to direct action.

PS - my computer was given to me I know, I know.......

[Plissken]

And why, then, are you spending money on on a computer when you could be giving it to children's charities?

Well, this may spin off a whole other line of thought, and most people will probably think I am a monster when I answer, but, here goes.....what happens in front of my eyes affects me much more than something I know is going on but have never seen, nor will see.

Which, I think, supports my idea that the basis for morality (and society, for that matter) - compassion, empathy, and cooperation - has more to do with the ability to reason than some artificial philisophical construct. (Which is not to say that we don't build artificial constructs around the already existing morality to both reinforce and explain it.)

[Worm of Despite]

Morality is a tough nut. I think it's a mix of human construct and the need for survival. Weighing our needs between preexisting structures, we make the choices we deem "right" and "good." I personally don't believe in objective morals, just as I don't believe in the past. Neither exist in some concrete place, so they must be human ideas, bound to our mortality and subjective experience as both individuals and a collective.

If, from birth, we grew up on a planet where eating people was the only mode of survival, all of us would be eating people without debate. If we grew up on a planet where incest was the only mode of childbirth, we would do it without compunction. If we grew up on a planet where 95% of the population believe in the giant pink poodle, you would most likely grow up sharing that belief. If everyone here at KW hated Linden, then Linden is an object of derision. Is it right? Within that universe, yes; nothing else exists outside of the social stratosphear.

Of course, this is just me blathering on. I could decide I'm wrong tomorrow, who knows.

[hierachy]

I personally don't believe in objective morals, just as I don't believe in the past. Neither exist in some concrete place, so they must be human ideas, bound to our mortality and subjective experience as both individuals and a collective.

I used to share that view. However, just because morality is not concrete does not mean it is not objective. Morality must be derived from the nature of reality, otherwise the whole concept is pointless; it would serve no purpose. And since reality is objective (if you want to debate this, it would probably be better to start a new topic), surely it follows that morality can therefore be derived objectively.

[Worm of Despite]

I personally don't believe in objective morals, just as I don't believe in the past. Neither exist in some concrete place, so they must be human ideas, bound to our mortality and subjective experience as both individuals and a collective.

I used to share that view. However, just because morality is not concrete does not mean it is not objective. Morality must be derived from the nature of reality, otherwise the whole concept is pointless; it would serve no purpose. And since reality is objective (if you want to debate this, it would probably be better to start a new topic)

Yep, new topic.

Well, I see reality as more perception than anything. I mean, hold up a coin and ask a group of people: one person sees it at an angle, another sees the front, the person holding it up sees the back. Which is correct? I see morals deriving not from nature itself but human reaction to nature. To me, morals require human existence, just as a brain requires a body. If we went extinct tomorrow, would our convictions/belief sets remain, or would they die with us?

[hierachy]

Well, I see reality as more perception than anything. I mean, hold up a coin and ask a group of people:

Ask them what?

one person sees it at an angle, another sees the front, the person holding it up sees the back. Which is correct?

How about all of them? I don't see your point. All they are "seeing" is photons reflected off of a particular surface. Their perspective does not alter the coin's nature. The coin is the coin.

I see morals deriving not from nature itself but human reaction to nature. To me, morals require human existence, just as a brain requires a body. If we went extinct tomorrow, would our convictions/belief sets remain, or would they die with us?

By nature, I mean the nature of reality. And of any given entity. A man's morality cannot exist without the man, as moral codes apply only to actions of will, and without the man, there is no actor, thus no morality. Also, a man's morality depends on his nature... by that I mean the nature of him as a particular entity... not his "instincts". This does not mean that his morality is subjective--dependent on his opinion--as reality, and the effects of the man's actions, are both objective--they remain the same regardless of his opinions of them.

Just because the coin cannot exist if the coin does not exist, does not mean that if the coin does exist, it can be other than a coin.

[Worm of Despite]

one person sees it at an angle, another sees the front, the person holding it up sees the back. Which is correct?

How about all of them? I don't see your point. All they are "seeing" is photons reflected off of a particular surface. Their perspective does not alter the coin's nature. The coin is the coin.

My thesis was, basically: every object is subject to each individual's interpretation, regardless of what the object actually is. Therefore, I don't think it'd be a stretch to say that morals can also be constructed relative to one's view of things, such that one culture’s morals may be laughed upon by another culture. Religious beliefs, views on punishment, genocide, etc.

People have a willingness to create a social universe, and outside of that social universe nothing else exists. If we all agreed that coins were purple and talkative, then that would be a fact, as unalterable as one's belief in God. It doesn't matter if someone knew the truth, because that person would be labeled a crazy minority-of-one. There would be measures to bring that person into "belief," such as persuasion and later forceful coercion.

Perhaps I'm reading you totally wrong. Maybe we even agree and don't know it! But I'm not smart enough to stop blathering, so here goes: let's say you're locked in a dark closet your whole life, instead of how you were really raised. Do you think you'd still be the same person, even if reality is objective? All I'm saying is social factors are involved--location, time, family, friends, etc. Sure, I could break it down and say: "well those don't exist without reality," and that's true. But how would that fact help me in any practical manner? It's like saying, "I'm teaching English class because I can breath."

At this point, I can only reiterate myself (or eat baby kittens). Might just have to do the ol' agree-to-disagree.