Kevin's Watch

A recent topic in the TC forum brought this subject up again, and set me to thinking about one of my favourite debating points again. Essentially, the topic suggested that some form of morality is instinctual. That we are basically born knowing that some things are right, and some things are wrong.

Now clearly, this is a point of view I strongly disagree with. It's my firmly held opinion that we gain our sense of "morality" through socialisation. Through the imparting of societies values on the impressionable minds of children. Not necessarily all deliberately either.

Anyway, I thought I'd just throw this out for discussion, and see what we come up with. Is morality "natural"? Is it automatic? Are there some things that are "against" nature? What do we think/

--Avatar

I certainly don't think morality is natural, but I'm not so sure that it's pure "nurture" either.

What about "Natural nurture"? Something happens to you in the natural course of your life and you find that it hurts you, so you call it a bad thing that shouldn't be done because it hurts. Obviously you wouldn't know it hurt you from birth, you'd have to find out, but also society hasn't taught you it's wrong, natural experience did.

Natural nurture.

It's only seen as 'morality' because of our upbringing. In truth it originated as a type of survival tactic. Humanity was a social creature - we needed to work together to survive. To work together, we had to behave in certain ways towards one another. The rules of society began as the ways we kept these social groups functioning. We couldn't work together if we couldn't trust each other, and it just happened - people understood they shouldn't be greedy, violent, etc. As we became more conscious of our society and culture, we started to take control of these ways of functioning, and made them into rules, laws, 'morality'.
I can't say whether it would be instinctual or just so fundamental a part of our upbringing that we don't notice it. Surely at least part of it would be survival instinct, though - once you know that your life depends on interacting with others, treating those others certain ways is natural.

Murrin wrote:It's only seen as 'morality' because of our upbringing. In truth it originated as a type of survival tactic. Humanity was a social creature - we needed to work together to survive. To work together, we had to behave in certain ways towards one another. The rules of society began as the ways we kept these social groups functioning. We couldn't work together if we couldn't trust each other, and it just happened - people understood they shouldn't be greedy, violent, etc. As we became more conscious of our society and culture, we started to take control of these ways of functioning, and made them into rules, laws, 'morality'.
I can't say whether it would be instinctual or just so fundamental a part of our upbringing that we don't notice it. Surely at least part of it would be survival instinct, though - once you know that your life depends on interacting with others, treating those others certain ways is natural.

You pretty much summed up what I was going to say.

Interesting points. In a sense, I agree with Murrin. Co-operation was the great stabiliser for that aggression that was required for survival. However, I don't see it as instinctual at all. For a start, we have to be taught that it serves us to co-operate, and even then, it's not something that all people believe in equally.

I see Nathan's point as well though. Some things you learn to classify as "wrong" through experience, but I'm not sure I would call those "moral" issues.

Rather, I thnk of them as practicalities, like putting your hand on a stove plate. Do you have an example of a "moral" issue that works as you desribe?

--Avatar

hmmm...still ruminating on this one. Still, if it is true that we simply create (or are taught) our morality, it would then be true that humans do seem to have a deep-set desire to HAVE moral rules...and I think that's just as important, or perhaps moreso.

Hmm, an interesting one. To be honest, I've been waiting for somebody to claim that we are born with some sort of moral sense, but so far, it hasn't happened.

While it seems as though humans have the sort of desire you mentioned, my initial thoughts are that first, it may be a product of centuries, if not millenia, of social conditioning, and second that it's simply a desire for rules of some sort. Not necessarily ones that we would consider "moral". Any sort of rules that were put in place would eventually be believed to be "moral".

--A

Avatar wrote:Hmm, an interesting one. To be honest, I've been waiting for somebody to claim that we are born with some sort of moral sense, but so far, it hasn't happened.

While it seems as though humans have the sort of desire you mentioned, my initial thoughts are that first, it may be a product of centuries, if not millenia, of social conditioning, and second that it's simply a desire for rules of some sort. Not necessarily ones that we would consider "moral". Any sort of rules that were put in place would eventually be believed to be "moral".

--A

But because our brains produce these thoughts that give rise to morals and society, and because our brains are natural - the product of evolution - one can argue that morals are natural and serve a function of survival.

Absolutley agreed. What I'm contesting though is the type of morals. While I agree with your point, I think that anything that became inculcated in society as a desireable value would be able to have that label, even if it would not be something we percieve as moral today.

That the existence of "morals" serev a survival function is undoubted. But they serve such a function only in the context of society as a whole. Far earlier products of evolution were not concerned with "social survival", but individual survival. That successful agression I talked about earlier.

Those evolved traits are far more fundamental than the "socially" evolved ones. First came survival of the individual, then came co-operation, then social survival.

--Avatar

Avatar wrote:Absolutley agreed. What I'm contesting though is the type of morals. While I agree with your point, I think that anything that became inculcated in society as a desireable value would be able to have that label, even if it would not be something we percieve as moral today.

That the existence of "morals" serev a survival function is undoubted. But they serve such a function only in the context of society as a whole. Far earlier products of evolution were not concerned with "social survival", but individual survival. That successful agression I talked about earlier.

Those evolved traits are far more fundamental than the "socially" evolved ones. First came survival of the individual, then came co-operation, then social survival.

--Avatar

Yes, but social survival us only adhered to because in the long run it ensures individual survival.

Right. But in order to ensure the continuance of that social survival, (which despite its advantages in ensuring individual survival, remained in opposition to those original inclinations), it became obvious to the members of those proto-societies (where the hell is Kinslaughterer when you need him?) that that they would have to promote certain "values" to ensure that the society remianed viable.

Some of these values obviously included not killing members of your own society, not taking their possessions, etc. Voila! The beginning of socialisation, and the instilling of "moral values" for the benefit of society.

No society=no values that have to be instilled. (Nobody to teach you that there should be values, and why. Nobody to teach them to you=no moral values. Reversion to those original survival drives instead. Take what you need to survive. By any means necessary.

--Avatar

BUT, evidence for the morals being natural would be evident if they appeared in a post-catastrophic society. And strong evidence is that similar morals appear in cultures across the world - even in ones isolated from western influence throughout history (i.e. aboriginal).

I can see where you are coming from, but I think many morals/values spring from individual survival - no murder or stealing, that sort of thing.

Loremaster wrote:BUT, evidence for the morals being natural would be evident if they appeared in a post-catastrophic society.

I disagree. In a post-catastrophic society, the "morals" would be left over from the existing society. The only effective way to test how natural "morals" are from an individuals point of view would be to allow a child to grow up in an environment totally devoid of human contact and learning. If, after growing up like that, the adult who resulted still thought it would be wrong to kill somebody, then I'd accept that morality is inherent.

If anybody thinks that this would happen, consider the so-called "feral" children who have made news at various times in history. Were they possessed of values of generosity, compassion, understanding and sharing before being subjected to the socilaisation that I think is vital in order to instill those values?

Loremaster wrote:And strong evidence is that similar morals appear in cultures across the world - even in ones isolated from western influence throughout history (i.e. aboriginal).

Similar societal morals, yes, absolutely. Because any society that intends to exist successfully must have similar rules pertaining to the inhabitants thereof.

Loremaster wrote:I can see where you are coming from, but I think many morals/values spring from individual survival - no murder or stealing, that sort of thing.

Again, I think that they arise from society itself, not from individuals. They were formulated by people who wanted the increased chance of group survival. Who, for whatever reasons, thought it would be valuable to preserve any given society.

--Avatar

But group survival = better odds of individual survival. Therefore, it is in the interests of the individual to support the system. Remember, we are selfish organisms.

If anybody thinks that this would happen, consider the so-called "feral" children who have made news at various times in history. Were they possessed of values of generosity, compassion, understanding and sharing before being subjected to the socilaisation that I think is vital in order to instill those values?

I am aware of studies pertaining to these children. As far as I know, the children lacked communication skills and were unaware of social rules. But their problems with social mores probably were more reflective of social-distancing than the rules being unnatural.

Similar societal morals, yes, absolutely. Because any society that intends to exist successfully must have similar rules pertaining to the inhabitants thereof.

This may be circular reasoning.

Loremaster wrote:But group survival = better odds of individual survival. Therefore, it is in the interests of the individual to support the system. Remember, we are selfish organisms.

It is in the interests of the individual, certainly. And we are, without doubt, selfish organisms. The reason that the values have prevailed is exactly because they do contribute to survival within a group.

Loremaster wrote:I am aware of studies pertaining to these children. As far as I know, the children lacked communication skills and were unaware of social rules. But their problems with social mores probably were more reflective of social-distancing than the rules being unnatural.

Not so. They didn't possess the social mores, because they had no society to impart them. If the mores had been "natural" or inherent, they would have "discovered" them for themselves, without the need for society to teach them to them. In fact, your familiarty with the subject makes it easier to prove my point.

The entire foundation of the notion that morality is natural, or inherent, lies in exactly that: That they would have come up with them for themselves, had this been the case. The very fact that they did not follow these social rules proves that they are rules put in place by society. Living in the "natural" world, without the "benefits" of society, they reverted to the "natural" rules that predate out attempt to live in a social environment.

I'm not saying that these rules are wrong, quite the contrary. Only that they are not inherent in people. That for them to be present, the child has to be taught that these are acceptable behaviours, and those are not. Without the social model to pass these "rules" on, there would be no rules like that.

Similar societal morals, yes, absolutely. Because any society that intends to exist successfully must have similar rules pertaining to the inhabitants thereof.

This may be circular reasoning.[/quote]

Not sure I understand why you say that. ?

--Avatar

Good points. I think it may be a mixture of the two - societal and individual. However, I think we respect laws because they resonate within us. The fact that wild people don't revert to outright rape, murder, torture and stealing (and most animals don't, either) is supporting evidence.

Circular reasoning: evidence for society working successfully is shown by the fact that the system works for individual. That's like saying evidence for the system is given by the evidence that the system exists. Or maybe the otherway around; it's evidence for inherent social mores?

Loremaster wrote:However, I think we respect laws because they resonate within us.

Or because we recognise them as being in our own self-interest? Or because we fear the consequences of not obeying them?

Loremaster wrote:The fact that wild people don't revert to outright rape, murder, torture and stealing (and most animals don't, either) is supporting evidence.

Hmm, I think this could be disputed in terms of torture and murder at the least, perhaps even rape. But don't forget that even "wild" people exist in some form of society, however primitive. And under those primitive societies, it only counted as murder if it was somebody within your own tribe. There was no rape, because traditionally women had no say in the matter, and I'm sure that theft occurred, even if not commonly.

Animals frequently kill things, often in a most horrific manner. Don't know if you've ever seen footage of chimps hunting monkeys, but its incredibly brutal, and seems to even be done simply for fun sometimes.

Loremaster wrote:Circular reasoning: evidence for society working successfully is shown by the fact that the system works for individual. That's like saying evidence for the system is given by the evidence that the system exists. Or maybe the otherway around; it's evidence for inherent social mores?

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but perhaps you misunderstood what I meant. (Or rather, I wasn't clear enough in my statement.)

What I was saying was that the existence of similar morals across a variety of societies and cultures can be explained by the fact that any society requires its Members to behave in a certain way, if that society is to survive. For example, if your society doesn't prohibit the killing of other members thereof, then chances are, it won't last long. Common values simply points to common problems, not inherent morality.

--Avatar

I did state 'most animals'. I am aware that animals can be violent. But the animals that are social tend to behave similarly and do not accept breaches of conduct or abuses (murder, rape, stealing, etc).

I still disagree with your last point. We choose to live within a society that has acceptable (to us) rules or morals. That said, people will support that society. Therefore, society exists for us. It benefits because we support it. That is why there are similar morals - because certain 'natural demands' are met.

Loremaster wrote:I did state 'most animals'. I am aware that animals can be violent. But the animals that are social tend to behave similarly and do not accept breaches of conduct or abuses (murder, rape, stealing, etc)

Do not accept? Or do not attempt? Society doesn't accept breaches of its rules. People still attempt them though.

Loremaster wrote:...there are similar morals - because certain 'natural demands' are met.

Sure. But that is my point. those natural demands are the demands that any society has because of the way that people tend to act. Each society has those demands. To meet those demands, similar morals have to come into existence. The demands are created by peoples natural tendencies, which are similar regardless of culture or society.

--A

Avatar wrote:Do not accept? Or do not attempt? Society doesn't accept breaches of its rules. People still attempt them though.

??? I think you just backed my point.

Avatar wrote:The demands are created by peoples natural tendencies, which are similar regardless of culture or society.

And again.