Morality and its source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Absolutely part of the question. Which came first, the cultural influences or the intuitive ? Maybe it is a chicken and egg question. :shrug:

---

I lean towards an evolutionary explanation. There is a bunch of literature on the "altruistic instinct" -- and I see "altruism" as a fancy word for the golden rule.

I have not explored this very deeply and am only aware of the mentioned literature from a Google search I just did looking (unsuccessfully) for a book I read many years ago that did discuss this.

The book discussed computerized experiments involving the "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" that showed an evolutionary advantage to altruism. This depended on the "iterated" aspect -- expecting to deal with the same "player" again in the future. This may even hint at a partial answer to why different cultures tend to be less altruistic towards each other than they are internally.

EDIT: As to "chicken and egg". Perhaps it's like tool use. We have the built in ability to both use and invent tools but culture gives each generation a leg up on technique. Maybe we are just not as good at this with morality as we are with tools.

UPDATE: Found the book I was looking for: The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02122-2 (1984).

I see an updated version is available on Amazon: Amazon.com: The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition (9780465005642): Robert Axelrod: Books (along with a few other Axelrod books).

There is a Wikipedia article: The Evolution of Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, I have two cents. Here they are.

I'm of the opinion that there is a constant, absolute morality, but I don't believe it is a universal morality of the cosmos. The universe doesn't much care what we do on our ball of mud.

I believe morality derives from our chromosomal imperative to survive as a species. Being frail, squishy creatures, it's to our advantage to work together in societies. We can't effectively work together without empathy, rules, standards, and so on, but, within that framework, there's a tremendous amount of wiggle room.

Good is whatever helps our chromosomes to survive. Evil is whatever hinders our chromosomes. All the other seemingly shifting morals are really societal mores which are highly fluid and situational. They're sometimes relevant, often times not.

Or, I could be wrong. :)

EDIT - Oh, I see TexasBob posted above in much the same vein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AZrider

Okay, I have two cents. Here they are.

I'm of the opinion that there is a constant, absolute morality, but I don't believe it is a universal morality of the cosmos. The universe doesn't much care what we do on our ball of mud.

I believe morality derives from our chromosomal imperative to survive as a species. Being frail, squishy creatures, it's to our advantage to work together in societies. We can't effectively work together without empathy, rules, standards, and so on, but, within that framework, there's a tremendous amount of wiggle room.

Good is whatever helps our chromosomes to survive. Evil is whatever hinders our chromosomes. All the other seemingly shifting morals are really societal mores which are highly fluid and situational. They're sometimes relevant, often times not.

Or, I could be wrong. :)

---

Reasonable POV, I think.

Question: How much of that is understood instinctively and how much must be learned culturally?

What TexasBob and AZrider are postulating makes a lot of sense to me. Whether there is a supernatural component, i.e. religious or spiritual, we won't know until we, as Hamlet says, 'leave this mortal coil' ..... then we will either know or there won't be anything to know. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AZrider

Being frail, squishy creatures, it's to our advantage to work together in societies.

---

You have to ask yourself why, if we humans are only frail squishy creatures, have we survived thus far, dominated all the other life on earth and even managed to travel off the planet. It is the power of our minds that set us apart from other living creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Reasonable POV, I think.

Question: How much of that is understood instinctually and how much must be learned culturally?

---

That's a very good question.

I don't know.

For example, empathy may be an instinctual behavior but it can be nurtured or thwarted by cultural influences. The instinct for altruism can likely also be heavily influenced by culture. A primary instincts seems to be to observe and mimic the behaviors of the members of one's society.

I'm inclined to say that culture (society) can, largely trump any instinctive sense of morality but that for a culture to sustain itself any length of time, it must mostly adhere to that basic morality.

If falls back question of the chicken and the egg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshwizard

You have to ask yourself why, if we humans are only frail squishy creatures, have we survived thus far, dominated all the other life on earth and even managed to travel off the planet. It is the power of our minds that set us apart from other living creatures.

---

Well, sure, that's certainly true; the power of our minds sets us apart. But, we've also survived because of our ability to cooperate and act together in large groups. Without that cooperation, none of the technology (space going or otherwise) which we use to dominate all other life would exist.

The power of my mind would not protect this frail and squishy creature in a toe to toe with a polar bear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

I lean towards an evolutionary explanation. There is a bunch of literature on the "altruistic instinct" -- and I see "altruism" as a fancy word for the golden rule.

I have not explored this very deeply and am only aware of the mentioned literature from a Google search I just did looking (unsuccessfully) for a book I read many years ago that did discuss this.

The book discussed computerized experiments involving the "Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma" that showed an evolutionary advantage to altruism. This depended on the "iterated" aspect -- expecting to deal with the same "player" again in the future. This may even hint at a partial answer to why different cultures tend to be less altruistic towards each other than they are internally.

---

Altruism. hmm.

To put your self out for someone expecting nothing in return.

There's not a great deal of evidence to suggests true altruism exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism. hmm.

To put your self out for someone expecting nothing in return.

There's not a great deal of evidence to suggests true altruism exists.

---

Maybe your just not looking hard enough. Or maybe you just live in a bad neighborhood -- physically or metaphorically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Maybe your just not looking hard enough. Or maybe you just live in a bad neighborhood -- physically or metaphorically.

---

no, I studied it and there just isn't much to prove it happens.

It would seem that when ever someone helps someone else, they do it to make them feel better or as a kind of karma thing, as a result of a past favor or in anticipation of a future one.

True altruism, gaining nothing, expecting nothing, and accepting some cost as a result of helping someone, doesn't seem to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

no, I studied it and there just isn't much to prove it happens.

It would seem that when ever someone helps someone else, they do it to make them feel better or as a kind of karma thing, as a result of a past favor or in anticipation of a future one.

True altruism, gaining nothing, expecting nothing, and accepting some cost as a result of helping someone, doesn't seem to exist.

---

Thanks for the free lesson!

So is the general consensus that we do have a sense of right or wrong as infants or that we learn from society or religion how we should act or what is right or wrong?

I was enlightened in the womb. I gained consciousness in the 2nd trimester.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JokiJo

So is the general consensus that we do have a sense of right or wrong as infants or that we learn from society or religion how we should act or what is right or wrong?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Thanks for the free lesson!

---

Very interesting subject I think. There are some quite interesting evolutionary theories if that's what you're into.

Couple of the other more interesting ones are group selection and selfish mutualism.

The former is where you do something purely for the groups bennefit. There is a type of bird where members asses population size and if it's too large they restrain their clutch size, if it's too small they make it as large as possible. This helps them because if it was too large their young and them selves would suffer, too small and they risk getting smaller and smaller and going extinct.

Selfish mutualism is where a group at together so as they all gain a little. I guess a lottery syndicate is an example, but birds flocking in the winter to keep warm or a shoal of fish for saftey from predators.

Interestingly enough, these are accepted as altruistic acts even though there is some induvidual gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Thanks for the free lesson!

---

seemingly at some cost to him, and expecting nothing and gaining nothing in return :hmmm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AZrider

The power of my mind would not protect this frail and squishy creature in a toe to toe with a polar bear!

---

In a way it does, by giving you the sense to realise that there are better ways to deal with a polar bear than to take it on with your bare hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welshwizard

In a way it does, by giving you the sense to realise that there are better ways to deal with a polar bear than to take it on with your bare hands.

---

Especially the sense to prepare a better way ahead of time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging. This doesn't mean that your actions cannot be based on the situation or your level of understanding or maturity.

---

This is the constant and consistency I speak of, "The Foundation". I used the term "source" I believe. The "anchor" may be another way to say it.

I wish to address a couple of posts but will have to do this later when I get home tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

My father always said that locks are to keep the honest people out.

---

I really butchered my fathers quote. I must've been half asleep.
What he actually said was "locks are only meant to keep honest people honest."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism. hmm.

To put your self out for someone expecting nothing in return.

There's not a great deal of evidence to suggests true altruism exists.

---

Just because it is not very common does not mean that it does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Just because it is not very common does not mean that it does not exist.

---

no, but I'm not even sure it's possible to not gain in some way by helping someone else. Even if you don't intend to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Just because it is not very common does not mean that it does not exist.

---

But if you are being altruistic because it makes you feel good or because it satisfies an inner need or hunger for justice or rightness... is it still selfless? Or is it merely a different aspect of selfishness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

But if you are being altruistic because it makes you feel good or because it satisfies an inner need or hunger for justice or rightness... is it still selfless? Or is it merely a different aspect of selfishness?

---

If you define altruism in a way that is self-contradictory then you need a better definition.

This is one of those "you know it when you see it" things. Mother Teresa was not just being selfish in a clever way. If we have trouble categorizing her behavior that's our shortcoming not a proof of her character flaw. If we can't come up with something better we could define altruism to mean "whatever Mother Teresa would do".

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi .... there are many examples of others we admire because they devoted their lives to helping others. I haven't a clue what there innermost motives were and maybe it is the way they were wired from birth ? I can't discount their example though because I cannot identify with that sort of selflessness.

Years ago I read a book that came highly recommended to distance runners. It is called "The Stress of Life" by Dr. Hans Selye. He was the foremost expert on stress at that time. The last chapter of the book was for the layman. He postulated that the best way to have a life with as little stress as possible with those around you was to generate gratitude in them by altrusitic behaviour on your part.

We are multi faceted creatures. I was grieving after a death in the family and it had to ask myself was I grieving for myself... i.e. for my loss of a loved one or for the loved one ? She was "off the hook" so to speak and let's hope in a better place. The ambiguity of life. Sometimes I don't know what my own motives really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

If you define altruism in a way that is self-contradictory then you need a better definition.

This is one of those "you know it when you see it" things. Mother Teresa was not just being selfish in a clever way. If we have trouble categorizing her behavior that's our shortcoming not a proof of her character flaw. If we can't come up with something better we could define altruism to mean "whatever Mother Teresa would do".

---

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

---

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.


Not that I'm the one making that argument! I've met people like her, and they are truly remarkable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.


Not that I'm the one making that argument! I've met people like her, and they are truly remarkable.

---

IIRC she admitted that she came to doubt the existence of God ? I suppose the misery she saw around her in her daily life.stimulated the doubt to a larger extent than with a person not exposed to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

Altruism is helping someone, at a cost to you, and gaining nor expecting anything in return.

I don't have trouble categorizing her behavior, she helped people because she enjoyed it and she would have been morally compromised if she hadn't.

If you can't find a behavior that fits, that doesn't mean there is a flaw in the definition.

---

Your leading me in circles. First you say it's impossible or nonexistant ("I'm not even sure it's possible to not gain in some way by helping someone else. Even if you don't intend to." and "no, I studied it and there just isn't much to prove it happens." and "There's not a great deal of evidence to suggests true altruism exists.").

Now you say Mother Teresa makes the grade so you must believe it's possible and does exist, which is where I came in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I believe thet argument may be made that she was altruistic because she was interested in her salvation.

---

That's entirely possible, I don't know the first thing about her history.

And I'm not leading you in circles, I do not believe for one second that Mother Teresa was altruistic. I think what ever she did must have made her feel good. That was her gain.

Like I said, it's impossible not to gain in some way. The respect many still have for her, is something else she gained, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregs656

it's impossible not to gain in some way

---

Would you say that taking the path of least possible gain could qualify as what we generally think of as an altruistic act?

Since it's impossible to not gain in some way, it goes without saying that the act would be for the benefit of all in some even if unknown way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Would you say that taking the path of least possible gain could qualify as what we generally think of as an altruistic act?

---

Personally I reckon the closest we come to a truly altruistic act are the split second decisions, the kind of help that is over in seconds or minutes and changes someones life for ever.

Ultimately, though, what's wrong with just saying something was the right thing to do? Or just plain old vanilla helpful?

I don't understand why people need to believe altruism exists. It doesn't make us better or worse people, I kind of prefer the idea that every one who helps me feels good about it, that's why people keep helping each other.