Thread: Morality and its source

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So, for cannibals in New Guinea, I suppose it was entirely morally acceptable to kill and eat your enemies. No problemo.

I started a thread sometime ago addressing the practice of honor killing. In some cultures, notably Muslim this is an accepted solution to a perceived problem. In India and China killing female newborns was, and maybe still is, not uncommon. Although it may be illegal is not thought to be immoral ...... rather it is 'practical' AFAIK. In South America up until recently they didn't prosecute men who threw acid in an unfaithful spouses face.

Here in the USA many of us believe that capital punishment is moral. Across the world we are looked upon as barbaric. So morality is where you find it and as forum member Jende Industries said about honing, the answer to what it is will often be "it depends".

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

So morality is where you find it

This presupposes that dogma defines morality. It may *claim* to define morality, but as I interpret the OP, whether this is true or not is part of the question, not part of the answer.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

This presupposes that dogma defines morality. It may *claim* to define morality, but as I interpret the OP, whether this is true or not is part of the question, not part of the answer.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?