Where do morals come from?

[Pete]

Does psychology have an explanation of how we came to have morals? I heard that humans don't have insticts, is that true? If so the morals can't come from instinct and if so, i.e. nature plays no role then all that seems be left is nurture. Thoughts?

 

Pete

Edited August 31, 2008 by Pete

[iNow]

Does psychology have an explanation of where we get our morals from?

They are primarily expressed in a context sensitive level of society. We are definitely hard wired for certain responses, such as empathy, and there exists a strong argument that this served as an evolutionary advantage. It's also been shown that MANY non-human primates and non-primates tend to express codes of behavior that keep their group/tribe/pack strong (I'd be glad to supply scores of references on these points, if needed, but presume it's accepted broadly enough by now that it can be stated as common knowledge).

 

The idea of the expression of morality, however, tends to differ across populations. Your question is difficult to answer primarily because I don't know what YOU mean when using the term "morality," but regardless of your definition, we "get morals from" the complex interplay of our genetics, our environment, and our experience.

 

 

I heard that humans don't have insticts, is that true?

Depends on what you mean by "instinct," but if animals have them, then so do we. For example, infant children know to avoid cliffs. Humans are animals, and have more in common with them than not.

 

 

If so the morals can't come from instinct and therefore have not evolved so what's left after instinct?

Since I questioned the validity of your premise, I would also advise caution moving too far toward a conclusion with this particular set of postulates as your foundation.

 

 

If we do have instincts then how did our instincts evolve to morals?

I tend to think of it as an emergent phenomenon of our evolution as pack animals. At some point millions of years ago, mammals who resided in trees started to evolve eyes toward the front of their skulls (as opposed to the sides). This helped us to resolve depth and to maneuver better through canopies and forests. However, with that relocation of the orbital sockets came a sacrifice, namely, we could no longer see behind us quite so well to evade predators (you'll notice that nearly every prey animal has eyes on the side of the skull that can see forward and backward, like rabbits and antelope).

 

What happened is that forward facing eyes with better acuity and resolution conferred greater advantage and the benefit of that outweighed the risk of greater suceptibility to predation. However, there were still human/apelike animals preyed upon because they couldn't see behind them.

 

So, social groups took on greater significance. We basically "borrowed" the eyes of the other animals around us to see if anything was approaching from behind to eat us. The group had greater strength than the individual, and those in groups out reproduced those off on their own. The ones in groups could very successfully watch out for each other collectively, using 30-50 sets of eyes instead of one, then sending a warning signal to greater whole as a predator approached the pack. We also see this pack related benefit against predation in animals like wilda beasts when drinking around crocodile infested waters. Wolves, in a different way, have also increased success by their pack/group behavior, becoming better hunters in teams.

 

The key point here is the significant advantage of group behavior, and the micro steps toward cultural and societal evolution these packs brought with them through the eons. The groups which had the best response to predation and the best methods of working together out reproduced those which did not. Also in these more successful groups, the animals that did not warn of predation were generally shunned and ostracized. The animal who was not a good hunter or who did not follow the leaders wishes and interests of the greater good was often rejected. The stronger groups were the ones with the same goals, and shared behavioral rule sets.

 

I have also argued here and elsewhere that this explains well the emergence of religion in humans, and how it has so dominated our historical landscape, but I'll leave it at that for right now in this thread.

 

Morals are commonly accepted modes of behavior that vary based on group. Some behaviors are SO common that they've even become a stronger part of our genetics (like a predisposition to empathy), while others are region/culture specific and are ONLY derived through instruction and social modelling (like not eating meat on friday or wearing a hijab).

 

 

Could there be a biological component to morals other than genetics?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example or two of a "biological component" that is not related to genetics?

Edited August 31, 2008 by iNow

[Psycho]

Morals are just what society deems to be acceptable as if you don't conform with them then society won't accept you and humans are inherently social animals who work in groups to succeed.

 

For example when trying to catch larger prey or out smart it, it is far easier for a group to do it and there for these traits to work together will be selected for due to greater survival rate.

 

Humans also do have instincts, however many are taught out of use due to them being little use, such as babies not eating sour food this is due to it usually being poisonous in the wild, however we are taught that things like lemons aren't so we ignore it.

[Paralith]

In the strictest definition, humans do not have instincts. An instinct is a strict, unchanging, behavioral rule that is instilled in an animal before it is born. Thus, some predatory birds instinctually avoid certain snakes that are poisonous. The very first time the individual ever sees that snake it knows to avoid it.

 

Humans are more flexible than that. We have predispositions more than we have instincts. For example, humans in general tend to be fearful of snakes and insects as there are many that can harm us - but also some that don't, and some that might actually be good to eat. So our genetic make up gives us room to learn what is safe and what isn't from our social group.

 

Similarly with morals, we likely have predispositions toward certain things, such as empathy, which iNow mentioned. But there is also flexibility for us to learn the specifics of how to express empathy and to whom, and we learn this as we grow up.

 

I would like to point out that many animals who do not have forward-facing eyes also rely on group living to protect from predation (just think of bird flocks and fish schools). More numbers is simply better in that respect, so I don't think the change in primate eyes is that directly related. Other than that, iNow told most of the story. When social living, especially cooperation with other members of the group, became important to our reproductive success, there was also a need to instill behavioral inclinations in us that favor and support such cooperation.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Take a look at the book The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

[ecoli]

IMO, a combination of interactions btw individuals and larger society shaping our behavior. More specifically, the enforcement of social cooperation in line with the interests of a social group rather than just individual achievement.

[Kyrisch]

In the strictest definition, humans do not have instincts. An instinct is a strict, unchanging, behavioral rule that is instilled in an animal before it is born. Thus, some predatory birds instinctually avoid certain snakes that are poisonous. The very first time the individual ever sees that snake it knows to avoid it.

 

We have the same instinctual fear of heights (see "an infant will avoid a cliff"). Even in the strictest definition, we have animal instincts.

[iNow]

I would like to point out that many animals who do not have forward-facing eyes also rely on group living to protect from predation (just think of bird flocks and fish schools). More numbers is simply better in that respect, so I don't think the change in primate eyes is that directly related.

You're absolutely correct, and I couldn't agree more. I mentioned the forward facing eyes concept to help tell my story, and to offer additional support and credibility to my point that social groupings played a huge role in human evolution. The eyes story shows one additional factor which led to our cooperative groups, which itself led to morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have the same instinctual fear of heights (see "an infant will avoid a cliff"). Even in the strictest definition, we have animal instincts.

Try not to be too quick to judge or disagree with her post, Kyrisch. Paralith knows FAR more than I do on this topic, and I have learned to respect her inputs and corrections here. I'd like to wait and see what she means by a "strict definition" of instinct though, as I've always been personally hazy on what is meant when people use the term "instinct."

 

Cheers.

[Glider]

An instinct (instinctive behaviour) is a hard-wired (automatic) behaviour that is universal to a species (i.e. it is innate and every member of the species is born with it). Humans have many instincts.

 

Some extinguish naturally after a time. For example, the innate ability to swim, which is universal to human neonates, dissapears after about 6 months and we have to learn all over again, unless the parents take the infant swimming before they reach 6 months, as some do, in which case the behavious is reinforced and the child never has to learn how to swim.

 

The same with the rooting instinct (except that most people don't actually learn that one again). The main difference with human instincts is that learning (particularly vicarious learning, which is another instinct and not unique to humans) can override most of them (e.g. fear of snakes, spiders and heights).

 

 

PS. The sociobiological approach suggests that morals that ethics, or a ‘sense of morality’ has evolved with us, evolving from social behaviours adventagious to group survival. This argument has been supported to a large extent by the observations of ethologists such as Desmond Morris and Konrad Z. Lorenz studying the behaviours of social animals.

 

An example of this is the observation that wolves engaged in dispute will threaten and even fight, but rarely will any damage be done. At the point of defeat, the subordinate will signal surrender through an evolved set of behaviours. The dominant wolf at this point becomes apparently unable to press his attack. This behaviour is said to have evolved to protect the pack from decimation through casualties of mating or pack rank disputes.

 

Other behaviours such as mutual grooming, mutual removal of parasites and mutual protection are commonly observed among social animals. Parental care, co-operative foraging/hunting and reciprocal kindness have all been observed and recorded within such social groups

Edited September 1, 2008 by Glider

[Pete]

The idea of the expression of morality, however, tends to differ across populations. Your question is difficult to answer primarily because I don't know what YOU mean when using the term "morality," but regardless of your definition, we "get morals from" the complex interplay of our genetics, our environment, and our experience.

I'm usually comfortable with the dictionary definition of most words I used. E.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Sounds good to me.

Depends on what you mean by "instinct," ..

See - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>

2 a: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

This also sounds good to me.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example or two of a "biological component" that is not related to genetics?

I have no idea how there could be a biological cause other than gentic. But since I'm not an expert in biology I was leaving room open for it just in case.

 

Pete

 

Morals are just what society deems to be acceptable as if you don't conform with them then society won't accept you and humans are inherently social animals who work in groups to succeed.

That would imply that moral differ from society to society. What about those behaviours which remain the same between all societies? I would hazard to guess that there is a common theme between all societies such that each must have that component in order to remain stable. E.g. I can't concieve of of any society in which stealing or murder would be considered acceptable behaviour.

 

Thanks

 

Pete

 

Take a look at the book The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer.

Thanks, I will!

 

Pete

[iNow]

That would imply that moral differ from society to society. What about those behaviours which remain the same between all societies? I would hazard to guess that there is a common theme between all societies such that each must have that component in order to remain stable. E.g. I can't concieve of of any society in which stealing or murder would be considered acceptable behaviour.

 

Think again. Tribal warfare. You steal and murder the "outsiders" to maximize your own groups success (and also steal from them). I think the most recent example at a large scale in modern times was slavery. Same with religion and trying to convert people. They "steal" sheeple from other flocks and murder in the name of their personal god. It's also a lot easier to take material possessions from external groups, despite the fact that such behavior would likely be suppressed within group.

 

As for your first few questions, I think these were already addressed by Paralith, Glider, and me. Please ask questions if you're not sure how or where.

[Pete]

You steal and murder the "outsiders" to maximize your own groups success (and also steal from them).

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I was speaking about murdering people from within your own "tribe" or stealing from the guy next door.

 

And I'm aware of what was answered. I hope it doesn't bother you that I choose to continue to discuss this?

[iNow]

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I was speaking about murdering people from within your own "tribe" or stealing from the guy next door.

I don't tend to take the bible into account when discussing science, unless it's about mental illness and culture. As a scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of clear definitions. When you said "murder," I assumed you meant any killing of any other. I didn't realize you'd wished to keep answers confined to killings within some arbitrary and local group, but that's fine.

 

(Although, we could certainly take this discussion down the interesting path of how we define ingroup versus outgroup, and whether any "non-self" life form could be classified as outgroup).

 

 

 

And I'm aware of what was answered. I hope it doesn't bother you that I choose to continue to discuss this?

 

Even if it did, do you really care?

[Sisyphus]

To the contrary, I think Pete's observation about "murder" is very important. I don't think he's appealing to the Bible as an authority so much as holding it up as a very important example in sociology, which it most certainly is. Morality as an instinctive adaptation to exist in social groups wouldn't be inherently generalized. It would only apply to those individuals considered to be in the same group, because that is where its advantage would lie, just as there is an advantage to literally dehumanize the "other." If killing a foreigner isn't "murder" in the Bible, then that supports that idea, as that would mean that generalizing morality to all humanity would be a more recent development, perhaps resulting from rationalizing and intellectually resolving contradictions in the inherent instinctive drive, as well as finding the advantages to larger and larger social groups. You can even see the change happening in the New Testament vs. the Old Testament, in the rise of humanism and egalitarianism in the Enlightenment, the slow decline of nationalism and the rise of an "international community," and even in movements such as "ethical Veganism."

[Psycho]

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder.

I fail too see the point, they still are murdering people giving it a different name doesn't make it any different.

 

Up to the 1920 in china kung fu "sport" fights sometimes ended in death it is just the way it was.

 

Society decides the rules and people accept them if they think they are reasonable, if not people break them such is the case with some drugs as well as many others.

 

If you see a 16 year old drinking in the park you aren't really going to call the police or do anything about it, if you see them beating some one up in the park you might, that is just a moral choice both are illegal due to society it is just whether or not they are condoned.

 

I don't think he's appealing to the Bible as an authority so much as holding it up as a very important example in sociology, which it most certainly is. Morality as an instinctive adaptation to exist in social groups wouldn't be inherently generalized. It would only apply to those individuals considered to be in the same group, because that is where its advantage would lie, just as there is an advantage to literally dehumanize the "other."

That is completely true and still happens today, ever seen a death count for iraq's on the TV yet you see one every time a solider from the "allied" force dies.

[D H]

Killing people from other tribes is not what I meant by murder. The Bible doesn't even consider that murder.

I fail too see the point, they still are murdering people giving it a different name doesn't make it any different.

You don't see the point because you are blinded by modern morality. Killing people in the name of God was not viewed as murder. In fact, it was the other way around: it was immoral in some circumstances not to kill! The Old Testament dictates that some people must be killed -- murderers, for example -- and also includes explicit instructions emanating from God on how to kill in warfare and who must be killed.

 

Note: I am not advocating a belief in the Judeo-Christian god in the above. I'm just relaying how those people saw things.

[Pete]

I don't tend to take the bible into account ...

I regret mentioning it. I was merely trying to get my point across that murdering and killing are not the same thing.

As a scientist, I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of clear definitions.

Absolutely. That's why I provided definitions for those other terms.

When you said "murder," I assumed you meant any killing of any other.

I'm not sure why you assumed that. We're clear now I assume?

I didn't realize you'd wished to keep answers confined to killings within some arbitrary and local group, but that's fine.

Even if it did, do you really care?

I asked because I've ran into people on the internet in other discussion forums who got upset when people continued to discuss a point when they believed that they had already answered that person's question. I don't know the people on this forum that well yet so I asked you if it would bother you so I know for future reference. I may have a great deal of respect for a person's knowledge and wisdom but that doesn't mean that I'd accept everything that they say. Okey dokey?

 

Pete

 

To the contrary, I think Pete's observation about "murder" is very important. I don't think he's appealing to the Bible as an authority so much as holding it up as a very important example in sociology, which it most certainly is. Morality as an instinctive adaptation to exist in social groups wouldn't be inherently generalized. It would only apply to those individuals considered to be in the same group, because that is where its advantage would lie, just as there is an advantage to literally dehumanize the "other."

Excellant point! Thank you!

You don't see the point because you are blinded by modern morality. Killing people in the name of God was not viewed as murder. In fact' date=' it was the other way around: it was immoral in some circumstances not to kill! The Old Testament dictates that some people must be killed -- murderers, for example -- and also includes explicit instructions emanating from God on how to kill in warfare and who must be killed.

[/quote']

Actually I was hoping to leave religion out of this. I was merely attempting to point out that murdering someone is something different than killing them. In Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. That's different than, say, killing the enemy in war, or to killing somone in self defense or the death penalty.

 

Pete

[Paralith]

My thanks to Kyrisch and Glider for the info on human instincts - I stand corrected. I would still maintain that the majority of adult human behavior, especially as pertains to morals, does not depend on such strict, fixed rules as instincts, as the exact details about what is and isn't moral changes so much depending on the society which you are born into.

 

And just a side note to Pete, the dictionary definition may not in fact do well enough in a scientific discussion. Unfortunately, many words that have a given meaning in every day language do not have the same meaning if used as scientific terminology. Using "instinct" as an example, the list you related from Merriam has three meanings for the word that are not the same; thus, to answer whether or not humans have instincts, you have to clarify which of those three meanings you were using. In common language the word instinct means something like a gut feeling, or intuition. In science an instinct is a specific type of behavior with specific characteristics.

[D H]

Actually I was hoping to leave religion out of this.

The original question is "where do morals come from?" Excluding religion from the discussion of this topic doesn't make much sense because religion historically played a big part in the development and promulgation of morals.

 

So far, nobody has advocated in this thread that religion is right or that religion is the root of all evil. We should be fine if we keep the discussion to the history of moral and religious thinking.

[iNow]

With my post, I tried to show that social grouping was the primary driver of morals, not relgion. Religion is an emergent property of some social groups, so it's wise not to put the cart before the horse.

[Pete]

The original question is "where do morals come from?" Excluding religion from the discussion of this topic doesn't make much sense because religion historically played a big part in the development and promulgation of morals.

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

[iNow]

I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious.

[Paralith]

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

 

Ah. You and many highly conservative persons with religious leanings.

 

I think it has mostly been stated by iNow, Glider, myself, and several others. To recap: during our evolution, it became reproductively advantageous to achieve high levels of cooperation within the social group. To encourage such cooperation, we evolved genetic leanings towards what would today be called "moral" behavior (some of which are also present in other group living animals). Cooperative groups are especially vulnerable to cheaters, or what you might call "immoral" individuals who take advantage of the others, and so we developed many biological and cultural defenses against such cheaters; the rise of religion is one of those defenses.

 

Additionally, this in-group cooperation is believed to have developed hand-in-hand with high out-group competition. Thus it makes adaptive sense to have a religious faith which condones or even encourages the killing of others, of competitors, but which frowns upon killing your neighbor, aka a member of your group. In modern times, many people are beginning to favor the idea that the entire global community should be considered members of our group, and that killing any of them is immoral.

[john5746]

Actually I was hoping to leave religion out of this. I was merely attempting to point out that murdering someone is something different than killing them. In Murder is the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. That's different than, say, killing the enemy in war, or to killing somone in self defense or the death penalty.

Pete

 

murder is an immoral killing, so yeah its hard to find a justification for murder. But trying to define murder and degrees of murder always provokes discussion. The bible does mention killing people within the group for working on the wrong day, etc and accepts slavery. There is no timeless objective list of morals that apply in all cultures in all situations

 

I'll let you in on a secret. I was trying to figure out how an atheist would account for the origin of morals.

 

As others have mentioned, we as social animals have evolved with certain capacities that allowed our ancestors to out compete other groups. We are also able to learn, so that we can enhance moral laws or attempt to enforce laws on people who may not have the tendencies the society desires.

[Pete]

I think it has mostly been stated by iNow, Glider, myself, and several others.

Yup. That was done in the first few posts and was consistent with what I had assumed in the first place. There were some things like giving your life to save someone elses that I'm trying to figure out how the details work. I keep hearing that humans don't have instincts so I felt it best to start a thread on this. Regarding instict - Is there an expert here who actually knows this as a fact? I'm not certain if what was stated above are facts or educated guesses. Philosophers hold that evolution has not been able to explain morals so I'm not easily convinced that they're wrong. I'm wondering if evolutionary social behaviour and is the same thing as morals. I have a tendacy to think that morals are learned behave, i.e. nuture rather than nature.

I'll have to think on this. I'll get back later.

 

Thank all of you for your help.

 

I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious.

Gee. You're so smart.