Where do morals come from?

[iNow]

Gee. You're so smart.

 

I have my moments. No need to be so prickly.

[Paralith]

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.

 

Glider is not considered a resident psychology expert for nothing. But I'm sure he would be willing to provide you with some sources from the primary literature. I would do some searches myself, but I'm low on free time these days and I'm sure he could find them faster than I could.

 

Philosophers hold that evolution has not been able to explain morals so I'm not easily convinced that they're wrong.

 

I'd caution you against making arguments based on authority. What evidence are these philosophers offering that supports such an assertion?

 

I have a tendacy to think that morals are learned behave, i.e. nuture rather than nature.

 

If there is one thing behavioral ecologists have learned, it's that almost no complex human behavior is solely nurture or nature - most have a healthy complement of both. Our genes point us in a certain, reproductively advantageous direction, but they also give us flexibility - a flexibility that has been key in H. sapien's success in colonizing a huge variety of environments the world over. Thus, no matter where a human infant comes into the world, it has the biologically-based tools to learn the specific skills it needs in the environment it has found itself from its social group, and to learn them well.

 

I'm wondering if evolutionary social behaviour and is the same thing as morals.

 

Not necessarily. But your original question was to the origin of morals; not if human-designed laws are the same as evolved behaviors. One distinction behavioral ecologists often need to make clear is that of the natural fallacy; is does not equal ought. In other words, just because a certain behavior is natural doesn't mean it is right. It is natural for primate males to kill the infants of others, but that doesn't mean we should be lenient on step fathers who murder their adopted children. Ultimately we have to decide what is right; biology can inform us about our background and our tendencies (and biology is what made us desire to be moral in the first place), but the rest is up to us.

[Pete]

I'd caution you against making arguments based on authority. What evidence are these philosophers offering that supports such an assertion?

At this point all I'm doing is learning. I'm a very long way from making any sort of arguement and to be honest I plan on stearing clear of discussions like this. I'm only interested in the subject for my own contempation of morality.

 

And I didn't say that I'd accept it or use it in an arguement. I said that if someone claimed otherwise I would not be easily convinced. There's a difference. Think about it though. I don't personally know anyone on this forum. At best they might mention if they have a degree or are a scientist etc. But I really don't know anybody. So, for example, why would I believe you over, say, a book I'm reading on philospophy? In this case I don't know you but I actually know the author of the philosophy book I'm reading. Would you have me make an arguement using the material in this thread? I wouldn't because I don't simply believe something because a stranger told me so.

 

Authority is a valid source of knowledge. I understand that it is a word that has a bad ring to it for many people.

 

Its not worth my time to take each assertion an authority makes and trace it back to its source(s). I have no intention of becomming an expert in this field so I have no choice but to accept authority on this matter. However I plan on reading more about this in the future and I'll compare it with comments by other authorities and make a decsion later in life. I'm not in any kind of hurry. I have plenty of time to contemplate morality.

If there is one thing behavioral ecologists have learned, it's that almost no complex human behavior is solely nurture or nature - most have a healthy complement of both.

Good point.

Not necessarily. But your original question was to the origin of morals; not if human-designed laws are the same as evolved behaviors.

All that means is that the way I asked my question was not the way I should have asked it. After all when one is asking a question they are doing so from a standpoint of ignorance. Sometimes the answer to your question is that you didn't ask the right question.

 

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.

When I first read this I, for some odd reason, interpreted it very differently and it seemed quite rude. I know that you're not rude from other threads so I went back to reread this and see that I misinterpreted it. I appologize for my own rude responses.

 

As far as why I started this - I didn't explicitly want to state the purpose because that kind of thing can derail a discussion. When someone seemed to be assuming I was heading somewhere totally different I mentioned the purpose for posting this. Your response I'll let you in on another secret. That was obvious. seemed rather sarcastic to me and I very much dislike sarcasm.

 

Pete

Edited September 2, 2008 by Pete

[Sisyphus]

Pete, a few things:

 

"Philosophers" don't say any one thing. Philosophy has been evolving for thousands of years, and there is always disagreement, and at any given time the number of people who call themselves philosophers greatly outnumber those who actually are. If one says that "humans don't have instincts" or something, then they're either misinformed or just a hack. A lot of times people will have a preconceived notion about something, which they then try to find arguments to justify. This is not philosophy, it's sophistry. Philosophy examines the facts as they are, and derives what conclusions it can from them. The facts here are that the evidence points towards a particular narrative of the evolution and development of moral impulses and ideas. Only a weak mind would think that makes morality meaningless, and only a dishonest one would ignore the facts in order to maintain its meaning.

 

As for the curtness you encounter, you have to understand that this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yes, it was obvious to me and probably most what the real question in your mind was, because this kind of thing comes up so often. Any regular poster at a place called "science forums" is going to be used to people coming in with religiously motivated rants, and many of them start out with innocent (but transparent) "questions" that they think they already know the answers to. That might not be you, but they look like you. People are annoyed because arguing with religion is a waste of time, and from experience they suspect you of being more close-minded than your questions imply.

 

Anyway, is your question answered? Even if you don't accept it, you have seen that "an atheist" can indeed "account for morality," yes?

[D H]

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

I'll let you in on a secret: I'm an agnostic. I am not, as Sisyphus impugned, "coming in with religiously motivated rants". Nowhere have I said that God is real. On the other hand, our collective belief in God over the course of human history has been very real and has been very influential on our thoughts and behaviors. To say that religion played no role in the development of human moral thinking is, to me, ludicrous. The two concepts are deeply intertwined. It is quite possible to study religious thinking from a historical, scientific perspective and do so without getting tangled up in religion itself.

[Sisyphus]

I'll let you in on a secret: I'm an agnostic. I am not, as Sisyphus impugned, "coming in with religiously motivated rants". Nowhere have I said that God is real. On the other hand, our collective belief in God over the course of human history has been very real and has been very influential on our thoughts and behaviors. To say that religion played no role in the development of human moral thinking is, to me, ludicrous. The two concepts are deeply intertwined. It is quite possible to study religious thinking from a historical, scientific perspective and do so without getting tangled up in religion itself.

 

Wait, what? I wasn't accusing any particular person of anything. I agree with everything you've said, and in fact said much the same thing earlier in the thread. To talk about religion is inevitable, but having a religious discussion is pointless.

[Pete]

Yes, it was obvious to me and probably most what the real question in your mind was, because this kind of thing comes up so often. ....

That's why I have never and will never discuss religion in a science forum. People are too ready to jump to conclusions which don't apply to me. People are also to ready to stereotype theists like myself.

Anyway, is your question answered? Even if you don't accept it, you have seen that "an atheist" can indeed "account for morality," yes?

I didn't assume that they couldn't in the first place. Why would you assume otherwise? I asked because I never thought about this before and assumed that there was a psychological/biological/sociological reason.

 

Pete

[Paralith]

Pete, and D H, and anyone else who feels singled out - don't take it personally. I know that's easier said than done sometimes, but it is often very frustrating for those of us who have been asked to defend these positions time and time again by one person after another. It's not even necessarily related to religion - we can just as likely be asked such questions by someone not motivated by religion at all, but someone who, for example, thinks he/she can disprove natural selection.

 

Because of this, it's hard for some of us to be as calm as we should be in conversations like this, and I know I am prone to that as well. To us it's rather akin to having one person after another approach you and say, "But are you sure the earth isn't flat? Because I think/heard that..." After the 28th person, it's hard to resist rolling your eyes and sighing, even if that person is just genuinely unknowledgeable and seeking answers and well deserving of patience.

 

But that being said, hopefully we can move past this bump, have everyone try to be a little less prickly, and concentrate and any more specific questions that Pete might have.

[foodchain]

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

 

 

 

I have no idea.

 

Morality is subjective, as in I don’t think you can find some absolute standard morality for all human culture, more so in time. I would also like to suggest that you cant really trace fully the evolution of morality as I don’t know if it leaves fossils per say, plus the cultural primitive was never found or had been "evolved" over.

 

I don’t really know what you can segregate into morality, I mean is morality something individual, is it group based, is it from a single family all the way up to say a dynasty? You cant forget that are evolutionary history more so in close proximity is from a social organism.

 

The question you ask has serious requirements to understand the human being not only at the individual level, but all the way up of course to a population level. Being morality as is seems to be a more prominent issue at a social level I would say that evolution of such probably does not have to be something strictly inherent to our genome. What I mean by this is somewhat simple I think, if you take language the ability for a human to use what would be called human language such as English or Spanish is rooted biologically, but the exact form of such obviously is not guaranteed in every detail, such as at birth a human could only develop to speak say one particular language. Also people can get angry at things other people could find amusing, so ultimately you deal with a lot of plasticity with such an issue.

 

So in closing my best guess which pretty much goes along with this thread I would think is such shares in not only our nature, such as biologically being a homo sapien, but the nurture that is found in such. I mean for the life of me I cant understand how country music continues to survive. Also for what its worth I could not see anything moral in making some particular version of it absolute to the point in which all other life different from such should perish, how could that be moral?

[Mr Skeptic]

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

 

iNow pretty much told the story, and Glider had some nice add-ons. Humans have many instincts (eg blinking), but can learn to overcome most or even all of them. Many things related to behavior or morality are at least in part hard-wired: empathy, a desire to be approved of by society, a concept of fairness/equality, hunger, thirst, sexual desire, boredom, curiosity. Part of morality is taught by the parents and society.

 

Consider that much of morality consists of behaviors that strenthen the group, even if at some expense from the individual. Almost always, the benefit to the group is greater than the cost to the individual. This means that evoulution would favor groups with genetic predispostions to work together. Also, societies which teach behaviors that strenthen the group would tend to outlast those that do not, even with the same genes. So it is no surprise that there is genetically based group behavior and socially taught group behavior, aka morality.

 

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.

 

Brain damage would fit the bill, as would ceratin drugs, or hormone imbalance. Or being wounded, hungry, thirsty, horny, etc. People tend to want their morals and behavior to match, and so tend to modify one or the other, or both, if there is a conflict of morals and behavior.

 

I can't concieve of of any society in which stealing or murder would be considered acceptable behaviour.

 

I've heard of a tribe with no concept of ownership. If someone doesn't own something, it can't be stolen. A less extreme example is that some American indians did not consider land to be a posession that could be owned.

 

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.

 

Generally, killing for self-defence, or by accident, or when ordered to do so by your government, is not considered murder. Murdering a foreigner is generally considered bad, but killing him in battle might not be.

[iNow]

I've heard of a tribe with no concept of ownership. If someone doesn't own something, it can't be stolen. A less extreme example is that some American indians did not consider land to be a posession that could be owned.

 

I've also been thinking about the Spartans, and how they killed the weak within their own group, and it was moral to do so since they had to defend themselves so ferociously against others.

 

I'm sure there are other examples, and really any single one example that is accurate on this point defeats the argument (from incredulity).

 

 

 

Generally, killing for self-defence, or by accident, or when ordered to do so by your government, is not considered murder. Murdering a foreigner is generally considered bad, but killing him in battle might not be.

Not exactly any hard and fast objective defining criteria with that, though, are there. It will forever reside in the realm of the subjective, and hence does not make a valid parameter in scientific research until better defined.

[dichotomy]

I’m going along with the tribe that states morals are rooted in nature and group survival. It seems screamingly obvious to me. If a group fails to cooperate and build a stronger group, then the group opens itself up to a greater likelihood of extinction. So the nurture component of say, the10 commandments and 7 virtues, stem from nature, and do augment the contemporary society’s survival success rate. Nothing mystical to see here folks…just ever fascinating reality.

 

Also, flight, fight and freeze are all instinctive. We have no control over these reactions in extreme situations (except if druged or brain injured/modified), but I'm willing to hear an opposing view.

[Mr Skeptic]

Perhaps it would be educational to ask where theists get their morals from?

[Pete]

Pete, and D H, and anyone else who feels singled out - don't take it personally. I know that's easier said than done sometimes, but it is often very frustrating for those of us who have been asked to defend these positions time and time again by one person after another.

Its best not to make assumptions about another peoples motives when they are asking a question, unless, of course, you know them. The only concern we should have is what a person actually posts. While you frequent this forum and see people asking the same questions over and over you have to keep in mind that they're probably asking the question for the first time. Many forums and newsgroups have an FAQs for this very reason.

Because of this, it's hard for some of us to be as calm as we should be in conversations like this, and I know I am prone to that as well.

I hear that. I too had that problem for a long time until I learned how to deal with it. Do they start insulting you or become condescending or something like that? When I see the same person posting the same content over and over I simply don't read them after a certain point. Its easy for me to do this with newsgroups since the newsreader I use has a "Block Sender" function.

 

I think that the wise thing to do is to assume that the person asking the question doesn't have ulterior motives until it is demonstrated otherwise.

 

After all each of us has areas in which we don't have first hand knowledge or expertise. In my case my expertise is in physics. In your case its biology.

 

After all you wouldn't want me to roll my eyes if you asked why, in light of the expression E = mc², photons have no mass even though they have energy, would you? This particular question comes up quite frequently in relativity forums. But I know that, more often than not, the person asking the question is honestly trying to learn something.

To us it's rather akin to having one person after another approach you and say, "But are you sure the earth isn't flat? Because I think/heard that..." After the 28th person, it's hard to resist rolling your eyes and sighing, even if that person is just genuinely unknowledgeable and seeking answers and well deserving of patience.

I used to be that way until I learned what was actually causing me to roll my eyes in the first place. After I learned that I learned how to deal with it. Now when I get tired of answering a particular question I merely ignore it and let someone else have a whack at it.

But that being said, hopefully we can move past this bump, have everyone try to be a little less prickly, and concentrate and any more specific questions that Pete might have.

Most certainly. As I mentioned above, the first few responses were consistent with what I had assumed in the first place and in that sense I got my answer at that time.

 

That said, this is an interesting topic to me and as such I like discussing it. So even though the question was answered I am very interested in the topic of discussion. After all this is a discussion forum, not a QA forum per se.

 

I think this religion thing started because I responded to a comment someone made with the response The Bible doesn't even consider that murder. I phrased it that way to emphasize that the source I was referring to is taken to be the source of morals for many people. I think this may be how suspicions about religion intentions came up. But I don't think its wise to jump to any conclusions about a persons motives simply by the question they asked. I've always wondered how evolution accounts for morals even when I was an agnostic. So there was never a good reason to assume it had to do with religion, even if it actually was in this case.

Morality is subjective' date=' as in I don’t think you can find some absolute standard morality for all human culture, more so in time.

[/quote']

What led you to this conclusion? What you say is not obvious at all. I highly disagree with it in fact.

 

Are you familiar with the story of Phineas P. Gage? I learned his story when I was studying psychology in college. This man worked with explosives. There was an accident one day in which an explosion occurred unexpectedly and caused a three and a half foot long, one inch and a quarter in diameter, steel rod to be shot through his head. It went in and out but the man actually survived. In fact he stood up and could walk with some help and was able to talk normally. He recovered from the injury with one exception - he could no longer make moral and ethical decisions. This remained a puzzle for some time. This case, in part, led scientists to hypothesize that there is a part of the brain that one might call the "Moral Center." I can't see how that could change between cultures.

 

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

 

Pete

[iNow]

Hey Pete,

 

Considering your post above, you might find this article interesting:

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?ref=science

the findings, appearing online yesterday, in the journal Nature, confirm the central role of the damaged region, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is thought to give rise to social emotions, like compassion.

 

Previous studies showed that this region was active during moral decision making, and that damage to it and neighboring areas from severe dementia affected moral judgments. The new study seals the case by demonstrating that a very specific kind of emotion-based judgment is altered when the region is offline. In extreme circumstances, people with the injury will even endorse suffocating an infant if that would save more lives.

 

“I think it’s very convincing now that there are at least two systems working when we make moral judgments,” said Joshua Greene, a psychologist at Harvard who was not involved in the study. “There’s an emotional system that depends on this specific part of the brain, and another system that performs more utilitarian cost-benefit analyses which in these people is clearly intact.”

 

 

 

Since that was a news media piece, and I'm always apprehensive to trust the reporting done in the news regarding scientific studies (even well respected sources), I tend to find it best to read the study itself... The one on which they are reporting.

 

In this case, here's the link to the article described in the story above:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05631.html

Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements

 

[john5746]

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

 

You need to comprehend a little better, this ain't particle physics being discussed.

 

I will use an analogy at the risk of more confusion. Our brain gives us the ability for language. This ability evolved over time. While all languages may have some similarities, you cannot claim that I speak English because of evolution. If I never talked to another human being, I would probably just grunt.

 

So it is with morality. We are born with a brain that will grow and allow us the capacity for morality. Different external conditions will have an effect on the final result of the brain itself and the specific morals we adopt. Living in a kill or be killed world will result in a much different morality than a peaceful one.

 

As for how it came to be, you already have answers. Groups that played like a team beat out groups that played as individuals over time.

[Mr Skeptic]

You may also be interested in Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. Due to a faulty version of a protein that recycles DNA nucleotides, these people seem to have an inverted sense of good and bad (not just morality). They will bite their lips, tongues, and fingers to the point of chewing them off, gouge out their face with a sharp implement, eat food they despise, refuse things they want, be nasty to the people they like most, swear liberally, hit people for no reason, etc. All from as little as a single wrong letter in their entire genome.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by foodchain

Morality is subjective, as in I don’t think you can find some absolute standard morality for all human culture, more so in time.

 

What led you to this conclusion? What you say is not obvious at all. I highly disagree with it in fact.

There are different levels of morals; there are those that the species have evolved and which are pretty much universal and quite basic (these can be 'overwritten' by subsequent socially acquired ethics), and there are cultural morals. These are learned. There are three main approaches to ethics:

 

Relativism: Maintains that what is right or wrong depends on the particular culture concerned. What is right in one society may be wrong in another, this view argues, and so no objective standards exist by which a culture may be judged right or wrong.

 

Objectivism: Claims that there are objective standards of right and wrong which can be discovered and which apply to everyone equally.

 

Subjectivism: States that all moral standards are subjective matters of taste or opinion

 

Foodchain expresses a relativistic approach to morals whilst you appear to take an objectivistic view. Real-world observation supports the relativistic view (in practice). Evidence for this is that morals both differ between cultures and change over time. A good example is the current social attitude towards paedophilia, compared to 400-500 years ago (in Britain) when girls of 13 were of marriageable age and it was perfectly acceptable for them to marry men in their 30s or 40s. In some cultures, that is still acceptable and practiced.

 

Are you familiar with the story of Phineas P. Gage? I learned his story when I was studying psychology in college. This man worked with explosives. There was an accident one day in which an explosion occurred unexpectedly and caused a three and a half foot long, one inch and a quarter in diameter, steel rod to be shot through his head. It went in and out but the man actually survived. In fact he stood up and could walk with some help and was able to talk normally. He recovered from the injury with one exception - he could no longer make moral and ethical decisions. This remained a puzzle for some time. This case, in part, led scientists to hypothesize that there is a part of the brain that one might call the "Moral Center." I can't see how that could change between cultures.

 

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

 

Pete

I am familiar with the story of Phineas Gage. There is a lot of myth involved in that story as it is usually told, including the precise path of the tamping rod through the prefrontal areas. This was only ever estimated from the damage to the skull, but there was significant deformation of the skull which made it almost impossible to tell accurately (e.g. studies of the skull show that the entry hole is too narrow to accomodate the rod. A vertical fracture shows there must have been a 'hingeing' movement of the skull, which makes a precise mapping of the path very difficult). This is discussed in some detail in the current issue of The Psychologist (the monthly journal of the British Psychological Society).

 

In any event, It seems unlikely that such trauma and the subsequent decades of post-hoc story telling could result in a precise suggestion of a 'moral centre' of the brain being taken out in Gage's case.

 

However, there are more modern conditions that produce the behaviour changes commonly reported for Gage. Many stroke patients who suffer prefrontal lesions suffer changes in personality. They show imparement of social judgement and (acceptable) response selection. They can become agressive and confrontational, but mainly they become impulsive and just 'do' what most other would just think, i.e. they act without the benefit of an internal 'social editor'. So, an attractive nurse is quite likely to find herself being physically molested by such patients, where other male patients might just imagine it. This condition is known by nurses as being 'frontal' as in "watch that guy, he's frontal!"

 

It would seem that, as with most brain functions, socially acceptable behaviour is a function of circuitry rather than a dedicated centre. It would involve the hypothalamus (a/w motivated behaviours; sex, feeding etc.), the amygdala (a/w automatice processing of environment for emotionally valenced stimuli), anterior cingulate gyrus (a/w response selection), posterior cingulate and hippocampus (a/w memory) and feeds from all these (and other) areas are brought together in large cortical assocation areas. Damage to any one of these regions, or the larger assocation areas would result in altered social behaviour (assuming the damage was survivable).

 

By now, I have completely forgotten where I was going with this, but I've done too much to delete it all. Suffice to say that (in order), humans do have instincts. Much of human behaviour is instinctive. Morals (ethics), in their most basic form, are instinctive and evolved from behaviours (or behavioural drives) that were adaptive and provided an advantage to animals living in social groups.

 

Modern societal morals overwrite these basic instinctive drives, but in most cases they do not extinguish them. Rather, modern societal morals are adaptations of our instinctive predispositions. This is why, although morals differ between cultures and change over time, certain basic, universal traits remain relatively stable. The abhorrence of killing family or 'in-group' members, for example.

 

Of course, one can always find examples of behaviours that are contrary to our basic instinctive morality, but where these are carried out (in the absence of any psychopathology), they are usually accompanied by a great deal of cognitive gymnastics in order to justify them. For example, under Islamic law, it is illegal to kill a virgin (whatever her [it usually tends to be a 'her'] crime). In order to carry out a death sentence, the woman must first be raped (usually by the prison guards) after which, no longer being pure, it's fine to kill her.

 

In this exercise, the 'pure' woman is valued in Islam so, almost by definition, a virgin is 'ingroup'. After she has been defiled however, she is 'outgroup' and they don't count for much. That last statement applies universally, not just to muslims. For example, the same principle applies to the extremist Christian pro-life movement. The sanctity of life they preach applies only to the ingroup. Doctors performing abortions are not ingroup and so the sanctity that pro-lifers preach does not apply to them (which is how they self-justify the fact that killing these doctors has to be at least as bad as aborting foetuses).

 

I don't want to get into religious debate here, suffice it to say that in order to get people to behave in a way contrary to their instinctive morality, it takes the logic of something like religion in order to define and shift the lines of ingroup - outgroup identity in such a way as makes it possible. Whilst not alone in this, religion is expert in it and does have a lot to answer for.

 

I strongly recommend the book 'Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)' (Tavris, C & Aronson, E. (2007). Harcourt, Inc.) for an excellent insight into self-rationalisation and justification.

[iNow]

It would be nearly impossible for me to add to what Glider has already said, so I will just share this interesting post which I read this morning and leave it at that.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/09/the_right_side_of_fair_play.php

 

Human beings seem to be strongly motivated by a social sense of justice. Those that play fairly are rewarded, and those that don't, like you friend here, are punished. Now, Daria Knoch and colleagues at the University of Zurich have discovered that this desire for justice is influenced by a small part of the brain - the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or DLPFC - which constantly suppresses our more selfish urges.

 

Brain imaging studies have shown that this region is strongly activated when people play the Ultimatum Game, and especially when they receive unfair offers.The DLPFC is implicated in dealing with conflicting thought processes and allows us to plan our behaviour in order to reach a goal. Knoch and her fellow researchers believed that the DLPFC may allow a person to weigh up their desire for financial gain with their sense of fair play.<

more at the link

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would seem that, as with most brain functions, socially acceptable behaviour is a function of circuitry rather than a dedicated centre. It would involve the hypothalamus (a/w motivated behaviours; sex, feeding etc.), the amygdala (a/w automatice processing of environment for emotionally valenced stimuli), anterior cingulate gyrus (a/w response selection), posterior cingulate and hippocampus (a/w memory) and feeds from all these (and other) areas are brought together in large cortical assocation areas. Damage to any one of these regions, or the larger assocation areas would result in altered social behaviour (assuming the damage was survivable).

 

Repeated for importance.

[foodchain]

 

Are you familiar with the story of Phineas P. Gage? Pete

 

Yes and we even got to watch a video!

 

Point being is far more then that has been understood by fields such as neuropsychology which on a regular at a hospital might be used to try to help someone who has had brain trauma from say a car accident. What I mean by moral subjectivity is simply that, if morality was absolute at a biological level such would be evident? I mean what is the morality of a lamprey, it’s a lamprey, it behaves like a lamprey and does lamprey things, this is a far cry of difference from say the blue man group or simply playing with a yo-yo though both are ultimately based on the ability of a organism to behave in such a way. I am not equating say the ability to feel “anger” with morality, or flight or fight. I am talking about morality in common convention such as either being pro-life or pro-choice, there is no absolute moral answer to such a question is there? I mean fear is biologically hardwired into the brain, into many brains of many different types of organisms, yet what can cause fear is not absolute, I am scared to death of hights to an irrational level, yet some people can sky dive…

 

TO say morality is absolute you must define what you mean? Personally I do not think human morality for all that it is can be defined to such a precision past a possible behavior of an organism that is supported ultimately by its biology, much like a computer being able to run differing operating systems or files.

 

Again I would just like to use the language example. A homo sapien has biological facilities for language, it can use human language but is not limited to just one language. Even if Stephen Pinker is right about language and the brain it still does not impose a simple absolute unchanging single language a human being can develop to use therefore its not absolute.

 

I mean here is an example, if you were locked in a room and the only way out was to kill say ten people with a blunt axe would you do it or die? What morality would judge your actions and what morality would judge the ultimate variance in such response? Do you think 100% of everyone would say you were right or wrong for any decision you made? How can you say its absolute? That’s like saying modern American morality such as the U.S constitution is intrinsically coded in our DNA or RNA or some patriotic spliceosome, it just does not add up to me, I also for that matter disagree that microwave over construction techniques are somehow coded into our DNA or the fact that our DNA up to our brain and whole organ systems somehow make people predisposed to like GZA’s lyrical style.

[iNow]

Perhaps it would be educational to ask where theists get their morals from?

 

This actually turns out to be an excellent question. Theism is a very poor source of morality. All we need to do is examine it critically for a few moments.

 

Theism is generally based on false or untestable hypotheses, and it is from those hypotheses which it draws firm conclusions. Quite frequently, though, those conclusions are way off the mark. Killing homosexuals or blowing yourself up in a crowded market are obvious examples, but let's also look at calls to stone your wife if she's not a virgin on your wedding night, or the vast tribal massacres not only sactioned by god, but downright demanded by him. Even in the new testament the treatment of slaves indicates clearly how these texts should not be used by any sane person as a source of morality. They mention how it's not only okay to have slaves, but it's also okay to beat them as long as you don't hurt their eyes or teeth. Well, I sure am glad theists have THAT pearl of ancient wisdom on which to base their behaviors and outlooks.

 

Theistic guidelines are based on Iron age tribal nonsense, and we can do far better. In various non-Christian religions, it takes the opinion of two women to equal that of one man. A woman cannot leave the house without her husband unless she is fully covered up, and she must stick to dark alleys so as not to be seen or interact with others. She cannot look anyone in the eye, nor speak, even if the intent of her words is to find help for someone who is in need. However could theists survive without such wisdom, I really can't say.

 

As for christianity, all one must do is look to books like Leviticus or Romans to see the pettiness and unpallatable instructions being provided. Most theists, however, choose to reject these teachings. If their theism and teachings from these books are the source of their morality, then how would they know to reject those clearly obscene instructions in various parts of said books? Somehow they know that those instructions are not moral, and that they should be rejected. Well, to me, it sure would appear that their sense of morality is coming from somewhere other than their theism since they are rejecting instructions based on that theism. The point being, they are picking and choosing which stories they are going to live by, so clearly it cannot be the stories themselves informing their choices.

 

I ask... name one moral action performed or one moral statement made by a theist which could not equally be performed or stated by a non-believer, a non-theist, or an athiest. Just one. Take your time. No rush.

 

All I am asking for is one example.

 

 

Now, name one immoral action performed or one immoral comment made by a theist expressly on the basis of their theism, stemming directly from the beliefs into which they've been indoctrinated. You've already thought of 3 or 4, and will have thought of more by the end of the day.

 

 

Morality does not come from theism. We are predisposed toward certain behaviors and those behaviors are shaped as we develop in our specific environment and culture. This predisposition is evidenced by numerous studies, some showing how even 3 year olds will try to comfort other children who were sad, in tears, or distressed in some way. On top of this, monkeys and other apes understand concepts of fairness and equality, as demonstrated time and again in experiment after experiment.

 

Morality doesn't need rigid structures. It stems from our evolved condition being pack animals. The dominant animal in the group sets the behaviors and those that choose not to follow them get ostracized from the group. This decreases their likelihood of survival, and also drastically decreases their reproductive potential. This logic even applies to wolf packs.

 

Morality comes from something far more profound than some fear of punishment from a trite, petty cosmic dictator, something much more beautiful. I find it much more inspiring to think that one would help the poor, or feed the hungry, or vaccinate the children of the 3rd world, or help the elderly or a young child just because they want to... just because it's the right thing to do. It limits the heroics and honorability of those acts if someone is doing it simply due to some fear of punishment, fears taught to them based on some stories written in some book thousands of years ago.... stories from which they somehow manage to pick and choose and decide which to follow and which to ignore.

 

On the other hand, the practices of theism and the beliefs which generally accompany it far too often makes people feel justified in committing disgusting and discriminatory acts, and, if you ask me, that's really no morality at all.

[Pete]

You need to comprehend a little better,

That's the dumbest thing I've read in this forum in a long time. My comprehension is just fine thanks. Although your response to my post makes me question yours.

..this ain't particle physics being discussed.

No shit Sherlock. What exactly was your point? That a particle physicists must try to dumb down before they read your comments? Or perhaps you think that particle physicists don't understand the scinetific method as well as an evolutionist/psychologist? Let me guess; You think that being a particle physicists does not mean I'm qualify to understand what people have explained to me here? Whatever your point was it must be a very poor one.

So it is with morality. We are born with a brain that will grow and allow us the capacity for morality. Different external conditions will have an effect on the final result of the brain itself and the specific morals we adopt. Living in a kill or be killed world will result in a much different morality than a peaceful one.

I started this thread to investigate the reasons behind the existance of our morals. As iNow said

We are definitely hard wired for certain responses, such as empathy, and there exists a strong argument that this served as an evolutionary advantage.

Glider seems to agree

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.

Since you ignored what I said in my last post I'll remind you of it

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

While what the scientists said in the articles I read might be wrong, i.e. we might not actually have a moral center, it doesn't mean that I don't comprehend what I'm reading.

 

By the way, at the very best, someone being wrong is not due to a lack of comprehension. It just means that they're wrong. Sheesh!

[Glider]

Since you ignored what I said in my last post I'll remind you of it

My understanding of what I've read in this thread is that its the moral center of the brain which was what evolved.

 

In fact I think that the more appropriate question would regard how the moral center of the brain came to be.

If we assume a dedicated neurological 'centre for morality', then it is likely to have come to be because it provided an advantage to the individuals that showed a propensity for 'moral' behaviour (in this case I mean behaviours supportive of, or at least not detrimental to other members of an ingroup), and thus provided an advantage to the group as a whole.

 

Basic motivated behaviours are the function of the hypothalamus (these are basic survival and reproductive behaviours). Groups of animals of the same species driven only by these basic drives would not do well as groups, as every other member represents competition for resources (except when breeding). However, where these basic drives are modulated, significant advantages can be gained.

 

Take meerkats as an example. Every individual has the basic hypothalamic drive to feed, and the females also have a basic drive to protect their young. Some individuals forgo the former in favour of the latter and act as nurse to a 'creche' of young, including the young of other females. This provides an advantage as it allows the others to forage more effectively, unhindered by their own young, whilst the vulnerable young are still being protected.

 

Each advantage, however small, increases the chances of successful reproduction. The more cooperative groups get to reproduce more and so the genetic propensity for these behaviours becomes reinforced with each generation.

 

These are evolutionary processes, and as such, one wouldn't expect to find 'morality' suddenly extant in all its glory. It would have come about incrementally, over time with each advantageous behaviour being passed on and built upon by successive generations.

 

It is not unreasonable to suppose that the origin of the meerkat's 'creche' instinct was something as small as one individual whose natural propensity to protect her young, through natural variation, was not confined solely to her own offspring, but extended to the young of other individuals (i.e. she would not have rebuffed the approach of the young of other females as so many other animals do). As noted, this would have provided an instant advantage to the group, freeing up other individuals for hunting and foraging whilst still providing protection for the young.

 

'Advantage' translates as increased probability of reproduction and successful raising of young. Thus, this particular behavioural variation would have a higher probability of being passed on, and so the advantage to the group would also be passed down through generations.

 

Natural variations in behaviour can be adaptive (providing advantage), maladaptive (providing disadvantage) or neutral (making no real difference). Maladaptive behaviours would be deselected by virtue of their decreasing the probability of successful reproduction. Adaptive behaviours would be selected for (and so increase in frequency in the overall population) simply by virtue of their increasing the probability of successful reproduction.

 

By selecting for these specific, advantageous variations in behaviour, the process is obviously selecting for the underlying neurological mechanisms that produce them. Thus, with each successful generation, the underlying neurological mechanisms that provide these advantages become reinforced within the population.

 

Modern meekats are renowned for their cooperative group behaviours. But these would have manifest incrementally over a very long time. Each slight adaptive variation in behaviour (and the concomitant slight neurological changes) increasing the group advantage and so being reinforced within the population; increasing in frequency and complexity down the generations.

[Pete]

If we assume a dedicated neurological 'centre for morality', then it is likely to have come to be because it provided an advantage to the individuals that showed a propensity for 'moral' behaviour (in this case I mean behaviours supportive of, or at least not detrimental to other members of an ingroup), and thus provided an advantage to the group as a whole.

My thoughts exactly. By the way, just because I've read that some scientists have postulated the existance of a moral center and I think that they had good reason to do so, it doesn't mean that I blindly accept it as God's given truth. It only means to me that it becomes a legitimate question for me to ask about and to inquire into.

 

Glider - Thank you so much for all the effort you put into this post. I'm swamped with work right now so I won't be able to absorb it all until later. I wanted to thank you for your effort so that you, and others who have contributed to this thread in a positive way, know that I truly appreciate your efforts.

 

Pete

[Glider]

My thoughts exactly. By the way, just because I've read that some scientists have postulated the existance of a moral center and I think that they had good reason to do so, it doesn't mean that I blindly accept it as God's given truth. It only means to me that it becomes a legitimate question for me to ask about and to inquire into.

There may well be a dedicated centre for 'moral behaviour' and the the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex seems a reasonable candidate.

 

My point about circuitry was simply that higher order areas modulating behaviour or perception tend not to be discrete functional units as such, but rather areas in which other, more basic information from a number of more basic and dedicated centres is integrated and modulated, a bit like a mixer board where information from more specific (dedicated) channels is mixed and modulated to provide a unified output that is different to the input from any particular channel. If damage occurs to any of the areas generating input (channels), the result would be a differrence in output. Thus, the output is a function of all the areas involved rather than any one discrete area.

 

In the case of the the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, there are feeds into this from a number of different areas: the thalamus, the basal ganglia, the hippocampus and the the orbitofrontal cortex as well as cortical association areas. In any case, dedicated centre or otherwise, the underlying processes driving the development of neurological structures associated with moral behaviour would be the same; natural variations that provided some advantage being selected for and so increasing in frequency within a population.

 

Glider - Thank you so much for all the effort you put into this post. I'm swamped with work right now so I won't be able to absorb it all until later. I wanted to thank you for your effort so that you, and others who have contributed to this thread in a positive way, know that I truly appreciate your efforts.

 

Pete

You're welcome.