What is Morality? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

John Henry · 04-20-2003, 09:19 AM

What is morality?

As far as I understand it, it's something which has evolved with society so that pack animals, like us, can get along with each other.

If you're religious, it's fairly easy, just do what some dude tells you God wants you to do. Secular ethics are rather harder to codify. I used to think that not doing anything to harm anyone was enough, but in a crowded room, you can't step out of the way without standing on someone's toes.

There's always the idea that ethical behaviour means behaving in a way your neighbours find acceptable (Do unto others...), but there's always hypocrisy in those sort of systems. Umm... your turn.

sapiens · 04-20-2003, 09:32 AM

From my understanding of biological evolution, nothing ever evolves for the benefit of the group. Some aspects of morality may have evolved to facilitate reciprocal exchange, etc., but I think that those aspects evolved because of the benefit to the individual, to relatives, or more fundamentally, to the gene/gene complex which coded for that morality. (but maybe you weren't talking about biological evolution).

Personally, I don't think that secular ethics are any different from religious ethics. I think that religious ethics are an expression of our evolved morality (interacting with environmental context).

mike059 · 04-20-2003, 09:38 AM

Morality is doing what is right when it needs to be done. Ethics is knowing what is right.

ARTelevision · 04-20-2003, 09:39 AM

right - socially sanctioned conduct.
it's not as complicated as idealists would make it.

John Henry · 04-20-2003, 10:20 AM

Absolutely, but bear in mind that even today, most people have a very similar genome to their neighbours. So if people behave towards each other in a way which means people with similar genes survive, that genome will survive. If you have a village of people who are too busy killing each other to gather any food, their genome won't survive. Of course it's a bit more complex than that, because it's an emergent phenomenon, but it boils down to the same thing.

matteo101 · 04-20-2003, 10:26 AM

Morality are your values and ethics along with morals which guide you into making the right desisions and being a good person

yournamehere · 04-20-2003, 10:30 AM

Morality is not only the perception of right and wrong, but having the character to live it.

cdwonderful · 04-20-2003, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yournamehere
Morality is not only the perception of right and wrong, but having the character to live it.

could not have phrased it better

Sion · 04-20-2003, 11:33 AM

Morality (or ethics) is what you do (or dont do) when no one is looking.

4thTimeLucky · 04-20-2003, 12:07 PM

On the evolutionary biology/morality note, there was a good article in The Economist (March 2002) called "Deviation from the Mean" which talks about how altruism and sacrificing yourself to punish freeriders helps your genes to be transmitted and is therefore selected for in nature.

However humans have reached a post-evolutionary stage and a level of awareness that means we can't simply say that morality or ethics is biologically determined and therefore we only need to follow some sort of crude animalistic morality (live selfishly most of the time, but help defend the group when necessary and don't be seen to act out of line or we'll risk losing the group's protection).

Johnny Rotten · 04-20-2003, 12:14 PM

"Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun."

sapiens · 04-20-2003, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
... humans have reached a post-evolutionary stage and a level of awareness that means we can't simply say that morality or ethics is biologically determined and therefore we only need to follow some sort of crude animalistic morality (live selfishly most of the time, but help defend the group when necessary and don't be seen to act out of line or we'll risk losing the group's protection).

I don't think that suggesting that their are evolutionary underpinnings of our morality means that our ethics are biologically determined. Any morality is likely an interaction between evolved psychological mechanisms and the ecological conditions in which we live.

I also don't think that evolutionary underpinnings to morality suggest that our morality is some sort of "crude animalistic morality". First, humans are animals. We likely have an "animalistic morality". Second, evolution by natural selection can create and has created very complex structures. A structure created by natural selection need not be "crude".

I also don't think that humans have reached a "post-evolutionary stage". This reminds me of an idea called the "Great Chain of Being" with humans at the top and different "lower" animals at lower rungs on the chain. (Like we have somehow reached the top and are no longer subject to natural events like the rest of life on earth). This is a fallacy. There is no "post-evolutionary stage". While selection may be operating differently today than it did on our forebearers, it is surely still operating. The only way to stop it would be for everyone to stop reproducing.

P.S. 4thTimeLucky: thanks for the economist reference. I'll have to take a look. Also, thanks for the thought provoking post.

John Henry: Thanks for posting this thread. It has made me think.

i8one2 · 04-20-2003, 01:38 PM

perceived tolerances of a regulated behavior?

4thTimeLucky · 04-20-2003, 02:25 PM

This is what I love about TFP, nice people like sapiens who give friendly replies and constructive criticism and people like John Henry who come up with good threads. But enough of my sappiness, I have work to get back to so can't ramble long.

I really didn't give my last post much thought, just threw some ideas out there, but now they are there I might as well try and support the poor little things!

Post-evolutionary stage:
[NB: I can't paste quotes attractively, does anyone want to teach me how?]

From an interview with E.O.Wilson Biology Professor at Harvard and all round good guy: http://www.salon.com/people/conv/200...son/index.html

(Interviewer) Q. Are humans still evolving at all?

(Wilson) A. No, at least not in any directional sense. But we are changing quickly in another sense. We are changing into a more homogeneous gene pool -- a trend that in a few more centuries could result in a fairly similar human population. The genes that make up traditional racial differences will be more and more shared.

Super animals?

Yes we are, of course, still animals. But self-consciousness, abstract thought and advanced reasoning have clearly set us apart from all other species. We may not be better (the cockroach will probably have the last laugh) or at the top of tree, but in some ways we are certainly superior and with this superiority comes opportunities and (some may argue) responsibilities.

What are these?
Again, I'm just throwing out ideas here, but Wilson's phrasing above has inspired me.

We are no longer part of a directional evolutionary process that is out of our conscious control. We are the first animal to be able to set its own direction - be this mutual self-destruction or a 'better' world for our descedents.

This gives rise to the question (similar to John Henry's): "How should I/we live?".
Of course within us all there are still evolutionarily conditioned instincts, but at some point (I don't know if it was self-consciousness or something else) we 'overtook' evolution - we had free time on our hands and the mental horsepower to do things with it (e.g. art) that the simple rules of evolutionary biology and psychology were no longer controlling.
[I am trying here to acknowledge that our brains, no matter how powerful, will always be the product of / tied to a genetic-environmental background shaped by nature, whilst also saying that they can do something unique that, whilst not cutting these ties, can loosen them to the extent that they play only a minor role in our actions.]

Better rap it up.
So self-aware morality has emerged from animalistic insticts and we have asked ourselves the question "How should I live?".
... We may choose to fall back upon our behavioural roots and do what our instincts tell us, do what "feels right".
Meaning, amongst other things:
1) There is no coherent structure to our actions with which we can explain them to ourselves or to others.
2) There is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others.
3) If we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason.

... Or we may try and look for a moral structure. If we find one, we should be bloody relieved and proud of it.

I shall end with a quote from one of the most annoying men I know, Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, p.2)

"I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."

BlueBongo · 04-20-2003, 02:31 PM

I think that morality is basically personal decisions as to what is right and what is wrong.
As far as from a religious aspect I can't say that I have an opinion on the term of morality as I practice Taoism. I however don't think that people should say that their morality is based on their religion. If I am at a bar and decide to be a slut, I'm not going to say that God made me do it. I would say that I have low self-morals. (That was just an example though)

Morality being personal decisions that people make as to their personal limits, what is right and wrong, and sort of self rules. I would even go so far to say their is a direct relationship between Morality and one's self confidence as well.

But those are just my opinions.
Thanks for listening

4thTimeLucky · 04-20-2003, 02:34 PM

This is what I hate about TFP, realising that I have spent a good hour writing a single post and knowing from my own experience that long posts are usually quite dull and of limited interest to anyone but the poster.

BlueBongo · 04-20-2003, 02:39 PM

I wouldn't say that, 4th time. I read through a lot of long posts because for the most part they are interesting.

I feel the subject of morality is so broad though that what it means to every person is so unique. This is what I like about the TFP.. is that no matter who you are or what you say *for the most part* you can be yourself and give an opinion without being judged. I like hearing what people think about my spurratic answers to threads.... but that's just me.

4thTimeLucky · 04-20-2003, 02:46 PM

Thanks for that Blue.

I was only half serious. Writing them in itself is quite fun and if they make someone smile, think or learn something new (or reply with something that makes me do one of the above) then so much the better.
What concerns me is that one day I'll submit a post and realise that I've written a rant and become one of 'them'.

John Henry · 04-20-2003, 03:03 PM

That's good thinking 4th, don't beat yourself up.

I always think that a true Taoist, because of his passiveness, is incapable of secular wrongdoing. In my experience, people do wrong because they value their desires over those of others, which would not be so for a Taoist.

sapiens · 04-20-2003, 06:38 PM

It becomes very difficult to respond to posts once they start getting long and complicated. (So many contributors to the discussion= to much for me to keep in my head). 4thTimeLucky Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your post was definitely interesting and I think it appealed to more than just the poster (you). My post on the other hand...

I like E.O. Wilson. He began the field of human sociobiology (applying evolutionary theory to human behavior). He paid for it too. People called him a nazi. He had punks like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin in his department who smiled to his face and tore him apart in the press. Unfortunately, he hasn't written that much on the topic for a while. Regarding his comment about humans still evolving at all: In terms of changes in genetic frequencies, which in the biological sense, is evolution. We are evolving, even if it is to be similar. Regardless of that, it is impossible to say at any given time whether or not we are evolving in any direction. You would need to look further back than just a few generations. Also, evolution is not forward looking. It operates on the differential reproduction today. (If the differences between people have heritable components, and those differences influence reproduction, those genetic lines that reproduce more will survive and those that don't will fall into genetic oblivion). That being said, for Wilson to suggest that we are not evolving in any directional sense is academically irresponsible. He can't possibly know.

Regarding your comments about "Super Animals". I would argue that other animals have consciousness. Perhaps not the same consciousness as humans, but still consciousness. Also, E.O. Wilson was/is a big proponent of human behavior and psychology being influenced by our evolutionary past.

Regarding your comment about the evolutionary process being under our control: The evolutionary process is still for the most part out of our control. Some attempts have been made to consciously influence the evolutionary process. Most of them involve seriously infringing on personal liberty. The most notable attempt was the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Eugenicists wanted to sterilize the handicapped, immigrants, some races, some ethnic groups, etc. . We have certainly consciously influenced the evolution of other species through selective breeding. However, unless everyone is making conscious decisions about the genetic fitness of every trait in those with whom they reproduce, evolution is out of our conscious control.

Regardless of whether we are still evolving, our brains/minds have evolved in the same way that our bodies have evolved. So, we are not independent of our biology. (NOTE: This does NOT mean that we are genetically determined. Our minds are a product of the interaction of our evolved psychology and the environment in which we inhabit. Without our genes, we would not be. By the same token, without the environment, we would not be). Looking back at your post, 4thTimeLucky , you seem to agree. There are certainly many aspects of human psychology that are unique. (Our own consciousness might be one of them). However, I would argue that this does not mean that we are independent from evolution and psychology.

4thTimeLucky Regarding your wrap-up:

There is certainly a coherent structure to our actions. Psychologists study reliable patterns of behavior, so do biologists. If there was not a coherent structure to our actions we would not be able to have this discussion. (and that would be a bummer because I'm enjoying it).

You suggest that there is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others. I agree.

Individual morality is a personal choice. (Others have said the same in this thread -BlueBongo, etc.) An important idea to keep in mind when thinking about biology and morality is "Just because it's natural does not mean that it is (morally) right." There are many natural things that are not good (AIDS, viruses, cancers, etc.) There are many artificial things that are good (modern medicine, this forum, etc). Biology has little to say about the way people "should" behave. Though, I think that biology has a lot to say when it comes to explaining what people actually do.

You suggest that if we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason. I think that's up for debate. Maybe through reason imposed by power. Who knows?

Finally, how can Richard Dawkins be "one of the most annoying men you know"? Granted he is a very aggressive atheist and a bulldog for evolution, but he is a great writer.

Anyway, I have talked/written too much and I think I'm annoying my wife. I'm probably annoying others too. Somewhere along the line I stopped talking about morality. I should go. Thank you for the lively discussion.

clavus · 04-20-2003, 09:13 PM

"concentration measured by the number of moles of solute per liter of solvent."

Wait...that's "molarity." Oh well.

Macheath · 04-20-2003, 09:32 PM

I'd like to concur with what's being said about the cooperative element of evolution.

It seems like a LOT of the more recent research is suggesting a very strong element of altruism and group interest to natural selection. One things for sure, evolutionary theory nowdays is looking to be a long way from the old cutthroat ideas of "social darwinism".

World's King · 04-20-2003, 10:46 PM

Knowng the difference between right and wrong than telling it to go fuck itself...

In my opinion at least.

And this is me we're talking about.

4thTimeLucky · 04-21-2003, 01:27 AM

sapiens: thanks for the response.

On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is.

Maybe there is a disctinction I need to better draw here between the development of the 'raw human' and the development of humans in the social context.

A brief few comments on my the "rap up" (doh!):

Structure:
There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns. For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!)

Okay, so you finish this discussion and walk the dog. You see an old man being mugged, run over to help and fend of the attacker whilst suffering a broken nose. A passer by then asks you "Why did you do that?". To which you must reply "it felt right". "Why?". "It just did."
What you cannot say is "That mugger was doing a bad thing".
[I note that you concede this point, so I won;t labour it.]

However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)."

But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy.

Power and reason:
It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses.

Richard Dawkins:
A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said.

juanvaldes · 04-21-2003, 01:52 AM

Not fucking with other peoples shit.

Crimson · 04-21-2003, 02:06 AM

Morality is doing that which will not harm your fellow man

It blurs around the edges when you get things such as hurting one to save the pain of many but in the end it is about stopping people from feeling bad

sapiens · 04-21-2003, 01:49 PM

4thTimeLucky: thanks for the response.

On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is.

We certainly have a more complex behavioral repetoire than a giraffe, but I think that we are equally at the whim of evolution. I'm also not sure how much control we have over the fate of our species. We certainly have high perceived control. If we go extinct, does that mean that it was under our control? If any species goes extinct, how do we determine whether it was/was not under that species control?

There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns.

Is there any other sense?

For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!)

That doesn't bother me.

...However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)."

The person with a moreal structure could explain his actions as he sees them, but who's to say that any of us are honest or even accurate when describing our own motivation.

But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy.

I agree that neither route is easy. To sum up: When I suggested that biology may influence morality, I was not suggesting that morality is not a personal choice. I do think that morality is a personal choice. (I really don't want to get into a discussion of free will). I was suggesting that if you look at moral systems across time and across the cultures, you may find some biologically relevant patterns.

Power and reason: It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses.

I agree.

Richard Dawkins:
A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said.

We don't get to see much of Richard Dawkins on TV in the states.

Anyway, it has been a thought-provoking discussion, thanks.

sapiens · 04-27-2003, 08:01 AM

Didn't mean to kill the thread. Sorry.

Fly · 04-27-2003, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juanvaldes
Not fucking with other peoples shit.

yup....if it ain't yours,leave it the fuck alone.

you be nice to me and i'll be nice to you.

i'll be nice to you if you're nice to me.

*scratches someones back*

Modo · 04-27-2003, 09:29 AM

It's like trying to define Normal?Modo

The_Dude · 04-27-2003, 09:43 AM

i just do whatever i think is right at the moment, then think about it later on

gibber71 · 04-27-2003, 06:03 PM

Morality is hypocrisy. 2 people can accuse each other of lacking morals or of being immoral. Which is the moral person?

door · 04-27-2003, 06:50 PM

Morality, up till aroun 1840, only had 2 faces-

Divine Direction-

This is what the Jews and Christians, Muslims etc. followed. Most like to say that those belifes stem from the DO unto Others or even the Ten commandments etc. But that is BS, as if you look carefully, God always tells people to go against the rules sometimes. If you get the chance read "the grand Inquisitor on the nature of man" by Fydor Dostoyevsky. It shows how the state government is the same as this Divine Direction.

the other form was happyness: The greatest good for the greatest number or even, do whatever so long as it hurts no one. This stems from Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. They also belived happyness only came from argument and discorse.

But in the 1800's, Kantian philosophy was born. It states that Ethics is neither Gods direction nor Happyness priniciple. It is based on Freedom, and the Catagorical Imparitive. The CI is that something is permissible if it would still be so if it were universal. Like, lying is ok only if it is ok for everyone to lie all the time.

Get it?

As far as the purpose of Ethics? One of the early posts got it right. It is the same reason we have civilization to begin with.

Read Frued's Civilization and its Discontent- He states that man has built civilization and ethics by giving away freedom in exchange for protection.

It is so true...so true.

door · 04-27-2003, 06:53 PM

and morality is NOT hypocracy-

hypocracy is saying one thing is ok in one situation and not in another. The only way a critic would be hypocritical is if they told someone else they didn't have a right to judge someone else adn tell them what is right and wrong. So then telling someone they are a hypocrate, because they give others ethical prose is actually VERY hypocritical- Making you a, no offense, hypocrate.

Saying, "don't kill" while you HAVE killed isn't hypocritical. Unless of course you approve of killing only if you are the killer. Thats hypocritical also

So that would make you a hypocrate

gibber71 · 04-27-2003, 07:17 PM

If one state has the death penalty as law,and the people who inact that law believe it is morally correct,do they define morality?

Or in another state where the death penalty is against the law,and the people who enact that law believe it is morally correct,do they define morality?

I still see the hypocrisy

door · 04-28-2003, 07:07 AM

Do they define morality?

Yes they do. Morality is not an objective thing. It CAN be an objective thing. But it seems reasonable that its purpose dictates what it is, and its purpose, according to Freud, is to control society in a way that protects us.

Objective Morality, on the other hand, is not the laws of the land. It is simply what is TRUELY right and wrong. But I don't claim to know these. In fact, I don't know if they exist.

And I don't see how that arguments makes it any more hypocritical.

Do as I say, not as I do is only applicably hypocritical if what you do invloves non-guilt.

If everyman sins, can a man who knows his sin is wrong not say to you: "Do not sin!" without being a hypocrit? if not, no man has the right judge ANY man for ANY thing. THink of the world if that were the case?

gibber71 · 04-28-2003, 09:50 AM

If morality is subjective,then that means every person is capable of dictating and subscribing to what ever value system they think is moral.

If two peoples moral believes are the polar opposites,yet each person believes they are morally correct,which person is morally correct?

Is it possible to have two polar opposite opinions regarding the same topic that are morally correct?

If it is possible,then what is immorality?

You can call it subjective,I'm still calling it hypocrisy

duckznutz · 05-27-2003, 08:36 AM

Morality is simply what the 'mores' of a society (the majority) deem to be acceptable behaviour.

Its a shifting sand . . . . and various from Country to Country and from century to century. An abstract construct of 'rules' intended to control and restarin.

bender · 05-27-2003, 12:30 PM

duckznut, you've hit it right on the head morality has more to do
with geography then anything else.
It's what is considered correct in the area that you are in and that changes.

04-20-2003, 09:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	What is Morality? What is morality? As far as I understand it, it's something which has evolved with society so that pack animals, like us, can get along with each other. If you're religious, it's fairly easy, just do what some dude tells you God wants you to do. Secular ethics are rather harder to codify. I used to think that not doing anything to harm anyone was enough, but in a crowded room, you can't step out of the way without standing on someone's toes. There's always the idea that ethical behaviour means behaving in a way your neighbours find acceptable (Do unto others...), but there's always hypocrisy in those sort of systems. Umm... your turn. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

04-20-2003, 09:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	Re: What is Morality? From my understanding of biological evolution, nothing ever evolves for the benefit of the group. Some aspects of morality may have evolved to facilitate reciprocal exchange, etc., but I think that those aspects evolved because of the benefit to the individual, to relatives, or more fundamentally, to the gene/gene complex which coded for that morality. (but maybe you weren't talking about biological evolution). Personally, I don't think that secular ethics are any different from religious ethics. I think that religious ethics are an expression of our evolved morality (interacting with environmental context).

04-20-2003, 09:39 AM	#4 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	right - socially sanctioned conduct. it's not as complicated as idealists would make it. __________________ create evolution

04-20-2003, 10:20 AM	#5 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	Absolutely, but bear in mind that even today, most people have a very similar genome to their neighbours. So if people behave towards each other in a way which means people with similar genes survive, that genome will survive. If you have a village of people who are too busy killing each other to gather any food, their genome won't survive. Of course it's a bit more complex than that, because it's an emergent phenomenon, but it boils down to the same thing. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

04-20-2003, 10:30 AM	#7 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	Morality is not only the perception of right and wrong, but having the character to live it. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either.

04-20-2003, 09:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	Morality is doing what is right when it needs to be done. Ethics is knowing what is right.

04-20-2003, 10:26 AM	#6 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	Morality are your values and ethics along with morals which guide you into making the right desisions and being a good person

04-20-2003, 11:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	Morality (or ethics) is what you do (or dont do) when no one is looking. __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

04-20-2003, 12:07 PM	#10 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	On the evolutionary biology/morality note, there was a good article in The Economist (March 2002) called "Deviation from the Mean" which talks about how altruism and sacrificing yourself to punish freeriders helps your genes to be transmitted and is therefore selected for in nature. However humans have reached a post-evolutionary stage and a level of awareness that means we can't simply say that morality or ethics is biologically determined and therefore we only need to follow some sort of crude animalistic morality (live selfishly most of the time, but help defend the group when necessary and don't be seen to act out of line or we'll risk losing the group's protection). __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

04-20-2003, 12:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	"Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun." __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

04-20-2003, 01:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
i8one2 COMPLETED and A TRAINER Location: BEAN_TOWN	perceived tolerances of a regulated behavior? __________________ LEATHER, LATEX and LACE "SSC" "Nothing That Gives Pleasure is Bad" Quality is for those who know what they want and are at peace with what they have. "S/M is about emotion; the erotic tension between my impulse toward something and my resistance against it."-- Virginia Barker

04-20-2003, 02:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	This is what I love about TFP, nice people like sapiens who give friendly replies and constructive criticism and people like John Henry who come up with good threads. But enough of my sappiness, I have work to get back to so can't ramble long. I really didn't give my last post much thought, just threw some ideas out there, but now they are there I might as well try and support the poor little things! Post-evolutionary stage: [NB: I can't paste quotes attractively, does anyone want to teach me how?] From an interview with E.O.Wilson Biology Professor at Harvard and all round good guy: http://www.salon.com/people/conv/200...son/index.html (Interviewer) Q. Are humans still evolving at all? (Wilson) A. No, at least not in any directional sense. But we are changing quickly in another sense. We are changing into a more homogeneous gene pool -- a trend that in a few more centuries could result in a fairly similar human population. The genes that make up traditional racial differences will be more and more shared. Super animals? Yes we are, of course, still animals. But self-consciousness, abstract thought and advanced reasoning have clearly set us apart from all other species. We may not be better (the cockroach will probably have the last laugh) or at the top of tree, but in some ways we are certainly superior and with this superiority comes opportunities and (some may argue) responsibilities. What are these? Again, I'm just throwing out ideas here, but Wilson's phrasing above has inspired me. We are no longer part of a directional evolutionary process that is out of our conscious control. We are the first animal to be able to set its own direction - be this mutual self-destruction or a 'better' world for our descedents. This gives rise to the question (similar to John Henry's): "How should I/we live?". Of course within us all there are still evolutionarily conditioned instincts, but at some point (I don't know if it was self-consciousness or something else) we 'overtook' evolution - we had free time on our hands and the mental horsepower to do things with it (e.g. art) that the simple rules of evolutionary biology and psychology were no longer controlling. [I am trying here to acknowledge that our brains, no matter how powerful, will always be the product of / tied to a genetic-environmental background shaped by nature, whilst also saying that they can do something unique that, whilst not cutting these ties, can loosen them to the extent that they play only a minor role in our actions.] Better rap it up. So self-aware morality has emerged from animalistic insticts and we have asked ourselves the question "How should I live?". ... We may choose to fall back upon our behavioural roots and do what our instincts tell us, do what "feels right". Meaning, amongst other things: 1) There is no coherent structure to our actions with which we can explain them to ourselves or to others. 2) There is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others. 3) If we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason. ... Or we may try and look for a moral structure. If we find one, we should be bloody relieved and proud of it. I shall end with a quote from one of the most annoying men I know, Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, p.2) "I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals co-operate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 04-20-2003 at 02:29 PM..

04-20-2003, 02:34 PM	#16 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	This is what I hate about TFP, realising that I have spent a good hour writing a single post and knowing from my own experience that long posts are usually quite dull and of limited interest to anyone but the poster. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

04-20-2003, 02:46 PM	#18 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Thanks for that Blue. I was only half serious. Writing them in itself is quite fun and if they make someone smile, think or learn something new (or reply with something that makes me do one of the above) then so much the better. What concerns me is that one day I'll submit a post and realise that I've written a rant and become one of 'them'. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

04-20-2003, 03:03 PM	#19 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	That's good thinking 4th, don't beat yourself up. I always think that a true Taoist, because of his passiveness, is incapable of secular wrongdoing. In my experience, people do wrong because they value their desires over those of others, which would not be so for a Taoist. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

04-20-2003, 06:38 PM	#20 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	It becomes very difficult to respond to posts once they start getting long and complicated. (So many contributors to the discussion= to much for me to keep in my head). 4thTimeLucky Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your post was definitely interesting and I think it appealed to more than just the poster (you). My post on the other hand... I like E.O. Wilson. He began the field of human sociobiology (applying evolutionary theory to human behavior). He paid for it too. People called him a nazi. He had punks like Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin in his department who smiled to his face and tore him apart in the press. Unfortunately, he hasn't written that much on the topic for a while. Regarding his comment about humans still evolving at all: In terms of changes in genetic frequencies, which in the biological sense, is evolution. We are evolving, even if it is to be similar. Regardless of that, it is impossible to say at any given time whether or not we are evolving in any direction. You would need to look further back than just a few generations. Also, evolution is not forward looking. It operates on the differential reproduction today. (If the differences between people have heritable components, and those differences influence reproduction, those genetic lines that reproduce more will survive and those that don't will fall into genetic oblivion). That being said, for Wilson to suggest that we are not evolving in any directional sense is academically irresponsible. He can't possibly know. Regarding your comments about "Super Animals". I would argue that other animals have consciousness. Perhaps not the same consciousness as humans, but still consciousness. Also, E.O. Wilson was/is a big proponent of human behavior and psychology being influenced by our evolutionary past. Regarding your comment about the evolutionary process being under our control: The evolutionary process is still for the most part out of our control. Some attempts have been made to consciously influence the evolutionary process. Most of them involve seriously infringing on personal liberty. The most notable attempt was the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Eugenicists wanted to sterilize the handicapped, immigrants, some races, some ethnic groups, etc. . We have certainly consciously influenced the evolution of other species through selective breeding. However, unless everyone is making conscious decisions about the genetic fitness of every trait in those with whom they reproduce, evolution is out of our conscious control. Regardless of whether we are still evolving, our brains/minds have evolved in the same way that our bodies have evolved. So, we are not independent of our biology. (NOTE: This does NOT mean that we are genetically determined. Our minds are a product of the interaction of our evolved psychology and the environment in which we inhabit. Without our genes, we would not be. By the same token, without the environment, we would not be). Looking back at your post, 4thTimeLucky , you seem to agree. There are certainly many aspects of human psychology that are unique. (Our own consciousness might be one of them). However, I would argue that this does not mean that we are independent from evolution and psychology. 4thTimeLucky Regarding your wrap-up: There is certainly a coherent structure to our actions. Psychologists study reliable patterns of behavior, so do biologists. If there was not a coherent structure to our actions we would not be able to have this discussion. (and that would be a bummer because I'm enjoying it). You suggest that there is no objective morality with which to condemn or praise others. I agree. Individual morality is a personal choice. (Others have said the same in this thread -BlueBongo, etc.) An important idea to keep in mind when thinking about biology and morality is "Just because it's natural does not mean that it is (morally) right." There are many natural things that are not good (AIDS, viruses, cancers, etc.) There are many artificial things that are good (modern medicine, this forum, etc). Biology has little to say about the way people "should" behave. Though, I think that biology has a lot to say when it comes to explaining what people actually do. You suggest that if we are to build a better world it must be through power and not reason. I think that's up for debate. Maybe through reason imposed by power. Who knows? Finally, how can Richard Dawkins be "one of the most annoying men you know"? Granted he is a very aggressive atheist and a bulldog for evolution, but he is a great writer. Anyway, I have talked/written too much and I think I'm annoying my wife. I'm probably annoying others too. Somewhere along the line I stopped talking about morality. I should go. Thank you for the lively discussion. Last edited by sapiens; 04-20-2003 at 06:41 PM..

04-20-2003, 09:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	"concentration measured by the number of moles of solute per liter of solvent." Wait...that's "molarity." Oh well. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

04-20-2003, 09:32 PM	#22 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I'd like to concur with what's being said about the cooperative element of evolution. It seems like a LOT of the more recent research is suggesting a very strong element of altruism and group interest to natural selection. One things for sure, evolutionary theory nowdays is looking to be a long way from the old cutthroat ideas of "social darwinism".

04-20-2003, 10:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Knowng the difference between right and wrong than telling it to go fuck itself... In my opinion at least. And this is me we're talking about. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

04-21-2003, 01:27 AM	#24 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	sapiens: thanks for the response. On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is. Maybe there is a disctinction I need to better draw here between the development of the 'raw human' and the development of humans in the social context. A brief few comments on my the "rap up" (doh!): Structure: There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns. For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!) Okay, so you finish this discussion and walk the dog. You see an old man being mugged, run over to help and fend of the attacker whilst suffering a broken nose. A passer by then asks you "Why did you do that?". To which you must reply "it felt right". "Why?". "It just did." What you cannot say is "That mugger was doing a bad thing". [I note that you concede this point, so I won;t labour it.] However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)." But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy. Power and reason: It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses. Richard Dawkins: A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 04-21-2003 at 01:29 AM..

04-21-2003, 01:52 AM	#25 (permalink)
juanvaldes Banned Location: shittown, CA	Not fucking with other peoples shit.

04-21-2003, 02:06 AM	#26 (permalink)
Crimson Crazy Location: Leicestershire UK	Morality is doing that which will not harm your fellow man It blurs around the edges when you get things such as hurting one to save the pain of many but in the end it is about stopping people from feeling bad __________________ Crimson If my life is to change - Let it change If my whole world is to be destroyed - So be it If my fate is to die - I must simply laugh

04-21-2003, 01:49 PM	#27 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	4thTimeLucky: thanks for the response. On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is. We certainly have a more complex behavioral repetoire than a giraffe, but I think that we are equally at the whim of evolution. I'm also not sure how much control we have over the fate of our species. We certainly have high perceived control. If we go extinct, does that mean that it was under our control? If any species goes extinct, how do we determine whether it was/was not under that species control? There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns. Is there any other sense? For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!) That doesn't bother me. ...However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)." The person with a moreal structure could explain his actions as he sees them, but who's to say that any of us are honest or even accurate when describing our own motivation. But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy. I agree that neither route is easy. To sum up: When I suggested that biology may influence morality, I was not suggesting that morality is not a personal choice. I do think that morality is a personal choice. (I really don't want to get into a discussion of free will). I was suggesting that if you look at moral systems across time and across the cultures, you may find some biologically relevant patterns. Power and reason: It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses. I agree. Richard Dawkins: A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said. We don't get to see much of Richard Dawkins on TV in the states. Anyway, it has been a thought-provoking discussion, thanks.

04-27-2003, 08:01 AM	#28 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	Didn't mean to kill the thread. Sorry.

04-27-2003, 09:29 AM	#30 (permalink)
Modo delusional Location: USA half way between East and West	<b><font size=+1 color=FFFF00 face="comic sans ms">It's like trying to define Normal?</font></b><p><b><font face="comic sans ms">Modo</font></b>

04-27-2003, 09:43 AM	#31 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i just do whatever i think is right at the moment, then think about it later on __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

04-27-2003, 06:03 PM	#32 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	Morality is hypocrisy. 2 people can accuse each other of lacking morals or of being immoral. Which is the moral person?

04-27-2003, 06:50 PM	#33 (permalink)
door Upright	Morality, up till aroun 1840, only had 2 faces- Divine Direction- This is what the Jews and Christians, Muslims etc. followed. Most like to say that those belifes stem from the DO unto Others or even the Ten commandments etc. But that is BS, as if you look carefully, God always tells people to go against the rules sometimes. If you get the chance read "the grand Inquisitor on the nature of man" by Fydor Dostoyevsky. It shows how the state government is the same as this Divine Direction. the other form was happyness: The greatest good for the greatest number or even, do whatever so long as it hurts no one. This stems from Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. They also belived happyness only came from argument and discorse. But in the 1800's, Kantian philosophy was born. It states that Ethics is neither Gods direction nor Happyness priniciple. It is based on Freedom, and the Catagorical Imparitive. The CI is that something is permissible if it would still be so if it were universal. Like, lying is ok only if it is ok for everyone to lie all the time. Get it? As far as the purpose of Ethics? One of the early posts got it right. It is the same reason we have civilization to begin with. Read Frued's Civilization and its Discontent- He states that man has built civilization and ethics by giving away freedom in exchange for protection. It is so true...so true.

04-27-2003, 06:53 PM	#34 (permalink)
door Upright	and morality is NOT hypocracy- hypocracy is saying one thing is ok in one situation and not in another. The only way a critic would be hypocritical is if they told someone else they didn't have a right to judge someone else adn tell them what is right and wrong. So then telling someone they are a hypocrate, because they give others ethical prose is actually VERY hypocritical- Making you a, no offense, hypocrate. Saying, "don't kill" while you HAVE killed isn't hypocritical. Unless of course you approve of killing only if you are the killer. Thats hypocritical also So that would make you a hypocrate

04-27-2003, 07:17 PM	#35 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	If one state has the death penalty as law,and the people who inact that law believe it is morally correct,do they define morality? Or in another state where the death penalty is against the law,and the people who enact that law believe it is morally correct,do they define morality? I still see the hypocrisy

04-28-2003, 07:07 AM	#36 (permalink)
door Upright	Do they define morality? Yes they do. Morality is not an objective thing. It CAN be an objective thing. But it seems reasonable that its purpose dictates what it is, and its purpose, according to Freud, is to control society in a way that protects us. Objective Morality, on the other hand, is not the laws of the land. It is simply what is TRUELY right and wrong. But I don't claim to know these. In fact, I don't know if they exist. And I don't see how that arguments makes it any more hypocritical. Do as I say, not as I do is only applicably hypocritical if what you do invloves non-guilt. If everyman sins, can a man who knows his sin is wrong not say to you: "Do not sin!" without being a hypocrit? if not, no man has the right judge ANY man for ANY thing. THink of the world if that were the case?

04-28-2003, 09:50 AM	#37 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	If morality is subjective,then that means every person is capable of dictating and subscribing to what ever value system they think is moral. If two peoples moral believes are the polar opposites,yet each person believes they are morally correct,which person is morally correct? Is it possible to have two polar opposite opinions regarding the same topic that are morally correct? If it is possible,then what is immorality? You can call it subjective,I'm still calling it hypocrisy

05-27-2003, 08:36 AM	#38 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	Morality is simply what the 'mores' of a society (the majority) deem to be acceptable behaviour. Its a shifting sand . . . . and various from Country to Country and from century to century. An abstract construct of 'rules' intended to control and restarin. __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

05-27-2003, 12:30 PM	#39 (permalink)
bender Addict Location: around the corner	duckznut, you've hit it right on the head morality has more to do with geography then anything else. It's what is considered correct in the area that you are in and that changes.