PDA

View Full Version : On the Origins of Morality.



Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
8th March 12, 12:18 PM
Conflicts are inevitable wherever there is cohabitation. This is no different with our closest relatives, the chimpanzees. Sound conflict management is crucial for group cohesion. Individuals in chimpanzee communities also ensure that there is peace and order in their group. This form of conflict management is called "policing" -- the impartial intervention of a third party in a conflict. Until now, this morally motivated behavior in chimpanzees was only ever documented anecdotally.

However, primatologists from the University of Zurich can now confirm that chimpanzees intervene impartially in a conflict to guarantee the stability of their group. They therefore exhibit prosocial behavior based on an interest in community concern.


Science Daily report (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120307185016.htm )


Because conflicts among social group members are inevitable, their management is crucial for group stability. The rarest and most interesting form of conflict management is policing, i.e., impartial interventions by bystanders, which is of considerable interest due to its potentially moral nature. Here, we provide descriptive and quantitative data on policing in captive chimpanzees. First, we report on a high rate of policing in one captive group characterized by recently introduced females and a rank reversal between two males. We explored the influence of various factors on the occurrence of policing. The results show that only the alpha and beta males acted as arbitrators using manifold tactics to control conflicts, and that their interventions strongly depended on conflict complexity. Secondly, we compared the policing patterns in three other captive chimpanzee groups. We found that although rare, policing was more prevalent at times of increased social instability, both high-ranking males and females performed policing, and conflicts of all sex-dyad combinations were policed. These results suggest that the primary function of policing is to increase group stability. It may thus reflect prosocial behaviour based upon “community concern.” However, policing remains a rare behaviour and more data are needed to test the generality of this hypothesis.


Impartial Third-Party Interventions in Captive Chimpanzees: A Reflection of Community Concern (link to paper) (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032494)

For quite some time religious folks have argued that morality comes from GOD (TM pending).

Does this study actually point to the (IMO obvious) evolutionary need for group morality?

And in some way does it lay a behavioural foundation for moral relativism?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
8th March 12, 12:23 PM
Truely words of wisdom!

Cullion
8th March 12, 12:25 PM
But primates have their own primitive religions, so I'm not sure what these guys think they've demonstrated.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
8th March 12, 12:26 PM
and u iz Pope right?

Spade: The Real Snake
8th March 12, 12:28 PM
Science is so cute, thinking they need to have an answer for everything.

Cullion
8th March 12, 01:01 PM
"Modern preachy atheism is just a bunch of science nerds with a weak grasp of philosophical logic trying to convince themselves they don't have to feel guilty for the way they left their first wife, or the secret boner they got when that priest felt them up" - Discuss

Cullion
8th March 12, 01:20 PM
A priest never felt me up, but then, I am not a 'preachy atheist'

Sorry, what's the proper name for those feely-uppy people in the mormon religion ?

Spade: The Real Snake
8th March 12, 01:25 PM
Sorry, what's the proper name for those feely-uppy people in the mormon religion ?
They make so many kids of their own, they don't need to feel-up other's kids.

Unless it is an arranged and agreed upon plural marriage....but then it is a wife, so it's not the same.

Cullion
8th March 12, 01:37 PM
So it was an elder then ?

Or, my God, a Bishop ?

Cullion
8th March 12, 01:58 PM
okay Nob, you may pass.

Max, what happened to you?

Spade: The Real Snake
8th March 12, 02:15 PM
So it was an elder then ?

Or, my God, a Bishop ?
You've seen pictures of Teen NoB.
He was saved for the Presidency.

Ajamil
8th March 12, 02:54 PM
I like your lumping term "religious folk." Problems I see with your conclusions:- morality does not need a single source- conflicts among social animals are not inevitable- nothing says God didn't give morality to non-humans

Fearless Ukemi
8th March 12, 02:56 PM
"Modern preachy atheism is just a bunch of science nerds with a weak grasp of philosophical logic trying to convince themselves they don't have to feel guilty for the way they left their first wife, or the secret boner they got when that priest felt them up" - Discuss

I think the first half of this sentence is spot on.

Although most often, it's someone trying to appear as a science nerd, but they are really just offended by judgement and have no background in science at all..

Fearless Ukemi
8th March 12, 03:01 PM
I actually see a lot of the recent scientific discoveries converging with some major religious claims.

Including evolution..

OZZ
8th March 12, 03:48 PM
Scientists trying to argue for an evolutionary answer to the genealogy of morals ?
Not even worth discussing.

Ajamil
8th March 12, 04:13 PM
The answers they are looking for might not be, but the fact that they feel a need to look for them very much is an important discussion, as well as the confidence that they have or will find these answers.

Cullion
8th March 12, 04:22 PM
Sociobiology is not science.

Ajamil
8th March 12, 04:57 PM
What will you do when science proves your actions are the markings of an unethical dick?

Yiktin Voxbane
9th March 12, 05:23 AM
Religion is not truth.

Penis is not vagina.

Regardless ..... Circle gets the Square .

This whole discussion is kind of off-center .

Firstly what is Moral , surely the answer is an entirely personal and subjective thing, that changes depending on circumstance and situation .

Cullion
9th March 12, 06:35 AM
Firstly what is Moral , surely the answer is an entirely personal and subjective thing, that changes depending on circumstance and situation .

When would it be moral to rape a child ?

It would never be moral, right?

Well, that's not personal or subjective then. I'm fairly sure we can come up with other things which are immoral.

Yiktin Voxbane
9th March 12, 07:11 AM
Societal norms say raping a child ist verbotten !

to a Highly deluded individual it may seems as normal as drinking a glass of water . For this individual there is no Moral dilemna here .

Extreme example according to our widely held beliefs but NOT for our highly deluded individual .

And therein lies the rub , How do we (Society) firstly decide then enforce our beliefs in individuals that have a skewed view of the world in which we all live . Killing them is not a desirable (albeit highly efficient) way of achhieving that and dragging them through the court system and custodial sentencing do little to change a truly derranged persons outlook and judgement .

Cullion
9th March 12, 08:38 AM
How do we (Society) firstly decide then enforce our beliefs in individuals that have a skewed view of the world in which we all live . Killing them is not a desirable (albeit highly efficient) way of achhieving that and dragging them through the court system and custodial sentencing do little to change a truly derranged persons outlook and judgement .

We try not to produce so many damaged minds (this is the hardest and most important part). We make it clear that there is a high likelihood of being caught and punished to the damaged minds already loose out there. We take them out of circulation until we think they are cured once we catch them.

Cure may be impossible in some cases, but I support lifelong incarceration rather than the death penalty, because there is no way of taking back an execution if you make a mistake.

Yiktin Voxbane
9th March 12, 08:53 AM
I believe the Death penalty could and should be used as a deterrent but only ever carried out where the evidence has been endorsed and embraced by the perpetrator as I am NOT a lover of refuted verbal evidence .

BUT ... therein lies another moral issue ... What gives society the right to kill someone just because their views / actions / deeds are so Abhorrent to the aforementioned Society ... Whilst the action of State-sanctioned-murder may seem fair to a large number of the population that does not, infact , make it *right* or even Moral .

I should point out @ this moment in time ... I in no way endorse nor condone any behaviour(s) mentioned in this thread and on these Forums , Nor do I endorse ANY individual (REGARDLESS of personal Derrangement(s) ) to partake in anything akin to the actions mentioned.

resolve
9th March 12, 10:18 AM
Moral relativism is a mind disease.

resolve
9th March 12, 10:25 AM
Then what's mormonism?

Feryk
9th March 12, 04:39 PM
Cullion won this thread with 'sociobiology is not a science'.

Seriously, this was a set of observations interpreted by the observer. No experiment was done here. There was no testable hypothesis.

No real scientific method was applied.

Cullion
9th March 12, 04:43 PM
Exactly. Sociobiology is the art of retrofitting 'sciencey-sounding' explanations onto something you saw happen. It does not make testable predictions. It's a way for nerds who feel awkward with art, poetry and religious metaphor to try and discuss the behaviour and motives of their fellow humans, and as you'd expect, it's an extremely flat and clumsy way of doing so.

Feryk
9th March 12, 05:20 PM
Consider cultural anthropology, then.

Cullion
9th March 12, 05:31 PM
Consider the plays of Shakespeare.

Feryk
9th March 12, 05:34 PM
Amazing Literature?

Cullion
9th March 12, 05:36 PM
yes.

Feryk
9th March 12, 05:37 PM
point taken.

Robot Jesus
9th March 12, 07:15 PM
Moral relativism is a mind disease.


Calling moral ambiguity moral relativism is a mind disease.

resolve
9th March 12, 08:37 PM
I was replying to this, specifically, when I said that:


Firstly what is Moral , surely the answer is an entirely personal and subjective thing, that changes depending on circumstance and situation .

That is pretty much the definition of moral relativism.

Robot Jesus
9th March 12, 09:02 PM
nope

Moral relativism comes in two flavours.

The first one is cultural relativism, that is whatever society say is ok is.

The second is personal relativism, that whatever an individual says is what is right for them.


no one actually believes in these theories.

if you think that moral ambiguity is a new thing and is related to secularism I'd like you to state that outright, because no one ever disagreed about how to interpret the bible before.

resolve
9th March 12, 10:32 PM
Are you actually arguing semantics?

Robot Jesus
10th March 12, 03:07 AM
relativism is a real word with a real definition.


It annoys me when people ignore it.


do you think secular societies lack the cohesion of Protestants and Catholics had when everyone knew who was the right god?

Cullion
10th March 12, 04:10 AM
The second is personal relativism, that whatever an individual says is what is right for them.

no one actually believes in these theories.

Resolve was replying to this:-


Firstly what is Moral, surely the answer is an entirely personal and subjective thing, that changes depending on circumstance and situation.

I don't think your reply makes sense.

Ajamil
10th March 12, 05:33 AM
So for all those ascribing to moral relativism, do you consider it impossible to scientifically find a universal morality? Would you change your ethics if they could be proven to be in opposition to such a universal morality?

As for child rape, weren't there ancient cultures that found no problem with this? Not their own children, of course, but another nation's children were fair game. And what about during wartime? I'm going off rumor, but there are tales of commanding officers overlooking such things if it kept the grunts happy and working. Not exactly the same as saying it's moral, but I see similarities with such a situation and with the murder/execution relativity.

Cullion
10th March 12, 09:26 AM
As for child rape, weren't there ancient cultures that found no problem with this?

Yes, many. But I don't believe in moral relativism so from my perspective it's easy enough to say those cultures were savage and abhorrent. There are lots of situations where I don't accept that a 'current consensus' is a relevant final arbiter and this is one of them.

Vieux Normand
10th March 12, 03:33 PM
So for all those ascribing to moral relativism, do you consider it impossible to scientifically find a universal morality? Would you change your ethics if they could be proven to be in opposition to such a universal morality?

Scientific evidence for the concrete existence of a philosophical abstraction?

Please relate how you think this might be accomplished. Of particular interest might be the methods and equipment you'd use to define, find, positively identify and measure your "universal morality".

Extraordinary claims, etc.

Ajamil
10th March 12, 04:30 PM
Yes, many. But I don't believe in moral relativism so from my perspective it's easy enough to say those cultures were savage and abhorrent. There are lots of situations where I don't accept that a 'current consensus' is a relevant final arbiter and this is one of them.Would you consider the genocide of such a culture moral?

Cullion
10th March 12, 08:34 PM
Would you consider the genocide of such a culture moral?

No, I'd consider the forcible prohibition of the child rape practice to be moral where it was practical to do so without leading to greater evil.

That last caveat is important. I don't consider the waste of young American and European serviceman's lives whilst allegedly trying to stamp out illiberal views on gender roles in Afghanistan to be moral, because it fails that last caveat. As would the wholesale extermination of the culture in the example we were playing with.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 01:19 AM
What do you consider practical, or a greater evil? Would it be OK to bomb an abhorrent culture to slag? No loss of good guy life there.

Not being asubscriber to moral relativism, is everyone who disagrees with you just wrong? Take age of consent - is Spain flat wrong to have it younger than the UK? The US flat wrong to have it older? I don't mean the litigious aspect, but the cultural idea of when a person is mentally able to make such a decision independently.

Craigypooh
11th March 12, 03:48 AM
What do you consider practical, or a greater evil? Would it be OK to bomb an abhorrent culture to slag? No loss of good guy life there.


You'd have to check whether Lot or Noah lives there first. But make sure you turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for being overly curious.

Although, Deuteronomy 20:10-14 has an interesting take on this.

Cullion
11th March 12, 06:50 AM
What do you consider practical, or a greater evil? Would it be OK to bomb an abhorrent culture to slag? No loss of good guy life there.

It wouldn't be okay because there would always be innocent children and dissenters.



Not being a subscriber to moral relativism, is everyone who disagrees with you just wrong?

Yes, but there are lots of things I don't really care about one way or the other.



Take age of consent - is Spain flat wrong to have it younger than the UK? The US flat wrong to have it older? I don't mean the litigious aspect, but the cultural idea of when a person is mentally able to make such a decision independently.

I don't really care too much about these examples. I think the Japanese were sick and twisted to allow middle aged businessmen to engage girls under the age of 16 as prostitutes in 'supportive relationships' for so long. No, it wasn't worth threatening them with violence or trade sanctions over.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 12:01 PM
Do you ever act immorally, Cullion?

Cullion
11th March 12, 12:11 PM
Of course I do. That's a strange question.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 12:26 PM
You have an individually derived morality that you feel is universal. Not that far of a leap to wonder if you consider your own actions immaculate.

Cullion
11th March 12, 12:55 PM
You have an individually derived morality that you feel is universal. Not that far of a leap to wonder if you consider your own actions immaculate.

Yeah, it's a huge leap.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 03:47 PM
Not really. It's consistent with people I've met.

Cullion
11th March 12, 03:53 PM
Well, there's a big difference between believing in an ethical standard and having the presence of mind to resist any and all temptation to deviate from it, all of the time. That's just human nature.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 04:21 PM
It's also human nature to rationalize, and to look at personal actions in a more forgiving light than the actions of others. This is a lot easier when your moral base is internal rather than based on something like a culture or religion. If you are the ultimate authority on what is moral, then morality can easily twist to fit your desires.

Cullion
11th March 12, 04:30 PM
It's also human nature to rationalize, and to look at personal actions in a more forgiving light than the actions of others. This is a lot easier when your moral base is internal rather than based on something like a culture or religion. If you are the ultimate authority on what is moral, then morality can easily twist to fit your desires.

I never said I was the ultimate authority on what is moral, I said I wasn't a relativist.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 04:46 PM
Who or what is your ultimate authority on morality?

Cullion
11th March 12, 04:55 PM
I don't know what it is.

Ajamil
11th March 12, 05:28 PM
You can't point to an ultimate authority on morality, but you feel there is a universal morality and those not agreeing with your morals are wrong? Is it possible for your concept of morality to be wrong? If not how is this different than saying you are that moral authority?

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th March 12, 06:15 AM
Moral relativism is a mind disease.

Is an observable fact.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th March 12, 06:21 AM
Max, what happened to you?

I was fortunate enough not to be brain washed by Roman Catholics at a vunerable age.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th March 12, 07:45 AM
Cullion won this thread with 'sociobiology is not a science'.

Seriously, this was a set of observations interpreted by the observer. No experiment was done here. There was no testable hypothesis.

No real scientific method was applied.

So we should reject all qualitative research?

Cullion
12th March 12, 07:51 AM
You can't point to an ultimate authority on morality, but you feel there is a universal morality

Yes.


and those not agreeing with your morals are wrong?

Yes.


Is it possible for your concept of morality to be wrong?

No.


If not how is this different than saying you are that moral authority?

Because I'm really sure that I am not the source.

AAAAAA
12th March 12, 08:11 AM
Because I'm really sure that I am not the source.

How do you know?

nihilist
12th March 12, 11:00 AM
I really think I'm in the presence of New testament morality that emanates from Jebus.

Cullion
12th March 12, 12:11 PM
How do you know?

I just do. I don't rely on left-brain symbolic reasoning for everything, because I didn't allow academia to cripple my intellect.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
12th March 12, 12:22 PM
I just do. I don't rely on left-brain symbolic reasoning for everything, because I didn't allow academia to cripple my intellect.

So it could be a structure in your brain that has developed via evolutionary processes?

Cullion
12th March 12, 12:29 PM
Yeah, it could.

Craigypooh
12th March 12, 01:41 PM
Could it be that God planted the information in your head and wants you to spread this new gospel across the interwebz?

Feryk
12th March 12, 03:25 PM
To Max;

No, of course we shouldn't reject all qualitative research. That's a gross overgeneralization.

We probably shouldn't call it 'science' unless we are able to apply the scientific method, though.

And this is coming from a guy with a 'soft sciences' background - if you consider Psychology and Economics 'soft or social sciences'.

In Psychology, we have a blend of both art and science. The science part is essentially Neurobiology and behaviourism. Both of these disciplines have hypotheses, they can create experiments to test them, and get repeatable results.

While different 'therapies' - Psychoanalysis, Jungian, Ericksonian, etc. are therapeutically 'valid', it is damn difficult to prove what is actually going on. This is more the 'art' part. A great deal depends on the capability of the therapist.

We do know that psychoanalysis and counselling can help reduce neuroses, and in some cases reduce/remove the effects of depression, hysteria, phobias, and several other maladies. What we don't know - with proveable and testable hypotheses, is WHY.

That's where you get Jung's idea of a 'collective unconscious'. Not testable - at least not yet.

Cullion
12th March 12, 05:03 PM
Could it be that God planted the information in your head and wants you to spread this new gospel across the interwebz?

That sounds kind of far-fetched.

Feryk
12th March 12, 05:36 PM
Ya think?!

Cullion
12th March 12, 06:03 PM
Yeah, it just doesn't sit right. I can't explain it.

Robot Jesus
12th March 12, 08:51 PM
In the worlds before Morality, primal chaos reigned. Heavens sought order. But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown. The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. Time and the pure essence of Heaven, the moisture of the Earth, the powers of the Sun and the Moon all worked upon a certain rock, old as creation. And it became magically fertile. That first egg was named "Thought". Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the World". Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch. From it came a stone Morality. The nature of Morality was irrepressible!

Ajamil
12th March 12, 09:22 PM
In the worlds before Morality, primal chaos reigned. Heavens sought order. But the phoenix can fly only when its feathers are grown. The four worlds formed again and yet again, as endless aeons wheeled and passed. Time and the pure essence of Heaven, the moisture of the Earth, the powers of the Sun and the Moon all worked upon a certain rock, old as creation. And it became magically fertile. That first egg was named "Thought". Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the World". Elemental forces caused the egg to hatch. From it came a stone Morality. The nature of Morality was irrepressible!
Shut the fuck up.

Craigypooh
13th March 12, 04:27 AM
Yeah, it just doesn't sit right. I can't explain it.

I guess if God wanted you to spread a new gospel, then he would have made that pretty clear up front. You wouldn't want to leave that sort of thing to chance.

Cullion
13th March 12, 04:59 AM
Maybe I'm just waiting for a sign.

AAAAAA
13th March 12, 05:17 AM
Maybe I'm just waiting for a sign.

Aren't we all?

Craigypooh
13th March 12, 08:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmivsA3iJw8

Careful they're easily missed.

Vieux Normand
13th March 12, 02:08 PM
Aren't we all waiting for a sign?

No.

Next question.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
13th March 12, 02:20 PM
What are the 39 steps?

Vieux Normand
13th March 12, 02:23 PM
What are the 39 steps?

A twelve-step programme for the super-shitfaced.

Duh.

AAAAAA
13th March 12, 03:07 PM
No.

Next question.

You mean you already got yours?

OZZ
17th March 12, 11:57 AM
I never said I was the ultimate authority on what is moral, I said I wasn't a relativist.

I used to think morality was all relative...but my perspective changed over the years.
There certainly seem to be ethical universals that are shared by all societies.

Vieux Normand
17th March 12, 02:19 PM
I used to think morality was all relative...but my perspective changed over the years.
There certainly seem to be ethical universals that are shared by all societies.

If they are only shared by "societies", as opposed to being shared by the entire universe, then they aren't universal.

OZZ
17th March 12, 02:28 PM
If they are only shared by "societies", as opposed to being shared by the entire universe, then they aren't universal.

I didn't realize we were supposed to be accounting for undiscovered extraterrestrial civilizations.

OZZ
17th March 12, 02:33 PM
Universal as defined by R.M.Hare, Kant etc. is more what I was referring to..

Ajamil
24th March 12, 01:23 AM
Universal morals are so vague as to be useless, especially since most are superseded by "people from your own clan deserve to live even at the expense of people from a different clan."

nihilist
24th March 12, 01:35 AM
Let's not aim high because people are low.

OZZ
24th March 12, 10:54 AM
Universal morals are so vague as to be useless, especially since most are superseded by "people from your own clan deserve to live even at the expense of people from a different clan."

Look up Universal as defined in philosophy and you will see what I mean.
And there is a difference between ethics and morals.

Ajamil
24th March 12, 11:15 PM
Let's not aim high because people are low.

Well otherwise you're just wasting ammo.