Spontanous rant: Morality, evolution, futility of thought

[Verbal Mike]

I posted the following over three posts in a Facebook comment thread. Thought it might be interesting food for discussion. It came as a response to this:

Morals evolved during our long evolution. Even lions have certain morals (lionesses don't kill their own cubs and take care of them completely, a squid mother would die taking care of its eggs, a lion would not attack their own children and lionesses and would defend them against outsiders...).

Yes, and the clue is that with these moral behavioral patterns, over an impressive test period of at least 2 million years (though likely much more), our species has managed to become by far the most successful on the planet.

Not everything that has been called "immoral" is really universally immoral - eating pork, for instance, has nothing whatsoever to do with morality (at least in comparison with eating beef) yet it has been construed as highly immoral by Islam and Judaism. However, there is a certain subset of behavior that is clearly, universally immoral for humans, including (but not limited to) killing and stealing. It is my impression that when universal immorality takes place on a more-than-small scale, the situation for everyone involved is less desirable than a moral situation. That is to say, sticking to the patterns recognized universally as moral isn't only good for your would-be victims, but for you and the people you care about as well.

But it's actually a moot point in the long run, because humans are hard-wired to *mostly* act in a moral way, and also hard-wired to break out in mass immorality (a.k.a "war", "genocide", "occupation", "subjugation", etc.) now and again - we've evolved to lead reasonably good lives most of the time, but be massively cold, vicious bastards a small portion of the time. In the long run, individual moral decisions have very little noticeable effect on the human condition as a whole.

As the bible so aptly quoted:
"Nothing is new under the sun"
-unknown

I suppose I should add, part of that hard-wiring makes it highly likely for people to either reject the above intellectual reasoning out of hand, or to accept it intellectually and still treat moral dilemmas as gravely serious as ever. Knowing it doesn't make a difference in the long run, doesn't make a difference in the long run.
(I, btw, am of the group that accepts this reasoning intellectually but continues to take moral decision very seriously.)


The above, like everything posted under the VERB` or St. Verbatim name, is kopyleft, in the sense that I relinquish any and all rights to its reproduction and place it entirely in the public domain (and kindly ask you to repost, distribute, edit, or otherwise reuse it if you ever see an opportunity to do so). This means you can do whatever you want with it, from now until forever. I like having my writing attributed to me, and I like it when someone tells me when my stuff gets put somewhere, but do whatever you want.

[hooplala]

Is the behavior of the lions and the squid really moral, though?  Or is it an instinctual behavior evolved to protect the gene lineage?


Also:

The above, like everything posted under the VERB` or St. Verbatim name, is kopyleft, in the sense that I relinquish any and all rights to its reproduction and place it entirely in the public domain (and kindly ask you to repost, distribute, edit, or otherwise reuse it if you ever see an opportunity to do so). This means you can do whatever you want with it, from now until forever. I like having my writing attributed to me, and I like it when someone tells me when my stuff gets put somewhere, but do whatever you want.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

Is the behavior of the lions and the squid really moral, though?  Or is it an instinctual behavior evolved to protect the gene lineage?

Yes it is, but no more so than human morality. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive; I really don't understand why people think that they are...

[P3nT4gR4m]

Is the behavior of the lions and the squid really moral, though?  Or is it an instinctual behavior evolved to protect the gene lineage?

Yes it is, but no more so than human morality. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive; I really don't understand why people think that they are...

IAWTC

That's all morals are to me - evolutionary biproduct, same as opposable thumbs and Jacobson's organ

[hooplala]

Fair enough.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I should clarify - Just becuase that's all I think they are doesn't mean they don't work logically and intellectually.

Also biology has hardwired some of these into my psyche - I'm not a complete sociopath.

But I am working on it

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Is the behavior of the lions and the squid really moral, though?  Or is it an instinctual behavior evolved to protect the gene lineage?

I agree.  I don't see the protection of young by ANY species as a moral thing. 

I mean if my children were threatened you are damn skippy I would kill for them, but not because of my morals.  Because they are my children and I love them more than anything.

It has nothing to do with my personal concept of right and wrong.

The moral dilema would come if it was someone else's child who was in danger.  Do I save them?  Is it morally wrong if I don't? Do I care either way?  Other than those with the whole "hero" thing going on, is it our "moral" obligation to protect the weak?  If it is, in doing so are we weakening the species beyond repair?

Sorry I guess I went on a tangent......

[Archduke Omni-Fap!]

"[..]and the clue is that with these moral behavioral patterns, over an impressive test period of at least 2 million years (though likely much more), our species has managed to become by far the most successful on the planet."

Apart from bacteria, which are by most practical standards immeasureably more successful and are by human standards entirely amoral.

Most human morality can be distilled into those impulses which benefit the tribe to which one belongs. Within that framework, even genocide is a moral act - the intended result is usually more resources for your tribe, that its numbers might increase, and fewer or none for the poor buggers on the receiving end, who can no longer consume resources that might otherwise go to you and yours. This, and protecting your children from a hungry lioness are two halves of the same red and terrible coin, in my opinion, for the lioness also has cubs to feed, and without their mother they'll starve - are their lives less valid than ours? Has shooting the lioness changed the Sum of things?

I reckon the only difference between a "good" action and a "bad" lies is the condition of human empathy, which doesn't actually seem to matter very much in the application, the infliction of morality on human beings - on the whole, we behave like assholes despite our capacity for empathy. We just feel bad about it afterwarrds.

[Kai]

and insects. especially insects. or algae.

No moral agency there.

[Golden Applesauce]

I posted the following over three posts in a Facebook comment thread. Thought it might be interesting food for discussion. It came as a response to this:

Morals evolved during our long evolution. Even lions have certain morals (lionesses don't kill their own cubs and take care of them completely, a squid mother would die taking care of its eggs, a lion would not attack their own children and lionesses and would defend them against outsiders...).

And chimpanzee females will kill other females' children for status or something.  Gerbils will eat their own young if they're running low on protein.  What's your point?

[Golden Applesauce]

However, there is a certain subset of behavior that is clearly, universally immoral for humans, including (but not limited to) killing and stealing. It is my impression that when universal immorality takes place on a more-than-small scale, the situation for everyone involved is less desirable than a moral situation. That is to say, sticking to the patterns recognized universally as moral isn't only good for your would-be victims, but for you and the people you care about as well.

Killing is not universally recognized as immoral.  If it was, would so many countries still have the death penalty?  "Stealing" is tricky as well - taxation and file sharing have both been called stealing, and neither is universally considered moral or immoral.

[Requia ☣]

The list of universally immoral things is really small and specific.  Can't seem to find it right now, but for example:

Killing someone, then forcing their family to eat them.

Note that killing, cannibalism, forced cannibalism, and eating your family aren't included in that.

[Triple Zero]

Is the behavior of the lions and the squid really moral, though?  Or is it an instinctual behavior evolved to protect the gene lineage?

Yes it is, but no more so than human morality. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive; I really don't understand why people think that they are...

IAWTC

That's all morals are to me - evolutionary biproduct, same as opposable thumbs and Jacobson's organ

see the trick is, with humans, it's not just evolutionary. which makes it very different from opposable thumbs and Jacobson's organ.

we, unlike any other species on this earth (as far as we know), have language, which allows us to transmit information gathered during a lifetime across the generations (in a much, much more efficient manner than evolution does).

let's call it "culture". humans have culture. other species do not. this leaves animals to develop morals that are just evolutionary based: protect your children and those of the "tribe" (if applicable). moral rules that directly or indirectly affect the survival/reproduction-rate/fitness of the species.
humans have another layer on top of this. because they process information and ideas (memes) during their lifetime, and pass on these memes to not only their offspring but also to any other memetic receptacle. this "memetic evolution" gives rise to a different kind of moral rules, those which benefit the reproduction of certain memes. thus, it is possible for a human to believe it is their moral duty to fight for an idea, even though it does not positively affect the survival of the individual, and in some cases it can even cause "ideas to die for".

the thing is, P3NT, your idea to decondition yourself from evolutionary morals and replace them with memetic ones .. where does it come from?

[Golden Applesauce]

The list of universally immoral things is really small and specific.  Can't seem to find it right now, but for example:

Killing someone, then forcing their family to eat them.

Note that killing, cannibalism, forced cannibalism, and eating your family aren't included in that.

Are these things that all cultures happen to consider immoral, or that no culture would ever consider to be anything but immoral?  Because in the first case, I see no reason why a thousand years from now during the next Dark Age there might not arise a tribe which after executing criminals feeds the body to the criminal's family, because it's a handy method of reminding the criminal's family not to make the same mistakes he did.

[popjellyfish]

You say "universally immoral" as if that's somehow objective. And you talk about morals as if they're no different than instinct or compulsory habit... I'm very confused.