What are high moral values?

[Ben Kenobi]

He's wrong. There's no moral behaviour observed in nature. In fact, some behaviour observed are utterly immoral, if you could call it that. For example, male lions gladly kill cubs when they take over a pride. Another example, some chimps kill and eat babies recently born in their own groups.

Then you need to have an origin for these moral codes that restrain behaviour.

Yes, humans tend to behave in certain ways, but that's not because we are made [by some supreme creator] that way. It's called evolutionary behaviour. Simply, humans that behaved in certain ways, ways that were beneficial to the survival of their own group/tribe, were more likely to survive themselves.

So all human behaviour has an evolutionary cause? Here's the problem with your thesis. You have already said that there is no morality in nature, or in the natural world. However, you also believe that human beings get their moral code from evolutionary processes that are a part of nature.

One of these is right. If there is no morality in nature, then morality cannot arise from natural causes, irrespective of evolution. If there is morality in nature, then it is possible for it to become refined through evolution.

I'm not convinced that all moral behaviours have an evolutionary advantage, there are many that are very counterproductive in terms of ensuring that your genes are passed on.

Secondly, there is no genetic mechanism to pass on moral behaviours. Just because two saints have kids does not mean that their kids are going to be saints.

[Flip McWho]

I work from the assumption that we are made, and that we are made to live in a certain way, like a toy has instructions. We can still operate outside those instructions, but we do much better when we do the things that we were made to do.

Society develops around this physical reality, as a way to encourage individuals to adapt to these ways, not the other way around. If we take it that society comes first, that doesn't explain why people have better lives for following this moral code, because one would also assume that different societies will provoke very different moral codes. There is no reason why two societies should share anything, unless there is a basis that exists outside of a particular society.

I don't really make a distinction between physical and psychological well-being, the two are connected.

Firstly, thats an assumption. Not something you can prove from nature. From nature you can only prove what we need to do for survival (eg, eat, drink, breath, avoid danger, reproduce). You're analogy with a toy shows your sympathy that there is a creator, and we are to follow his instructions. I don't see the analogy. In the natural environment we exist to survive. We collect in groups to thrive.

Society is born out of the reality that we do much better individually (and as families) when working together in a larger collective group. Societies share some similar characteristics in their moral codes simply because as humans we share characteristics that are conducive to a better living.

Physical and psychological well-being are connected, but are not identical. We can continue to survive by taking care of physical survival, we don't necessarily have to be happy in doing this. Pyschological well-being makes us more likely to thrive, which is different from survival

Sure it would make sense if our moral codes did not have a physical effect, but the truth is that they have a huge effect.

Do they? What effect exactly?

There is a connection between our biology and a moral code. Its causal (indirectly). Our biology means we like to collect in groups, we're societal. Once in society we need a moral code to keep it together (how long is a community gonna last if you can just walk up to your neighbour and club him over the head cause you feel like it?). This moral code is a product of us collecting in communal groups because our biological make-up drives us to do so. That doesn't mean there is one to be found in nature.

There's a much more significant rationale for adhering to these codes of conduct then simply emulating a ruling class.

I wasn't referring to the moral code being adhered to because people wanna emulate the ruling class. I was saying that the moral code is usually enforced by the ruling class.

Oh, I would beg to differ. They are hardly more human inventions then our own physical needs and desires. We do not say, it is a human invention that makes us hungry, yet why would we also say that the desire to love and be loved is?

Because it isn't. Its a biological necessity that makes us hungry. It is a pyschological urge that makes us seek love. Biologically we just needa screw whoevers fertile to produce offspring. Pyschologically we want more to this. Pyschological well-being does affect our physical well-being, but not to the point were our survival is in question ('cept for suicidal cases of course).

Our physical needs and desires are requirements for us to survive.

So why then do societies change? Why do they refine their codes over time? I agree with you that these things do make it better for the society, but is that really why we have a law against murder? For example, if the reason why murder is wrong is because society is better off, what does that mean for the individual? Murder is wrong because it kills an individual person, not because it is harmful to society.

Ummm, societies change cause history is filled with a heck of a lot more than a search for an overarching moral code. Other things kinda get in the way. Like people seeking power. Codes are refined over time in the same manner that scientific theories are refined over time. We're getting better at being smart. Also because societies change over time.

And a lot depends on what is viewed as moral changes over time as well. For example, a number of people view homosexuality as immoral. Yet many people see this as not immoral now. That is one example of a moral viewpoint changing over time.

A moral code that applies universally would have to be quite limited in its proclamations of what is or is not moral.

Murder is wrong because it kills an individual person

Thats because we attach a lot of significance to the individual person. In times of past it wasn't considered wrong (nor would people feel wrong) by killing somebody who they considered inferior to themselves. It wasn't considered wrong to undertake infanticide or cannibalism in the communities where this takes place. It was considered wrong to just kill another healthy member of the community for the hell of it. We just have a hard on for everybody now.

[Flip McWho]

Then you need to have an origin for these moral codes that restrain behaviour.

Because society needs it. It is invented by society. And because we are sentient we can have a whole lot more fun thinking up whatever moral codes we want, which will serve whatever purpose we want them too.

[Flip McWho]

One of these is right. If there is no morality in nature, then morality cannot arise from natural causes, irrespective of evolution. If there is morality in nature, then it is possible for it to become refined through evolution.

Evolution of societal morality systems are not equal to the evolution of human physical systems. Peoples own 'moral systems' are the products of many different factors playing on them, their genetic make-up only being a part of them.

[Flip McWho]

Secondly, there is no genetic mechanism to pass on moral behaviours

I note you didn't see/ignored UR's mentioning of psychopaths.

Also the two saints analogy presumes a religious moral code.

Also a St [Mary] and a God will produce a messiah :P

[Ben Kenobi]

Firstly, thats an assumption. Not something you can prove from nature. From nature you can only prove what we need to do for survival (eg, eat, drink, breath, avoid danger, reproduce). You're analogy with a toy shows your sympathy that there is a creator, and we are to follow his instructions. I don't see the analogy. In the natural environment we exist to survive. We collect in groups to thrive.

I do because I see people doing better when they stick by a set of rules, some of which don't seem to make all that much sense from a survival point of view. For example, how much sense does it make to do things in moderation as opposed to taking as much as you can whenever you can?

Society is born out of the reality that we do much better individually (and as families) when working together in a larger collective group. Societies share some similar characteristics in their moral codes simply because as humans we share characteristics that are conducive to a better living.

Agreed wholeheartedly. However, I would say that the desire for love and companionship is a basic need for survival. Babies will die if they are simply fed and changed without any nurturing.

Physical and psychological well-being are connected, but are not identical. We can continue to survive by taking care of physical survival, we don't necessarily have to be happy in doing this. Pyschological well-being makes us more likely to thrive, which is different from survival

To a certain extent. The psychological mindset is extremely important in any survival situation, you have to believe that you can make it out. It doesn't matter how much of the necessities you have in terms of water and in food if you cannot motivate yourself to find those in order to survive. Same with panicking.

Do they? What effect exactly?

Well, I don't know if you are married, but I think being married has a big effect on your health and wellness, just from the marriage itself.

There is a connection between our biology and a moral code. Its causal (indirectly). Our biology means we like to collect in groups, we're societal. Once in society we need a moral code to keep it together (how long is a community gonna last if you can just walk up to your neighbour and club him over the head cause you feel like it?). This moral code is a product of us collecting in communal groups because our biological make-up drives us to do so. That doesn't mean there is one to be found in nature.

Eh, you might want to rewrite that. You've given a very naturalistic explanation. If the moral code is a product of nature, that means there must be some code in nature already. I would say that it works because we were made for it from the start.

Because it isn't. Its a biological necessity that makes us hungry. It is a pyschological urge that makes us seek love. Biologically we just needa screw whoevers fertile to produce offspring. Pyschologically we want more to this. Pyschological well-being does affect our physical well-being, but not to the point were our survival is in question ('cept for suicidal cases of course).

I would argue that love and affection are a biological necessity, just that we can go without both for a longer period then we can food and water.

[quote
Ummm, societies change cause history is filled with a heck of a lot more than a search for an overarching moral code. Other things kinda get in the way. Like people seeking power. Codes are refined over time in the same manner that scientific theories are refined over time. We're getting better at being smart. Also because societies change over time.
[/quote]

What is one of the fundamental assumptions of science? That there are underlying rules that govern nature, and that through empirical investigation, one can uncover those rules. I like your analogy, I think you have something going here. Societies refine their moral codes on the same basis because there are underlying rules that govern human behaviour.

Thats because we attach a lot of significance to the individual person. In times of past it wasn't considered wrong (nor would people feel wrong) by killing somebody who they considered inferior to themselves.

And we would say we have a superior moral understanding from those times, in that we would say such things would be wrong. That's really what I'm getting at, we have a better understanding of individual rights now, then previous, so one can reject the earlier justification of murder.

[Ben Kenobi]

I note you didn't see/ignored UR's mentioning of psychopaths.

Also the two saints analogy presumes a religious moral code.

Also a St [Mary] and a God will produce a messiah :P

I didn't ignore it, just making the counter-argument. Psychopaths are an exception, there has not been a gene cited to produce saints, meaning moral people from one generation to another.

Just a term that expresses the idea of moral people more concisely.

[Flip McWho]

For example, how much sense does it make to do things in moderation as opposed to taking as much as you can whenever you can?

Long term. Survival over the short term only requires us to fillful our biological needs. Survival over the long term requires us to think differently. We survive better over the long term if we work together in groups also. These groups then develop a moral code in order to serve some purpose.

Babies will die if they are simply fed and changed without any nurturing.

Babies are an entirely different kettle of fish from a fully developed human. Babies require nurturing to develop. A developed humans desire for love and campanionship is not the same as the nurturing that a baby requires.

psychological mindset

Is quite different from pyschological well-being. The two are connected but not in an identical way.

Well, I don't know if you are married, but I think being married has a big effect on your health and wellness, just from the marriage itself.

I ain't, plan on it one day. But still that only applies if you desire a marriage.

Eh, you might want to rewrite that. You've given a very naturalistic explanation. If the moral code is a product of nature, that means there must be some code in nature already. I would say that it works because we were made for it from the start.

No I haven't. Biologically we are individual (in family groups by default) who collect in societies to thrive, and for society to work together we need a morality.

Its casual, not circular.
Biological reasons = collect in groups = groups need morality.

You need the middle step. A morality is a product of our soceity, not a product of our biological urge to collect in a group (well not directly, indirectly yes).

biological necessity

Can we or can we not survive long enough without love and affection in order to survive? Even to the point of passing on our genes we don't need love nor affection. In order for us to thrive then yes we do.

What is one of the fundamental assumptions of science? That there are underlying rules that govern nature, and that through empirical investigation, one can uncover those rules. I like your analogy, I think you have something going here. Societies refine their moral codes on the same basis because there are underlying rules that govern human behaviour.

Govern nature. Morality does what? Governs human behaviour in regards to one another in societies. The physical world (that scientists deal in) is empirical in can be observed. Thus humans collecting into societal groups is natural (its biological of us). But the moralities we use to govern those societies depends entirely on the society in question. There are similarities (and by this I mean you could probably count the number of similarities on one hand) between cultures simply because there are some general morals that make society a much more harmonious place for whoever is deciding the morality. The make up of the society is not a biological thing, the moral codes are a product of the make up of the society.

Society is a natural fact. Moralities are used to govern societies. The make up of the society depends on a number of factors and defines the morality

The physical world is a fact. Physical laws are used to govern the physical world. The make up of the physical world defines physical laws.

There is only one physical world. There are multiple socities. The analody only applies in so far as I personally see a refining over time of moral codes, but that is due more to the changing shape of soceity than any fundamental rule to be discovered.

And we would say we have a superior moral understanding from those times, in that we would say such things would be wrong. That's really what I'm getting at, we have a better understanding of individual rights now, then previous, so one can reject the earlier justification of murder.

I agree whole heartedly. But its not our understanding that really changes. Its the society in which the morality is needed that changes. We change along with it.

[Flip McWho]

I didn't ignore it, just making the counter-argument. Psychopaths are an exception, there has not been a gene cited to produce saints, meaning moral people from one generation to another.

Which would seem to indicate that morality is not natural?

[Berzerker]

This got me thinking, since this is a claim we here often.... since when is intolerance not extended to hating gay people, and since when is intolerance excluded from high moral values when anti-gay is in it?

Huh? There's gotta be a better way of saying whatever you're saying

And who is the author for making the rules of what those high moral values are? Aren't they pretty much subjective, maybe aside from few universal things.. but I would assume few of those universal things would be tolerance?!

Ah, a subject I can sink my teeth into
Those few universal things are the key, and the golden rule is a universal thing. By observing what we have in common we can avoid the subjectivity and a morality defined by "society" (mob rule ) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and treat others the way you want to be treated... That about sums it up...



And no, you dont get to rape hot women because you want to be raped by hot women

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you need to have an origin for these moral codes that restrain behaviour.

Yup. It's called the brain.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So all human behaviour has an evolutionary cause? Here's the problem with your thesis. You have already said that there is no morality in nature, or in the natural world. However, you also believe that human beings get their moral code from evolutionary processes that are a part of nature.

One of these is right. If there is no morality in nature, then morality cannot arise from natural causes, irrespective of evolution. If there is morality in nature, then it is possible for it to become refined through evolution.

No, both of them are right. I used nature specifically o mean "wilderness." That is, that part of this world that is outside human society. For example, The African Savannah.

Note that I have not used "nature" to denote "of this material world," such as "natural laws," just to avoid the confusion.

I hope your resorting to a fallacy is merely accidental, Ben.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not convinced that all moral behaviours have an evolutionary advantage, there are many that are very counterproductive in terms of ensuring that your genes are passed on.

For example?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, there is no genetic mechanism to pass on moral behaviours. Just because two saints have kids does not mean that their kids are going to be saints.

What's a saint?

the thing about "moral behaviour" is they are acceptable to us, and they are acceptable to us because such behaviour benefits us all as a group, or at least it doesn't cause us harm. Since we human beings were (still are) weak - we were no match against predatory beasts and we could not hunt adequately individually. We had to band together as a group to survive. Thus, traits beneficial to a group allows the group to survive better or to even prosper.

Here's an example. Suppose tribe A was consisted of nice individuals who looked out for each other, while tribe B was consisted of thieves, murderers, and such. Even if individuals in tribe B were stronger than individuals in tribe A, they could not survive in the wild, and they would get hosed in tribal warfare. As time worn on tribe A would become bigger and bigger while tribe B would wither out.

[Flip McWho]

Those few universal things are the key, and the golden rule is a universal thing. By observing what we have in common we can avoid the subjectivity and a morality defined by "society" (mob rule ) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... and treat others the way you want to be treated... That about sums it up...

Spot on

[Agathon]

A moral code, is essentially just a list of ways in which we conduct our affairs relative to one another. A morality only comes into existence once we enter into a society.

I happen to think that this is a modern misunderstanding of morality. Being moral is about living the best possible life for a human being... a life of self actualisation.

[Odin]

I hope your resorting to a fallacy is merely accidental, Ben.

I doubt it. The official moral theory of the RCC is Aqunas's, which is up to the eyeballs with the "natural = good" fallacy. He will defend the BS to the last just because the RCC says it's the One True Morality.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon

A moral code, is essentially just a list of ways in which we conduct our affairs relative to one another. A morality only comes into existence once we enter into a society.

I happen to think that this is a modern misunderstanding of morality. Being moral is about living the best possible life for a human being... a life of self actualisation.