Cause of human morality?

[awisler]

So, what exactly is the cause of human morality?

Why do most of us find that we need to be moral? Is it society?

Had we never lived in society, would we still follow similar morals? Is it just an instinct in the brain that has been there forever? Or has it formed over time due to society?

I know there aren't really definite answers but what is your educated guess and why? Or is there any evidence out there pointing to anything?

[hellheaven1987]

Easy, most of our "morality" is set up to maintain the order of society. Obviously, our ancestors found out that to maintain a healthy society a certain degree of law and order were required; yet law could not prevent human weakness so a certain degree of "brainwash" was required, which certain things were repeated and repeated several generations and turned into our "morality".

[Dayman]

We are social animals, so we need guidelines to keep society together.

[Maverick]

We are social animals, so we need guidelines to keep society together.

That doesn't imply we all want to live in societies, all mammals desire companionship but that need doesn't extend beyond a family or tribe etc. What we call morality is what we feel for our family or tribe after a strong emotional bond is developed in our youth--humans develop very strong bonds because we are more dependent in infancy than some other mammals. Obviously there is emotional attachment but there is also a strong biological imperative to look after our own as we were looked after to perpetuate the species.

We need guidelines to keep even a moderate sized society together simply because you have no such relation to your neighbors. You can feel affection for neighbors and even emotional attachment but I don't believe there is a natural instinct to protect them like you would normally feel for your family or close-knit tribe.

The way we artificially extend morality to neighbors is to simply imagine that they are you or your family/tribe, this is what most people consider morality: "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", however, this is just a manifestation of the emotion compassion.

So, to answer the question I think the cause of human morality is biological and common to other mammals. There are innumerable factors that make big societies "work", I believe one of those factors is our heightened, somewhat unnatural affinity to feel the emotion compassion, probably because many humans are coddled, have affection heaped on them and fear no predators as opposed to other mammals that live in the real world and have to rely on their survival instincts in order to live.

[MaximiIian]

So, what exactly is the cause of human morality?

Morality is in two forms: natural ethical imperatives, and societal morals.
The first developed as an evolutionary necessity to maintain a functioning social group, and to progress our species as a whole. Hence why humans find it difficult to kill other humans unless they systematically dehumanise their enemy.

The other developed as, similar to the first, as a means to maintain a functioning society, and to keep order and structure in a social group. As social groups expanded beyond small clans to whole tribes, cities, nations, and empires, our societal morality has become more flexible, to allow operation of the smaller-scale ethical codes of smaller groups within larger societies.

[Captain Blackadder]

Yes morality is done for an evolutionary reason if we work together we are more likely to succeed this is also seen in many creatures including our ancestors in the mid nineties they found a skeleton of a early man whose leg was completely smashed to pieces thye figured out that he would have basically been a cripple yet the injury was decades old he was around 40 so his family looked after him.

Also our morality is very deeply ingrained in all of us I remember reading somewhere that in world war one only 10% of soldiers deliberately aimed at the enemy and fired . Must people cannot stomach killing a human.

[awisler]

So, if we reproduced the first humans ever, say that they were i guess "pure," and they were all out on their own and never ran into each other. then would they still have a problem with say harming each other if they eventually did run into each other, after never living in a society?

I guess I am trying to ask, do you think that morals were the basic instinct of the first humans ever, or they were slowly ingrained into humans as their society developed?

This brings up, could it be possible that people were much more brutal in the ancient civilizations than those of today due to this? I know today people can still be pretty brutal but it does not seem to be as common.

[Blau&Gruen]

I believe it is the freedom to choose,
the tree we have eaten from.

[hellheaven1987]

So, if we reproduced the first humans ever, say that they were i guess "pure," and they were all out on their own and never ran into each other. then would they still have a problem with say harming each other if they eventually did run into each other, after never living in a society?

I am not sure whether they would harm eachother or not, since they may find living together is much more convient. However, I am pretty sure raping a woman is not immoral in their sense (for the sake of reproduction).

[MaximiIian]

I guess I am trying to ask, do you think that morals were the basic instinct of the first humans ever, or they were slowly ingrained into humans as their society developed?

I personally think that hominid species prior to the evolution of Homo sapiens developed this evolutionary ingrained ethics, and this simply carried over as a genetic trigger through to us. Granted, we have developed this even further than our ancestor species did, and we've honed our morality and even uncovered the reasons for it...but I do not think we developed it all, all on our own.

[Cyphon88]

Hume says something along the lines of whatever gives us pleasure, gives us actions. SO if something praises you for acts that are socially benefical then you get pleasure from that and proceed to do it as a basis of morality. (a very brief approximation)

[Da Skinna]

I think morality stems from an advanced subconscious understanding of self-preservation.

Screw over others for our own advancement, that's immoral. Help others, that's moral.

What separates humans from other animals is our ability to discern, distinguish and decide between our perceptions of morality, of right and wrong.

Which I believe stems from self-preservation, that old instinct we still all have imbedded deep in our uncivilized minds.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I think morality stems from an advanced subconscious understanding of self-preservation.

Screw over others for our own advancement, that's immoral. Help others, that's moral.

What separates humans from other animals is our ability to discern, distinguish and decide between our perceptions of morality, of right and wrong.

Which I believe stems from self-preservation, that old instinct we still all have imbedded deep in our uncivilized minds.

Exactly. Society is an unconscious instinct, it is not a human construct of the conscious.

[Maverick]

I think morality stems from an advanced subconscious understanding of self-preservation.

Screw over others for our own advancement, that's immoral. Help others, that's moral.

What separates humans from other animals is our ability to discern, distinguish and decide between our perceptions of morality, of right and wrong.

Which I believe stems from self-preservation, that old instinct we still all have imbedded deep in our uncivilized minds.

Can you explain this any better?

First, is there any evidence that human instincts for self-preservation are any more "advanced" than any other mammal?

Second, how do you figure morality is a survival instinct? You contradict yourself, either morality is hardwired in all of our minds or it's relative, according to our unique perceptions as you said earlier. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest the former is correct, "screw others over for our own advancement" is all about self-preservation, the most dangerous predator for humans has and will likely always be other humans. Personally, I think the idea that our ancestors would have felt any moral obligation to people outside their family or tribe is ridiculous and the evidence suggests there was bitter tribal warfare long before there was any attempt at civilization and there still is today in less developed countries where normal people wouldn't think twice about killing someone outside their group and that's perfectly natural.

Exactly. Society is an unconscious instinct, it is not a human construct of the conscious.

Skinna said: "our perceptions of morality", meaning we consciously decide them, if morality is instinctual we shouldn't have crime and furthermore, if society is instinctual why do you suppose civilization is barely 10,000 years old when intelligent hominids have been around for millions of years and homo sapiens for over 200,000?

[lil' Sally]

Control of Bullies and the Short Sighted is the cause of human morality.

[Da Skinna]

People are stronger in groups. We're a societal animal.

Do we feel so bad when we kill a killer? Or kill a child?

Our morality is based on stronger decisions, decisions intrinsic to our survival in varying degrees. They are intertwined with emotions. Kill a killer that killed some kid? Or Kill a kid in your family? Morals will tell you one is worse, while another is more acceptable. What do your morals say about choosing one of the two?

Or do your morals say that killing is wrong entirely? Killing is necessary, we are all capable of killing. Only the best of us, the most enlightened, pious, selfless or "civilized" of us or however they want to call themselves, can claim that and probably see it through. Most of us will choose.

People understand on very basic levels that being part of a group makes the self stronger. Working as part of a strong group makes them stronger. It pays off to be the top dog, or his best friend.

Humans are not by nature, solitary creatures. It's for a reason. We can't hurt, or most of us anyway, can't hurt a child, and those of us that do go to extents of hurting another, usually end up in prisons. They're our criminals, our psychos and sociopaths.

Human morality understands that as a whole, we stand strong. We just haven't learned yet we're all human.

[Maverick]

People are stronger in groups. We're a societal animal.

Do we feel so bad when we kill a killer? Or kill a child?

Our morality is based on stronger decisions, decisions intrinsic to our survival in varying degrees. They are intertwined with emotions. Kill a killer that killed some kid? Or Kill a kid in your family? Morals will tell you one is worse, while another is more acceptable. What do your morals say about choosing one of the two?

Or do your morals say that killing is wrong entirely? Killing is necessary, we are all capable of killing. Only the best of us, the most enlightened, pious, selfless or "civilized" of us or however they want to call themselves, can claim that and probably see it through. Most of us will choose.

People understand on very basic levels that being part of a group makes the self stronger. Working as part of a strong group makes them stronger. It pays off to be the top dog, or his best friend.

Humans are not by nature, solitary creatures. It's for a reason. We can't hurt, or most of us anyway, can't hurt a child, and those of us that do go to extents of hurting another, usually end up in prisons. They're our criminals, our psychos and sociopaths.

Human morality understands that as a whole, we stand strong. We just haven't learned yet we're all human.

This doesn't answer any of my questions, really. Like I said earlier, all mammals seek companionship... to extend that to humans want to live in big societies is a leap and you need some evidence to back it up. Can you answer the question I posed to Shayam? If society is instinctual why is it only in the last 10,000 years we have had civilizations, when intelligent hominids have been around for millions and humans for hundreds of thousands?

Also, "people understand on very basic levels that being part of a group makes the self stronger". This is not instinctual, genetic or inherent.

People understand on very basic levels that controlling a group makes the self stronger is most definitely a primitive, genetic trait that all humans still exhibit to varying degrees.

The difference between my statement and yours is that your understanding is based on enlightened self-interest, a social contract, not biology. My statement underneath is based on genetics and human nature. You said: "it pays off to be the top Dog, or his best friend". Human nature is such that nobody wants to be the best friend, the second in command. Humans want power, those without power make inter-subjective moral contracts with eachother to survive, this is self-interest, not biology.

I think you are drawing a lot from your own experience, as if killing a child is reprehensible. Aztec mothers voluntarily gave up their children for ritual sacrifice. In Mohammad's time Arabs would bury unwanted baby girls alive. Morality is relative and circumstantial. I can tell you that your human nature has nothing to do with abstract morals and ethics and emotions. Humans are the elite predators on Earth, born in the wild without institutionalized ethics you will do what you are hardwired to do and that doesn't include love thy neighbor.

[Da Skinna]

I used examples from today's society. Aztec mothers willingly gave up their kids because they thought it was necessary, or essential. Arabs buried unwanted girls alive because they were not needed, or considered essential.

I don't have the biology to back up what I say, but I'm thinking along the lines that our morality changes with our times, as they reflect different needs. Nowadays, we don't consider it necessary to rid an infant, many places still do though, like China.

Not everyone can control a group, so understanding just being part of a team, whether conscious or sub-conscious, makes the individual less likely to be picked off by some other elite predator.

And you're right, nobody wants to be the best friend, but was I wrong when I said "it pays to be the top dog..."?

Morality is a fickle thing, but I still think it goes hand in hand with our subconscious understanding of needs, instincts, and emotions.

[Bokks]

Morality is a stem from nature and nurture.
All animals clearly have a system of morals that are--in relation to our own--far more basic, solely extended to preserving relatives that they care about. I cannot accept that other animals lack this basic morality, as I have seen all manor of creatures heed the call of distress of their kin, from bears to cats. Monkeys--our closest animal relatives--clearly have morals when it comes to a dominant figure sacrificing even their own lives for the preservation of their band.
Other animals, however, lack that feeling for members of other species, a feature that humans have developed, especially in the last few decades. This, I feel, is a societal development, since it seems like the more societies develope the more we actually question our own supremacy among species, and eventually our right to harm them or even let them die by our inaction. This stems, also, from our capacity to destroy as that capacity has improved drastically in recent years as well.

Then there's the anomaly of valuing privacy and property, something that is nonexistant in other aspects of the animal world. Male animals will almost always rape a female that they want to mate with, whereas this act is one of the worst atrocities can be done by a person, but it seems like this was not always the case, as it's theorized that mating in early settlements in prehistory were done, likewise, solely in a rape manner. And certainly this act of harming a female in such a manner was downright accepted in the middle ages, even in some cases of inter-racial rape in the 1950's and 60's, and as late as the 1980's the definition of date-rape and what that really was was fuzzy at best. These are morals that have been defined and extended within our own lifetimes.

Therefore the blue prints of morals are a natural occurance, but their far reaching definitions extend from society. As we focus the attention to the human psyche, we begin to extend the natural definitions of humanities perserverance further than they were to begin with, reorganizing them to better fit a more and more extended and civilized society. Currently morals of political correctness now extend to regulate what people can and cannot say or even think, morals that certainly did not exist even ten years ago, and the counter morals of protecting a persons free speech and right to act in unharmful ways are, in some places, clashing. In such a way our morals are actively changing even as we speak, and in ten years our behavior will again mold around the values that will survive this particular struggle.

Another struggle is vigilanteism, at one time the prospect was glorified, then villified to the point that a girl could be raped and murdered in New York City with dozens of people acutely aware of the situation, now it is again prized to some extent as it is again seen as preserving peace where uniformed law enforcement cannot. In a few years, maybe, this will reverse again, and we will become even more dependant on law enforcement to protect our own lives, or maybe this will extend to the point where vigilante justice is supreme. Just another example of how morals change in humanity, while they remain constant in other creatures, and that must be due to society.

[Dunecat]

God, duh.

No you're right boeing, I derive my notion of monogamy from nature (when humans have been scientifically proven to be naturally, "instinctually" promiscuous, especially the females, so you can't run to philosophy of observable things for moral guidance this time).

Somewhat what like Lector said, "morality", the ability to choose good, if not only derived from a certain section of the brain devoted to desire (ability to override section of brain devoted to reason alone), is derived from god. The ability to choose an action devoid of personal gain (at least, as any published philosopher anymore would claim) allows for the mere existence of altruism and goodness, which then allows for our ability to choose good. It is the very nature of existence for their to be the existence of good things and for us to choose them, regardless of if any one person values them as such. We should not argue whether everyone honors the same value, but whether that same value exists.

It is not just humans who choose altruistic (desire, in this case in favor of good actions (Moral law), overriding reason (pure weighing of personal gain and expense) actions. All sorts of mammals have shown to bear the same semblance of morality, and whether your explanation is it the destiny of mammals to bear moral guidance or it is a mirroring of the process which led to our morality, to say that each species morality is different is empirically false.

Thus, it is much more reasonable to conclude the probability of a universal morality if separately evolved moral codes coincide perfectly not in the interpretation of good, but in our direct knowledge of it. So to say that their are different interpretations of "moralities" (moral law) would be true, but to say that there are different moralities (moral laws) would be false.

Aside: Interpretation of good means secondary values of good. Is it good to abort a human zygote/fetus/unborn infant? Well where do we derive this notion of the choice of good from- we derive it from the concepts of goodness in life and goodness in preserving that else which is good. Or we derive it from the goodness in freedom/free will and the goodness of justice.

Another struggle is vigilanteism, at one time the prospect was glorified, then villified to the point that a girl could be raped and murdered in New York City with dozens of people acutely aware of the situation, now it is again prized to some extent as it is again seen as preserving peace where uniformed law enforcement cannot. In a few years, maybe, this will reverse again, and we will become even more dependant on law enforcement to protect our own lives, or maybe this will extend to the point where vigilante justice is supreme. Just another example of how morals change in humanity, while they remain constant in other creatures, and that must be due to society.

Right, because law is morality?