A Biological Basis for Morality

Do we invent our moral absolutes in order to make society workable? Or are these enduring principles expressed to us by some transcendent or Godlike authority? Efforts to resolve this conundrum have perplexed, sometimes inflamed, our best minds for centuries, but the natural sciences are telling us more and more about the choices we make and our reasons for making them

www.theatlantic.com...

A well prepared article which sites the human condition has a basis in what is physiology. Potentially and with respect to all our attributes. I feel that already, we are coming face to face with the reality that even the soul will one day be a topic within the field of biology.

Any thoughts?

Toltec,
The article was a good read, indepth and quite an informative analysis.
I did sense that the author is a proponent of evolutionism. I may be wrong. I might have read into the authors comparisons too much.
The author claimed a 'biological' morality and gave many conclusions and postulations for such his/her reasoning. The author kept refering to the mannerisms and actions of animals to the human counterpart. Then how this could be further related to a biological happening in humans. That our genes and mDNA were encoded with a sort of pre-set morality or having a morality basis.
I just don't agree with this idea or premise. And I, in no way, can explain or counter in such an informative and eloquent way as the author of this article gave his/her reasoning for their postulations and premises.
I have always believed that morality, including absolute morality, is given by society, learned, taught, but not genetic or God guided.
Many have postulated that 'right' and 'wrong' and morality/ethics are 'apart' of us; that we have an pre-existing sense of these things....I beg to differ. Does a baby have a sense of these things? Does a baby have a pre-existing notion of 'right' and 'wrong'? When that baby grows to the point that it is crawling and trying to walk, does this stage of growth incorporate this pre-existing sense of 'right' and 'wrong' or morality also? I think not.....
That child has to be taught these things. If this is the case, then how is it 'biological' or having an pre-existing sense? This process of learning 'right' and 'wrong' and morals/ethics continues on the rest of the childs life and into adulthood. This process of 'learning' leads to the individual developing, through subjective judgements, his/her own sense of 'right' and 'wrong' and morals/ethics....called a personal value system.
I am failing to see how these things are 'biological' or pre-existing.
I would be interested if one wished to explain to me how 'wrong' or 'right' or morality/ethics is pre-existing or, indeed, biological when, in truth, they are seen as being taught and learned.
Maybe I am way off base on this....if so, please clarify if I am and how.
Thank you.

regards
seekerof



[Edited on 6-9-2003 by Seekerof]

i think that alot of morality stuff really holds us back i.e. anti-cloning, anti human test subject, lotsa stuff agree??

Hey Seekerof how familiar are you with Carl Jung's personality theory and the concept of archetypes.

www.questia.com...

My impression is you find the subject interesting so took the liberty of providing you with an opportunity to review his works at length. I should also act as response to your query but feel free to ask if you have any questions.

Banjoechef it took about 100 years to get where we are today in respect to technology, what are the chances that in the past it happened at least once before??

I would consider that we are better of with that morality stuff

Any thoughts?

IMO, this is a very far fetched theory. Morality is learned, its not in any way in the genes. Best proof for that are societies with different morality, regardless of your "genetical" background. Morality is a centuries long process of development of society, it depends on many SOCIAL and RELIGIOUS factors. I doubt that there is any biological basis for it.

The rights and wrongs differ from culture to culture, and if individuals move from one culture(society) to another they will accept the new moral and ethical values.

No paerclip its not morality has now become part of us without being taught it we would still help others as humans and look to grow from what we are and things.

Actually its not far fetched, taken from the context of a Universe created where God exist in everything it may in fact be all that is needed.


Any thoughts?

Archeological evidence of pre-history seem to bear out the theory that morality is a result of society & culture. Even before humans started practicing animism, there were still "taboos" amongst tribes...Mostly for practical reasons, such as "Do not go near that swamp" because some tribe members have suffocated on swamp gas, for one example. As animism took hold after a number of generations, it became thought that the "spirits of the swamp" would kill you for trespassing.

Usually, the "ideal" morals adopted by any early society would involve either actions that benefit the whole group or actions to avoid for safety reasons. Once "morals" have been adopted in a religious context of some kind, they're usually designed to benefit society as a whole as well as bring some peace of mind to the individual...Once religions became "organized", that's when people started to degrade the *meaning* behind the tenants esposed by the religion.
For example, how many military (regular/quasi/para) units actually espouse the Christian religion & seek to convince the soldiers have "God on our side" while sending them out to kill other people? Haven't they heard of "Thou shalt not kill"?

As MidnightDStroyer has been typing, I feel any such inbred morality is the result of social surival instincts. Looking at lesser animals that socialize like ants and bees shows that they rarely engage in inter-communal fighting, but will attack outsiders of their own species. On the larger scale, other social animals like wolves have fights for dominance and food rationing, both survival instincts, but do not attack each other for other reasons. Human morality is basically the same thing, but has new and larger interpretations to it other than surival alone.