posted
On whether morality is objective or subjective, and from whence it originates.
Preview: There are very few, if any, moral hard lines. At best, we can say that there are a few tenets which tend to express themselves in an overwhelming majority of cultures, isolated or connected, across the history of the globe.
These moral hardlines, in their own individual ways, are memes -- a meme being an idea or cultural factor that evolves just like an organism, and often hand-in-hand with the organism.
Biological Basis: Life has existed, from its inception, for the sole purpose of making more life. It has no purpose, actually -- it's just what life does. Self-replicating chemicals make more self-replicating chemicals. Is that a purpose? I say not -- no more than the purpose of the sun is to be a big fusion reactor. It is just what the sun does.
Now, all 'life' as we know it today does the same thing, to a greater or lesser extent, as those first self-replicating chemicals: it makes more of itself. The difference is that modern life has diversified and come up with many different ways to do it.
We make more of ourselves through the act of childbirth and rearing -- we have sex, produce children, and raise them protectively until they are capable of repeating the process.
I should note here that I do not subscribe to the selfish gene theory -- there is to vast an amount of directly observational evidence that runs contrary to it. Rather, I accept that from an evolutionary standpoint, the replication of the individual organism is not the goal -- it is the replication and continuation of the individual population, whether that be a tribe in the Amazons, an entire nation-spanning society and culture, or simply an individual family.
The Content: The moral hardlines are memes. They are ideas that have evolved with the populations and are passed on not genetically, but through nurture. They serve to ensure that an organism behaves in such a way that the population continues. These memes make a warrior run a suicide mission so that his tribe survives. These memes say that you should treat your brethren with kindness and hospitality, while making subtle implications as to who, exactly, your brethren are.
The basis of morality, then, is the variety of ways that we keep on chugging away.
For one culture, this may mean that the individual is irrelevant in the face of society and can be freely disposed of for the benefit of the society. For another culture, this may mean that each individual is valuable and should be given the greatest possibilities to successfully reproduce.
For one culture, this may mean that the most successful men should fertilize the greatest number of women possible, consensually or otherwise. For another culture, this may mean that a man and a woman should reproduce and bond to form a stable family unit to ensure the greatest success in rearing an individual child.
Which of these, then, is correct? Rape and harems? Monogamy and the nuclear family?
To put it quite simply: whichever one works. Whichever moral hardline allows a culture to achieve dominance and success is the appropriate moral hardline, and other populations would do well to adopt it to stand a greater chance of survival.
Extentions: This covers the basic morality, but then where do more abstract ideas like the morality of theivery or even the worship of certain deities and not others come from?
I say that they lie in the same root. We do not tolerate someone robbing our possessions because it limits our ability to pass on our genes, at the fundamental level. This morality extends into the superfluous -- someone stealing my lamp isn't going to hamper my ability to make babies, but it still appeals to that core moral.
Likewise, a culture saying 'My way or the Highway' (See the Ten Commandments) is saying, "Don't blend with the other people. They're not like us. Keep your genes here, and don't let them get washed out."
In Summary: Morality is not objective. It fills the same purpose, but in different ways in different cultures. Likewise, it is not entirely subjective -- not every moral system is correct. Rather, it is utilitarian -- whichever systems works best for its purpose (the continuation of the population) is the best system for the time being.
**********************************************
Now, I'm taking certain things as axioms from this perspective, such as the veracity of evolution, that some of you may disagree with. Please, let's move beyond that and see if my thoughts on morality hold from the perspective from which I approach the argument.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that the wealthy should procreate more because they are genetically better whilst the poor should be limited in their reproduction? Not really, I don't think.
I say that if the poor are producing more children, on average, that reach reproductive age than the wealthy, than the poor might have an advantage, neh?
Reproductive success does not always mirror material success.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Social Darwinism is not "The idea that the wealthy should procreate more because they are genetically better whilst the poor should be limited in their reproduction" although one could certainly try to use it to justify that viewpoint. However, countering with your "I say that if the poor are producing more children, on average, that reach reproductive age than the wealthy, than the poor might have an advantage" is also an example of Social Darwinism. It is simply applying the idea of evolution, especially survival of the fittest, to social behavior.
posted
I am taking simple facts of biology, including memes, an examining what insight they can lend to the origins of morality. If you want to call that social darwinism, so be it. Any comments on the actual content?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Morality is not objective. It fills the same purpose, but in different ways in different cultures. Likewise, it is not entirely subjective -- not every moral system is correct. Rather, it is utilitarian -- whichever systems works best for its purpose (the continuation of the population) is the best system for the time being."
Well, wouldnt the absolute form of morality, by this logic, be Utilitarianism? You are trying to say that, and you can of course correct me if I am wrong, morality isnt objective and it is subjective (when really I think you mean relative) in certain respects. But, in those respects there is at least one absolute: the Utilitarianism that you speak of.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, I guess then utilitarianism is a tool by which to judge moral superiority, but I arrive at that tool by observing the history of life: that which works works, and that which does not is eradicated.
I guess then that I except the axiom that existence is better than non-existence, which I cannot objectively or subjectively support -- it's just an axiom.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My comment on the actual content (and I suspect this was Storm's point too) is: No new ideas here. That's not to say there's anything bad or wrong about it. Actually, I think it's rather well written, succinct yet thorough. But it's not provoking any great desire to debate or analyze (from me, at least) because I've heard these concepts before.
I'd point out that it's practically impossible to come up with any truly original ideas anymore, but that's been done to death.
quote:Which of these, then, is correct? Rape and harems? Monogamy and the nuclear family?
To put it quite simply: whichever one works. Whichever moral hardline allows a culture to achieve dominance and success is the appropriate moral hardline, and other populations would do well to adopt it to stand a greater chance of survival.
So, let me ask you this: Given that the "it is right to persecute and exterminate the Native Americans" meme succeeded in virtually wiping out Native American peoples and thereby propogating itself, do you believe that means it was RIGHT for Europeans to wipe out all Native American peoples?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, the situation is altered when one civilization realizes that most morality is relative. Basically, I believe that as soon as you are aware of the utilitarianism of memes and morality in terms of survival of an individualist group, you're given the choice of submitting to these forces, which to me sings of defeat and ignominy, or trying something more esoteric.
Basically, I guess I'm saying what Xaposert suggested, but without all the skill and clarity.
I suppose my morality is defined precisely by the exact opposite of your determinist morality, the point being, we're not animals. You shouldn't intentionally hurt others (be it the Native Americans, the economic poor, or the 12 year old unwilling girl who's joining your harem) for your own personal gain and survival. I mean, this is coming from a guy who's been repeatedly assaulted in the past few months, so you can expect it to be a little simplified, but that's how I feel. You got this one shot at life, no need to be a jerk.
[ July 31, 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I have come up with an answer to your question, Xaposert.
When the Europeans were slaughtering the Native Americans, they were two entirely different populations. It was an 'us against them' mentality -- the mentality that says that either they survive, or we do.
At the time, under this situation, the actions were morally correct to those doing it.
Once the populations began to eventually blend, though, and we accept all of mankind as a brotherhood -- a single population -- those actions become reprehensible. They are now immoral.
Because they are now immoral, they were also immoral then -- from our perspective.
The basis of morality does not change, but the way in which it is applied changes frequentley depending on perspective.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This ignores the possibility that our species has hardwired instincts for certain behaviors -- for instance -- that we are a social species dictates a range of "moral" behaviors that will lead to the propogation of the species. Morality therefore cannot be entirely subjective.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because they are now immoral, they were also immoral then -- from our perspective.
The basis of morality does not change, but the way in which it is applied changes frequentley depending on perspective.
So, you are suggesting that it was right then but wrong now looking back? I see two problems with this:
1. It says that genocide is okay, so long as it advances the spread of our culture. Given that genocide seems to be one of the most obviously wrong things I know, why should I accept any definition of morality that implies genocide can be right?
2. It says the choices that are right now could become wrong later, after the fact. How am I to make sense of that? Isn't it true that if something turns out to be wrong in the future, it was wrong all along, not just from our perspective but in fact?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darn. I added this everywhere else, but I forgot it here:
quote:I think I need to revise my statement.
The OP was discussing where morality originated, and whether it was subjective or objective in its origin.
Self-awareness, and awareness of the process, changes the approach to morality entirely.
Is this a cop-out? A bit. I put forth an idea and realized that it was inadequate.
I think that this holds as the basis of morality, but then we can change that morality. So things that were once wrong or right are no longer.
As to your second point, Xaposert, I didn't say that this was a definitive and objective moral system. Morality constantly changes -- if you want a system that is invariable, you have to ignore most of recorded history.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
