Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy

No, my position has not changed, although I do not think my word-choice there is very clear of what exactly my position is. What I wanted to say was that there are some explanations for human morality that stem directly from biological-evolution, and mainly use a survival instinct, or something like that, as a primary driver for why we do good. I do not like these explanations. I don't feel like they explain why I do what I do. However, I do believe that there are natural explanations, mostly having to do with psychology as you suggest, that do explain why I do what I do.For example, let's take murder again: I do not think murder is wrong because it will reduce the number of people in society and therefore lower our survival-chances. However, I do think murder is wrong because, basically, I've learnt that it makes me feel bad.Both reasons include only natural reasons, and have no link towards any spirituality that I'm aware of. However, I think the evolutionary "survival-chance" explanation is strange. While I also think that the psychology explanation is more truly-descriptive of my real decision making process.I sometimes do think that I believe in my own god, but I am convinced that even this strange god of my own is not needed for explaining human morality.

quote:

---

The 'surviaval chance' mechansim is pretty cold and clinical but you can look at it like the 'bare bones' of behaviour.

---

I understand the logics in why these explanations are provided. But it is unfulfilling for me because I don't use them at all. Or, perhaps I only do not use them conciously at all. If someone says "we find killing to be wrong because it lowers our chances for survival". I just think "No, I couldn't care less about our, or my, chances of survival, that has nothing to do with why I consider killing wrong".I suppose, I see how it can be a explanation. But, as far as I can tell, it is not my explanation.

quote:

---

Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope these bare bones into psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us.

---

I would word this as:"Our massive brains with it bias towards cognition allows us to develope psychological reasons for doing good that 'feel' more acceptable to us."I do not understand why this "survival-instinct" must be at the core. As far as I can tell, my "massive brain with it's bias towards cognition" allows me to over-come, or even ignore my survival-instinct, and use my intellect to decide on what I'm going to do, and what I think is right.I think killing is wrong because I would not want to be killed. Not because I want to survive, but because I don't think anyone should be able to remove my priveledge of being "alive". ... Huh, perhaps being killed isn't a great analogy because it kind of directly affects survival.I think rape is wrong because I would not want to be raped. Not because a rapist causes serious distrust within a social circle (or whatever reason makes sense here) and therefore reduces our survial chances. I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal. And someone being raped is one person forcing themselves onto another, somehow thinking that their needs/wants/desires are more important than another's need/wants/desires to the point of harming them to get what they want. I judge that this particular removal of another's status of being equal is wrong.My judgement that the action is wrong has nothing to do with anything regarding survival chances. Although the fact that I think it is wrong may very well have a side-affect that it happens to increase survival chances. My judgement was made on an intellectual level, weighing empathic factors, how I would want to be treated, and my assumption that all humans should be treated equally.I suppose I can see how someone might say that "how I would want to be treated" is directly related to my survival chances. But, I don't see it. I mean, if someone held a gun to my head and said "rape this woman or I will kill you". I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions? This I whole-heartedly agree with. I think I'm just arguring that "survival chances" doesn't necessarily have to be a part of morality either, even though morality is still strictly mundane in nature. Although I do concede that an increase in "survival chances" may be a side-effect at certain points.

Yes. I totally agree with this.However, it's just easier to say:
I think it is wrong because I believe, as people, we are equal.
Then it is to say:
I think it is wrong since the learning that has taken place throughout my life has caused me to understand that, as people, we are equal.I agree with you on this point. But I'm not going to re-write every sentence with 13 extra words just to explicitly say so everytime. Trust me, if anyone ever asks me "but why do you believe that?" I will go into the same explanation you keep telling me I'm forgetting. I'm not forgetting about it, I'm just condensing it to more-understandable language. I do not ignore the interplay. I'm over-coming the inter-play you say I use. I don't think I do use it. In fact, I think I go directly against it. I understand that as we evolved, we used these survival instincts to help our society grow and continue to survive and prosper. However, I think we've reached a point where our cognitive abilities have gotten to a level that we don't necessarily respond to these survival instincts anymore. Take this for example: But, I'm telling you, this IS NOT me wanting to protect myself. In fact, I also say:

quote:

---

I would just have to accept that I would die at that point. So how would my moral decision be based on survival chances if I'm willing to die to uphold certain moral decisions?

---

To which you reply with more survival-driven reasons:

quote:

---

This is self sacrifice that is very important to a society.

---

And my rebuttle to that is that I would sacrifice the entire society before I allowed something to force me into raping another person. So, how is that important to a society's survival chances?We're coming down to this: Which I have stated over and over again, that I totally agree with. You see this as one thing, one concept. I see it as two, separate and distinct. I agree with your second half, I agree that we would not have evolved from emotional existance to a cognitive existance were it not for our survival drive. Hey, I even agree that we'ed never have evolved into an emotional existance in the first place without our survival drive.BUT, we are here now. We are now in a cognitive existance. And I no longer need my survival drive (as far as I can tell, anyway). In fact, I can use my cognitive existance to completely ignore and over-come my survival drive. I DO have reasons to do things without my survival drive, and that is my entire point.

But that's just it. That's what I've been trying to say from the beginning of this thread. I don't think morality is based on only feelings and survival chances. In fact, I don't think morality is based on survival chances at all. I think intelligence is a larger factor. Yes, intelligence evolved and came-to-be because of our ancestors' (pre-human ancestors) reliance on survival chances. But I do not think we continue that reliance now that we have our intelligence. I do not see that our moral standard today is based on these teachings, only that the two teachings are very similar. I've also heard of teachings from before the time of Christ, in other parts of the world, that are also similar teachings. I've also heard of teachings from places very independant from Christ or anywhere else for that matter, and they too have similar teachings.I have not seen a shift from 'love thyself' to 'love thy neighbor'. I have seen the same battle that goes on today between these two conflicting ideals as has gone on in Jesus' time and even before Jesus' time. Jesus did not create this ideal of 'love thy neighbor'. Although, I will concede that he is promoted that way and it is certainly the popular belief of a majority of Western civilization.

Yes. And this decision is also based what we have learnt throughout our lives. A very interesting question. But I'm afraid I'm not concerned with the answer to it in this thread. Since I don't think my morality is dependant at all on the survival of any given society (even my own), the answer will therefore not have any affect on how I see my morality.However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children, though. I have never seen anything that would make myself think otherwise, anyway.

I certainly believe you. This, however, does not phase me in my statement:

quote:

---

However, I would guess that most women certainly would sacrifice themselves for their children...

---

I never required that all women act this way. People are different, some are "mal-functioning" as previously described in this thread, others have had non-optimal environments during their main growth and learning phases of life.Are we on topic? What are we discussing on this line of thought, anyway? ...I find myself without a point I'm trying to make

Oh, okay then. But, if that's your point, I agree with you.Hitler thought some people were inferior to him. What was it you just said? Oh, here it is:

quote:

---

I guess I have learned better than some, then.

---

I see... so you think some people are inferior to you too.Recognizing the fact that people are different is not evil. Deciding to kill the different ones, yes... that is evil, and that is why Hitler was evil.I am not going to decide to start killing the different people. I am also not going to be afraid of stating facts such as "people are different". I am just like you, seeing that some people are different from me, and attempting to find the explanation that best fits the facts. So far, I do not see anything in my thoughts on morals that should be ringing alarm bells that I'm becoming Hitler....but thanks for keeping my guard up

My very next point was to be clear that I was talking about myself, and perhaps only even recently at that. I see people everyday who are still dependent on hard-wired drivers. Although I also see people who I believe also no longer need them. Thanks for not letting me get away with anything. I think I would have missed a few essential points otherwise.

No I did not say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite: "People are different".I did say that people are equal. But that, of course, is referring to their status as people and their rights and privileges.

Empathy is not good or bad.
Empathy is simply the ability of one creature to read the feelings of another, and feel what they think the other creature is feeling.Empathy can be about good feelings -> seeing someone smile and laugh.
Empathy can be about bad feelings -> seeing someone wince in pain.Empathy is not a synonym for good or for moral. It is a tool, an ability which can be used to help discern good from bad, moral from immoral.

Why? That is not what I think moral means, and it is not what I intended it to mean, and I don't think I even said that anywhere.To me, moral = "doing what is good", which can include simply "not doing what is bad" as well. And "good" is just as subjective as it's always been. Which, of course, makes "moral" just as subjective. However, I don't see how anything affects my original statement:

quote:

---

Empathy is not a synonym for good or for moral. It is a tool, an ability which can be used to help discern good from bad, moral from immoral.

---

I do not think this is a complicated or involved idea. I think it's rather obvious, actually. Is there anything specific you think I'm glossing over?

I don't want to be pulled into an arguement I'm not ready for. I do not claim to understand, or know why other people do things. But, to attempt an answer to your question: It could be. The rapist may have had no trusted authority figures, they may have been trusted yet poorly directed, they may have been trusted yet numerous thereby giving confusing signals. It may have not been authority figures, it may have been any other aspect of the rapist's experience. It's all about learning. These feelings and reactions are learnt. Authority figures are one way to learn, they certainly are not the only way. Niether can we assume he "did not learn". It may be a possibility. It may not. Maybe he learnt just fine, but perhaps his particualar learning environment taught him differently from what we and society deem as good. We are? Are you sure? I don't love to make people squirm. I think you like it, and you don't want to be alone in that fact. You know it's hard to change, or maybe you don't want to change. So the easiest course for you to justify it to yourself is to say "everyone is".I used to like making people squirm. Then, when I was in my early teens, I learnt that making people squirm made me feel horrible. I do not like to make people squirm at all anymore. Not a fellow debator, employee, neighbour, and especially not a fellow competitor. I have the utmost respect for anyone I get the chance to compete with, in anything. I would call it basic behaviour. And that a part of morality is about rising above basic behaviour, towards making a world with as much positive feelings as we possibly can. I think it is complicated, very complicated at times. I very much doubt it is beyond our expression. It is, as far as I can tell, entirely natural. No, kinda. The choices I make are not based on anything more than what I've learned. I admit that they are based on more then my learned ability to empathize. The "more" is my intelligence, it allows me to decide what actions I take. My intelligence allows me to rise above my basic drivers such as survival or my personal needs and wants in order to act in a way my intelligence tells me will most help the given situation. However, the intelligence itself is also learnt, and therefore remains natural. No, I don't. In fact, I don't see how it can possibly be anything other than learning. Since that is the only mechanism of doing things I have ever observed in anyone or anything. If you do know about "something more", please explain it to me, I would like to understand if I am indeed missing something.

quote:

---

Stile writes:

​

If I feel that a certain action is evil, or good; generally by wondering if anyone is being hurt. Then I deem it as being bad, or right.

sounds more like what Jon wrote:

Jon writes:

​

moral = doing what is good for others.

---

Yes, they do sound similar. But if you read my quote is uses the words "generally" and "anyone". Which is not all-encompasing and even I am included in "anyone". So still, if I wanted to shorten my description even more, I'd still say:

quote:

---

Moral = doing good

---

I am glad for the picking. One of the reasons I started this thread, mentioned in the OP, was that I'd like to understand my own thoughts on the matter. "Picking", yours or anyone elses, helps me to do exactly that, and I thank you for it. However, not only am I even more confident that morality is natural now, I am also beginning to think that it is not impossible to articulate. Although "very difficult" would not be an understatement, for me, anyway.

Exactly. And, if we look at morality, if we objectively look at different cultures, different time periods, different people even... we see that not everyone is playing by the same rules. Not everyone guessed the same rules.If morality was as you say, why do we not all know to "climb the ladders and slide down the snakes"? If we look around, we see people skipping both... people going in opposite directions... some people not even putting their playing piece on the board! If morality is external, and shown to us all... things would not be how we see them.By looking at all the differences in people's morality, it is obvious that everyone is "alone without training" (external training, that is...) and that we are all "only lucky to guess the correct rules". That is, if there even are "correct rules" to begin with. I think the voice of the conscience is mine. I don't see how it could possibly be anyone elses. I have never experienced anything that would make me think it was anything but my voice.

Alright. I do not see a reason to think that it is imparted in any way. In fact, there are many reasons in this thread alone to think that it is natural, and learnt. I am going to stick with what we can prove, but I cannot force you to see that evidence has a higher weight then feelings. This also, is something we must learn. I still think that this fear of breaking an invisible law and this sense of creating chaos where there should be harmony are both learnt. Taught to you as you went through life. Most likely from your parents, teachers and probably priests as well. The fact that morality is a localized affect... that is, Chinese ethics are different from Italian ethics, yet Chinese ethics are locally very similar and Italian ethics are locally very similar. This tendancy, across the entire planet, shows us that these feelings of "breaking invisible barriers" are learnt.You seem to be saying that we are all given the exact same "external learning". The exact same "conscience". I would guess that when someone does something wrong, you think they are ignoring that conscience? Every time? I agree that this happens some time. But, when this happens, there is regret, a feeling of being sorry. And we see this. But what about when there is no regret, or no sense of being sorry, or any knowledge whatsoever that any kind of wrong was committed?If the knowledge is externally imparted, how can anyone do something wrong (say, stab a stranger with a knife), and be unaware of any sort of bad action? Because this does happen. Especially if dealing with a non-modernized tribe of people. It is obvious how this can happen if morality is a learnt process. But these facts do not seem to fit a divinly-guided moral system.

I agree. Personally, I value my emotions very highly. Although sometimes inhibiting, they are generally very useful, and can be a source of extreme strength and pleasure. I'm not sure if it's known that it's all chemical. There may be other interactions involved. But I agree with the idea, I do think it is all natural/physical. This confuses me a bit. Do you communicate with people who have died? It's just... I've never met anyone who could do that before. I don't understand how we can have any knowledge of what it is like to be dead. Some certainly do, yes. I do. Amongst thinking about other things as well. I think you would be hard-pressed to show that everyone thought about this, though. Especially in racial murders. I don't think the killer would consider anyone mourning the victim in a racial murder.However, I agree that whatever it is we consider, it does come from inside. I just think that the "inside" is a natural process. I do not think that any divinity or higher-power is needed to explain our internal feelings. I think those feelings are learnt.