That is an interesting argument that certain morals are evolutionary developments and I think somethings like the proscription against incest probably is one as it seems like many animal species avoid that practice. Murder seems like a tougher one as chimpanzees will murder each other and also commit infanticide so if it is evolutionary it seems like the close primates would also display that behavior. At the same time the standard for what constitutes murder hasn't been constant among human history or culture. The Romans killed people for entertainment value and evolutionarily we are no different than Romans. It seems to me if morals like a proscription against homicide were evolutionarily built in there would be more consistency throughout human history.
I disagree. Rape and murder were socially acceptable among early humans. We neither have morality within us nor is it divinely inspired (in my opinion because to me that would be like getting our morality from a magic stone or from Zeus). Morality is rather, to my mind, an agreed upon contract, and one that becomes more and more natural to us, or its basis (compassion) does, as it is passed down from generation to generation. The Golden Rule was not in our DNA as humans; we know this. But we appreciated it because it made us safer and, over time, we appreciated it because we developed compassion and whatever empathy we might have naturally had (or might have simply developed, perhaps through evolution) increased over generations. But we still need the contract or morality as we know it would not be observed. Horny people would rape, hungry people would steal, angry people would kill. That is in our nature because we are animals and animals have instincts. In a polite society, in a safer one, we agree not to do these things. For a lot of people, it is easier not to do these things when there is a threat of bad consequences. But in nature? There is no morality. Nor is there language, nor is there math. We developed these systems over time for the furtherance of our society. And, over time, morality, ethics, compassion, empathy became core to us. And a long time ago I think we began being born with the core values that are most responsible for morality: compassion, empathy, and a desire to be treated kindly ourselves. Because these characteristics, like freckles, like baldness, like a disposition to heart disease, are passed on through the blood, through our DNA.
Just because they do it, doesn't mean they don't think it's wrong in the abstract. Chimps killing one another and their own children mirrors our own behavior, since humans do that plenty as well. But chimps don't always kill each other -- most of the time, they get along. Same with the Romans. You didn't have citizens killing each other for no reason and have everyone else cheering on the sidelines. They killed people that they could define as outsiders -- slaves, foreigners, Christians, traitors, etc. I think of that scenario as being able to rationalize away the behavior because the victims weren't members of the tribe. It doesn't make killing in general okay, but you carve out for yourself an excuse to revel in your sinfulness. The rationalization is exposed by a simple change in perspective, but the kernel of truth that kept Roman from killing Roman doesn't change.
To follow up with why I believe what I posted above: If morality was in our DNA or if we got it from some sort of divine being (perhaps Santa Claus since he knows when we've been good or bad or perhaps from God who is very much like Santa Claus except with worse punishments), justice would also exist. And one of the earliest lessons we learn as children, a cruelly short time after learning the concept of fairness, is that "life is not fair." But we do not do justice as a society. We are still a Randian society, even though we put some people in jail for crimes. We are still largely every man for himself. Under certain idealistic systems such as communism or socialism the idea was to correct this, but those systems do not work. Because humans are animals and we are, in our very bones, concerned mostly with ourselves.
And a long time ago I think we began being born with the core values that are most responsible for morality: compassion, empathy, and a desire to be treated kindly ourselves. Because these characteristics, like freckles, like baldness, like a disposition to heart disease, are passed on through the blood, through our DNA. Don't think so. I think morals are entirely learned like language or any other higher skills. The chain of common knowledge is handed down from generation to generation. It changes certainly but it has a common root back to proto-humans. Again the ability to cooperate, with common understanding is what puts man on a higher level than animals. (You type faster than I do)
To the extent that chimps mostly get along it is because they mostly observe a hierarchical caste system and they know they will be punished for bad behavior. Without that threat, a chimp probably wouldn't kill another for no reason, but he would for the last banana. Or the last female. And he would not feel remorse for that because he would be observing a thing that is hard-wired into all living beings: the survival instinct. And there is nothing particularly moral or ethical, as we have come to agree upon the definitions of those concepts, about survival at all cost.
I'm not saying we have "morality within us". I'm simply saying that I think there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' thing according to the best interest of humanity as a whole. We may or may not know it now. It may or may not come from nature; I would argue that it likely doesn't, though I don't know if this is arguing for subjective or objective morality. Sam Harris would probably call it objective as he argues in his book "The Moral Landscape". Others may call it subjective since we don't actually agree on all the details as to what is right and what is wrong right now. It's clearly a complicated issue...
As Batman Jones noted that Chimp behavior is also driven by enforcement of hierarchical norms. Those rationalizations seem fairly fluid though and under our standards Roman rationalizations of throwing a Christian to the lions for the entertainment of the masses is murder. To use another example Jared Diamond, who wrote Guns Germs and Steel, studied some tribes in New Guinea where the people live in isolated family groups. Get-togethers with other groups for trade or marriage were very fraught with danger as they kill each other at slight provocations. As a society they don't have a social structure to deal with each other without violence. Now you can rationalize that within the family groups they don't slaughter each other but that seems like a fairly thin rationalization of murder.
You mean self-defense? Let's assume there is enough time to reflect on the morality if one's self-defense action in response to a deadly threat before the action actually takes place, will that person go through the two layer analysis as you suggested? I have never been in that situtation, but common sense tells me that the knowledge of legitimacy of self-defense doe not make most people in that situation feel wrong in the first place to fend off deadly attack, unless we are talking about Bruce Lee here. Again, I am in the camp, it depends on the circumstance and the person invovled. We certainly wouldn't say a mentally ill person, incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, immoral for committing a crime. Also I think humans started out being savages such that killing of each other were morally ok. Over the time, morality evovled such that certain killings become morally not ok. In this sense, I think your two layer analysis is totally opposite of innate human genetics.
Well said and fair characterization. But still my problem is what is objective, what is that ultimate morality? Take for example, bible says man shall not lie with another man, but why? To be honest, I think the debate is moot if all we talk about is killing, stealing ... duh, for those objectivism and relativism lead to the same result at the end, preconcieved notion right and wrong in one's head, and we are all pretty much have the same ideas. But how about human cloning, how about abortion.
The divisive issues are the ones a consensus has yet to be decided on. For the issues that have been around since the dawn of man (say killing your brother) the moral consensus has been carried via tradition and training as man spread across the Earth. More modern issues reached a consensus as religions, organizations and international treaties spread. Future consensus will be decided by shared information. Not exactly this interview but I think this book would be a good read on the subject. <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:cms:video:colbertnation.com:413586" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b>The Colbert Report</b> <br/>Get More: <a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/'>Colbert Report Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.colbertnation.com/video'>Video Archive</a></p></div></div>
Morals are a product of civilization. As uncivilized members of the animal kingdom, we lived by instinct and by the forces of nature. The strongest survive. You do what it takes to protect your resources, and your reproductive success. When we began to live amongst each other in civilized groups we saw a need for certain "rules." We need each other to be successful, one man can't do everything, so with others to spread the work around, more gets done. In order for this to be made possible you have to establish these ground rules: Don't kill Don't steal Those are the two main morals of civilized people. You can't get anything done if you kill one another, and not stealing is common sense, don't take what is not yours. Before civilization these rules weren't necessary because we had no use for them. Everything else is relative to the society you were brought up in. IMO
I don't have a link or other evidence available right away but my understanding is that incest, among immediate family, isn't common among most animals. Off the top of my head from what I recall from nature specials is one reason why pack animals will often drive out males when they become sexually mature to keep them from mating with related family members. Also why some males of social animals will risk changing groups even though they lose all social status because they have a better shot at breeding with females of different groups. If you think about it evolutionarily makes sense as it reduces the risk of inbreeding so as a behavior it seems like something that natural selection would favor.
