RE: Morality in Nature
September 24, 2013 at 7:24 pm
(This post was last modified: September 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm by Whateverist.)
(September 24, 2013 at 6:50 pm)genkaus Wrote:(September 24, 2013 at 10:33 am)whateverist Wrote: I suspect you mean in the sense that the feeling of must or must not in human morality probably is built on something instinctual. No doubt these inhibitive impulses have been fine tuned by nature through evolution in pro-social directions for the most part. All the rationalizing and systematizing of course come in secondarily.
No, I don't. Most certainly not.
What I mean is that one may have an instinctual sense of "must or must not" - but this instinctual sense does not qualify for human morality. However, we can build a code of behavior based on these instincts and that would qualify as morality. Or we can ignore them altogether and build it on something else altogether. It is the rationalization and systematization that gives rise to morality - not the existence of instincts.
I believe you have the cart out in front of the horse. Between knowing that an action will cause harm and giving a shit about that, it is clearly the giving a shit which is primary. Of course, unless one is aware of a formal reason why an action is morally good or bad, one's behavior may not be correctly said to be 'moral'. Such a person may merely be kind or sensitive or generous without any moral goodness to it, or contrariwise, be cruel or insensitive without there being any quality of moral badness about it.
This is the classic Kantian difference in morality. Unless an action is chosen because it is thought to be morally superior, it is not a moral action. That of course leaves us to conclude that the son who visits his sick mother in the hospital because he endeavors to be a good son has a motive that is morally superior (especially if he loaths her) to that of the son who visits because he loves her and is concerned for her comfort. A conclusion I could never agree with.