Evolution of morality

[corndog36]

I think it is possible to arrive at objective moral conclusions, if your moral model is sound.

But the only way to test your "moral model" would be to compare it to reality. But there's no reality with which to compare since the model and the thing you're using it to describe are not distinct.

I test my model by applying it to real life situations, and it has worked in every case, involving human interaction, that I've examined. I haven't examined situations involving non-humans in any depth, still working on that.

I've never tried throwing aliens into the mix, it adds some interesting twists. I've always viewed the basis of morality as the equality of human beings, maybe it should be equality of sentient beings.

Consider two people, or two species who have developed different, contradicting moral codes. How do you judge which one is better?
The only way to judge one is in terms of the other, as there is no external "yardstick" by which to measure both.

Not comparing them, testing each one separately, if they both work in every case there is no significant difference between them. By 'working' I mean a resolution in which no one is infringing on anyone's right to peacefully co-exist.

You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining its origin.

I'm finding it highly unenviable. It seems intuitive to me, but very difficult to express.

[lilphil1989]

I think we have a semantic issue here. You seem to be using the words "model" and "test" in a different way to me (perhaps due to my background in physical science).
Let's try to make things nice and clear from the start.

What exactly do you mean by a moral model?

Do you believe that there is a code of morality that exists independently of human beings?

---

This implies that morality exists independently of human beings or any other species with a moral code.
You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining its origin.

Convergent evolution?

If that's the case, then the underlying "true" morality is NOT independent of those moral codes converging towards it, since their point of convergence would DEFINE the "true" morality.

[corndog36]

I think we have a semantic issue here. You seem to be using the words "model" and "test" in a different way to me (perhaps due to my background in physical science).
Let's try to make things nice and clear from the start.

What exactly do you mean by a moral model?

My background is science is not extensive, but as I understand it the Newtonian model of physics worked fine until Michelson was able to test it, as it applied to the relativity of the speed of light. The model didn't work in that case, and we had to start over. I'm attempting to use those terms in the same way.

The moral model is the most basic premise that can inform all moral decisions.
A moral code would be a set of rules based on that premise.
Testing the model involves applying the moral code in the real world. Until a case is found where the code does not work, the model is accepted as true.

Am I applying scientific method correctly?

Do you believe that there is a code of morality that exists independently of human beings?

No. Morality is a product of the human mind. (unless we start talking about hypothetical aliens again.)

[lilphil1989]

My background is science is not extensive, but as I understand it the Newtonian model of physics worked fine until Michelson was able to test it, as it applied to the relativity of the speed of light. The model didn't work in that case, and we had to start over. I'm attempting to use those terms in the same way.

Yes (although SR is just a modification of newtonian mechanics, not a whole new framework. This is periphery though, and we seem to be on the same semantic terms ).

(Incidentally, since you brought this example up, Lorentz, when deriving the Lorentz transforms which form the basis of special relativity, did it as a joke.
He essentially said "Well, if intervals of space and time can change size like this, we can explain the Michelson-Morley experiment LOLOLOLOL"
Then along came Einstein who showed that yes, that really is what happens.)


The problem with this analogy is that there was a model (Newtonian physics) and an independent reality against which to test it (How do objects in motion really behave? How does light really behave?).

With morality, there is NO independent reality against which to test, as you yourself agree in the below quote. Therefore the "moral model" which you are talking about and "real" morality are one and the same thing.

No. Morality is a product of the human mind. (unless we start talking about hypothetical aliens again.)

Ok, a few things you said earlier seemed to impy that; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't arguing against a strawman (which I would have been!). Thanks for clearing that up.

[corndog36]

With morality, there is NO independent reality against which to test, as you yourself agree in the below quote. Therefore the "moral model" which you are talking about and "real" morality are one and the same thing.

No. Morality is a product of the human mind. (unless we start talking about hypothetical aliens again.)

Ok, a few things you said earlier seemed to impy that; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't arguing against a strawman (which I would have been!). Thanks for clearing that up.

The abstract nature of morality is the sticky bit. But, I don't think it is necessarily subjective. If we can agree on a definition of moral, we should be able to come up with a moral model that can be tested by applying it to real life moral questions, like murder, prohibition, protesting at funerals, etc.

The applicable definition of "moral", I believe, is: Doing what is right, just or fair. (I'm open to other interpretations.)

Now I have to come up with a 'moral model' based on my definition. I think Thomas Jefferson was onto something with "All men are created equal" (substitute 'human beings' for 'men' obviously) It seems to me that, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", is on target as well.

So would the fundamental principle of morality be; "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist"?

If so, can we devise a moral code, a system of rules, that allows us to apply that principle to every conceivable moral question?

[theVOID]

I think a distinction needs to be made between morality and social dynamics, the former being an evaluation and the latter being behaviors subject to selection pressures. Morality is an emergent property of social dynamics and higher cognitive processes.

I make this distinction because while some animals display social behaviors that benefit a group and thus would be selected against, they do so not because of any conscious understanding of this process, but because it is an innate and evolved response to certain situations, in the same way that it is not morally bad for a human with serious impediments to their cognitive abilities to hurt someone because they lack the understanding of their actions it is equally not morally bad or good amongst these animals to hurt or help each other.

Thus I see morality as an emergent property of other evolved abilities and not something that was it's self evolved.

[Theistsbane]

On the whole, its rather obvious if you think about it. People who live immoral lives often end up living lonely, painful and short lives as well. Altruism is a partially selfish act as it benefits the giver as much as the receiver.

[lilphil1989]

The applicable definition of "moral", I believe, is: Doing what is right, just or fair. (I'm open to other interpretations.)

None of those three principles (right, just and fair) are objective.

If I were to disagree with you about the rightness of a certain action, there would be no way to judge which one of us is correct without referring to either of our moral frameworks.

So would the fundamental principle of morality be; "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist"?

The very idea of a fundamental principle of morality is logically circular.
You want to build a moral code based on a fundamental principle, but that fundamental principle has to be defined by your moral code.

[theVOID]

The applicable definition of "moral", I believe, is: Doing what is right, just or fair. (I'm open to other interpretations.)

None of those three principles (right, just and fair) are objective.

Depending on how you define those terms they can be.

If I were to disagree with you about the rightness of a certain action, there would be no way to judge which one of us is correct without referring to either of our moral frameworks.

Agreed, then it becomes a case of which moral framework is better.

The very idea of a fundamental principle of morality is logically circular.
You want to build a moral code based on a fundamental principle, but that fundamental principle has to be defined by your moral code.

Yep That's the entire problem with Categorical imperatives.

Any solid moral theory has to start from a theory of value, not some assumption of categorical right and wrong.

[corndog36]

The applicable definition of "moral", I believe, is: Doing what is right, just or fair. (I'm open to other interpretations.)

None of those three principles (right, just and fair) are objective.

Depending on how you define those terms they can be.

I think you have to agree on definitions of terms, in order to have any meaningful discussion beyond semantics. I'm defining morality as "treating everyone equally" because that is what is "fair", and what is fair is "just", and what is just is "right". It is simplistic but conforms to common usages of terms.

The very idea of a fundamental principle of morality is logically circular.
You want to build a moral code based on a fundamental principle, but that fundamental principle has to be defined by your moral code.

Rather than "moral code" I should have said "code of conduct", to avoid confusion. The code of conduct would be based on the fundamental principle. But the question for me is; is it possible to identify a fundamental principle of morality? I'm not yet convinced that it is not.

Using my earlier example: "All human beings have the right to peacefully co-exist," as a starting point. Can anyone refute that that is a (or possibly "the") fundamental principle of morality?