A Case for Inherent Morality

[John 6IX Breezy]

Sorry, I don't see yet how a long loving embrace is proof that we're talking about morality, rather than survival value.  

I can see obvious evolutionary advantages for choosing to be with helpful people.

My vocabulary has never been very nuanced when it comes to this topic; I tend to lump norms, morals, ethics, etc. all into the same bubble. However, if morals are a way of regulating actions and behaviors, and a long loving embrace is a behavior with survival value, there should be an evolutionary connection there. Evolving morality would be one way in which long embraces get reinforced, or something like that.

Administrator Notice
Link Removed.

is a good resource. I think the first chapter on the evolution of morality is of use to the conversation. (Half of the chapter is spent addressing the problem with evolutionary explanations like the one I made above.)

[Belacqua]

Sorry, I don't see yet how a long loving embrace is proof that we're talking about morality, rather than survival value.  

I can see obvious evolutionary advantages for choosing to be with helpful people.

My vocabulary has never been very nuanced when it comes to this topic; I tend to lump norms, morals, ethics, etc. all into the same bubble. However, if morals are a way of regulating actions and behaviors, and a long loving embrace is a behavior with survival value, there should be an evolutionary connection there. Evolving morality would be one way in which long embraces get reinforced, or something like that.

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

is a good resource. I think the first chapter on the evolution of morality is of use to the conversation. (Half of the chapter is spent addressing the problem with evolutionary explanations like the one I made above.)

I guess my issue is this: if we see a baby give something a long loving embrace, how can we determine what is in the baby's mind? There's no language yet, and perhaps no clear concept. 

So how do we determine if the positive reaction means "this is good morally" or "this is good for me."

The Handbook looks good. I've downloaded it. If we're going to get serious about the topic, it's going to require a deep dive, I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you look at the video you can see that when the six month old hugged the good puppet the hug became a very loving one for a period of time. This confirms that the baby was not simply motivated by the selfish desire for the puppet to help it.

Sorry, I don't see yet how a long loving embrace is proof that we're talking about morality, rather than survival value.  

I can see obvious evolutionary advantages for choosing to be with helpful people.

Unless an obvious evolutionary advantage is categorically not moral........

Consider this - we may be the kind of animal which thrives, and only thrives, in a "moral environment'.  We seek to enforce this state of affairs on the world precisely because it advantages us over other creatures. Not seeking, so much as stumbling, on The Good.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I guess my issue is this: if we see a baby give something a long loving embrace, how can we determine what is in the baby's mind? 

Yes, you're right to question what's present in the baby's mind. However, it depends on how the researchers are operationally defining these terms. They may be connecting the dots between morality and prosocial behavior differently, or further up the ladder. And their reasons for doing so may, or may not, be justified. As an analogy, it might be something like observing a baby cooing and babbling. To the linguist, these sounds are the precursors to speech, and are meaningful in that regard. But you would also be right to question whether there is anything language-like in the baby's mind at that time—if they are consciously speaking in coos.

There's also bound to be differences between how psychologists and philosophers define morality, so I would look to see how everyone is defining these terms. (And keep in mind that CNN is probably butchering the terms even further lol.)

[Belacqua]

connecting the dots between morality and prosocial behavior differently

OK, I'm starting to see how this might work. 

The babies see actions in two puppets, and they are capable of determining which action is helpful and which isn't. This apparently would have to involve some ability to recognize goals, because the helpful puppet had to help toward some end. "We do X to get Y." and "This guy can pitch in to help get Y." 

Then the baby determined that the helpful puppet is the better one to have around. 

I still don't see the baby's action as moral. It could just as easily be pure self-interest. ("I want that puppet around in case I ever want Y.") But the fact that he could interpret something as helpful is a necessary step toward understanding morality. 

We might say that prior to this, a baby only knows good and bad FOR ME. (Which earlier I was careful to write as pleasing/displeasing.) But seeing helpful behavior would increase his knowledge to include good and bad FOR SOME END. This is still not morality as I define it, but it would be a necessary component.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here again, unless pure self interest is categorically amoral.......

Its one of those fun things where subject a does a thing we call moralizing when subject B does it, but it can't be moralizing (we tell ourselves) because subject a is doing it...and, perhaps, doing it wrong.

I say go ahead and give it to the tiny humans, the big humans are really just more of the same. But, to really drill this down, if the thing that the tiny humans are doing is fundamentally different from the thing the big humans re doing,...how, and when do we gain that ability?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I still don't see the baby's action as moral. It could just as easily be pure self-interest. ("I want that puppet around in case I ever want Y.") But the fact that he could interpret something as helpful is a necessary step toward understanding morality. 

Here's one of the papers in question. I think it'll help put things in perspective: 

"The capacity to evaluate individuals by their social actions may also serve as a foundation for a developing system of moral cognition. Plainly, many aspects of a full-fledged moral system are beyond the grasp of the preverbal infant. Yet the ability to judge differentially those who perform positive and negative social acts may form an essential basis for any system that will eventually contain more abstract concepts of right and wrong."

As for pure self-interest, there might be some truth to that, but in one of the embedded videos in the CNN link there was one experiment in which the bad puppet had two cookies in front of him, and the good puppet only had one, and the babies still had a preference for the good puppet.