A Case for Inherent Morality

[JohnJubinsky]

Certainly people are also taught to be good but my experience has been that young children are happy innocent things. There is no doubt that they are broadly viewed this way by society.

Have you ever read about Noam Chomsky's views on language acquisition? 

His studies show that newborn children have no language, but they have a strong active tendency to pick up a language. There is a kind of space or structure in the mind which is there for language, and it gets filled up fast. After a short time if they don't have a language it would be some kind of disability. 

My suspicion is that morality works the same way. It is natural to be born without morality, but it is unnatural to stay without one for very long. And as with language, the morality you pick up is the one you see around you as a little kid.

The problem that I have with that is that I have seen a lot of uncaring parents but their young children are still happy innocent things for a significant period after they are born. I am not saying that all children are born good. I'm saying most are because they are genetically predisposed to it. (Of course not all would be genetically predisposed to it.)

[vulcanlogician]

I think that morality is inherent for the simple reason that I believe it became inborn through the process of natural selection. That is, I believe there was a time when morality was not particularly inherent. However, I believe that at that time those who preferred to be good were better equipped to survive. That is, I believe that they were  better able to work together to care for their young and each other, to hunt and gather, to build and manufacture, and to defend themselves. I believe that this lead to them becoming more numerous and prosperous than those who did not prefer to be good and that they eventually eliminated in self-defense a great many of those who did not prefer to be good. I believe that over time, as the good parented the overwhelming majority of children they passed on to them the genes that made them prefer to be good in the first place. I believe that this resulted in the vast majority of people today having an inborn feeling that it is right to be good and wrong to be bad.

On a related topic:

I think that MATH came about due to a process of natural selection. It gave our species greater viability to be able to count berries or numbers of antelope in herds. Beforehand, there was a time in our species when math was not particularly inherent.... maybe a vague ability to distinguish large numbers of things from small ones. But then the sense developed. And it became the case that those who could do basic math were better equipped to survive. Hominids who could do basic math could make better judgments concerning hunting and gathering... judgments which, in a harsh environment, meant the difference between survival and demise.

All this math has in common with morality. But I would add something else. Just like we can figure out advanced mathematics, we can do the same with morality. Our moral feelings are only the "nub" a greater possible moral sense. A sense based on reason... not emotion. And (I would add) just like with math, perhaps it is possible for us to get to get moral problems wrong. (Just like we can make mistakes in addition and subtraction.) After all, we do not have an innate sense of long division. We have the ability to compute basic numbers and we must learn how to do the rest.

I find many more similarities with math and morality too. If, tomorrow, every human being were to disappear from existence, so would morality.... and math.

So, in the end, I agree with your evolutionary history of morality. But i disagree that evolution furnished us with the beginning, middle, and end of morality through natural selection alone. We figured out the rest through reasoning.

[Belacqua]

I have seen a lot of uncaring parents but their young children are still happy innocent things for a significant period after they are born. I am not saying that all children are born good. I'm saying most are because they are genetically predisposed to it. (Of course not all would be genetically predisposed to it.)

A number of responses here, though I'm not arguing with you. 

First,  I don't know if their "happy innocent" condition can necessarily be called a morality. Happy is more like a mood. Innocent might suggest that they haven't been challenged or tested yet. 

I think some children are born more cheerful than others (while others are sort of grouchy from birth). So as long as their most basic needs are met, they will come across as happy and innocent. And that is probably a genetic disposition, in large part. 

The fact that the parents are uncaring might not affect a pre-moral happy infant so much (again, so long as the basic needs are met) but when we're talking about morality that would be likely to have an effect later on. They would learn, for example, that one need not show care for those around one. 

Of course there are a million variables. Siblings or grandparents or baby sitters, even what they see on kiddy TV. Even Teletubbies teaches stuff like sharing. 

So I guess I'm curious about where we draw the line between a sort of pre-moral happy disposition, and morality per se, which involves choices in how we treat people.

[Angrboda]

I think that morality is inherent for the simple reason that I believe it became inborn through the process of natural selection. That is, I believe there was a time when morality was not particularly inherent. However, I believe that at that time those who preferred to be good were better equipped to survive. That is, I believe that they were  better able to work together to care for their young and each other, to hunt and gather, to build and manufacture, and to defend themselves. I believe that this lead to them becoming more numerous and prosperous than those who did not prefer to be good and that they eventually eliminated in self-defense a great many of those who did not prefer to be good. I believe that over time, as the good parented the overwhelming majority of children they passed on to them the genes that made them prefer to be good in the first place. I believe that this resulted in the vast majority of people today having an inborn feeling that it is right to be good and wrong to be bad.

On a related topic:

I think that MATH came about due to a process of natural selection. It gave our species greater viability to be able to count berries or numbers of antelope in herds. Beforehand, there was a time in our species when math was not particularly inherent.... maybe a vague ability to distinguish large numbers of things from small ones. But then the sense developed. And it became the case that those who could do basic math were better equipped to survive. Hominids who could do basic math could make better judgments concerning hunting and gathering... judgments which, in a harsh environment, meant the difference between survival and demise.

All this math has in common with morality. But I would add something else. Just like we can figure out advanced mathematics, we can do the same with morality. Our moral feelings are only the "nub" a greater possible moral sense. A sense based on reason... not emotion. And (I would add) just like with math, perhaps it is possible for us to get to get moral problems wrong. (Just like we can make mistakes in addition and subtraction.) After all, we do not have an innate sense of long division. We have the ability to compute basic numbers and we must learn how to do the rest.

I find many more similarities with math and morality too. If, tomorrow, every human being were to disappear from existence, so would morality.... and math.

So, in the end, I agree with your evolutionary history of morality. But i disagree that evolution furnished us with the beginning, middle, and end of morality through natural selection alone. We figured out the rest through reasoning.

[vulcanlogician]

Clever Hans!

[Astreja]

I think a social kind of natural selection could also be in play in morality. Think about it: Would you want to live in a village where people could rob and murder without consequences? More likely you'd opt for the village where the citizens were protected from one another. The lawless villages would spiral into anarchy and break up, and the village with rules would thrive.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

While I agree with the above.
I think it's more an outgrowth of 'Family' then ' Clan' then 'Extended clan/village' untill, slowly you work up to 'City' then 'City states' to country etc.

We see a somewhat reversion to 'Extended clan' to today with 'Punk', 'Political affiliation/group' or 'Football hooligan' erm.... I mean 'Club supporter'

[brewer]

Have you ever read about Noam Chomsky's views on language acquisition?

This?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_a...ion_device

[JohnJubinsky]

Have you ever read about Noam Chomsky's views on language acquisition?

This?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_a...ion_device

I don't think that the ability to talk has anything to do with morality.

[brewer]

This?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_a...ion_device

I don't think that the ability to talk has anything to do with morality.

I think being able to effectively communicate moral thoughts/ideas does.