Purpose of Morality

[Nogre]

First of all, I'm equating ethics, etc. with morality. Essentially, what is the reason they exist, and why should they exist? I think we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings, but I'm wondering if it can/should/ought to go beyond that.

I think that it's ultimately just trying to get beyond the limitation of being yourself. I still can't remember what it's called, but there's a problem when you're interacting with other people in that you are only ever able to see things from your perspective. You can never actually leave this perspective and fully understand another person. I think ethics and morality are simply an attempt to get out around this problem and act in a way that goes beyond your limited perception.

Thoughts?

 

[Jorick]

First of all, I'm equating ethics, etc. with morality. Essentially, what is the reason they exist, and why should they exist? I think we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings, but I'm wondering if it can/should/ought to go beyond that.

I think that it's ultimately just trying to get beyond the limitation of being yourself. I still can't remember what it's called, but there's a problem when you're interacting with other people in that you are only ever able to see things from your perspective. You can never actually leave this perspective and fully understand another person. I think ethics and morality are simply an attempt to get out around this problem and act in a way that goes beyond your limited perception.

Thoughts?

I think the word you're looking for is empathy. Or at least something related to empathy...

As for the concept itself, I can see how morals and ethics make a good substitute for empathy. Most people lack the trait, so having the societal and legal bindings that make them act in an empathetic way is a good thing. Whether it can actually do the job well, I cannot say.

 

[PAB]

yup, i think empathy.....maybe altruism?(kind of relate)
although i dont think empathy is as simple as you can feel for someone else and so can escape your perspective . even with empathy its your subjective manifestation of whatever event or circumstance ...unless its biologically objective and applies to all in a mechanic way. :? and that opens up alot of rubbish, if its your perspective and its all subjective then theres a kind of ethical solipsism

one way to get out of that is a dualism with ojective and subjective , the subjective operates on a objective ground or within

something which also may relate is how aesthetics or rather favourable preference effects in formulation of ethics

 

[xman]

"The needs of the many ..."

Essentially, we're pack animals, social creatures. We care about others in the herd because of a natural drive to keep the species going. Perhaps it grew out of the natural desire to protect one's own young even to the detriment of oneself.

Disarms the concept of enlightened self interest quickly and completely.

 

[hithere3387]

First of all, I'm equating ethics, etc. with morality. Essentially, what is the reason they exist, and why should they exist? I think we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings, but I'm wondering if it can/should/ought to go beyond that.

I think that it's ultimately just trying to get beyond the limitation of being yourself. I still can't remember what it's called, but there's a problem when you're interacting with other people in that you are only ever able to see things from your perspective. You can never actually leave this perspective and fully understand another person. I think ethics and morality are simply an attempt to get out around this problem and act in a way that goes beyond your limited perception.

Thoughts?

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings." However, you quickly move past the topic as if it is a given concept that offers little to no insight. I think we need to explore the significance of the possible evolution of moral behaviors. Why did we develop them? What purpose do they serve? What does that say about previous conceptions of morality including various ethical methodologies that have been developed over the centuries? How are they related and are they consistent?

What has and continues to confuse me is when individuals who are self-proclaimed atheists or agnostics (this isn't to say that you are either, so please don't take offense to anything I'm saying here) give absolute credence to great ethical philosophers whose writings were heavily influenced by God or at least the concept of universal ethical truths.

Morality is about causes and reason. When someone claims that there are universal moral truths, but fails to identify and link the origin of those truths to their argument, they have already significantly weakened the sustainability of their position. This is a topic in which a concrete base is essential. And, I believe this is a big reason why religiously influenced conceptions of morality have lasted so long.

Clearly, morality is a concept used to better understand and (potentially) further our conception of how humans should act in a society. However, there seems to be a movement among evolutionary biologists and philosophers which adds one major change to how we perceive morality. Instead of viewing morality as intrinsically related to altruism, morality is being looked at as related to self-interest. The idea being that we have evolved specific feelings and intuitions in order to better our chances of passing on our genes by better equipping ourself to live within a society.

If this view has merit (and I believe that it does), then gone are the days of Kant's conception of the moral value of an action. An action will have moral value not because someone has done something solely because it was the right thing to do, but rather, If one's actions could consistently lead to an increased likelihood of propagating their, as well as those within their society's, genetic code.

 

[Nogre]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings." However, you quickly move past the topic as if it is a given concept that offers little to no insight.

The problem I have with viewing morality purely through evolution is that evolution explains what is. Not what ought to be. It's perfectly legitimate to say that our sense of morality initially came from evolution. But if we say that all morality ever is and ever can be is just a way evolution has made us in order to propagate our genes, what ought to be becomes what is, and there's no difference. I'm just wondering whether we have an element of control here. Can we move past social norms that perpetuate our genes into a realm of what we legitimately think ought to be? Should we if we can? Is there a reason to? I initially want to say yes to this question, and say that the reason we have morality is evolution, but by being self-aware and understanding of that, we can move beyond what evolution dictates into something more.

Perhaps we can't... I suppose that's my real question: Can morality be something more than evolutionary instincts, and if so, what purpose should we use it for?

 

[hithere3387]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings." However, you quickly move past the topic as if it is a given concept that offers little to no insight.

The problem I have with viewing morality purely through evolution is that evolution explains what is. Not what ought to be. It's perfectly legitimate to say that our sense of morality initially came from evolution. But if we say that all morality ever is and ever can be is just a way evolution has made us in order to propagate our genes, what ought to be becomes what is, and there's no difference. I'm just wondering whether we have an element of control here. Can we move past social norms that perpetuate our genes into a realm of what we legitimately think ought to be? Should we if we can? Is there a reason to? I initially want to say yes to this question, and say that the reason we have morality is evolution, but by being self-aware and understanding of that, we can move beyond what evolution dictates into something more.

Perhaps we can't... I suppose that's my real question: Can morality be something more than evolutionary instincts, and if so, what purpose should we use it for?

Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. This new view of evolution as the source of morality doesn't necessarily limit the scope of morality, or solve the question of what is moral. It only looks at why we have morality; that's to say, the origin and potential consequences of morality. I see no reason to conclude that all possible morality (or "what we ought to do") can't be explored. This new view of morality as selfish merely changes the rules on how we determine if something ought to be done. It isn't Kantian because it's unlikely that every principle can be universalized; and, it Utilitarian because what's moral has the potential to change from person to person.

Personally, I'm excited by this new area of study because it establishes a new form of consistency upon which to base a moral system. To my knowledge, before this moral systems (such as Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics) were only based on arbitrary platforms of consistency and on "God tell us to." The previous forms of consistency are interesting and amazing mental/intellectual feats, but they're still arbitrary. This seems less so...at least to me.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. This new view of evolution as the source of morality doesn't necessarily limit the scope of morality, or solve the question of what is moral. It only looks at why we have morality; that's to say, the origin and potential consequences of morality. I see no reason to conclude that all possible morality (or "what we ought to do") can't be explored. This new view of morality as selfish merely changes the rules on how we determine if something ought to be done. It isn't Kantian because it's unlikely that every principle can be universalized; and, it Utilitarian because what's moral has the potential to change from person to person.

Personally, I'm excited by this new area of study because it establishes a new form of consistency upon which to base a moral system. To my knowledge, before this moral systems (such as Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics) were only based on arbitrary platforms of consistency and on "God tell us to." The previous forms of consistency are interesting and amazing mental/intellectual feats, but they're still arbitrary. This seems less so...at least to me.

i mainly agree with your conclusion that our moral sense arises from evolution and is properly based in self interest. many people equate altruism with morality but fail to consider that most instances of altruism observed are so called "reciprocal altruism" where one expects some gain at a later date or at least a boon to their reputation as in game theory. however i think calling it a whole new method in ethics is misleading. i have heard both utilitarian and virtue ethic based defenses for the rational self interest version of morality.

furthermore i would generally define morality as "the most efficient way for large groups of people to live close together" with the lack of wasted effort or resource that the word efficiency implies. and i think rational self interest fits the bill in that regard.

 

[hithere3387]

Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear. This new view of evolution as the source of morality doesn't necessarily limit the scope of morality, or solve the question of what is moral. It only looks at why we have morality; that's to say, the origin and potential consequences of morality. I see no reason to conclude that all possible morality (or "what we ought to do") can't be explored. This new view of morality as selfish merely changes the rules on how we determine if something ought to be done. It isn't Kantian because it's unlikely that every principle can be universalized; and, it Utilitarian because what's moral has the potential to change from person to person.

Personally, I'm excited by this new area of study because it establishes a new form of consistency upon which to base a moral system. To my knowledge, before this moral systems (such as Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics) were only based on arbitrary platforms of consistency and on "God tell us to." The previous forms of consistency are interesting and amazing mental/intellectual feats, but they're still arbitrary. This seems less so...at least to me.

i mainly agree with your conclusion that our moral sense arises from evolution and is properly based in self interest. many people equate altruism with morality but fail to consider that most instances of altruism observed are so called "reciprocal altruism" where one expects some gain at a later date or at least a boon to their reputation as in game theory. however i think calling it a whole new method in ethics is misleading. i have heard both utilitarian and virtue ethic based defenses for the rational self interest version of morality.

furthermore i would generally define morality as "the most efficient way for large groups of people to live close together" with the lack of wasted effort or resource that the word efficiency implies. and i think rational self interest fits the bill in that regard.

My apologizes. I did not mean to imply that it's a new method, rather a new way of looking at it. However, it is clear to me that I have. My mistake.

 

[Zylstra]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we all understand that morality has evolutionary underpinnings." However, you quickly move past the topic as if it is a given concept that offers little to no insight.

The problem I have with viewing morality purely through evolution is that evolution explains what is. Not what ought to be.

No system of prescriptive ethics withstands scrutiny

 

[Nogre]

This new view of evolution as the source of morality doesn't necessarily limit the scope of morality, or solve the question of what is moral. It only looks at why we have morality; that's to say, the origin and potential consequences of morality.

Let me use an analogy. Science and engineering can explain how a gun is made. It can explain the purpose of why its parts are the way they are. However, what I should do with this gun, and whether I should use it for the purpose it was initially made for... That is the question. Evolution (and abiogenesis) explains where we come from and how we got the altruistic tendencies we have. My question is, again, can we/should we go beyond this? Is there anything we, as rational beings, can do beyond the instincts that perpetuated our genes in past times?

furthermore i would generally define morality as "the most efficient way for large groups of people to live close together" with the lack of wasted effort or resource that the word efficiency implies.

This is the way morality, or simply the way we judge what we should do (that's how I would define morality/ethics), has worked in the past. But should we really simply be cogs in a great, self-sustaining machine with morality guiding our actions to keep us in our place in order to perpetuate the machine as a whole? To me, it seems like we should be able to make morality something greater than that. More worthy of admiration than just a mechanism for self-sustainability.

No system of prescriptive ethics withstands scrutiny

Based on what and why?

 

[obsidianavenger]

furthermore i would generally define morality as "the most efficient way for large groups of people to live close together" with the lack of wasted effort or resource that the word efficiency implies.

This is the way morality, or simply the way we judge what we should do (that's how I would define morality/ethics), has worked in the past. But should we really simply be cogs in a great, self-sustaining machine with morality guiding our actions to keep us in our place in order to perpetuate the machine as a whole? To me, it seems like we should be able to make morality something greater than that. More worthy of admiration than just a mechanism for self-sustainability.

not just cogs. properly applied such morality leads to the ability of each individual to pursue his or her own interests in whatever way he or she sees fit, without preventing others form doing the same. it seems that you are implying morality should aspire to something greater.... rather than maximizing personal happiness, maximizing world happiness?

personally i think the independent and independent minded person living their life as they see fit is extremely admirable. i don't see it as a way to "keep us in our place" at all. could you elaborate a bit?