Morality As Biological Function

[JimmyNic]

Even in secular nations that have dispensed with religious justification of morality there seems to be a common understanding that people want to be good, not on a rational level but on an emotional one. It's a compulsion, at least it seems that way for many, whichever way they go about it.

My suggestion is that morality is nothing more than a biological function, and the compulsion to do the right thing has no implications beyond that. Moral behaviour satisfies a core component in many of us, in the same way food satisfies our hunger.

Empathy (I'd argue the root of much of secular reasoning) is not inherent in us because of the Golden Rule or other sound arguments, it's just an urge. Most humans have evolved/developed in such a way that psychologically we are predisposed to this, although it obviously competes with self-interest and a sense of justice. It is also an urge that can be dispensed of entirely in some people, whom we usually label as mentally unhinged.

And although we'd like to say we help people because it is right, and often provide reasoning to back it up, fundamentally we are just trying to scratch an itch.

[hensatri]

Morality is, most certainly, a biological function. What else could it be?

What I mean is this:

A biological evolutionary explanation perfectly accounts for morality and is well evidenced across multiple disciplines and decades of research.

If morality is a function of something else, then that something else has yet to be evidenced in any capacity.

To apply this un-evidenced "other" explanation on top of the biological understanding is totally redundant, and unnecessarily multiplies explanations.

In short...Occam's razor makes short work of the proposition that morality is a function of anything other than biology.

[gharik]

Morality is, most certainly, a biological function. What else could it be?

What I mean is this:

A biological evolutionary explanation perfectly accounts for morality and is well evidenced across multiple disciplines and decades of research.

If morality is a function of something else, then that something else has yet to be evidenced in any capacity.

To apply this un-evidenced "other" explanation on top of the biological understanding is totally redundant, and unnecessarily multiplies explanations.

In short...Occam's razor makes short work of the proposition that morality is a function of anything other than biology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the account of morality given by naturalistic evolution only describes how or why humans form moral beliefs, not whether the beliefs are in fact true.

[hensatri]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the account of morality given by naturalistic evolution only describes how or why humans form moral beliefs, not whether the beliefs are in fact true.

Let me make sure I understand your question.

You are saying that Biology can explain WHY we think it is wrong to steal/kill/lie, but Biology can't answer whether or not it IS wrong to steal/kill/lie.

Did I get that about right?

Well the simple fact is that it is not, in some scientific way, wrong to steal/kill/lie. These moral judgments are only relative to us as conscious biological creatures. If there were no conscious creatures then there would be no morality. Imagine a hypothetical universe in which there is no consciousness, only rocks floating around in space. It’s not “Wrong” for one large rock to smash another to pieces. It’s not “Wrong” for the gravitational well of a large planet to steal debris from the tail of a passing comet. Things can only be wrong subject to the experiences of conscious creatures. So yes, biology, and the biological rise of consciousness, is a perfect explanation for both why morality exists, and what moral tenets we hold.

[JimmyNic]

Let me make sure I understand your question.

You are saying that Biology can explain WHY we think it is wrong to steal/kill/lie, but Biology can't answer whether or not it IS wrong to steal/kill/lie.

Did I get that about right?

I'm pretty sure what he is saying is that science can explain why humans would hold the beliefs about right and wrong, but does not comment on whether they have significance outside of that.

[theophilus]

humans have evolved/developed in such a way that psychologically we are predisposed to this.

Or we were created this way.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
(Romans 2:14-16 ESV)

[Peter]

Or we were created this way.

Your answer just kicks the can down the road and begs the question, "How did the creator acquire morality?"

Good behavior and bad behavior are very strong tools for natural selection. It'd be amazing if we didn't have instinctual behaviors.

[grandpa]

Your answer just kicks the can down the road and
begs the question, "How did the creator acquire morality?"
Good behavior and bad behavior are very strong tools for
natural selection.

I agree.
The simple fact is, one can find meaning and morality in a "nonmiraculous" naturalism. And no, I don't think it's because we're mere machines. I never had to internally second guess if I had the correct file in my memory bank.

I'm not a fan of making everything out to be supernatural, but I try not to think about us as being mechanical, computerlike and robotic. Maybe I'm old-fashioned in that way.

Grandpa h.

[theophilus]

Your answer just kicks the can down the road and begs the question, "How did the creator acquire morality?"

He didn't acquire morality; he created it. It is his nature, what he is like, that determines what is moral or immoral.

[grandpa]

He didn't acquire morality; he created it.
It is his nature, what he is like, that determines
what is moral or immoral.

What about karma? That idea seems to go beyond individual inclinations, and even beyond what is moral or immoral per se? I wasn't raised to believe in karma, but there seems to be a cause and effect element to it that easily extends beyond morality, and into logic.

Example:
"In simple terms, the law of karma suggests that a person's mental and physical actions determine the progress of his life on earth. What ever actions he undertakes, both his good and bad actions, impact his life in several ways and bring twists and turns in the course of his life. His bad actions lead him to suffering and unhappiness, while his good actions lead him to happiness and spiritual success."
Hinduism and Karma: The logic behind the concept of Karma

One needn't be a Hindu to grasp this meaning. The problem is, it's not a perfect philosophy. People who do bad things can lead good lives, and relatively good people often suffer. Still, it's a practical generalization in many respects.

Grandpa h.

[hensatri]

He didn't acquire morality; he created it. It is his nature, what he is like, that determines what is moral or immoral.

Thank you Euthyphro.

Don't pretend it's that simple. This pure circularity of that reasoning was exposed by Socrates about 2500 years ago.

[Darklordabc]

My suggestion is that morality is nothing more than a biological function

An inclination to behavior that we would call moral is surely an evolved trait which varies in type and intensity with the different genetic populations, but it is not just a evolved trait. Rational beings always have the capacity to decide their own behavior and their own set of principles, so even without a genetic predisposition for empathy and cooperation we could still rationally decide a set of morals to live by.

It is also an urge that can be dispensed of entirely in some people, whom we usually label as mentally unhinged.

Psychopaths could be moral, if they choose to be. In a sense, a moral psychopath, is more moral then anyone could be. Because they have all the disadvantages of being nice but none of the psychological highs that usually comes with it.

It is interesting to imagine how a purely rational being with no genetically (or digitally) programmed behavior would handle being moral, would it be easier to be moral or harder... I guess we will know when we invent robots. Either way, my point is" You don't have to have a biological drive for altruism to be moral... but it probably helps"