Ethics - Empirical versus Rational

Pi_Neko
(Hi)
I'm of the opinion that morals are derivative from evolution. Humans aren't the only animal species will morals, most other social animals exhibit moral behavior. Styot what was the theory called? Where if traits benefit the whole and not necessarily the individual animal it has a good chance to be passed down. In social groups traits like I scratch your back and you scratch mine are pretty common. Think of gorillas for example, they pick and clean each other fur clean of parasites and debri. It helps to promote bonds between the other individual.

here's a video you might find interesting:



While evolution explains where morals stem from. I would also argue that human intelligence is what sets us apart from other creatures. It's really what defines us as a species, we are capable of asking the difficult questions. Build cities that need rules to function correctly.

quote Styot

To answer your question personally I think it's a mix of the two, with a certain amount of morality being innate and a certain amount being down to experience. Although I also think the morality we learn though experience is all based on empathy and altruism which are innate in all humans (well not all, we can't forget the sociopaths, but the vast majority) and also huge amounts of the animal kingdom.

Mm, agreed. But, I have to admit I do believe it could also be explained through empiricism only. I was thinking about it earlier, and I realize you could develop a sense of judgment based on experiences. If someone pinches you it's natural for you to react defensively to prevent that pain again. Let's say someone kept doing it, you'll try out different options in order to prevent it, and eventually take further measures. In that sense you learn you will react negatively to negative actions, but beyond that you'll recognize the person the next time and be prepared to defend yourself. That defense mechanism would also apply to those you care about though, and that could be the development of a sense of justice. Based on habits like this you'll also avoid doing harmful or negative things to others because you can expect them to do the same (and through experience it'll show itself). The idea of justice or vengeance for "immoral" actions will be learned through empirical data. A sense of morality will build; the morals that the majority of people share will be considered "right" and humans will begin to act on those principles, passing them along to a younger generation who will experience acts that display these ethics and learn to live by them.

I don't think the innate knowledge for morality exists, it would have to be based on emotions. That itself is why sociopaths wouldn't have a sense of morality but still function in the world, right? This is all my opinion I guess, and the sociopaths bring up a great example of where the absence of emotions lead to the absence of morality.

quote Pi_Neko

But, I have to admit I do believe it could also be explained through empiricism only. I was thinking about it earlier, and I realize you could develop a sense of judgment based on experiences. If someone pinches you it's natural for you to react defensively to prevent that pain again. Let's say someone kept doing it, you'll try out different options in order to prevent it, and eventually take further measures. In that sense you learn you will react negatively to negative actions, but beyond that you'll recognize the person the next time and be prepared to defend yourself. That defense mechanism would also apply to those you care about though, and that could be the development of a sense of justice. Based on habits like this you'll also avoid doing harmful or negative things to others because you can expect them to do the same (and through experience it'll show itself). The idea of justice or vengeance for "immoral" actions will be learned through empirical data. A sense of morality will build; the morals that the majority of people share will be considered "right" and humans will begin to act on those principles, passing them along to a younger generation who will experience acts that display these ethics and learn to live by them.

I don't think the innate knowledge for morality exists, it would have to be based on emotions. That itself is why sociopaths wouldn't have a sense of morality but still function in the world, right? This is all my opinion I guess, and the sociopaths bring up a great example of where the absence of emotions lead to the absence of morality.

I agree with this for the most part. If you are not taught the difference between good and evil, it is very possible that you would not know the difference. I think even if there are some innate instincts that apply to morals, they would be useless without learning/experiencing them.

Sociopaths can have a sense of mortality. They can experience/observe morals in others and apply it to themselves. Even though they have difficulties feeling emotions, they will still associate it with their pride because they want others to respect them. This explains why sociopaths can have an outburst of anger (among other reasons) over someone harming them or others. They know it is wrong, instead of feeling that it is wrong. Either from pride or a need to conform (both evolutionary needs), they can possess a sense of mortality.

I always imagined a thought experiment on morality. Its pretty cruel so remember i dont advocate ACTUALLY doing it.

But say you were to take two new born male babies and put them into two soundproof rooms. You supply the children only with food and water with no human contact until they reach puberty. You then remove the divider bwteeen them and expose them to one another abruptly and without any kind of warning. repeat the test with several pairs.

What happens? Do they recognise eachother as equals? Will they be aggresive? Will they try to communicate? Will they share or fight over the food? Will they immediately act out in violence? Will they attempt to mate? Or kill? What does each response say about our basic instinctual morality?

Now imagine we repeat the experiment with females or different races and regional attributes. Try it with mixed races, mixed sexes. And then imagine we get wildly varying results between these groups. What would that tell us?

As i said, a very cruel experiment but the results would no doubt be interesting.

I personally believe morality comes from a multitude of sources and exists due to its evolutionary derived social benifits. But morality for me is a mixture of inate instinct AND of our net life experience.

I have always thought that to point to any one source as the absolute answer is kinda over simplifying things.