Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They don't have the reasoning skills to make to make those sorts of moral judgments.
the question would be, how much reasoning goes into our own moral feelings?
does our capacity to reason drive what we consider to be right or wrong, or simply provide the best possible explanation for why we behaved in what can be very predictable moral patterns?
if it is the latter, the ability to articulate some type of motivation behind the action is a human phenomenon based on our linguistic abilities, but the moral axiom being followed may be present in many other animals.
the question isn't rhetorical though; the idea that morals may in any way be a product of biology, rather than the "tabla rasa", is very new and contentious, though, this may be a remenant of the western philosophical tradition, rather than serious work.
cross cultural studies can be read in many ways, but I tend to see them as reinforcing the idea that there are not vast moral differences between societies (for instance, murder, afaik, has never been acceptable among the privilaged ingroup in a society [with a notable caveat about ritual sacrifice])
Originally posted by 753
although it may be more convenient to limit use of the term morality to our ellaborations over our actions
but, the "moral" processing system in our brain judge and plan action prior to our own conscious awareness of our moral feelings. Limiting things specifically to our rationalizations biases the question of morality unfairly toward cultural influences that might only be relevant after moral choices have been made in the limbic system.
the OP is a great example. I do find it hard to believe he would feel no moral significance were he to see someone murdered in front of him (especially as we bring the victim closer to him in terms of relatedness), but such rationalizations allow him to claim the exact oposite.
yes, I agree that it isn't rethorical. It's just to avoid the kind of problem SC put forward.
I would agree that abhorring intragroup killing is universal and for obvious reasons. animals band toghether for safety and cooperation, if you can be killed by the group you rely on for survival, this obviously defeats the purpose.
Some non-human animals also display something that can be described as a fundamental sense of justice, rebelling when a subgroup is treated differently, with privilleges or negative sanctions for instance.
There is some evidence to a universal and even cross-species condemnation of rape as the behavioral norm as well. chimps and mandrills have been said to slay rapists on sight.
Of course, if it's true that empathy, cooperation and these pre-moral emotions and patterns of behavior emerged through evolution among social animals, it's also true that utterly selfish cheating, intragroup parasitism, tiranny and disregard for others also did. And even if such behaviors can be said to be the exception and not the rule, the grid through which each individual makes moral judgements, remains unique to oneself and how he views his actions remains unique to his subjective experience. And of course, these basic pre-moral sentiments allow for a huge variety of learned cultural modulations resulting in many different expressions.
I don't really see much of clash between a biological aproach to morality, cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism.
Originally posted by 753
yes, I agree that it isn't rethorical. It's just to avoid the kind of problem SC put forward.I would agree that abhorring intragroup killing is universal and for obvious reasons. animals band toghether for safety and cooperation, if you can be killed by the group you rely on for survival, this obviously defeats the purpose.
Some non-human animals also display something that can be described as a fundamental sense of justice, rebelling when a subgroup is treated differently, with privilleges or negative sanctions for instance.
There is some evidence to a universal and even cross-species condemnation of rape as the behavioral norm as well. chimps and mandrills have been said to slay rapists on sight.
Of course, if it's true that empathy, cooperation and these pre-moral emotions and patterns of behavior emerged through evolution among social animals, it's also true that utterly selfish cheating, intragroup parasitism, tiranny and disregard for others also did. And even if such behaviors can be said to be the exception and not the rule, the grid through which each individual makes moral judgements, remains unique to oneself and how he views his actions remains unique to his subjective experience. And of course, these basic pre-moral sentiments allow for a huge variety of learned cultural modulations resulting in many different expressions.
absolutly. Even the most basic parts of our brain, such as the way our sensory neuro-architecture arranges itself, are entirely dependant on environmental input. Drawing a distinction between what would be a social or genetic influence is often impossible, if even a relevant distinction in the first place.
The point is more that, these moral grids do not have the ability to vary randomly. Sure, in instances where there is childhood neglect or abuse, or in abnormal/clinical problems, these grids might shift entirely [though not randomly], but in what is considered normal psychology, there are going to be parameters that limit just how much of an effect culture and environment can have.
The best comparison might be language. Our brains our designed to passively learn it, based on our genetics reacting to stimuli we encounter in the environment. However, as linguists have shown, there are fundamental parameters this stimuli must have to be considered language by the brain. Under normal conditions, while culture will change the phonems you encounter and the language you eventually speak, there is a set limit to the forms this language can take, based on neurological/genetic definitoins of what language is, and as such, there will be fundamental qualities to all language.
If we address behaviour, and not necessarily rationalizations (which experiments can manipulate to be demonstrably false anyways), I view morality in the same way.
Originally posted by 753
I don't really see much of clash between a biological aproach to morality, cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism.
no, but tell that to aging humanities academics.
tbh, the neuro courses where I have brought this up had little issue with it, at least compared to more traditional psych or social science scenarios.