I've been trying to write a paper recently in which I look at the general characteristics of proto-humanity that gave rise to morality itself. I think this is a very interesting and promising way to examine morality. I also think it is analogous to Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell in which he treats religion as a natural phenomenon and tries to look at causes of it. I argue that morality is the result of three elements of humans, their linguisticality, their sociality, and their being on a genetic long leash. In short, morality is possible for humans because they are able to (and do) influence each other through language. So, what do you think of this approach (explaining large segments of human culture with a strong nod to evolutionary biology), and what do you think of my, er, thesis?
IMO Makes great sense. You'll find out a lot of reasons why morality contains uh... what it contains. Why it contains what it contains. And all sorts of other things. I don't know exactly how to put it into words but its fresh, would lead you to great new solid basis' and its hard for me to think much deeper about it other than that. Interesting.
I would disagree with this approach. After many years of researching the origins of morality, my conclusion is that morality springs entirely from the desire to preserve oneself. From this we get our treatment of others depending on whether or not we empathize with them, that is whether or not we see that "other" as a potential "me". It is from this discovery that the variations of the Golden Rule emerge. Progress in morality has been achieved by a steady expansion of what we consider "me" and a shrinking of what we consider "other". Working against this progress is the sad discovery that humans lie, cheat and steal indirectly proportional to their chances of getting caught and facing reprisal. But this negative component is also an extension of the desire for self-preservation, which tends to confirm the hypothesis. There can be no theory of human morality that is not based on evolutionary theory. All human behavior is still adapted to the primitive societies in which we spent most of our time evolving and leftover behaviors from the myriad species we spent time as in regards to our collective gene pool. Edit: Another thing that you must keep in mind is that humans have few equals in the complexity of our language, but that almost all mammals have complex social rules that qualify as "morality". Looking for language as the source of morality, then, leaves unexplained the fact that dogs, vampire bats, large cats, bears, primates, etc... have social mores and moral structures.
Which leaves us with morality being one for animals. Which it really isn't so much...... More it is simply our desire to understand our morality and as he related religion (dennett). We'd explore a lot of that which matters most to humans, fresh and clean perspectives would arrise out of his meathod/area of research.
Yes it is. You need to study animals more. Religion has nothing to do with morality. Religion is an epistemological device, a method for understanding the world around us. It arises out of the genes which make us superstitious. Superstition comes when we ascribe causation to correlation. When a baby is born after a rain, we assume that the rain caused the baby. Religion arises out of this brain module and the brain module that sees human agents as the means of change. My arrows only move when I move them. So men are the things that move things. When the tree moves, a bigger, stronger man must have moved it. And so on. Again, the fact that primates have extremely well-developed moral structures means that language has nothing to do with morality. It is the other way around. Our innate moral structures are what color our language with so much concerning how we see others and treat others. Everything coming out of an exploration of this theory would be ass-backwards, pretending that correlation was causation, but getting the arrow of causality backwards in every case.
I did. I've also read "Breaking the Spell". I've spent most of the last four years studying morality. Language has nothing to do with it. Please try to debate with me using facts and reasoned arguments.
Now you are just damaging the guy's thread instead of contributing to it. Why would you choose to do this? I have reported this post and hope you will try and debate with me in the future by using facts and THEN calling me a moron. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, I don't have any good reason it should not be moved to EM&J. Also, how does language have nothing to do with morality? The only observation that we can make of morality is moral vocabulary and the effects that this vocabulary has on others. What else is there to it? The extent to which a species has morality depends on their ability to communicate to each other. If those animals that you mentioned do exhibit mores, don't the mores have to be communicated in the group? They have language, or at least proto-language, whether it be pheromones or growling or raised hair, what have you.
No it doesn't. Our morality is reflected in our language, but the fact that we have language is not what determines our morality. Our morality is not that much different than our non-speaking primate cousins. Jane Goodall's discoveries were amazing because they showed complex social behaviors and mores that were analogous to our own. Female primates have been shown to use the promise of sex to achieve material goods and then withhold the sex anyway. Deceit, planning, abuse of empathy, consumerism, coyness, horniness, bribery, and more are displayed in one scenario. All without our complex verbal communication.
How do the female primates "promise" the sex without using some proto-linguistic techniques to commicate that promise? Is anger expressed at the breaking of this promise? Anger that might influence other females into not pursuing such a strategy? It does not have to be complex verbal communication, but it does require language, even if that language is as "basic" as grunting and pointing and frowning. Isn't the morality in this scenario the understood injunction against breaking such promises? If not, what is it? And if it is, this injunction must be linguistic.
You are confusing "communication" with "language". They are different. The females perform sex displays, showing their engorged behinds. They take "bribes" and then continue to refuse sex. The males display agitation. At no time does the female primate say, "I feel sooooo drunk".
Alright, perhaps we differ in our definition of language. How about this, I change a word in my original post. So, what do you think of this?
It is certainly less wrong. Why do you think our communication creates our morality rather than our morality coloring our communication? Do you think we would have no morality without an ability to express our desires and wishes to others? Do deaf, blind, and dumb children show a complete absence of moral character? Do the blind or deaf demonstrate REDUCED moral senses? These are the ways I would test your hypotheses. I'm not sure that it would survive, but something would be learned either way.
