Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Our inner moral voice is always there, but there are many real situations in daily life in which people can be conflicted

I think you're right that complexity arises when conflicting desires pull us in different directions, rather than being intrinsic to our moral intuitions.

.

whatever the decision, all would be aware of the moral prohibition against stealing - it is a core moral value embedded in our psyches (unless we’re psychopaths) which is why we would think twice about keeping the wallet.

Agreed - the practical argument is whether and in what circumstances the moral imperative not to steal should give way to other principles. (The philosophical argument is more about the nature of moral imperatives). Few would deny that such an imperative exists, but many would argue about its nature and its relative importance.

The idea that evolution instilled a set of core moral sentiments into us makes sense to me. For one thing, it explains why this core set of moral sentiments is seen across all human populations and cultures, modern and pre-modern. These moral sentiments predate the advent of settled agriculture and organized religion. Evolution selected for cooperation because cooperation helped launch genes into the future. Our inherited core moral sentiments helped foster this cooperation.

Evolution in the classic Darwinian sense requires that the trait in question is biologically heritable. For a moral value to be able to evolve biologically, it is necessary that - for example - an orphan's effective moral values - their behaviour - is determined by the moral values of their biological parent rather than those of the family or society in which they were brought up.

I think this is evolution in the classic Darwinian sense. Morality is heritable like other traits such as our fear of heights or our finding symmetrical faces more attractive than non-symmetrical faces. An orphan inherits a set of core moral sentiments from biological parents. These moral sentiments can, however, be overridden, modified, reinforced or otherwise influenced by circumstances - by adoptive parents for example – just as fear of jumping out of planes can be overridden by a love of excitement when we learn to parachute. Again, inherited core moral sentiments are not unassailable. They just have to do the job they evolved to do (promoting cooperation) well enough and often enough.

Seems to me that that is a tenable theory but falls short of being a proven fact.

Evolution is as grounded in objective evidence as any area of science. Evolution is a fact - we can see it with our own eyes happening in real time – for example, as micro-organisms adapt to antibiotic resistance. We humans, with our big brains and the minds that emerge from those brains and our moral sentiments, are thoroughly biological and “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution”. Our core moral sentiments evolved just like our aesthetic sentiments, our fear of heights and our attraction to symmetrical faces.

That suggests to me a gene-combination for co-operative behaviour rather than for not-stealing as such.

Yes, but not stealing is part of cooperation. If people regularly steal from each other, then trust and cooperation are impossible. Cooperation requires trust and trust requires that we do not steal from each other - especially not from member of our tribe or in-group. Steal from me and you cannot expect my cooperation when you need it. Those who don’t steal from me can expect my cooperation. Tit for tat. And those who cooperate were better able to survive and pass on their genes. Hence, our core moral sentiment that, all else being equal, stealing is to be avoided.

In which case the basis for an imperative of not-stealing is to be found in a study of what works in terms of human relationships - in a "science of politics" rather than in biology.

Yes, but what works in terms of human relationships is cooperation and cooperation depends on trust which would be impossible if we all stole from each other all the time. Evolution selected for cooperation and instilled core moral sentiments in us that would promote cooperation.

Note that here you slip from descriptive mode into prescriptive mode.

Why should we, in your view ? And why should we - in particular, rare, circumstances - not do so ?

Are you putting forward a recursive argument ? That we should act morally because our hardwired instinct says so, and we should obey that instinct because our hardwired instinct says so ?

(Compare the religious convert who earnestly tells that the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible...)

If hardwired instinct is the source of morality, how can it ever be morally right to over-rule it ?

And also, if it is objectively true that not-stealing increases the likelihood of one's genes being passed on, and that is what makes stealing morally wrong, how is that point of view not a theory of objective morality ?

I agree that my use of the word “should” here is problematic. It would have been better to say that we would be wise to generally heed our inner moral voice. In an instrumental sense, things generally go better that way. I meant “should” in this instrumental sense as in: If you want your car to run well, you “should” have it serviced regularly. Cooperation only works when there is trust. All else being equal, things go better when we do not steal because stealing hinders trust and cooperation. By cooperating we reap the benefits of non-zero-sumness that would not be available to us otherwise. Without cooperation we would not have come to dominate the world. It’s hard to imagine how stable human societies could even form and be maintained without trust and cooperation most of the time.

None of this is to say that our evolved core moral values are objectively true any more than aesthetics claims are objectively true. Evolutionary ethics is a metaethical thesis and not a normative one - it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Just because core human morality is the product of evolution does not make our moral sentiments objectively right. Nothing could make them so. Moral claims, like aesthetic claims are not “truth apt”. We just have to accept that they are based in our evolved feelings. Fortunately, unless we are psychopaths, we all share more or less the same core set of moral sentiments, and we generally heed our inner moral voice unless circumstances are such that we are driven to go against it.

[Lagayascienza]

Good_Egg, I done it again and got you and Fried_Egg mixed up. Apologies.