<p>So, I was inspired by someone's recent comment to ask:</p>
<p>Is there a logical basis for morality?</p>
<p>Self-preservation.</p>
<p>Is there a logical basis for logic? It’s equally as contrived.</p>
<p>What about selfless morality? As in morality that doesn’t necessarily affect self-preservation or that might even hinder it.</p>
<p>I sometimes act in a non-self-preservation morality and recently have begun to question if I’m just being too idealistic and should move towards a more realist self-preservation morality, as I feel at times it just puts me at such a huge disadvantage.</p>
<p>I meant to say an * objective * basis.</p>
<p>Most of our morality stems from our instincts as a social animal. Can we have a completely objective morality? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Even the most obvious, universal values humans share (don’t kill other people, don’t rape) don’t have ‘objective’ bases. Killing is against the killed’s will? So what if I violate another person’s will? The only thing that prevents us from doing such things is that we feel bad about it (an inherent instinct, not objective/logical).</p>
<p>‘Non self-preservation’ morality, when seen in the context of society, could actually be self-preservative. Or at least doesn’t post a huge disadvantage. If it was so disadvantageous to be purely altruistic, our instinct to do so would’ve been removed from the gene pool. A couple of books that are pretty good about this are The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.</p>
<p>^ I feel there are still those who have such non-self-preservation morality who might not have it as a genetically-ingrained morality, but conditioned into them through what they’ve seen in their lives/as a combination of their experiences, which push them towards such moral codes. When a person has been through or seen certain experiences it can override some of the genetic psychological predispositions. </p>
<p>I took a seminar class focusing on just that (the relations of genetics and evolution with modern human psychology, rather than just non-mental physical attributes) and one thing we learned through that class (which was truly enlightening) was that although people are born with predispositions to certain ways of action, much of the person’s actual life experiences have a huge effect on pushing the person to certain ways of action.</p>
<p>cool. what class is that? i should take it :D</p>
<p>“Evolutionary Psychology” </p>
<p>[Evolutionary</a> psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology]Evolutionary”>Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I pretty much agree with all of you. I was hoping for something a bit more controversial :(</p>
<p>haha. you were baiting the godbots?? lol</p>
<p>I think that the concept of morality overall stems from having a conscience - a sense of guilt at wrongdoing, and the desire to coexist with others rather than causing them pain or harm. I think almost all humans have an innate sense of morality - with a few exceptions. Sociopaths, for instance, feel virtually no empathy for others, and consequently don’t really have a moral compass; I would argue that they are the only truly immoral beings, as all other humans know, on some level (however minor), when they are doing something truly wrong.</p>
<p>Morality is whatever suits one’s agenda. Therefore, there is no rational basis for morality.</p>
<p>I shouldn’t say “self” preservation.</p>
<p>Evolution occurs at the genetic level. So “gene” preservation.</p>
<p>Being morally “good” serves two purposes:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Reciprocation and relationships are valued in social organisms — “free riders” or social loafers drain society/ hurt each individual and are thus loathed. It is advantageous to form relationships/ reward (encourage) others to help you out and reciprocate. But this is not really altruism — it’s morality with a driven purpose, I suppose.</p></li>
<li><p>For the longest period of time humans lived in small communities/ families where everyone was somewhat genetically related and “altruistic” tendencies allowed for the greater survival of all living there (who were also genetically related). Thus if one person yelled when they saw a lion, they might be eaten but 5-20 of their family members might alerted/ saved. Thus their “altruistic” tendencies were preserved/ passed down, either directly or perhaps through recessive genes. It’s up for speculation. You get the idea.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^ ah, have you studied evolutionary psychology as well? ;D those are literally some exact concepts we covered in class.</p>
<p>actually that’s sort of a short summary of Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue… lol</p>