A completely different origin of morality

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete omnes,

I have been reading recently some works on theoretical biology, and I came across the tragic story of George Price, a man with no biological background who re-formulated several equations, and was so shocked by the philosophical implications that he later committed suicide. Interestingly enough, his work was on the origin of morality.

He appears to have found scientific evidence for extending the theory of natural selection to altruism; his equations imply that altruism is as much a facet of the survival of the species as is any physical characteristic. If this is so, then our morality is based around the continuation of the species, and therefore is inherently unreliable. How can you be sure whether the action you are doing is good because it is a good deed, or whether you think it is good because your morality is as much a product of your DNA as your appearance?

This further implies that mankind can never become more honourable than it already is - if, for whatever reason, our moral tendencies are an aid to the survival of the species, then they're unlikely to change.

The argument is far more complex than this, but my understanding of it is limited.

George Price committed suicide over the concept that there was no way of finding a true morality, or even (for subjectivists such as myself) a plausible or honourable morality. I've been struggling a great deal over this concept, so if anyone has any thoughts to offer, please do!

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salve Curio,

Could you share the title of that book with us ? I'd need to read about this subject in detail before commenting on it.

Sceptical but interested,

Q. Pomponius Atticus

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Attice,

I've only been reading an introduction (Called "The Darwin Wars" by Andrew Brown) to some of the aspects of theoretical evolutionary biology in general, but I've been on the lookout for these books which are mentioned in the bibliography:
"The genetical evolution of social behaviour" or
"Narrow roads of gene land" both by William Hamilton
"The theory of evolution" by John Maynard Smith

That should be enough to get started.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

I have read some studies on altruism in animals before. The classic example is a mother sacrificing herself to defend her cubs. Man is a social animal and I can see how altruism that furthers the herd could be the basis for social morality. But if you link such behavior to DNA implants, why would you say our morality cannot change? Certainly our societies have changed and have impacted on our evolution. Why would our morality not be able to evolve as the species evolves?

Valete

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Curio,

I have a hard time completely believing this type of altruism covers all forms of moral behaviour. What to think of staying with someone in their last moments, without anyone else present? This clearly doesn't serve the purpose of perpetuating the species, can never be returned (because the person will be dead), nor can it make any sort of social impression (increasing mating chances) on anyone else, yet staying with a person in their last moments is considered a highly moral act.

Vale bene,
Draco

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Draco

So if a horse or dog stays by the side of its dying master they are acting morally?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Piscine,

In essence, yes. I think the more complex animals can feel things that are comparable to feelings of sadness, etc etc, that have little to do with their own direct survival or reproduction.

Vale bene,
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete Piscine et Draco,

Piscine: I'm certainly not saying that our morality cannot change; such a statement would be patently untrue to anyone who gave even a cursory glance at history. I'm merely saying that the fact that our morality is due to our genetic makeup is unchangeable, if Price and Hamilton's equations are correct; forever our moral codes will be dictated not by truly moral principles, but by the need to survive as a species.

Draco: This is because there has been a shift in moral behaviour. It was common among some reptilian species to cannibalise on sickly young or the crippled or old (The Deinonychus, for example). 2000 years ago, it was common practice in some areas to expose unwanted babies at birth. In some Inuit tribes, it was common to push a no-longer-useful member of the community out to sea and let them die alone.

Nowadays, however, it is common knowledge that the welfare state, good healthcare and pensions are all essential for the growth of the modern population. This is both a cause of and a result of increasing liberalisation, and the moral pendulum has swung the other way. This is why we might feel morally compelled to do things that, on reflection, have little effect on the survival of the species; because the desire to increase the population of our species has resulted in the use of moral justifications for actions that do so, and this has resulted in a certain sympathy towards members of the same species, most especially those who no longer pose a direct threat to you; (hence a person at their deathbed).

Bear in mind these might not be the arguments Price or Hamilton used, they're simply thoughts I've come up with after reflecting on your comments.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Curio,

Draco: This is because there has been a shift in moral behaviour. It was common among some reptilian species to cannibalise on sickly young or the crippled or old (The Deinonychus, for example). 2000 years ago, it was common practice in some areas to expose unwanted babies at birth. In some Inuit tribes, it was common to push a no-longer-useful member of the community out to sea and let them die alone.

Nowadays, however, it is common knowledge that the welfare state, good healthcare and pensions are all essential for the growth of the modern population.

Purely biologically, this is not the case. For example, one of my two grandmothers is unemployed, mentally ill and totally useless to society. Her productive relatives would be better off if she died and her money and possessions passed on to them, yet this doesn't happen.

Your first paragraph seems to corroborate more with what Piscinus and I are saying (ie that morality has changed over time), rather than going in against us. Or wasn't that the point?

This is both a cause of and a result of increasing liberalisation, and the moral pendulum has swung the other way. This is why we might feel morally compelled to do things that, on reflection, have little effect on the survival of the species; because the desire to increase the population of our species has resulted in the use of moral justifications for actions that do so, and this has resulted in a certain sympathy towards members of the same species, most especially those who no longer pose a direct threat to you; (hence a person at their deathbed).

If I may, I find this argument rather weak. If you stay at a person's deathbed as in the case I described, you will most likely feel genuine compassion. Again, this can only come from within, it cannot be imposed. Although a person may be molded into moral behaviour by both social pressure and genetic coding, the morality I've described goes well beyond that and as such, I find it hard to accept that as an excess or justification of a system. Human beings don't usually go at great pains to do this.

Still, the morality I describe is not completely useless. True compassion flows forth from understanding how the human psyche works, or just seeing through an individual. This is the result of the fact that knowledge is power - and anything you know about someone, increases your potential power over them. But perversely, as you emotionally get through to the core of another human being, compassion will inevitably grow, because you know that you and 'that other person' are more the same than you are different. And as such, this at once fits nicely into this whole genetic fate theory and at the same time goes beyond it.

Vale!
Draco

[Marcus Pomponius Lupus]

Salvete,

Personally, I think morality is a construction of the mind and based on education and personal experiences, rather than on DNA.

If you would have picked me up at birth and switched me with an Inuit baby, then, following your earlier example, I would now find it normal to push old men and women out to sea. My Inuit counterpart, however, being raised here, would not be very fond of the idea. So I don't think DNA has much to do with it.

However, what I think Price seems to be claiming (if I understood it correctly of course), is that the need for morality (in whatever form) comes from our DNA. And, realizing that the form of morality is ever changing, he was disappointed that there was no universal, higher morality.

It's as if he was hoping for the existence of a universal list of good things and bad things, a list that can never change and would clearly show us how to live our lives. But instead he found chaos, good becomes bad and vice versa if you only travel far enough.

I don't think I would like a set of pre-fixed rules about what is good and bad. Growing your own personal sense of morality is a natural thing to do, just like learning to speak without being aware of it. Since moral values change in the course of history (and are at any given time different from what you find a few 1000 kilometres to the west) , I don't believe in "true moral principles", but merely in "temporarily and geographically true moral principles".

Valete bene
Lupus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

By the way, I should clarify something here, lest someone thinks I am a vile egoist who would gladly kill his own grandma...

Purely biologically, this is not the case. For example, one of my two grandmothers is unemployed, mentally ill and totally useless to society. Her productive relatives would be better off if she died and her money and possessions passed on to them, yet this doesn't happen.

I should strongly emphasise here that I do not mean this, I was offering a theoretical example. By the way, in se every human being is useless sub specie aeternitatis .

Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Draco,

Purely biologically, this is not the case. For example, one of my two grandmothers is unemployed, mentally ill and totally useless to society. Her productive relatives would be better off if she died and her money and possessions passed on to them, yet this doesn't happen.

Not so. At no point does your grandmother's unproductiveness threaten the survival of her relatives. If your family got into financial trouble, and was unable to support her without detracting from your own health, it might be a different matter, but as it is, her existence in no way threatens the existence of your family, and thus it does not reduce the population.

Your first paragraph seems to corroborate more with what Piscinus and I are saying (ie that morality has changed over time), rather than going in against us. Or wasn't that the point?

It does indeed. As I said to Piscinus, I'm not denying that morality itself has changed, I'm merely suggesting (If this theory is correct - I haven't looked into it in enough detail yet to have total confidence in it) that the moral imperative itself will remain unchangeable, and that imperative will be the need to survive as a species.

If I may,

YOU MAY NOT!

I find this argument rather weak. If you stay at a person's deathbed as in the case I described, you will most likely feel genuine compassion. Again, this can only come from within, it cannot be imposed. Although a person may be molded into moral behaviour by both social pressure and genetic coding, the morality I've described goes well beyond that and as such, I find it hard to accept that as an excess or justification of a system. Human beings don't usually go at great pains to do this.

Indeed. I'm not denying that you will feel compassion and grief when sitting at a person's deathbed. Bear in mind I'm not denying the existence of morality or of good intentions. What I'm saying is that our morality is a result of our genetic imperative to survive. This in turn makes it entirely impossible for us to be certain whether our actions are truly moral, or whether we are told they are moral because they are in some way conducive to our survival or to the survival of the species.

Still, the morality I describe is not completely useless. True compassion flows forth from understanding how the human psyche works, or just seeing through an individual. This is the result of the fact that knowledge is power - and anything you know about someone, increases your potential power over them. But perversely, as you emotionally get through to the core of another human being, compassion will inevitably grow, because you know that you and 'that other person' are more the same than you are different. And as such, this at once fits nicely into this whole genetic fate theory and at the same time goes beyond it.

And for what reason is that compassion there? Because of the genetic imperative to feel sympathy for members of the same species, thus preventing constant conflict on an individual level.

Enjoying defending a theory he knows almost nothing about is...
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Lupe,

If you would have picked me up at birth and switched me with an Inuit baby, then, following your earlier example, I would now find it normal to push old men and women out to sea. My Inuit counterpart, however, being raised here, would not be very fond of the idea. So I don't think DNA has much to do with it.

Actually, IIRC, that Inuit custom was hundreds of years ago, not today. It was an example of the advance of the moral imperative which could both be interpreted both as the liberalisation of moral and political thought, or alternatively as the evolution of the genetic imperative to survive as a species. Since the latter could cause the former, I side with the latter. But you are correct, environment does play a part - but that is because different societies respond differently to different challenges. This actually corroborates with your later point that there is no universal, higher morality - but that does not mean that the genetic imperative to survive is not at the heart of all these moral systems.

However, what I think Price seems to be claiming (if I understood it correctly of course), is that the need for morality (in whatever form) comes from our DNA. And, realizing that the form of morality is ever changing, he was disappointed that there was no universal, higher morality.

I think it was more that he lost all faith in his own interpretation of what was right. He wasn't looking for an absolute morality. I think his depression was due to one pertinent question if his and Hamilton's theory is to be believed: "How can I be sure, when I perform an action that I believe to be moral, that it is because it is a moral action (or even because I believe it to be a moral action) rather than because of my DNA's selfish desire to survive?"

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete philosophi omnes

As I said to Piscinus, I'm not denying that morality itself has changed, I'm merely suggesting ... that the moral imperative itself will remain unchangeable, and that imperative will be the need to survive as a species.

Would not this also be true if the moral imperative were social rather than biological? Everyone has pointed out how morality can be different in some ways from one society to the next. To survive in the society, for your family to continue in the society, you must abide by its morality, move elsewhere, or risk extinction. More importantly a society's morality is imposed for its own survival. And a society's morality can change as may be needed for it to survive. A society has a morality that protects the social bonds that make it a society. A herd has acceptable behavior for herd members, even altruistic imperatives, necessary for the herd to survive, and therefore for the species to survive.

I notice that the argument being put forth against Curio has to do with this notion that the basis of morality is linked to survial of a species, rather than contesting whether that imperative comes from social pressure or biological design. I would agree with Curio that survival is one basis of morality. Another could be the collective quality of life in the society, and that too can relate to survival, and therefore possibly to a biological design.

I think the point of the theory has been missed. But since the argument has moved on, I would have to ask, if group survival is not the basis of morality, then what is?

Valete optime

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Piscine,

Yes, on an individual basis we might also feel social pressure to conform to moral standards, but as you point out, these might also come from biological imperatives, whether directly or indirectly. Also, you point out that we must conform to certain moral standards within a society or leave, or become extinct. That too suggests a genetic desire to survive.

As to your question at the end of your post, Piscine, my answer is most straightforward: I think that group survival *is* the basis of morality, or at least part of it. Today I've been considering the idea that the desire for individual survival also plays a part, at least in determining our own moral concepts, even if not those of a society as a whole.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete,

Yes, basically it comes down to survival of the individual, survival of the group and eventually the species, with some motivations intermingled (increasing of mating chances by being nice, for example). However, that still doesn't sufficiently explain what I'll call the deathbed paradox.

If you have compassion with that person, you know it's because they are suffering, and if you want suffering to end, then you have yet another concept that most of time builds forth or does not come into direct conflict with the survival-hypothesis: namely that personal morality can also be the desire to end suffering (without ending life itself).

Valete,
Draco