Excerpt from “The Immorality of Morals and the Future of Amorality”
Most authors seem to promote one or the other of two functions for morality, internal cohesion and external threat. However morality served both equally well. In Darwinism, Dominance and Democracy by Somit and Peterson, the authors state, "Humans are social primates, closely (almost embarrassingly) akin genetically to the chimpanzees and only slightly less so to the gorillas. Working over at least 10 million years, natural selection has endowed the social primates with a predisposition (to understate the matter) for hierarchical social structures. That is, they invariably form groups, troops, tribes, and societies characterized by marked differences in individual status in terms of dominance and submission, command and obedience, and by unequal access to many of the good things of life. This form of morality then serves inclusive fitness; it is there for one reason, to improve the survivability of the tribe. SOMIT AND PETERSON later state, "Indoctrinability, then, together with dominance, hierarchy, and obedience, is one of the innate behavioral capacities and characteristics of our species. As might be expected, in most instances indoctrinability serves to support and reinforce these generally authoritarian tendencies. Under other and fairly special conditions, though, indoctrinability provides a window of opportunity for the acceptance of democratic ideas and of political actions that, if successful, lead to the establishment of a democratic polity." And later, "From a neo-Darwinian perspective, individual selection for indoctrinability in a language-capable species makes sound evolutionary sense. When individuals accept the same values, conflict and violence will be diminished, resulting in a more stable society. From the vantage point of the conforming individual, relative order and tranquility, in turn, are likely to result in greater reproductive success and, hence, inclusive fitness."
The idea of morals and values are one of the most debated topics in the world of critical thinking. Life times can be spent philosophizing about the morality of our human race and the shared “innate” values. Hence forth this excerpt which talks directly (as well as indirectly) about the genealogy of values and morals in a society of humans comparatively to that of nature.
There are many ideas brought forth from this paragraph, most stemming from the doctor of the Natural Selection, Charles Darwin. The basis of Darwin’s studies stem from change over a long period of time for the betterment of a group or species. Darwin’s studies that mostly of physiological changes revert to development of needed traits for the increased survival of a group.
There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first have to do with duty and obligation. For example: "Thou shalt not kill, lie, or steal." "You just keep your promises." These judgments often uphold minimal standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ‘ought.’ The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments employ as their most general terms "happiness," "excellence," and perhaps "flourishing" (in addition to "the good life"). For example: "Happiness requires activity and not mere passive consumption." "The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health." I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all particular ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.
On The Genealogy of Morals, Essay I refers to the second stage of human morality—the emergence of the concepts of "Good" and "Evil" as categories o...
Charles Darwin contributed majorly to the evolutionary theory and was the first to consider the concept of natural selection. The evolutionary theory states that evolutionary change comes through the production of genetic variation in each generation and survival of individuals with different combinations of these characters. Individuals with characteristics which increase their probability of survival will have more opportunities to reproduce and their offspring will also benefit from the heritable, advantageous characteristic. So over time these variants will spread through the population. (S.Montgomery, 2009)
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
Charles Darwin founded the theory of evolution by natural selection, which according to this principle defines; biological characteristics enhance survival increase in frequency from generation to generation (Larsen et al. 22). These individuals are inclined to produce more sustainable offspring to pass their genes to, meaning that some individuals are more reproductively fruitful than others. Natural selection requires variation in a species, which can result by gene flow, mutation, or genetic drift & also involves environmental stresses such as climate change. These result as the evolutionary means of how certain traits can be selected. Eventually, traits that give individuals certain advantages, such as bipedalism in hominids, will be selected in great numbers & more individuals in a population will display these traits.
Would you describe a dog as capable of being evil? Or a cat? Or a chimpanzee? Most likely you could not. We humans belong to the taxonomic kingdom of Animalia and are therefore animals. Our species has evolved from animals that looked and acted more like the modern chimpanzee than we do. So at what point did we go from being creatures of instinct do developing the concept of morality? A great deal of literature has been written about morality, examples of which can be located in fiction and non-fiction as well as in scientific, theological and philosophical fields. Specific examples include the bible, as well as the writings of Plato (c. 424-348 BCE), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and John Steinbeck (1902-1968). Morality is a trait that is developed as a result of practical material situations and experience as exemplified in The Grapes of Wrath, challenged by St. Matthew, but reinforced in the writings of Plato; we humans are born morally neutral.
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
In “The Moral Instinct”, Steven Pinker argues for a sixth sense that humans have that is morality. This sense, just like the other five, can be skewed and mislead by evolution and culture of humanity. If humans can remove these illusions, Pinker believes that a universal morality can be achieved. He believes that people are born with a basic knowledge of morality and eventually learn to apply moral reasoning. Pinker explains how secular and evolutionary psychology are corrosive to morality. Ultimately, He agrees with the theory that Anthropologists Richard Shweder and Alan Fiske propose of a universal morality that divides into five themes of harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity. Pinker believes that these themes can be interpreted
Charles Darwin has five parts to his theory of natural selection, firstly the “Geometric increase” which claims that “all living things reproduce in great numbers”, meaning that species may survive but not all will survive because, the resources used for survival for instance ,food will not be enough for all living things. “The struggle for existence” because there is a limited number of resources and can only sustain some and not all, not all living things will survive, however the question lies in which living being will survive?. “Variation” is the third part of natural selection which claims that within those living things there are variations within them that will determine whic...
In this essay, I will object to Thomas Nagel’s view “The fact that morality is socially inculcated and that there is radical disagreement about it across cultures, over time, and even within cultures at a time is a poor reason to conclude that values have no objective reality” (CP, p. 60; Thomas Nagel, “Value” (Lecture II of “The Limits of Objectivity”)). Nagel claims the argument that we learn morality from those in our society which leads people to have different moral beliefs without a specific right or wrong moral belief is a bad argument.
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
Darwin writes on how a species will adapt to its environment given enough time. When an animal gains a genetic edge over its competitors, be they of the same species or of another genus altogether, the animal has increased its chance of either procreation or adaptation. When this animal has this beneficial variance, the advantage becomes his and because of this, the trait is then passed on to the animals offspring.
Now days every time we turn around we hear of horror stories or stories of unbelievable proportions because it seems so unbelievable. Stories such as people murdering people for no reason, robbery in broad daylight, “cover up” from the government, and unfortunately the list is endless. And when we hear the stories we often wonder what causes these people to behave that way or better yet we say: “I can’t believe that”. The next question comes to mind, is what happened to their morals? And because unethical acts seems to be touching everyone’s life one way or another, this narrative touches on the different types of ethics and their meanings. For many years people such as Confucius to Aristotle to our own Benjamin Franklin, have attempted to explain their views on “what consists of good morals and ethics.” We all seem to have morals and ethics at some point in our lives (probably around childhood); but over the years many of us have lost them. And unfortunately for whatever reasons there are, people seem to have less and less compassion and care for their fellow man. Having said that, doesn’t everyone deserve to be treated with dignity and respect? After many years of research, there still is not a relevant reason for this injustice. After delving into the presented research and resources, perhaps the reader can come to a conclusion. Presented in this paper are comparisons of the different types of “personalities or morals” and their beliefs and thoughts. I think we should all be concerned about this situation because every day it impacts our lives.
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.
Values influence how we view the world. They are what help us make decisions and what generally shapes our behavior. Our values have a powerful influence on our personality and how we judge people and our surroundings. They are what we see as important in life, as well as knowing the good from the bad and right from wrong. Google defines values as “the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something,” and “a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.” Many people have the same values but in a different priority. But, many people just simply have different values all around. Whether good or bad, to one’s standards, everyone has values. But where do we learn these principles and standards? Where do our values come from? What really shapes them? How can these values be tainted? Can these values change? This research will be focused on the influences of family and society as factors of how we learn values, how values can be tainted, and how values can change.