|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2007 7:41:54 GMT -8
6/2/06:
Morality as herd instinct?
First off, I must say that I do believe generally in herd instinct: mother love, sexual drive, empathy for pain, etc... These are all part of our basic biology, but I don't think 'herd instinct' can explain Morality in it's entirety. Here's the problem, according to Lewis:
"Suppose you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires- one a desire to help (due to your herd instinct), and the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside of you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and surpress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. "
He goes on to point out that you would expect that the stronger of the two impulses would win out, but that is often not the case:
"You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often find it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up!' cannot itself be the herd instinct. "
He also points out that every herd instinct, whether it be sex drive, mother love, patriotism, self-preservation, has a time when it is appropriate and when it is not. The only way we know whether it's appropriate to give in to an instinct in a given situation is to have something higher than instinct making the decision.
Now, you will probably say that's where morality as Social Convention comes to play. We'll get to that next.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 8:39:59 GMT -8
Mo, in response to some statements by Steve on another thread:
So what is true love in your opinion? You said the opposite of selfishness. That's questionable. I would say that there's a fair amount of selfishness in love but this could also mean that I have a misconception about what true love really is. Since we are discussing your opinion here and not mine, I'll assume that I don't know what true love is. Maybe you can tell me. When do you know that you really love in a way that transcends this world? How can I differentiate between the love I feel for my girlfriend or my parents and true love? What I'm feeling for them can't be true love in your definition because I need these people. I need my parents; I need their advice, protection, backing and support. I need my girlfriend; I need the feeling of security, of being accepted and "loved", her affection and cuddlings. I need to talk to her and share my life with her. And so much more. I NEED. This combination of words is truely selfish. And selfishness is the opposite of love according to your definition. Now it doesn't matter that I don't know anybody who wouldn't agree that he needs the persons he loves. I guess that Christians would also agree that they need God. I need you to help me out here, cause I can't seem to be able to imagine non-selfish love among humans.
Steve responded:
Moritz, The fact that we need things or people does not mean selfishness. Simply because we ourselves also benefit from love does not mean that it is really self-motivated. When I use the word selfish, I am referring to a self-orientation that only considers itself first above all others. You mentioned that you need your girlfriends "affection and cuddlings". I assume that you also wish to give her affection and cuddlings. This is good and right and it is something that God gives us as a tangible evidence of His love for us. These romantic feelings, the Eros love, are one dimension of love, and certainly not the highest form. Eros by itself cannot last. The reason for this is that it will at some point in a romantic relationship be put to the test. The love will not survive without the highest form of love called "Agape". This form is unconditional and does not depend on the object being in anyway lovable. We consider this form of love to be a Christian virtue. At some point. your beloved may become in your eyes unattractive. Eros will, at this point, decline and you will be forced to make a decision to either love this person further, or to find another object which inspires these feelings. This is the problem with our society today. People marry, make children and than the magic wears off. Usually the man decides to look around for some younger woman who will make him feel that way again. He forget the oath which he took before man and God to love, honor, and cherish till death do we part. This reveals that there wasn't very much, if any, Agape love in his Eros. It got too difficult and he considered his own hormones over the one to whom he had committed himself to. To love in an Agape way requires faith in the magical nature of love. I believe that when one perseveres through dry season of love, that the romance will be rekindled even stronger that before, and with a new depth. Most marriages shipwreck before they ever reach that point. You may also want to ask yourself if, put in the situation where it was necessary, would you sacrifice your own life for your girlfriends? If so, than this is true Love. The Bible says, "Greater love has no man than this, that he would lay down his life for another." If you lose your life, you can no longer enjoy the benefits of being in a relationship with her. You would have to be fully concerned about what is the very best thing for her.
As far as love being transcendent, I give you an example from CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity":
If you are walking through the woods with a slightly slower and weaker friend and suddenly find yourselves being chased by a bear, you will be faced with three different tensions. The first that will probably enter your head is the survival impulse. You are faster hence your friend will be eaten by the bear. The second will probably be the herd instinct. This instinct gives us a sympathy for others of our species. Determinists will say that the stronger of these two impulses will determine you actions. But there is a third higher thing which say that you ought not to run away but you should go back and help your friend. This third thing does not come from nature, it comes from above. If we obey it than we are showing true love. That is why it is transcendent above this world.
I don't feel like I explained that well, but I have to go to bed. I'll try it again tomorrow.
Mo:
Did you get all the Eros/ Agape stuff from Papa Ratzi? It sounds familiar.
Maybe needing someone isn't entirely selfish, but it has definetly elements of selfishness in it.
I don't think one can really estimate a thing like that if one is not in the particular situation. I'm tempted to say that I would do it but that doesn't mean I really would. The survival impulse is not to be underestimated by romantic philosophy.
But you wouldn't do it if you weren't fully convinced that it's what you have to do. You're doing yourself justice by sacrificing yourself. I think there is also an element of selfishness in that.
What's the difference between the second and the third impulse?
I don't know if I understood that last point. How do you know that the impulse that makes you help your friend doesn't come from nature? It would make perfect sense in that context too. Only that it would take away the transcendent love aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 8:40:46 GMT -8
Ha- we just can't escape morality, eh?
The third thing isn't an impulse. It's a choice between imulses motivated by a sense of morality. Determinism should predict that the stronger of the two impulses will win out (self-preservation), but often we find that that is not the case. Why? Because a) we are able to make moral choices and b) we are aware of a certain "oughtness" beyond our mere impulses that we often feel we must obey regardless of our instincts.
Really, you should read Mere Christianity for a good start on this. That will give you a good basic introduction to the angle we're coming from and then we can debate finer points.
Steve, well done on the Eros/ Agape stuff, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 8:41:46 GMT -8
To which Mo responded: The third thing isn't an impulse. It's a choice between imulses motivated by a sense of morality. Determinism should predict that the stronger of the two impulses will win out (self-preservation), but often we find that that is not the case. I think this is an oversimplification of the process actually happening in your brain when you have to take a decision without being able to really weigh the alternatives. As far as I know it, there are many factors influencing your decision: The individual assembling of your nervous system, individual experience, drives or impulses, etc.
Take a look at the following video: Here we have a slightly modified example of the bear-situation. A typical spanish festival: A bull is set loose and regular people (not professional bullfighters) are mocking it. There's also a dog running around. When a bull finally hits a man and won't let go of him, the dog immediately attacks! This video doesn't prove anything. But it indicates that a) the dog probably didn't take a moral decision and hence b) whatever caused his attack, it was stronger than his survival impulse. Watch!
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 12:21:14 GMT -8
A couple clarifications here:
1) I shouldn't have implied in quotations that I think the self-preservation is always biologically the strongest impulse. Of course, it's not.- as your video makes abundantly clear (great video, btw) But still, along with Lewis, we see that in our own lives, what feels to be the strongest impulse doesn't always win out because of other considerations, which leads me to the next point:
2) I didn't make it clear enough what I/ Lewis might mean by the "third thing" that decides between the impulses. The third thing could be taken to be several things, of course. It could be:
A. The deterministic resolution of a very complicated jumble of impulses ( as an extension, a determinist/ naturalist might argue, as I think you were heading, that perhaps what appears to be the strongest impulse is only strongest "on the surface" or in the "lower brain" and there are more subtle but stronger impulses (that we might even be unaware of) working against it.
B. It could be a free will choice based on analysis of the impulses and a pragmatic judgment of the best course of action given the probably outcomes. This might be somewhat similar to Freud's SuperEgo, I believe, which judges between the ego and the id (?)
or, C. What I didn't mention strongly enough is, in Lewis' view, the third thing isn't just a choice, it is a certain sense of "oughtness" built into us. He would basically say that we are by nature creatures who feel moral obligations at work in our decision making. It's not so much about the particulars of what we think is wrong or right, or our disagreements about that, but that we all tend to think in terms of right or wrong or "oughtness" in the first place.
A and B above don't explain why almost all humans have an inherent sense of "oughtness" in them.
This could point to some sense of a "law of right and wrong" that exists out there independent of us. But to make that case, all the theories on where morality arises from need to be examined and evaluated as peices of the puzzle.
Above, in the first thread, the argument made about morality is that biological instinct does play a role in our perception of "oughtness" but it certainly doesn't explain every instance of the moral sense in humanity.
If we look at all the proffered explanations of morality (instict, social convention, powerplays, and others and are still left with examples of moral absolutes that cannot be explained by those things, then we might begin to consider whether this are actually moral absolute that exist independent of us.
Lastly, what did you think of Steve's analysis of love? Do you agree that that is how love actually works or not? Is he describing reality or just spouting opinion?
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 19, 2008 7:42:19 GMT -8
It's not so much about the particulars of what we think is wrong or right, or our disagreements about that, but that we all tend to think in terms of right or wrong or "oughtness" in the first place. A and B above don't explain why almost all humans have an inherent sense of "oughtness" in them. Correct me if I'm wrong but all this sounds a lot like conscience to me. I haven't got the slightest doubt that to have a conscience is benecifial for a social being and increasing his possibilities to survive. This would perfectly explain within the theory of evolution, why we have a conscience in the first place. What we end up considering wrong or wright is a matter of socialization. I don't see why it should be something supernatural. Lastly, what did you think of Steve's analysis of love? Do you agree that that is how love actually works or not? Is he describing reality or just spouting opinion? I think it is reasonable to distinguish different kinds and stages of love. I guess everybody has experienced love in different intensity from a mere crush to (hopefully) true love. To establish this is one thing, to infer from it that love is transcendental is a mental jump. It's not stringent, random and appears to be made up out of thin air. But it doesn't matter. Steve already pointed out that this was his opinion and that he didn't want to discuss it. I kept asking him about his opinion because I'm interested in what he thinks and not to taunt his reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 20, 2008 20:00:39 GMT -8
OK, so you grant that in addition to "instictual morality"- that is, morality that is built into us biologically, there is another source of morality- that is, social convention. Social convention can be seen as an outgrowth of what has been biologically built into us, but it is still the product of thinking/ philosophy, so it's a furhter step up from "instinct". Well, that's the next source of morality that I considered- so jump over here: Morality as Social Convention?Oh, and in regard to what Steve said, I wasn't mainly thinking about it as an evidence for something transcendant. I was just wondering if his description about love (especially the progression from eros to agape) rang true to you.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 21, 2008 5:41:23 GMT -8
OK, so you grant that in addition to "instictual morality"- that is, morality that is built into us biologically, there is another source of morality- that is, social convention. Social convention can be seen as an outgrowth of what has been biologically built into us, but it is still the product of thinking/ philosophy, so it's a furhter step up from "instinct". Morality = social convention. That’s how my dictionary puts it. I’m not sure if morality has anything to do with instincts. Instincts exist but they are not responding to conventions. Even if your instincts make you do something morally acceptable, that doesn’t mean that morality has been the root of the action. The best proof for this is that instincts also make you do things that aren’t morally acceptable (like deserting a friend to a bear in order to save your own skin). What is biologically built into us isn’t moral. It is the ABILITY to respond, accept and internalize morals or conventions or however you wanna call it. That’s evolutionary beneficial for the survival. It allows “weak individuals”* to live together in “strong collectives”. Now: The content of CONVENTIONS isn’t determined. It’s very flexible. The constant change of the Zeitgeist proves this statement to be true. Factors that influence the content of conventions are certainly multiple. From what’s beneficial over pragmatism to the arbitrary preferences of a headman. Since the content of conventions is flexible and not determined, it can be challenged by rationality. I don’t think any supernatural power is necessary to logically explain every virtue and value we hold. *weak in the sense of: less likely to survive in wilderness. Oh, and in regard to what Steve said, I wasn't mainly thinking about it as an evidence for something transcendant. I was just wondering if his description about love (especially the progression from eros to agape) rang true to you. It rings like an opinion to me . Like a simplification (not to be confused with reduction) of the complex phenomenon we call love. I don’t think it’s much more. BTW: didn’t the Pope recently elaborate the “Eros and Agape” philosophy in an Encyclical letter?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 21, 2008 20:21:02 GMT -8
Mo, the reason why I (following Lewis) started a survey of different views on morality with "herd instinct" is because it is a popular theory to view morality as merely a biological, evolutionary development which, in general, serves to help preserve the species. But you acknowledge that morality is also (or it sounds like primarily) a social construct. So, since we are agreed that Morality doesn't just boil down to bioligical instinct, next (when I have the time) I'll respond to your responses on the Morality as Social Convention? thread.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Aug 22, 2008 11:02:44 GMT -8
Mo, the reason why I (following Lewis) started a survey of different views on morality with "herd instinct" is because it is a popular theory to view morality as merely a biological, evolutionary development which, in general, serves to help preserve the species. But you acknowledge that morality is also (or it sounds like primarily) a social construct. So, since we are agreed that Morality doesn't just boil down to bioligical instinct, next (when I have the time) I'll respond to your responses on the Morality as Social Convention? thread. Fine. And just to get it straight. I do think the root of morality rests in evolution. The root isn't morality itself, but the ability of being moral.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 22, 2008 12:16:44 GMT -8
Yep... even social contructs could be seen as an outgrowth of an evolutionary process, just one step removed from pure instinct.
|
|