Let me preface this by saying that I am fairly drunk right now, as such I apologize if some of this is slightly incoherent, if it is such I will correct at a later point. My purpose in writing this myTake is to show that their is no good reason to believe that morality is religiously, or supernaturally based, but rather based in biology.
The Neural Basis of Moral Cognition, an article by Jorge Moll, Ricardo de Oliveira-Souza, and Roland Zahn from the “Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences” discuss the psychological and neurobiological causes for morality and its shortcomings. The authors acknowledge that morality has long been debated by psychologists, philosophers, and theologians alike. They propose that this ““moral sensitivity” emerges from a sophisticated integration of cognitive, emotional, and motivational mechanisms.” (Moll, de Oliveira-Souza, Eslinger, et al. 2002 page 1) These moral principles are a result of social learning and promotes prosocial norms. Despite the social causes morality must be a result of biological and psychological evolution via Darwinian principles. Morality is a difficult term to define thus for operational purposes the authors adopted the definition of “as the sets of customs and values that are embraced by a cultural group to guide social conduct.” They state that this definition is accurate and beneficial for several reasons, but mainly because it allows for cultural variation, covers a wide array of socially accepted (and not accepted) behaviors, is evaluative, and evolves or mutates as concurrently with a given society. They also indicate that morality is motivationally based, because of this they list four categories of moral behavior. These four categories are self serving actions that do not affect others, self serving actions that negatively affect others (what we would term selfish), actions that are beneficial to others that are likely to be reciprocated (they term this reciprocal altruism), and lastly actions that are beneficial to others with no conceivable benefit to self and included in this category is punishing others for not adhering to the set norms. According to the authors a study from “Nowak & Sigmund 2005” ( page 2) shows that mammalian species practice the first three forms, but the fourth category “genuine altruism” appears to be a purely human construct. Those who disagree with the evolutionary basis for morality point out that these genuine/ unreciprocated altruistic tendencies are of no benefit, or even detrimental to the individual; however, they do increase the survival of the species. Since humans are social creatures this is imperative and thus leads to heritability of such traits. These altruistic tendencies include punishing those who violate these norms. The authors state “While theoretical biology and experimental economics have strongly substantiated the validity of these “selfless” human behaviors (Trivers 1971; Maynard-Smith & Szathmary 1997; Milinski et al. 2002; Fehr & Fischbacher 2003; Fehr & Rockenbach 2004), the motivational sources of altruistic inclinations have only recently started to be unveiled by neuroscience.” (Page 2) Certain emotional responses both positively affirm moral actions and deters non-moral actions. When a person performs a moral action they may feel pride, whereas when they are the recipient of a moral action they feel gratitude. In contrast, when not adhering to these norms an individual feels guilt, or if the recipient of immoral acts the individual “wronged” is angered. Figure 1 shows brain areas most associated with moral attitudes and subsequent behaviors, these areas include the anterior prefrontal cortex, the medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex, dorsolateral PFC and additional ventromedial sectors of the PFC, the anterior temporal lobes, the superior temporal sulcus region, subcortical.Certain structures such as the amygdala, ventromedial hypothalamus, septal area and nuclei, basal forebrain, the walls of the third ventricle, and rostral brain-stem tegmentum. Lastly, brain regions that have not been consistently associated with moral cognition and behavior in patient studies include the parietal and occipital lobes, large areas of the frontal and temporal lobes, and the brainstem, basal ganglia, and additional subcortical structures.(page 3) Damage to these structures has been shown to significantly impair moral judgements. (Page 4) Some examples are violent tendencies, various parphilias, innapropriate sexual advances, and teasing behaviors. The authors show that “deeply entrenched neurohumoral mechanisms, which are largely shared with other social species, provide the motivational force underlying human moral sentiments and are uniquely combined with cognitive abilities only recently developed in our species, such as conceptual abstraction and elaborate representation of future consequences of actions.” (page 15)
In conclusion it is apparent that morality is biologically based, and not a result of some supernatural cause.
*My picture will be something random because I don't feel like trying to find a pic to meet the paramaters of this site.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
"Despite the social causes morality must be a result of biological and psychological evolution via Darwinian principles."
Must is a very, very strong word. You also, prior to this, didn't prove this. Nor did you after actually affirm that this is the case. You simply (lightly) supported it.
"In conclusion it is apparent that morality is biologically based, and not a result of some supernatural cause."
You did not support this conclusion. You did support the notion that there is a neurobiological aspect to moral behavior in society but that doesn't actually explicitly express where morals come from. If I were your opponent the first thing I would simply say to shut all this down is, "But if the brain were designed by God wouldn't this be by design?", and none of this could hold a candle to it.
As a matter of fact the main problem is that your question and your proof don't align at all. You've not shown where morals came from, just that they have reward systems in the brain, that they have a neurological presence, and really that some people disagree with this. There's not enough evidence of:
"Despite the social causes morality must be a result of biological and psychological evolution via Darwinian principles."
though there is plenty of evidence that the stuff exists and that it's just not some intangible element in humanity. You did a good job proving it's there but not proving it's actually naturally occurring.
Another easy comeback against this is simply asking about frivolous moralities. In Japan it's rude NOT to slurp your noodles. In America it's rude TO EVER slurp your noodles. Good luck showing that's natural. You need more explanation of how cultures form these things to begin with.
I appreciate the insight! The functional definition of morality that I gave allowed for cultural variation right? On the supernatural concept, what I intended to say was that it is grounded in biology. I suppose that is a point that I should clarify. Whether or not there is some deity that made our brains would not matter. The fact that our physical brains govern our moral tendencies is still a fact. This is why people like psychopaths exist.
On your first point though I still feel that the brain areas associated with moral tendencies proves that this must be the case, do you feel that I need to further explicate on this subject? If so what sort of evidence should I bring up?
Thanks again!
You did do well using your definition for morality though that doesn't explain illogical morals (like the slurping ones) which is a real wrench in your side since that cannot be attributed to biology either. I think that your application of biology as evidence is fine but a lack of evidence isn't evidence, which means that in order to disprove the supernatural you have to actually take the arguments and apply against them not apply for something and imply that the supernatural position must be false because of your position being true. This is the "Well, it was designed that way" problem; it's too easy to just skirt around a bunch of facts that don't directly assault an idea but simply imply their superiority.
In short: Be more direct. Bring up apologist arguments and directly shut them down (if possible). This would be excellent using things like Divine Command Theory.
"The fact that our physical brains govern our moral tendencies is still a fact. This is why people like psychopaths exist. "
And also this kind of thing, where you draw conclusion from premises that don't actually lead to those conclusions, won't fly. Behavior is far more complex than just neurological signaling and people go insane for all numbers of reasons. One cannot simply conclude that all psychopathy is born of neurobiological problems just like not all depression would be born of neuropsychological issues. As a matter of fact they are so intertwined that you could almost say that it's a chicken-egg problem. People who suffer intense abuse and neglect are often just as insane as those born that way.
"On your first point though I still feel that the brain areas associated with moral tendencies proves that this must be the case, do you feel that I need to further explicate on this subject? If so what sort of evidence should I bring up? "
This is an "implied proof" that I was talking about earlier. That doesn't actually prove anything except perhaps that the pineal gland doesn't exist. It's evidence towards something but it's not actually proof; as a matter of fact you've got the great basis with plenty of evidence for an idea but it's not organized in a way that makes it come to a conclusion. For instance your previous statement: "Psychopaths exist because morality is in the brain ( THEREFORE ALL PSYCHOPATHS MUST HAVE COME FROM NEUROBIOLOGICAL ANOMALY )." The reason the parenthesis are there is because this is the implied message, the thing you didn't say, and that thing you didn't say is completely false. Criminal inclination isn't purely biological, mental illness isn't, and hell even if it was there's no easy-to-define line between "murderous criminal" and "person who is just fond of harmlessly lying"; there's too much going on unsaid here.
Just say it. Be more direct.
As for how to disprove other elements your best bet would be to actually bring up those arguments.
"God guides my hand", but your belief in god is guided by your brain to begin with!
"God gave man morals", but neurobiological presence suggests that it would be adaptive and malleable instead of divine!
etc.
I'm not going to lie, I skimmed the hell out of this. But excellent topic (much deep, very detail, wow) So, :) I totally agree with you. Wolves and primates and everything in between benefit from being nice to their neighbor and/or having an innate moral code.
Why thank you!
Lol I think there's a liver in your bottle 🍶 there 😂😂