Morality by Michael D Magee
Personal freedom is only achievable within a social framework because humans are social not solit... more Personal freedom is only achievable within a social framework because humans are social not solitary. Freedom of speech is meaningless outside of society. It presumes an audience. People have duties besides rights. The state is the highest level. Much human unhappiness came from the friction between the state and the individual. But human society is an assembly of communities. The ordinary citizen does not have power and cannot so exercise it. We have yielded our rights to a professional political caste, out for their own personal gain, not often doing what electors want, then using the media to persuade them they want what they get. Without a satisfactory welfare system allowing benefits and personal enterprise, the gross inequalities of capitalist society will justify revolution! Each state must be ruled by its own people, without interference from other states, then democracy, humanitarianism, peace and cooperation will evolve.
It is hardly correct for a science writer to call the anthropic principle a theory, except in the... more It is hardly correct for a science writer to call the anthropic principle a theory, except in the vague but popular sense that the creationists use it in—a gash explanation. It is not gash, and it is not a tautology. The anthropic principle is more of an observation than a theory. We are here, and so the Universe’s age and physical constants are those that allow us to exist, and not all those others that would make our existence impossible, because the physical constants would be too big or small for the universe to exist itself, or to exist long enough for us to have evolved. We are not trying to prove that we do exist, but that unless the conditions had been as they are, we could not have done.
The central factor that led to the formation of human society was the suppression of those who wo... more The central factor that led to the formation of human society was the suppression of those who would take advantage of others in human groups. As illustrated in the case of the vampire bats, effectively it became morally impermissible for people to exploit others, and those who tried it were punished by the others expelling them from the group. By evicting those with selfish genes, human groups gradually got a higher preponderance of helpful, compassionate, caring and sharing genes—altruistic ones! These more cooperative human groups then began to dominate the rest, bringing on the social transition from a species of solitary primates to a social one, though it is possible, and even likely, that this happened before humans had even become Homo sapiens. Human society is symptomatic of a significant higher level transition. Once we had started to rely on cooperation, we started to develop theories of mind so as to be able to judge what others in our groups were thinking.
Society gives everyone the same rights under the law, and people are to use them instead of takin... more Society gives everyone the same rights under the law, and people are to use them instead of taking the law into their own hands—a prescription for social chaos—but they also have the duty to be a good citizen. Failure to do your duty means you are not a good citizen and cannot expect the rights of one. If the law is effective and just, citizens should act altruistically confident that if they are deliberately wronged, the law will deal with it. If they feel slighted, they can rely on justice to satisfy any temptation to feel vengeful. Evil is embodied in our atavistic side, the side that wants to be like a solitary animal, free to do anything. In society we cannot. We have our duty to society. It is what the battle of Good and Evil is about. We have to suppress atavistic behaviour in the social contract we have entered by living in, and enjoying the benefits of, society. When we succeed we are upright, but when we fail we have fallen to the wiles of Satan.
One of the most striking features of natural morality is that the approval or censure of an act d... more One of the most striking features of natural morality is that the approval or censure of an act directly reflects the social value or social injury of the act. Why is justice the fundamental and essential moral law? It is a vital regulation of social life. Why is murder the greatest crime? It is the gravest social delinquency. In tribal society religion and morals had remained close to each other. Then religion became the interest of the sacerdotal caste of priests, when nations and empires were built. Then it perverted morality in the interests of that class, yielding extraordinary notions of mortally serious sin—rules about washing, sneezing, coughing, marrying, excreting, wearing hats, etc. Utterly pointless morals were invented to give priests more income, absolving the sheep of these perversions, or forcing them to get natural social arrangements like marriage celebrated by the priests, further enriching them.
Excessive richness shows society is malfunctioning, and wealth must be redistributed to correct i... more Excessive richness shows society is malfunctioning, and wealth must be redistributed to correct it. Someone wealthy will plead it will make their life worse, contrary to the Principle of Humanity, but it is not making it bad! It is not ending it, or putting them into slavery or destitution. It is saving people from slavery and destitution, far more people than it will make feel poor, though they will not be poor. It is not making the rich into paupers or slaves. It is to get people out of bad lives, not to put them into them, even the rich. If everyone has a good life, then no one has a bad one. Material incentives would be cut to those necessary for the aim of reducing bad lives, and those who are already well rewarded, like bankers, do not need inflated bonuses as an incentive. It is robbery of the bank’s customers and shareholders. Nor do the poor need the threat of destitution to force them to work.
Because of the original position and the veil of ignorance, the theory of justice as fairness per... more Because of the original position and the veil of ignorance, the theory of justice as fairness permits justice to be indeed fair. It shows why people want a fair and equal spread of rights and duties, and also an equal distribution of benefits, to value a place in society. Any variation in the distribution of benefits will only be acceptable because they are within acceptable limits of tolerance, or because some inequality of distribution benefits everyone, especially those whose abilities and assets are below average. So, some members of society can be privileged as long as all others benefit—usually because they undertake onerous duties on behalf of society—but the reverse is not just—that some people can be exploited to the benefit of others. Any such exploitation must lead to social discontent and offer the potential for revolution.
Law is meant to contain the impulse toward revenge, to preserve a society from perpetual vendetta... more Law is meant to contain the impulse toward revenge, to preserve a society from perpetual vendettas, keeping it orderly and humane. But the law contains revenge by meting it out itself as retribution. Society’s retributive institutions remove the burden of vengeance from those whose vindictiveness might endanger themselves and others, and destabilize society. The issue is not a society’s right to punish, but that it must never punish in cruel, unusual or disproportionate ways. The law should not be excessive. The law must remove personal animus from the task of apportioning blame and exacting retribution. The death penalty for a petty theft does not create respect for the law—especially when people face the choice of starving to death or risking death by thieving—but merely fear of injustice, and then disrespect for the law. If people truly were moral, law would not be needed.
Evidence of morality has been observed in animal behaviour studies of great apes, some monkeys, w... more Evidence of morality has been observed in animal behaviour studies of great apes, some monkeys, wolves, hyenas, dolphins, whales, elephants, rats and mice. Stories of animals feeding disabled ones is remarkably common. Sighted animals have often been seen feeding blind ones. Morality seems to have evolved from play. Morality is like a game with rules, and punishments for breaking them. Animals play out of choice, and continued participation depends upon empathy, fairness, co-operation and trust. Animals that habitually cheat don’t get played with. Play therefore is necessarily fair. Through it, each animal gets to understand what is acceptable to others and what is not—what is right, and what is wrong! Play, for social animals, is essential practice for sociality, and the rules of sociality for any species are its morals. If justice is seen as a set of social rules meant to maintain group harmony, then it is equivalent to play.
In the absence of a punishment opportunity, sharers will initially coöperate if they believe that... more In the absence of a punishment opportunity, sharers will initially coöperate if they believe that others will also coöperate. However, they notice over time that other group members—the selfish ones—free ride. As sharers are only willing to coöperate if most others also coöperate, they cease to coöperate. Sharers also have a desire to punish free riders because they perceive free riding on their coöperation to be unfair. However, stopping their coöperation is the only way to punish other group members in the absence of a direct punishment of the free riders. The selfish subjects ultimately induce the sharers to free ride as well in the absence of a direct punishment opportunity.
As we evolved, moral judgments promoted prosocial behavior. They expressed to our ancestors the c... more As we evolved, moral judgments promoted prosocial behavior. They expressed to our ancestors the common judgement of the group of why anyone should act favorably to others in society, even though directly it might be somewhat detrimental to themselves. People had this instinct because those without it had been unable to live in a group. Those with it could, and the group was stronger for it. Moreover, morals are particularly suitable to us because we can speak. The evolution of speech will have enhanced the adoption of spoken moral condemnation and praise, promoting the reciprocation of prosocial behavior to cement human groups.
From his theory of intentionality, Robin Dunbar agrees that religious people treat gods as &ldquo... more From his theory of intentionality, Robin Dunbar agrees that religious people treat gods as “having essentially human mental traits, like characters in a novel or play”. The ToM suggests believers think they know God’s brain. Nicholas Epley, <i>et al</i>, shows us they are right. People often reason egocentrically about others’ beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent’s beliefs like God. The God of the believers has just the same opinions as themselves.
Human sensitivity to social reputation is a psychological mechanism, unrelated to religion, that ... more Human sensitivity to social reputation is a psychological mechanism, unrelated to religion, that evolved to facilitate reciprocal co-operative bonds in groups. Selfish people could be accused, punished or excluded from the group. The threat of punishment, particularly exclusion, motivated group members to conform to group behavioral norms. In early human groups, anonymity was impossible, and reducing anonymity in experimental economic games enforces social behavior, as does the presence of images of human eyes. Religions help sociality in large groups, but efficient secular social organization, such as universal education countering superstition, and practical institutions to enforce the law have reduced the need for and conviction behind the upholding of morals by religion. Now, nonreligious people are as likely to report donating to charity as religious ones. Experimentally induced reminders of secular moral authority had as much effect on generous behavior in an economic game as reminders of God.
Religiosity is a feature of human life, and evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and ... more Religiosity is a feature of human life, and evolutionary, developmental, neuropsychological, and anthropological theories must explain human religions. Morals are about the organization of groups of people. Emile Durkheim showed that morality is a set of rules to bind people into an effective group. Although Durkheim is revered by sociologists, they were not free of the baleful influence of religion to get to the place when Jonathan Haidt now is. The connexion of morals to the needs of social living were forgotten for most of the twentieth century. Haidt and others have now shown that co-operation and society evolves by genetic and cultural evolution. Though he firmly declares he is an atheist, he only “doubts” the existence of God, and he has accepted considerable donations from the Templeton Foundation. Every man has his price. But Haidt is a leading scientist of the study of morality and religion. His critique therefore represents the scientific process in action—scientists holding each other accountable for their factual claims. Science must be objective!
Human societies seem always to have a link between death, spirits and religion. A feature of the ... more Human societies seem always to have a link between death, spirits and religion. A feature of the social mind is that it is a narrative mind—it strives to join up experiences into a coherent story. It finds the effects of causes and the causes of effects. Perhaps as a result people realized that, by doing something, a particular effect can be expected. They were not always right but they were often enough to appreciate that planning was possible and its value. They realized too that they would die, but must also have felt that, when they did, remaining as respected members of the tribe, as ancestors, was a comfort to them. They joined the guardians of the traditions of the tribe, so they had better know them and stick to them while alive, for when they were dead they would be relying on reciprocating with the living members for their succor. It was a fair exchange, but they had to do their bit, even when they were dead.
The belief that human morality requires religion is not true. It is a result of two millennia of ... more The belief that human morality requires religion is not true. It is a result of two millennia of Christian indoctrination, of children being taught from an early age to think moral rules come from the bible. Those taught it, usually just accept it thereafter, even as adults. No modern person, even among religious people, gets the bulk of their morals from the bible. They are mainly from what they experience in society, and little of what the bible says. In any case, to believe Giannetti, we cannot know what the bible says without a host of angels to interpret it for us. Maybe that is why most Christians, who take their God to have appeared on earth in the form of a man called Jesus, ignore almost eveything he said, especially the egregious things like “blessed are the poor”. Christ, God, is utterly clear that no one is saved except by giving all they have to the poor, yet Christians ignore God and do what a rogue called Paul, for all the Christian knows, Satan in disguise, tells them to do.
Ultimately how do you judge what is moral? If morals are supernatural gifts from God, when we are... more Ultimately how do you judge what is moral? If morals are supernatural gifts from God, when we are faced with a novel dilemma, we have no way of judging what is the moral way to act. Either God has given us the gift of moral judgement, or He has not—we are good or we are wicked through the grace of God, and our choices depend on that. David Hume did not think the human moral sense was a mystery, because sympathy with the feelings of others explained it adequately. A spectator of a benevolent act sees happiness produced as a result of it, and by sympathy the spectator also feels pleasure, and that brings moral approval. The one who does the benevolent deed will feel the approval of their peers as honor or pride, while those who act selfishly will feel disapproval as shame and guilt. All presuming they are not psychologically defective or damaged.
Objectivity is a social matter. The process of individuation, the extension of “freedom from”, wh... more Objectivity is a social matter. The process of individuation, the extension of “freedom from”, which leads to isolation of each individual, hinders objectivity. It therefore suits the subjective, like supernaturalism, and hinders the comprehension of objective science. So, Americans find it difficult to understand science. Most prefer subjective religion, mainly a crude distortion of Christianity. They reject actual Christianity because it promotes sociality through love of others and mutual help, the antitheses of the exploitation of the weak by the strong—capitalism. Yet the rich pretend, for the sake of the ignorant, that they too are Christian. Well, rebel Christ said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle”. For the rich, heaven is impossible! Christ spelled out the morality that is instinctive in human beings—love of one’s neighbors, the morality of the Golden Rule that lets us to live together and is essential for humanity. But they have changed it into superstition, ritual and false morality. Rich people promote religion to buttress the status quo.
Accustomed to nuclear families, we see Gods as a father, whereas the root of God is in the extend... more Accustomed to nuclear families, we see Gods as a father, whereas the root of God is in the extended family or tribe, the primitive human group. God personifies it. Human security depends on our group providing everyone’s immediate environment from birth to death. The personification of the group as the totem, then the ancestor, founding father, then the tribal god, means God has properties associated with the group and the father. Belief in this god stopped us feeling as helpless as a solitary animal in the face of adversity. The group offered safety in numbers, but, if someone came face to face with a predator, their instinct was to call out for others to come to help. The need for God expresses our dependence on each other, on society. “Evil” now has a supernatural connotation, but it just meant “dangerous”. God as society protects us, and god as a father guides us in our tasks and duties in society—duties commanded by God!
The minimum constraints on freedom is taken by the right to be no constraints at all. The unlimit... more The minimum constraints on freedom is taken by the right to be no constraints at all. The unlimited extension of individuation by ever greater personal freedom ignores society, and particularly that it is more than the sum of the people comprising it. Human society is held together by common constraints that can be broken only at the risk of its destruction. The continual removal of constraints is what the west takes to be extending freedom, freedom from constraints. But what about constraints necessary because they are the stitching that holds society together. They cannot be removed if human society is to exist at all. Such a positive constraint is positive freedom, albeit what doctrinaire libertarians call the opposite of freedom! Negative freedom taken to the extreme puts the individual beyond social constraint all together, and beyond society and acculturation. The factors that make us human have been left behind as unnecessary restrictions, and what is left is the parent of a beast.
Uploads
Morality by Michael D Magee