Conscience or superego?

IFeelFree wrote:

You are not because it would be considered an immoral act in our culture (as well as being illegal, disgusting, etc.) I suspect that if you asked others their motive for their actions toward their elders, in most cases it would be "respect" or deference to authority, as they understand it.

That may be true. I suppose, though, that the only way to test your thesis is to find a person who is totally unsocialized and see if that person also displays these "innate" traits of morality. Sadly, we no longer can conduct experiments on orphans and foundlings with the same impunity that was characteristic of less litigious times. Fortunately for us, however, we do have some examples of feral children, none of whom, it should be noted, betrayed even the merest hint of a "moral sense" until or unless they had become socialized.

...feral children lack the basic social skills which are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language.

IFeelFree wrote:

Yes, with respect to our elders, because we all have parents, grandparents, etc. that we owe our existence to, and it is natural to feel a certain gratitude and respect to those who raised us and often have more knowledge and experience than we do.

How do you know that's "innate?"

IFeelFree wrote:

We observe that every culture has its codes of behavior that reflect certain fundamental notions of morality -- you respect your elders, you tell the truth, etc. The moral codes vary among different cultures, but it is possible to see a common thread that we can call abstract moral principles.

Even conceding, for the sake of argument, that certain moral principles are shared by all cultures, I think you're still a long way from concluding that such principles are the products of an innate sense of morality.

IFeelFree wrote:

The purpose of morality is to give people a way to act that will further their own and others survival, prosperity, health, and well-being.

I disagree.

IFeelFree wrote:

As human beings we mostly have the same basic needs -- food, water, shelter, companionship, an occupation, etc. -- so that the same needs arise is every culture. Morality is not some random behavioral prescription. It is the distilled wisdom of that culture, reflecting our true needs.

If you genuinely believe that, then you not only deny the innateness of morality, you agree with moral relativism.

IFeelFree wrote:

Both (assuming that both are acting in accord with their culture's accepted moral behavior).

Yep, you're a moral relativist.

IFeelFree wrote:

Of course. To say that parents love their children doesn't mean that some don't. That's obvious.

Which makes it obvious, therefore, that parental love cannot be advanced as evidence of "selflessness" being innate--otherwise, one would have to show that all parents love their children, and one would still have the problem of demonstrating that said parental love were the product of selflessness. So, for example, would all parents necessarily sacrifice their own lives to spare the lives of their children? If you make sweeping statements, you have the burden of proving them, and you have failed to do that. Then when this is pointed out to you, your answer is that the response is obvious, while ignoring that it shoots down your argument that parental love is evidence that "selflessness" is an innate "moral" trait.

. . . All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. . .

If I say, humans have 2 arms and 2 legs, that is generally understood to be a true statement. Of course, there are exceptions (deformities, amputations). Similarly, when I say that parents love their children, it is implicitly understood that most parents love their children. There are exceptions, but they appear to be infrequent. We're not talking about mathematical theorems here. This is a sociological statement. If greater than, say, 90% of humans exhibit a particular trait, that is considered a very high correlation in sociology. I pretty sure most people understood what I meant. However, I suspect that you like to be argumentative.

in·nate adj.

1. Possessed at birth; inborn.
2. Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent.
3. Of or produced by the mind rather than learned through experience: an innate knowledge of right and wrong.

So, it appears that "a moral sense" is the least of their problems. If they take no interest in human activity, I would think that judging their moral sense would be extremely difficult.

What would account for the commonality in moral principles we see in most (all?) cultures?

OK. We disagree. However, I feel pretty confident about this one. What is the purpose of morality, if not to further the well-being of society?

I don't see that conclusion. It seems to me that since all humans have the same needs, similar moral ideals would tend to arise in all cultures.

If that's your definition of a moral relativist then, yes, I am a moral relativist. I believe that right and wrong are situational. For example, sometimes it's wrong to kill, sometimes it's right (defense of self + others, war, police). Codes of behavior are imperfect because they cannot completely capture all of the possible circumstances that determine whether an action is right or wrong.

IFeelFree wrote:

So, it appears that "a moral sense" is the least of their problems. If they take no interest in human activity, I would think that judging their moral sense would be extremely difficult.

Well, if judging a person's moral sense requires that person to be socialized, then I think it would be impossible to determine if that moral sense is an innate characteristic or the product of socialization. Or, to put it another way, if you can't control for socialization, you can't test for innateness.

IFeelFree wrote:

What would account for the commonality in moral principles we see in most (all?) cultures?

Most (all?) cultures have rules about which side vehicles are supposed to pass each other on the road. Some cultures have vehicles pass on the right, others have them pass on the left, but all cultures have these kinds of rules. Does that mean that, in some sense, these rules are "innate?" I hardly think so.

If there are common conditions that affect human behavior, we should expect similar rules will arise to deal with those conditions. People in every society have to deal with other people, so we see rules regarding truth-telling across a wide variety of cultures. Does that mean that people recognize the inherent morality of truth-telling, or does that mean that they recognize its utility?

IFeelFree wrote:

OK. We disagree. However, I feel pretty confident about this one. What is the purpose of morality, if not to further the well-being of society?

Morality has no purpose at all. It is justified, if at all, on its own terms. To suggest otherwise is to say that morality is contingent on something else. That would constitute a naturalistic fallacy.

IFeelFree wrote:

I don't see that conclusion. It seems to me that since all humans have the same needs, similar moral ideals would tend to arise in all cultures.

That's far different from saying that those ideals are innate.

IFeelFree wrote:

If that's your definition of a moral relativist then, yes, I am a moral relativist. I believe that right and wrong are situational. For example, sometimes it's wrong to kill, sometimes it's right (defense of self + others, war, police). Codes of behavior are imperfect because they cannot completely capture all of the possible circumstances that determine whether an action is right or wrong.

No, I'm not saying that you're a moral relativist because you believe morality is situational. I'm saying that you're a moral relativist because you believe that contrary actions can both be moral, depending upon the ethical rules of the relevant societies.

Taught and then learned.... the moral taught is dependant on who taught it

anton bonnier wrote:

Taught and then learned.... the moral taught is dependant on who taught it

He who teaches usually teaches what was taught to him. That's how societal customs and acculturation develop. Those lessons that are useful get passed along from generation to generation. Those lessons that serve no purpose tend to be forgotten.

In a perfect world, would all parents love and nurture their children?

For example, I wouldn't drink alcohol in public in a Muslim country because the law forbids it. There is a value to acting according to local laws. Laws are designed to maintain order in society whether or not I agree with all of them. My argument was that moral relativism has a compelling logic to it -- right and wrong are situational.

Whether you can test for innateness is different than the question of whether it is innate. For example, if children are raised by wolves, do they have a moral sense in the way they treat wolves? If we can't test for the innateness of a moral sense, then I suppose that we can't answer the question.

No, the rules are not innate. The abstract moral ideals seem to be, however. That is my whole argument.

There is no distinction, in my opinion. Moral ideals are based on utility. If not, what are they based on?

I don't see why its a fallacy. I say that morality has a purpose. You say it doesn't. Its not apparent to me why one position is obviously correct.

I might ask, for example, why would morality arise in human populations if it didn't confer an evolutionary advantage? Wouldn't it be weeded out since it places such demands on human behavior? No, it seems obvious to me that societies that have some kind of morality have an advantage over those that are lawless and chaotic. Therefore, morality has the "purpose" of maintaining a society's evolutionary advantage.

I'm saying they are innate because of the commonality of the human condition. Perhaps this is just semantics. By innate, I don't mean that it was ordained by God, or an inescapable condition of individuality, but that it is imposed by the demands of living as a human being with others on this planet. We have to have some kind of morality to survive as a species. Otherwise we might kill each other off. Since the demands of life are similar for all humans, moral principles are, to some extent, universal.

OK, then I'm a moral relativist because right and wrong in part depends upon the "ethical rules of the relevant societies."

My argument was that moral relativism has a compelling logic to it -- right and wrong are situational.

IFeelFree wrote:

No, the rules are not innate. The abstract moral ideals seem to be, however. That is my whole argument.

Well, as you point out, there's no way that you can determine if those abstract moral ideals are innate. Which leaves one to wonder just why you're so convinced that they are innate.

IFeelFree wrote:

There is no distinction, in my opinion. Moral ideals are based on utility. If not, what are they based on?

Philosophers have been debating that question for centuries.

IFeelFree wrote:

I don't see why its a fallacy. I say that morality has a purpose. You say it doesn't. Its not apparent to me why one position is obviously correct.

If morality had a purpose, then there would have to be something that was "supra-moral." The question, then, would be: is that thing "moral?" And that is the kind of open-question fallacy that G.E. Moore described as a naturalistic fallacy.

IFeelFree wrote:

I might ask, for example, why would morality arise in human populations if it didn't confer an evolutionary advantage? Wouldn't it be weeded out since it places such demands on human behavior? No, it seems obvious to me that societies that have some kind of morality have an advantage over those that are lawless and chaotic. Therefore, morality has the "purpose" of maintaining a society's evolutionary advantage.

Actually, many ethical rules would seem to be evolutionarily disadvantageous, or at least evolutionarily neutral. A blanket prohibition against lying, for instance, doesn't seem to confer any particular evolutionary advantages on humans, and, in some cases, may be distinctly disadvantageous.

IFeelFree wrote:

I'm saying they are innate because of the commonality of the human condition. Perhaps this is just semantics. By innate, I don't mean that it was ordained by God, or an inescapable condition of individuality, but that it is imposed by the demands of living as a human being with others on this planet. We have to have some kind of morality to survive as a species. Otherwise we might kill each other off. Since the demands of life are similar for all humans, moral principles are, to some extent, universal.

That's not what "innate" means.

IFeelFree wrote:

OK, then I'm a moral relativist because right and wrong in part depends upon the "ethical rules of the relevant societies."

In part? Which part?

IFeelFree wrote:

My argument was that moral relativism has a compelling logic to it -- right and wrong are situational.

On the contrary, moral relativism has no logic, compelling or otherwise.

...moral relativism rests on an objective set of beliefs: most importantly is the belief in some level of respect for others. Under moral relativism, X cannot impose his beliefs on Y because it would be immoral to do so, yet that presupposes that there is at least one moral precept (i.e. respect for others) that is not relative.

In a perfect world, would all parents love and nurture their children?