i see no reason to think that any objective moral system is written into the fabric of the universe in the same way that the laws of physics are. a useful approach to the questions of why have them or how do we come to create them is to see things from a biological perspective and view morals as the product of evolution. i once had to write a paper concerning the "ring of gyges" from plato's republic. i tried to argue that even if one had superhuman powers that enabled one to get away with anything one wanted without being caught, one should still act morally. but the best i could come up with was that if somehow those powers ceased or lapsed such that one was caught, one could not reasonably expect to be treated very nicely or morally after having done so many bad things. this answer wasn't satisfactory. the biological approach is probably the most correct, though not the most inspiring. it may also get around the "is-ought" problem. in order to best ensure immortality, bits of DNA developed ways of producing machines that would copy them billions of times over, and even mix and match them with other bits of DNA, providing them with a variety of organismal homes in which to weather the vicissitudes of an unstable climate. at first glance, it would seem that a living organism should grab all the resources it can to give itself the best survival odds. but it would compete with other organisms trying to do the same. thus the result is not always a net gain; you take stuff from other people, but you too are liable to have your stuff taken away as well. from this alone one can already see the categorical imperative coming. if one did indeed have godlike powers that surpassed that of other potential competitors, one "should" in fact act in a decidedly evil and selfish way. what i mean by "should" is that the individual is a product of evolution and as a result will have a natural disposition to seek its own (or rather its genes') advantage (unless some mutation causes otherwise). seeking that advantage is what the organism does by its very nature, which can roughly translate into "should". however, even with those powers, the individual would still have also evolved certain "nice" and "selfless" behavioral tendencies, the result of millions of years of having to live with competitors and to care for its offspring, who are the carriers of its genes to immortality. thus we also have a naturally ingrained (again barring any weird mutations) ability to empathize with others and inclination to care for others. thus one "should" also act virtuously, even if one had the ring of gyges or other remarkable advantages over one's competitors. caring is also what we do. so, we have in ourselves both the inclinations toward altruism and egoism. and since we don't have the ring of gyges, acting totally immoral would not give us any net gain because it would cause others who are also seeking their own advantage to act likewise toward us.
the bottom line is that yes, some sense of morality is built into our brains, but so is the drive for personal gain. the result is a game of give and take, in which we navigate our way between selfish and altruistic behavior. as the human brain's evolution accelerated, we created more complex societies, and these same selfish and altruistic tendencies were translating into the laws and moral codes of those societies. thus we do work together most of the time--each new day is not a battle to the death with our neighbors and we can usually gain more as individuals when we work together. yet within that usually outwardly cooperative framework, individuals are all still seeking their own advantage, and will sometimes harm others in the process. societies naturally try to reinforce the tendencies in man toward altruism (religions, laws, and unwritten rules of behavior; incidentally, recognition of ingrained selfishness is built into some societies' moral codes in the form of "natural" rights), but will still not stop all individuals from acting to benefit themselves to the detriment of others. thus crime, warfare, and oppression have been consistent themes in history. unfortunately, accident makes the world unjust. some have certain advantages over others, whether it be strength, technology, access to positions of power. those advantages bring a person a little closer to gyges and give them less incentive to be nice. if naturally selected drives to do good within an individual and societal reinforcement of those drives are not strong enough to overcome the also naturally selected drive for selfishness, then that individual will act immorally, that is, in a manner harmful toward others when in suits him.
some possible corollaries:
-there is no "correct" ethical theory to be derived from reason, so utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, and other ethical theories are artificial constructs that try to encapsulate behaviors that have come about through natural selection, typically favoring the more altruistic, empathetical side of human nature. we also evolved to regard virtue and morality highly because usually cooperation benefits both parties involved to a greater extent than competition (as in the prisoner's dilemma). this helps to keep us moral for the most part and not hobbesian brutes most of the time.
-if more people acting virtuously results in a larger net gain for all involved and really nasty competition to a lesser net gain, then it should be in the advantage of all except possibly the very powerful to promote virtue in themselves and their associates. the requires better reinforcement of such qualities and possibly even that a better future world would require the sexualization of virtue (ie: make nice=sexy and mean=unattractive so that sexual selection will more closely resemble moral assessment, thus shifting the gene pool to a more moral genotype. though this would probably not naturally occur, since even sexual selection is also subject to selfishness)
-death is utility neutral, but we fear it anyway because we have evolved the tendency toward self-preservation. this would then probably be a factor in the ethical systems our societies try to promote. negative utilitarianism can run into this issue and conclude that all life should be ended immediately in a painless manner.
-the whole situation might be reminiscent of straussian noble lies
No comments:
Post a Comment