Introduction
Possibly Frederick
Nietzsche’s most important work was in his “Genealogy of Morals”; where he posited morality stems from the ascendancy of one will to dominate others. Nietzsche contended this so called “will to
power” was analogous to nature’s quest for territory. His philosophy was life affirmation (as in the will)
does gives us the freedom to opt to live our life to the fullest, regardless of
suffering or even possibly because of it. His concern was we were descending into nihilism, as a consequence of a slavish type mentality of weakness, spurred on by religious overtones.
Some would argue his prediction was soon realised not long after
his death with the outbreak of hostilities in World War 1.
But casting aside
Nietzsche’s philosophy for the time being the question arises from whence do morals
came from. Are they connected nature
? Does
evolution in nature exhibit some form of morality ? What role is there for religious thinking? Are morals innate?Is it virtually impossible to trace their origins?
Before attempting to answer these questions one needs to acknowledge
morals are subjective in nature. What might seem unequivocally immoral to one society,
say for instance the death penalty, may in turn be perfectly acceptable to
another. For instance the death penalty for desecration or even entry of sacred
sites by early tribespeople’s might seem barbaric to us but perfectly moral in
the context of that culture then. Nor do I think it is wise to say morals are
transcendal. Not that I am against spiritual
enlightenment but practicality and merit has always been necessary if we are avoid the pitfalls of adopting abstract values.
Hence the question
of a definition of morals is a difficult one but I have opted for one that
involves a work in process concerned with evolving principles to signify what
is considered right or wrong for various cultures.
It appears reasonable to
me one can answer in the affirmative to the earlier questions – but
only to a degree, because the ingredients to morals values are many, not to mention such things as
new discoveries, experiences and knowledge. This leads me to confine this paper to
some of the more obvious ingredients -with a particular emphasis to the role of
social cohesion.
It’s hardly surprising then
that most moral philosophers up until fairly recently steer clear of any
discussions as to where morals come from. Hence the view expressed in a paper
from Stanford University “if a moral philosopher asks “whence morality,” she
is more likely to be concerned with the justification of moral principles or
the source and nature of obligation.
However the author does make
a strong case to answer such questions from the viewpoint of an
interdisciplinary inquiry. Still, there are important potential connections
between the scientific explanatory issues and philosophical ones, opening the
way for profitable interdisciplinary inquiry”. FitzPatrick,
William, "Morality and Evolutionary Biology", The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/morality-biology/>.
Another paper I intend referencing
concerns biological altruism -Okasha, Samir, "Biological
Altruism", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL =
.
Aim of this
paper
Hence my aim is to shed
some light on these key ingredients that contributed to our morals.What I also hope to achieve along the way is to determine the consequences for their continuation
or otherwise into the future.
In the
beginning
There is no reason for me
to dwell on the miraculous events over billions of years for the first evolved
multi cell creatures to emerge, except to say these insights into our past are
only made possible by the evolution of our self-consciousness.
It is only thought to be only
in the more modern era in evolutionary terms – that is within the past few
hundred thousand years, we have some evidence of the ingredients which united
humanity in the various groups under the principles of societal cohesion. As these
ingredients to societal attitudes took hold we see evidence of their influence
in the various cultures and how they became enshrined in their tribal laws.
Instinctive type
feelings things are either right or wrong and the possibility of biological
altruism.
Rather obviously
behaviours evolved earlier on as instinctive type reactions as evident in the
animal kingdom, primarily driven by a will to preserve the species. Over time
our adaption meant a connection of such feelings to be associated with
emotional values. Psychological traits evident
in loyalty to the immediate family became associated with positivism thereafter
leading to hierarchical positions of tribal authority, deference to elders and
so forth. But that is not suggest we have little control over these so called
repertories to feel what is right and wrong, that arise more or less instinctively.
Such feelings are not hostage to our future actions which can be subject to change
from the jolt of psychological or environmental factors of one kind or another.
Sober takes this argument
a step further to argue
there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans
into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the
contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured
humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of
‘real’ or psychological altruism. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or
psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an
evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be
motivated by self-interest alone.
The Stanford article on morality and Evolutionary Biology
contends “very little
in the study of human life has been left untouched by developments in
evolutionary biology, and inquiry into the nature of morality is no
exception.”
The authors
list is extensive, from appetites for food or sex, fear responses, patterns of
aggression, parental care and bonding, of patterns of cooperation and
retribution, to posit patterns of behaviours are often best explained
as biological adaptations, i.e., traits that evolved through natural
selection due to their adaptive effect.
As various instinctive type
reactions underpinned enhanced survival, psychological traits became aligned to
this social cohesion principle and which was reinforced by evolving beliefs.
Hence what emerges to sustain tribal cohesion and existential
order is the requirement to adopt principals of fairness to ensure optimum survival
outcomes.
An example of
how the ingredients for social cohesion enhanced existence and fairness in an
evolving culture.
The Australian
aboriginal, as the longest known uninterrupted culture on the globe offers some
clues and valuable insights of how social cohesion, reinforced by evolving
beliefs may have influenced materially their society.
From what has been uncovered
it is clear their existence was supported and reinforced by ideas closely
aligned with nature, underpinned by the ideas on the dreamtime, a period considered
outside of time when creation was thought to have occurred. In this respect reverence
is demonstrated to be shown in practices that point to a type of communal existence
co-dependent with nature together on what was regarded as sacred land.
The underpinnings for these
came from the dreamtime which posited a first Creator appeared in the
physical world to bring forth natural children and plants under the control of a
mother earth, from thence came animals but lastly humankind.
Dreamtime stories were instrumental
in defining their tribal values and which led to an elaborate system of rules under the
common law, such as initiation into adulthood. This law covered ritualistic
ceremonies such as the processes for corroborees when the tribes met to resolve
matters such as arranged marriages, to plan for trade between the nations, to
celebrate and so forth.
However one should not
imagine there existed some form of utopian existence, as some evidence exists
for severe skirmishes between tribes and a high level of violence as scores
were settled brutally by means of “payback”. Penalties were quite severe and
death prescribed for unauthorised entry into sacred sites.
But what was remarkable
was their existence for such a long period without denuding the landscape,
although changes due to the operation of fire stick farming may have led to the extinction of some species.
Physical
evidence of evolved changes in the brain supportive of enhanced moral reasoning.
We also have physical
evidence of the changes to structure of modern day brains and
that of the more highly developed animals. There is clear evidence of the older repositories
housing the more emotive instinctive responses, which combine in the extensive circuitry to the more newly evolved frontal lobes regions. Hence our brains bear evidence of
the evolutionary journey with older instinctive regions designed to signal the emotive survival issues such as danger and
the newly formed areas enabling more complexity types of abstract thinking.
There is no reason to
feel one region, due to its more recent development, is superior to the other,
since each is co dependant on the other. What I think we can say about the development of the frontal lobes is they played
a key role in terms of awareness. From an evolutionary perspective it appears this
development occurred relatively late in the evolutionary journey, in what would
be regarded as modern, in the long journey of humanity.
Spirituality is also an
ingredient, as I have attempted to illustrate in the previous section and in
most cultures and has gravitated around the idea fairness. In many other respects, it facilitates judgments, unclouded by what might be purely emotional reactions.
A possible
return to the moral value of fairness.
What is clear is our earliest codes of accepted
behaviours was to put sharing ahead of individualism, so that loyalty to the group
underwrote enhanced chances of survival. The success of the human species
adapting to the enhanced dynamics of the group has been extraordinary but many
would argue to excess. One could argue we are have become consumers and not
sharers in nature’s bounty.
Possibly the early roots
for this twist in the evolutionary road from sharers to consumers may be linked to the idea we have dominion or
superiority over nature, which is to be tamed and brought under human control. Such a view, combined with our extraordinary
inventive improvements and adaptions in modernity has prospered humanity,
but often this is at the expense of all of the other species. This in turn has
the capacity to change our ideas on what are our underlying values ; to engender the need for a revision in our thinking to return to the
way we viewed the lands when once we were more reliant to respond to the
changing seasons for our survival. This is even more relevant today, yet
it can be can be hidden in the unrestrained growth of populations represented in
urban sprawl and in modernity so that it not as readily discernible.
Conclusion
I think there are grounds
to believe there are many ingredients in a universal type of
morality entwined in nature, brutal as it may be seem, although of course this
cannot be proven and is by no means is easily discernible. What I think this paper
does illustrate is the important ingredient of social cohesion which played a
key role in in our own early evolutionary journey. But I also think we
can take note of Nietzsche’s dissertation on morals in the hope that
a more dominant will is to emerge that recognizes the need to be far more
attuned to that of nature, from whence we evolved. In other words the
need to show reverence to all of life, upon which we depend, and that which was
once clearly recognised in many respects as a moral necessity by our ancient
ancestors.
