How do we arrive at morality ? Morality should be intuitive but most people lack this capacity. Do not steal kill cheat etc…
Because moral intuition is not easily arrived at we have laws instead guiding citizens what they can and can’t do and the repercussions of not following the law.
If moral intuition was embedded on an individual level in society there would be virtually no crime or wars if moral intuition operated at a global level.
Instead we have different cultures with differing moral values sometimes passed down by religion and others by secular law.
My question to philosophers is, is morality intuitionistic or something that needs to be taught ?
Hmm. I don’t think that’s right. Most people I see don’t steal or kill. I guess it might depend on the situation you live in. Environments certainly generate and reward moral behaviours.
What is a moral intuition? I would say that we are immersed in moral awareness from the earliest stages of our development, before we have language, and then we’re socialised into an entire world of moral norms, expectations and assumptions, much of which we absorb without being consciously aware of.
Does it have to be either? I’d say both. We are a social species with empathy, which seems highly advantageous for survival in groups, so I’d guess we have predispositions towards certain codes of conduct.
Thanks Tom, that helps clarify a few things. Morality is learned over time and it’s a capacity that is developed rather but I also think that we may be born with an innate moral sense as well or moral intuition.
Some human beings especially criminals who harm others physically, financially, mentally can be said to lack empathy or did not have a chance to develop that sense of morality. Others do it because they’re told to do so… in the case of call centre phone scammers etc just following orders.
Thus we have laws enforcing morality and appropriate punishment and justice to safeguard society from individuals without a moral compass.
Maybe. We could also reasonably include those religious folk who lack empathy and cause harm and encourage exclusion through bigotry and dogma.
Generally where people have experienced complex trauma, an area I have worked in for years, people who have experienced abuse and harm may come out the other end with high risk and harmful behaviours. People are often only as good as their history allows.
Yes, sometimes they’re unable to rise above their history and circumstance. I’m sure there’s good examples too where they’ve overcome their trauma and ended a certain vicious cycle. If they don’t overcome such trauma then such individuals can self medicate using alcohol and other drugs to numb the pain. Generally a good counsellor may be able to help them snap out of it. Some people prefer to live in denial though and that’s counterproductive to the healing process and knowing oneself.
This lack of reflection causes them to make dubious moral choices, not because they’re necessarily bad but they don’t know any better.
So how do you deal with those on the fringes of society? Who often steal, assault, use and abuse each other? For one it’s better social care intervention including mental health therapy. I do believe such individuals can be reformed but it takes a lot of effort for sure.
Criminal immoral behaviour then must be understood from its root causes considering each individuals history on a case by case basis. It may be possible to stamp it out altogether by bringing back that sense of community and belonging which these individuals often feel left out of.
Outreach and inclusion programs then would make a big difference in this respect, not forcing moral behaviour on others but enabling and empowering them to take good moral actions.
Depends on the individual. Some are raised well and/or are genetically predisposed to be more moral than others. The vast majority of people at this point in the civilization experiment are at least functionally moral concerning others so I’m not sure why you’re saying most people lack the capacity.
I believe a lot of people act morally for fear of repercussions. If there were no laws against murder, stealing, violence etc … what % of people do you think would remain moral ?
The sincerity of morality can be assumed with no other evidence to the contrary since we normal moderns have been bred for it. I’m quite sure people are not walking around, resisting criminal thoughts, unless they’re very disadvantaged. Being nice feels good to almost anyone because it feels powerful.
Well firstly the people on the news are being selected and are disproportionately making it seem as if advantaged people stray into error whenever, which is not all that representative. We know resource-rich people tend to enrich themselves but that’s a murky area to tie to “morality”.
That’s right. Self-medication can help one manage pain and feelings of chronic emptiness.
I’m not certain about that. Healthy role models and engagement in purposeful activities are probably more helpful. Some people will self-adjust, but for others it can be a lifetime of work. It’s generally held that an addiction may take around 27 years to run its course (if they don’t die) so this may be slow and gradual.
I think you’re on the right track. Personally, I’m not keen on framing like “overcoming,” “good morals,” or “snap out of it.” I tend to think more in terms of what might be the less risky or harmful ways to interact with others, that might help you get your needs met more readily. If you’re at an enquiries desk and you call the woman there a fucking cunt, that may not support you in getting the information you need. You’re more likely to find security interrupting your flow of thoughts… Sometimes people don’t need to learn morality as much as more useful patterns. But I’m no expert.
Complex morality is not something we have intuitively, but many fundamental principles exist in almost every culture. Those who deviate usually begin to do so due to some form of disaster or deep indoctrination to some authority.
But at the core, there is a naturally forming morality almost everywhere with people forming a society. A young person generally values love and compassion over violence and usually fears not just violence against them, but them against others.
The intuition of morality comes from empathy and recognition in others, and that’s the general operation of a person. Any deviance has more to do with outliers in psychology and/or is historically situational, which shouldn’t be considered general.
I’m not sure where you get the statistics for that conclusion, because as far as I know, it’s the opposite. Remember, the things that stand out or make you get an emotional reaction usually become more noticeable. You rarely notice the good stuff because that’s the norm.
This is extremely oversimplified and ignores the more complex moral thinking that most of philosophy normally deals with. There’s more to how a person operates than just intuition of morality.
An individual has a hard time handling more than a couple of people within their moral thinking, and as that number grows into a large society, they quickly lose the ability to think about other people and think more about the mass of a population as a “thing”. Most of morality comes down to real meetings with other people; which is why they ignore the noise of news showing suffering in the world, but will be deeply and emotionally affected by a tragedy on the street that they witness, even if that also is about strangers.
We didn’t evolve to handle thinking about a population of hundreds of thousands of individuals, and much of crime generally comes down to eroding empathy by this fact. Many times when you put criminals in the same room as their victims, the criminals break down because they come to terms with their wrongdoings as they are exposed to their own empathy in that situation. And those who don’t usually have some kind of psychopathic disorder, which is also very common among organized crime leaders and corporate leaders, which is why many companies behave in ways where empathy seems lacking.
The economy is often the central factor in terms of radicalizing others into losing their empathy. Because they begin to see others as agents of money rather than individuals of humans. And since money becomes the source of status and survival, when people are pushed to the limits, they change into pure survival mode, able to kill for survival, able to kill for the money. It’s important to remember that money is not thought of in material terms for people, it is something else, it’s a key to dreams and a means for a better life. And it’s important to understand how the power of that overrides empathy and moral thinking.
Most people, if not all, outside of psychopathic disorders, have moral intuition. But we also have malleable brains and psychology, easily changed by strong conditioning by the environment and situations.
This is why it matters to teach kids morality and how to be good to others. Inability to function in moral ways is usually tied to bad parenting or other problems with parents not being able to fine-tune their already existing moral intuition.
Agree with you here. There’s a fine balance between morality and self interest. Conflict can arise between the two however with one giving way to the other.
For example you have the chance to start a business which will make you rich but at the same time you’re using people to your ends although you can justify this by saying oh well I’m creating jobs and paying them a good salary.
The morality in the above situation is not very clear cut and kinda blurry actually as there’s a fine line between exploitation, altruism and self interest. I guess in a sense this is the basis of economics.
My opinion is that it isn’t. It’s not an innate or unintuitive quality, but entirely a phenomenon of socialization. Moreover, morality is a constitutive feature of humanity. And humanity is a newborn’s potential, not a quality.
This is especially noticeable when you find yourself in a new country. At first, people remain somewhat “unclear”—you don’t fully understand what reaction or behavior to expect from them. They may have been raised completely differently from you: smiling where you don’t find it funny or sad where you don’t find it sad at all. The people around you may have very different ideas of good and evil from yours.
However, of course, there are also those who are convinced that their moral ideas are true (in themselves), while others are not. That’s where trouble arises. When someone begins to believe they know the truth (or to claim absolutes), that’s where trouble begins.
No, you’re not going off; I think you are focusing on what I mean about complex morality overriding our intuition.
The intuitive morals we have only work in a face-to-face manner. Between people, even strangers, the empathic moral intuition is the standard.
But the formation of a business works on the extremely complex movement of the economy within the capitalist ideology. And everyone has been indoctrinated into a value system revolving around capitalist thinking since they were children.
We’re more programmed into it than into any kind of religion or value system. Everyone thinks in capitalist ways.
And so what happens is that we operate on what we believe is a natural law of society, which overrides our ability to recognize actions of the company and the economy as being against empathy and morality. Most people have trouble recognizing the immoral and negative consequences of the economy and modern society until you specifically point to the problems.
This is what I mean with how we can’t ignore how we are very psychologically susceptible to outside influence when we think about morality. And why most people, when facing the consequences of their actions (taken by such influence and programming), fall back into moral intuition (the criminal breaking down in front of the victim when facing the reality of their crime).
Any narrative that shapes the psychology of people in society has the ability to override our intuitions. We operate more on stories than on reality.
It’s basically why we have consciousness at all: the ability to override our basic nature with abstract constructs and stories, reshaping our natural behavior into being highly adaptable to the situation we’re in. It’s why humans have been so successful as an animal.
But such constructs and stories can also produce negative results; indoctrination and programming into destructive operations.
We have moral intuition, but we need an upbringing that enforces it, that recognizes if we have psychopathic disorders, and a constant act to shape society based on those base moral intuitions, rather than getting lost in constructs and stories that have been messed up by a lack of clarity through history.
Great topic. Thanks for this and for your subsequent contributions
The point has been made by others. Most people demonstrate moral behaviour on a daily basis and consistently over their lives, even those we regard as poor role models.
Very true but our inherent capacities and social institutions work together to provide a functioning society and flourishing society. Primitive social structure perhaps emerged in early hominid societies, maybe 200,000 generations ago. Its an example of gene culture co-evolution.
Its doubtful that moral intuitions function effectively without corresponding social institutions. Behaving ethically isn’t a sufficient basis for a well functioning society. Nice guys and gals still need to follow the law for society to work.
Different in some respects. All cultures are constrained by human impulses and motivations. Whether they are claimed to be based on religious or secular authority they function in comparable ways. We can learn other societies conventions relatively quickly if we have language and willing guides.
Quite right.
Back to the opening question, what is very difficult is to know is what are intuitions are. Whether our social instructions are attuned to them and whether how closely they fit actually constitutes a meaningful or valid question.
Is it possible to even ask whether large polygamous family units, the atomic family, communities that separate parents and children at birth, non hierarchical societies, WEIRD societies, managers worker relations, celibate monastries are more or less tuned to our intuitions and how would we make any assessment of that?
Let me define “intuition” real quick as an immediate judgement which is known without knowing exactly how it is known. We do this in moral behavior all the time.
It’s a good topic. I read a book recently that addressed this very point. It’s called “Humankind: A Hopeful History”. It takes an (unfashionable) positive stance on the question posed, arguing that morality is intuitive, and not only that, but that our societal structures can make us less, rather than more, moral (a point well addressed by @Christoffer above).
I don’t agree with everything in that book—it sets out to make an argument rather than to be entirely objective—but the general framing is sound. We’re either, at the poles of this debate, Hobbesians or Rousseauians. We either believe that society is the only thing separating us from savagery, or that society is what breeds savagery in us.
There is ample evidence that we are intuitively or “naturally” moral. The book, for example, presents studies on babies that show we develop a moral sense very early, and successfully debunks evidence that a) when the thin veneer of moral social control is removed or reversed, we lose all moral sense and b) pre-civilised hunter gatherers were inherently violent and warlike.
Where it becomes complicated is when we question the orientation of this moral sense; who is it directed towards and under what circumstances? The book addresses but skates around this. The same hormone, oxytocin, that encourages social bonds among kin, can make us vicious towards strangers (particualrly insofar as they are perceived to threaten our kin). This has always been the case, and runs right from pre-civilised to civilised society, from warring tribes to the Nazis. If you can convince tightly bonded groups, particualrly under conditions of survival stress, that another group is a threat, then moral intuition and natural empathy can very quickly become perverted.
So, our moral intuitions—fueled by natural empathy—do exist; and, I believe, are the strongest case (along with our linguistic ability) for how groups of Homo Sapiens became dominant over other humans to the degree civilisation has become possible, and exclusive to us. However, having moral intuitions with a natural physiological basis does not guarantee moral behaviour, only potentializes it, along with, unfortunately, cruelty and evil (often in the name of morality).
Thank you for sharing your learned insight on morality.
Starting of with the smallest immoral actions such as lying and moving on to the gravest immoral ones such as murder (or mass murder) one must probe into how or why such actions are performed. Now I’m not one to have watched many murder documentaries on tv but I’m intrigued by the motivations behind such evil and immoral acts. There must be some kind of moral switch where empathy and love are completely switched off in order to carry out such atrocious acts such as murder.
In the example of a spurned and jealous lover who murders a love rival, the motivations are more transparent, in other cases there’s a driving force which leads to murder but can be muddied by more than one motivation.
The motivation to carrying out murders usually fall into familiar categories. Anger, hate, alienation, rebellion, thinking of oneself as being above the law (and morality). Stripping such motivations and instead instilling love and empathy in a human being would reduce if not eliminate murder altogether.
Idealistic this may be but I think it’s attainable