Re: Sociobiology explains one more aspect of morality

From: Gary Gerrard (tseneca_at_alltel.net)
Date: 09/01/04 

Date: 1 Sep 2004 07:58:34 -0700

"sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:<Y8FXc.8423$2F.5537@trnddc05>...
> "Socialism is a Mental Disease" <root@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:rb4ti0pqk4fviolltkomhtvuj3sdcurr2n@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:41:27 -0700, The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>There may be a connection between animal instinct and "rights". But
> >>using the word morality will not get you there.
> >>
> >
> > Rights are the foundation on which absolute morality rests. And I'm
> > using the word "morality" within the context of moral philosophy, not
> > the household definition.
>
> Again, what is "absolute" morality?
>
> And speaking of moral philosophy, what would moral philosopher's say about
> "Rights are the foundation on which absolute morality rests."? (I'm not
> sure.)
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
> > percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
> > forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

I approach the issue of morality slightly differently, but get to the
same kinds of questions. For instance, the science of complexity is
based on the observation that physical systems have certain
properties. As the systems become more "complex" new properties
emerge that the simpler system did not have. A simnple example:
subatomic particles behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics.
 When they combine into atoms, they exhibit properties that individual
particles do not, and they generally become much more stable with
longer half-lives. Also, when atoms combine they form molecules which
likewise have properties that individual atoms do not, e.g. they form
salts and bases and acids and plastics, etc. And, certain
combinations of molecules exhibit the property of self-replication and
life.

It would be silly to talk about the morality of a stone because it
does not have the complexity necessary to exhibit any properties that
one might describe as morality. So the question is, to me, what
properties must an organism have in order to have "moral capacity."

Another principle of complexity science states that all systems are
composed of and constrained by simpler systems. For instance, the
physical laws of electromagnetism apply to humans as much as they do
to a single photon of light. No biological process can violate the
constraints of the basic laws of electromagnetism. Or, Charles' or
Boyle's Laws of gases governing pressure, density and diffusion. So
to understand the capabilities of any physical system (and I consider
the human animal a physical system so I am not a dualist) one would
need to know what simpler systems constrained the human animal.

Here comes another element of complex systems. They evolve. That is,
they have a history which means they did not spring forth fully formed
from nothing. Therefore, all organisms are constrained by their
ancestors, and indeed their more complex properties emerge from the
less complex systems from which they derive.

And, as physical systems are composed of components, e.g. the
particles that form attoms, which form molecules, which form
organisms, organisms can also form systems we call societies. Ant
colonies, bees, baboons, elephants, you name it. All social animals
form a physical system which is the social group. If the one
selective force for evolution is "natural" selection, or simply
survival over time in changing conditions external to the system, then
there must be some survival greater advantage to social systems over
individual survival. These advantages can be found generally in
cooperative behaviors. Such cooperative behaviors are the
evolutionary precursors of moral behavior.

There are many more emerged properties between a bacteria colony and
morality, which I will not bore you with further, but suffice it to
say that I believe a careful analysis of the additional emerged
properties is necessary to identify what we really mean by moral
behavior.

I believe that morality is a property of a physical system, i.e.,
human society composed of individual humans. (Would there be morality
for a single person living on a deserted island?) I believe that
there is such a thing as "moral capacity" which requires the
maturation of cognitive capacities for choosing one's actions based on
a prediction of the desired consequences, self-awareness which allows
the individual to make choices based on consciously trying to achieve
one's self-interest, what I have describe in other places as
"other-consciousness" which is the ability to see the world through
the mental perception of other individuals. The combination of
Self-awareness and other-consciousness can produce an identification
between the self and others one views with other-consciousness. (It
is an emergent property that does not always emerge in all individual
humans) This is, IMO, the source of the notion of human equality, that
is, the equal value of each human having or achieving what will make
him happy. In Jefferson's famous words, all people have an equal
"right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The conflict
between self-conscious self-interest and the identification with
others for whom one has other-consciousness, and thus views as an
abstraction of the self, which necessitates a set of rules about how
to make choices whose consequences give equal value to the self and
those for whom one has other-consciousness.

Why do some people who consider themselves highly moral kill other
people? Because they do not view them with other-consciousness and
therefore as their equal. Don't belive this. Why do some people eat
hambergers? Because they do not see cows as their equal--with
other-consciousness. The extreme animal rights advocates do, however.
 Hence the claims of animal rights. But even the most extreme animal
rights advocate does not apply the same logic/empathy to vegetables,
which are also living organisms. But they do not have any
consciousness, at least not that we are able to see the world through
like we do our fello animals. Do you suppose that the animal rights
people slap mosquitos that bite them, or step on cockroaches in their
kitchen. They probably do, but some Buddhist monks would not.

We can find many examples of what I would call pre-moral behavior in
social animals many degrees of relation separate from humans. Any
social animal will exhibit behavior that show restraint in the use of
the individual animal's physical ability. For most mammals whose
males engage in some form of physical combat in competition for a
group of females to mate with will not fight to the death, but rather
stop short. Is this "moral" behavior? I don't think so, but it
certainly is restrained behavior that has the potential for providing
a reproductive advantage.

Sorry I got so longwinded. (not proofread)