Right, Wrong and Morality

[LeBrok]

MORE ON ALTRUISM

After writing this post it occurred to me that I referred to altruism, as to virtue of helping others, and I ignored part of altruism that states, that helping others should be without benefits to first person. Well, I guess if it comes to pure altruism it might be a spill over or side effect of compassion, empathy, and general goodwill of helping others. In most of cases helping your group members is beneficial to group therefore to individuals. If this trend is mostly beneficial it will get hard wired into a brain, giving many generations. I said mostly because in nature nothing is perfect, black and white. It is enough if statistically something works and benefits group more often than not.
I think it is our human brain with strong tendency to compartmentalizing and categorizing of things blurring our understanding of nature. When we think nature we should try thinking statistics and spectrum, probabilities and combinations.
Funny thing about altruism is that it might not exist at all. Even if a person supports charities this person is doing it for its own gratification or a good place in heaven. Try to find arrogant, egoistic, people hating person and make him/her help someone. Now that would be a pure altruism.

 

[LeBrok]

Oxytocin, the love and bond hormone, can make people lie and sacrifice for the group. I think this new research should be mentioned in this thread about morality.

Oxytocin has perhaps the best reputation of any molecule on the planet. In a culture of chemophobia where any compound is fair game for attack, oxytocin has been heralded as “The Source of Love and Prosperity“. If you listen to the tales, this “moral” molecule—the “trust hormone“—is the “most amazing molecule in the world,” and is your one-stop shop for love and happiness. All you have to do is give someone a hug, and your brain will be flooded with the magic stuff.
But as many (most notably Ed Yong) have pointed out, oxytocin isn’t the sweet compound we’re told it is. Sure, it has been associated with generosity, desire, and trust, but oxytocin has a dark side, too. It can increase envy and gloating, promote cliques, and even decrease cooperation. Now, a new study published today in PNAS adds to the molecule’s moral ambiguity: huffing oxytocin can lead to dishonest behavior if that behavior is seen as being for “the greater good”.
Amsterdam scientists Shaul Shalvia and Carsten De Dreub tested the effects of oxytocin in an experimental game set up that allowed participants to lie to benefit the group. Players sniffed either a placebo or oxytocin, then played a game where teams of three anonymous participants were asked to predict a virtual coin toss. Afterward they were told to report whether they had guessed correctly, with correct guessing resulting in more cash for everyone. All of the participants cheated, saying that they guessed right more than they really did, but those that huffed the so-called moral molecule lied more and more quickly, saying they were right a statistically-impossible 80% of the time.
However, when the experiment was repeated and the participants were told that only their own earnings would be increased, the oxytocin-smellers stopped lying more than the control group (though all of them still lied a little). When correct answers had no gains or resulted in lost money, the love drug group also didn’t differ from the placebo-sniffers. These results suggested that oxytocin only increased dishonesty when it strongly benefitted the group.
Instead of promoting ethical behavior in all circumstances, oxytocin shifts an individual’s focus from self to group interests, whether or not that leads to higher overall immorality. “Oxytocin boosts group-serving behavior, rather than adherence to general moral codes,” explain the authors.
These results add to a growing body of literature that suggest oxytocin is a very complex chemical, and definitely not the saintly compound it’s been purported to be. While in certain situations it can increase behaviors we think of as positive—bonding, cooperation and trust—it can also cause bad behaviors, from lying to prejudice. What ultimately matters, say the authors, “is whether such moral code-breaking serves those one cares about and the group one belongs to.”
“These findings highlight the role of bonding and cooperation in shaping dishonesty, providing insight into when and why collaboration turns into corruption.”

Citation: Shalvia S. & De Dreub C. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty, PNAS, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1400724111

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/s...t-trust-hormone-oxytocin-can-increase-deceit/


By my understanding of morality, the Oxytocin is a very moral hormone. It puts the benefit of a group above benefit of self.

 

[sparkey]

Oxytocin, the love and bond hormone, can make people lie and sacrifice for the group. I think this new research should be mentioned in this thread about morality.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/s...t-trust-hormone-oxytocin-can-increase-deceit/


By my understanding of morality, the Oxytocin is a very moral hormone. It puts the benefit of a group above benefit of self.

It reinforces the understanding that we already have about human nature, that we have a natural inclination toward a certain amount of tribalism. But I find your take on it highly problematic. First of all, the effects of Oxytocin (when taken in isolation) aren't "very moral" in much of anybody's ethical system except for yours. Lying and cheating for the benefit of your group, at your own and everybody else's expense, constitute "very moral" actions? The other problem is calling any chemical "moral." It would seem that a chemical can in theory encourage moral behavior when given to a moral agent, but I don't see how the chemical itself can be moral or immoral.

 

[LeBrok]

It reinforces the understanding that we already have about human nature, that we have a natural inclination toward a certain amount of tribalism. But I find your take on it highly problematic. First of all, the effects of Oxytocin (when taken in isolation) aren't "very moral" in much of anybody's ethical system except for yours. Lying and cheating for the benefit of your group, at your own and everybody else's expense, constitute "very moral" actions?

About own expense:
As per example, the one belongs to the group, which he/she is trying to benefit, because of warm fuzzy feeling towards the group caused by Oxytocin. As long as the one belongs to the group, this cheating and lying, will benefit the one too. It is not exactly pure altruism action. Even by sacrificing one's life for the group might benefit the one (genetic inheritance) if it means that one's children survive too. I think power of the group over the one, comes from protection and benefits one get's from the group and helping one's offspring survival, than survival and happiness of the group unit itself, as an entity.
However on genetic level we can see how single man DNA dilutes very fast in few generations, and genetic coherence of a group stays intact much longer for thousands of years. It might mean that perhaps we should look at group evolution as live and conscious entitiy much closer, at least to understand humankind? Afterall the group will survive without the one, but the one won't survive with the group.
(I think I changed my mind during 3 sentences, lol)

Regarding everybody else, as different group:
In my mind it could be explained by group perspective. In line with my assumption that morality (that creates ethical rules) is only a group phenomenon, social interaction, and doesn't apply to isolated self, although concept exist in self's mind. In group perspective, morality of group A applies only to this group A. Morality of group B applies only to group B, etc. It might not be logically obvious to the members of a group, but it still applies in agreement with natural selection law, or other evolutionary forces.
Analogy would be sharing knowledge about making stone tools with your group. It affects well being of your group, but we don't care if it affects other groups or if they go extinct without this knowledge. If only one group survives it would mean that they had better tools, and in this analogy a better morality.
The best example is conquest of Aztecs (group A) by Spanish (group B). Before spaniards arrived Aztecs set of ethics was the code of the land, separating evil from good. After Spaniard's conquest, the ethics of Catholic church were in place over Aztecs, defining anything culturally different from group B immoral. And vice versa, invaders felt immoral in their cultural ways to Aztecs. After a while however, when these two groups coalesced into Mexico, the morality of the conquerors is the only surviving norm.
Now from today's "global village" perspective (group C) we will find both of them, A and B, immoral in many aspects.
Morality doesn't care about success of other group than yours.

The other problem is calling any chemical "moral." It would seem that a chemical can in theory encourage moral behavior when given to a moral agent, but I don't see how the chemical itself can be moral or immoral.

Let's say I used a figure of speech. Let's not call chemicals moral.

 

[LeBrok]

Fantastic, eye opener, short lecture on morality of Chimps and other primates.

We can honestly conclude that senses of fairness, reciprocity, empathy, sharing, consolation are genetic. Environment will sharpen or dull these senses, but can't create or delete them, or change values (at least much).

 

[AgnusDei]

Morality is a highly relative human construct, there is no good or evil, no right or wrong .

 

[LeBrok]

Morality is a highly relative human construct,

Well, people named the natural phenomenon, like giving a name to a thunder, otherwise it applies to harmony of social life of all social species.
In human case, morality gets really complicated, because our social structure and life is very complicated, when compared to other social animals. Is abortion moral, is charging interest moral, things that never happen in animal kingdom. It is also not easy for people to judge, because these and many other concepts of human life are very new to us on historical scale. This info is not coded in our DNA to have instinctual feeling about them, like sharing and cooperation, and we didn't have much time to develop "universal" rules what to do and think about them.

there is no good or evil, no right or wrong .

Not in universal sense, but only from a point of a group. Whatever is beneficial for the group is called good, destructive action is called evil. From point of view of chimpanzees sharing food is very beneficial to the group, therefore very moral. From point of view of Crocodile it is none issue, neither good or bad.
From point of view of Europeans, conquest of America was very beneficial to them. They acquired new land, multiplied in millions, created strong societies, all very moral, especially for 19 century European. From Native American point of view it was a complete disaster, and immoral enterprise. Interesting twist is that from point of view of today's Europeans, raised in peace, tolerance and helpful attitude to all world, conquest of America became immoral.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Morality is a highly relative human construct, there is no good or evil, no right or wrong .

It is interesting that I have gone through several stages with respect to morality.

When I was a child, I was taught a very basic moral code, which more or less was to not steal, not murder, and not talk back to my parents.
When I was a teenager, I recognized that morality largely segued into the criminal justice system and that one could get a good idea on the morality of an action by asking "Is this legal?".
When I was at university, I was taught to stop and ask "What jurisdiction?" to any question involving criminal law, because the laws were different in every jurisdiction. This meant that when traveling, one ought to consult the local standards of behavior so as to not get "in trouble". It might be the case that Podunk bans the possession of propane and propane accessories on alternate Tuesdays for people between the ages of 45 and 55, and not knowing that could land you in prison with a criminal record.
Later in life, I recognized that the criminal law of nearly all areas hearkens back to a quasi-universal morality which basically says no stealing, no murder, etc. I haven't been able to find a jurisdiction where it is legal to hunt other people for sport or where there are annual competitions to see who can bilk the most money out of stock market investors.

 

[RobertColumbia]

...
Not in universal sense, but only from a point of a group. Whatever is beneficial for the group is called good, destructive action is called evil. From point of view of chimpanzees sharing food is very beneficial to the group, therefore very moral. From point of view of Crocodile it is none issue, neither good or bad.
From point of view of Europeans, conquest of America was very beneficial to them. They acquired new land, multiplied in millions, created strong societies, all very moral, especially for 19 century European. From Native American point of view it was a complete disaster, and immoral enterprise. Interesting twist is that from point of view of today's Europeans, raised in peace, tolerance and helpful attitude to all world, conquest of America became immoral.

Good point. This perspective could be called a biased form of utilitarian ethics, where you only consider the greatest good for your people instead of the greatest good for all people.

Pure utilitarianism, of course, places the greatest good for the greatest number of people as the highest judge of ethics. Essentially, if you discovered that raping five children could cure a thousand cases of AIDS, it would probably be ethical to do so according to pure utilitarianism. Of course, most people would still not be comfortable doing it. That's where deontological ethics comes in - that there are some universals of behavior (such as not raping children) that can't be violated even for a "good" cause.

 

[LeBrok]

It is interesting that I have gone through several stages with respect to morality.

When I was a child, I was taught a very basic moral code, which more or less was to not steal, not murder, and not talk back to my parents.
When I was a teenager, I recognized that morality largely segued into the criminal justice system and that one could get a good idea on the morality of an action by asking "Is this legal?".
When I was at university, I was taught to stop and ask "What jurisdiction?" to any question involving criminal law, because the laws were different in every jurisdiction. This meant that when traveling, one ought to consult the local standards of behavior so as to not get "in trouble". It might be the case that Podunk bans the possession of propane and propane accessories on alternate Tuesdays for people between the ages of 45 and 55, and not knowing that could land you in prison with a criminal record.
Later in life, I recognized that the criminal law of nearly all areas hearkens back to a quasi-universal morality which basically says no stealing, no murder, etc. I haven't been able to find a jurisdiction where it is legal to hunt other people for sport or where there are annual competitions to see who can bilk the most money out of stock market investors.

Obviously not one of your groups, but usually war opens a hunting season for enemy of your group. Killing is rewarded with medals and honor.

 

[LeBrok]

Good point. This perspective could be called a biased form of utilitarian ethics, where you only consider the greatest good for your people instead of the greatest good for all people.

Pure utilitarianism, of course, places the greatest good for the greatest number of people as the highest judge of ethics. Essentially, if you discovered that raping five children could cure a thousand cases of AIDS, it would probably be ethical to do so according to pure utilitarianism. Of course, most people would still not be comfortable doing it. That's where deontological ethics comes in - that there are some universals of behavior (such as not raping children) that can't be violated even for a "good" cause.

It is so disgusting I can't even contemplate it in human context. However in Lion pride, the rape is the way how mail have sex, and killing others offspring is a tradition.

 

[bancroft]

It is so disgusting I can't even contemplate it in human context. However in Lion pride, the rape is the way how mail have sex, and killing others offspring is a tradition.

Unfortunately, that is how most human think and act. It's like better to do wrong for some if the exchange of that wrong deed would have good benefit to many.

 

[RobertColumbia]

Unfortunately, that is how most human think and act. It's like better to do wrong for some if the exchange of that wrong deed would have good benefit to many.

Right. Using pure utilitarianism, you could even argue that, under my scenario, not raping would be the unethical choice, since allowing a few dozen people to suffer would result in lesser harm to society than denying thousands of patients access to life-saving treatment that they otherwise could have received.

This is one of the many examples of why ethics is not an easy concept.