Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_y0hchd in philosophy
Abstract: Is morality a social construct or rooted in biology? Patricia Churchland argues that the earliest origins of human morality emerged in mammals and birds due to some cascading effects of being warm-blooded. This cascade begins from the high calorific demands of endothermy. This forces warm-blooded animals to become more flexible in their hunting and foraging strategy, which in turn requires a large cortex. Having a large cortex requires, in turn, immature births, because the cortex is largely built in infancy. This was the first evolutionary pressure that allowed unselfish concerns to evolve (originally, for offspring). Later, the same neurobiology of care is used in a variety of circumstances and allows the kind of flexible and caring sociality that we observe in mammals and birds. In the case of humans, this “platform for morality” is supplemented by two other factors: social learning of moral norms, and social problem-solving within various constraints.
​
[Note: this is a repost from yesterday. The original was removed as I forgot the abstract. However, it generated good discussion, so I thought it worthwhile to resubmit it.]
​
[Another note: Patricia Churchland has been very generous with her time with me and has already answered questions that were raised in similar forums. If you have questions you would like her to answer directly, do drop one in and I will do my best to get a response.]
I saw this post yesterday. Her book Conscience is excellent.
What I like is that Pat is old and established now, totally comfortable with calling out philosophy as an industry and making bold claims about the answers the sciences provide. Her work on consciousness is similar is this regard.
Yes, I agree that Conscience is a great book! This formed the basis of our conversation in this podcast episode. I must say that I actually like her newer work more than the traditional one on consciousness. I think it added a lot of fresh air into neurophilosophy. Anyway, did you get the chance to listen to any of it? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts. We discussed material that was not included in the book.
I believe it's both, like many things it's not a simple one size answer. Nature vs nurture is a good example. Both play a part in the end result.
Having no empathy for a small baby is seen as harmful for care. But that lack of empathy might make it easier to hunt and kill animals that provide sustenance. While too much empathy could inhibit this process.
Yes, and as said, her argument was that empathy etc. is a certain "platform for morality" on top of which we also learn social norms. But what I would like to hear people's perspectives on whether there is any value in rooting morality in biological impulses. Or does this undermine morality? I don't think so - but I think many would disagree.
Adding biological impulses, does not define morality. Is the idea that these biological imperatives/impulses become the morality? Procreative impulses come to mind, and morality currently holds heavily in this area. Morality by this, cannot safely be defined by biological impulses. Though, at a root level, everything can be accepted once normalized. Add in outliers for everything.
I don't think the argument would be quite that biological impulses "become" or "are" morality. Rather, certain biological impulses must be in place for there to be a "platform" for morality.
So the question is, why is it that there is a corner of the animal kingdom where anything vaguely resembling morality could have taken off? And Churchland argues that it is not a coincidence that it is this warm-blooded ape, instead of, say, salamanders, that does moral philosophy.
Do dogs have moral intuitions? I'd say yes based on how they respond to failing to reward tricks, giving more treats to dog2, dogs' capacity for self sacrifice, etc.
Do chimps/bonobos have moral intuitions? In addition to the example provided in the podcast, the two primates have very different strategies for conflict resolution despite their genetic proximity, and I have a hard time identifying the point in human evolution that triggered some sort of deontological obligation.
Should we punish lions for eating cubs sired by other lions? Although they are warm-blooded like us, this is normal behavior for the lion. We might say lions don't have the capacity for morality, but that requires distinguishing them from primates, whales, dolphins, rats, etc.
But lets put aside the premise that humans are categorically distinct as moral angents. If we discovered an alien species (perhaps descended from ravens or parrots rather than chimps), could we reasonably judge them by our own standards? What if the conditions were so much harsher than earth that morally appalling behavior was necessarily required for that species to survive? (Relatedly, do we judge other humans who bend/break moral norms in the name of survival, as many survivors of genocide or war have done?).
IMO, moral codes are path dependent, adaptive, and emergent. We see this biologically with the examples provided in the podcast, but also in human history and political philosophy.
We can even take this principle one further into the realm of political philosophy. Suppose a sovereign has a (deontologicsl) moral code that prohibits taking violent action against a rebellious faction that is ready and willing to commit violence. Should the sovereign adhere to their code even where the rebels will impose a moral order that would be horrifying to the sovereign? I don't find this example much different than an animal with poor self-preservation instincts, but some of my comments below go into more details about my premises and corrolary arguments etc.
I will reply later with more thoughts, but I think two folks who are best at making this distinction (why humans can be moral agents, but lions cannot) are Michael Tomasello and Stephen Darwall. If you are interested.
And thanks for actually listening to the content, most people just read the abstract!
[deleted]
Intuitively, I like the sound of this. Morality always struck me as something emergent from the framework we inhabit. My brain always goes in a sort of game-theoretical direction, where once you account for all the inputs, the moral output becomes almost a foregone conclusion... kind of. Obviously, there's a lot of fogginess in that, which itself is probably its own looping input. But I think it accounts for the apparent directionality of moral development.
It's not all that different from how the structure of plants follow certain understandable patterns that emerge from their needs and place in the biosphere.
One of my favourite books in this regard is Tomasello's Natural History of Human Morality. It's a great read, and despite being by a scientist, it gives very high value to philosophers.
Unselfish concerns for offspring? They can barely think, let alone be concerned with anything other than crying. Birds are quite savage too. This is probably the worst abstract I've read in a while...
Humans need to stick together to survive which is why there is a moral construct that exists. It appears rooted in biology only because you are raised by a family but if you look at history, you can clearly see that morality isn't programmed by virtue of biology. Obviously, because you have a brain you can comprehend social norms and be "moral".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments