Singer: "from careful reflection on humanity and what we consider a life well lived."

I agree that human reasoning is the spark that leads us to create our own morality. But along with that reasoning, empathy is the impetus that drives it. Though I've considered it many times, it still seems a novel idea to me that some of what we do has a long chain of cause and effect whose origin is the deliberation of a set of people. Humans are able to act on reasons, where all other organisms act primarily on instinct and urge. That thought always gets me thinking about the future of mankind for some reason, a small spark.

Interbane wrote: I agree that human reasoning is the spark that leads us to create our own morality. But along with that reasoning, empathy is the impetus that drives it. Though I've considered it many times, it still seems a novel idea to me that some of what we do has a long chain of cause and effect whose origin is the deliberation of a set of people. Humans are able to act on reasons, where all other organisms act primarily on instinct and urge. That thought always gets me thinking about the future of mankind for some reason, a small spark.

Frans de Waal, in Primates and Philosophers, says that empathy, an inheritance from our primate ancestors, is the spark. He sees the emotions as more primary than you might in the evolution of morality. I think that he and some others might say, too, that we cannot really act on reason, that our reasons must always have an emotional impetus, to use your word.

Empathy is what drives our quest for morals, it is the impetus as I've said. What I meant when I said that reasoning is the spark, is that empathy cannot consider things such as the nuances of tipping your waitress. Not only can it not consider it, but it is not a consideration at all unless some things are first understood. Once it is understood (either through teaching or deliberation) that tipping is a moral act, then our empathy is what drives us to obey that moral. I chose 'tipping the waitress' as the example, but there are surely better examples if you have problems with it.

This is similar to the chicken and the egg. However, the way I think of it is that empathy doesn't come before reasoning when considering what is good for society. You could ask, "what would motivate us to answer such a question in the first place?", but I again think the answer is reasoning. It must be understood that what is good for others is in turn good for us. The problem with my reasoning here is that empathy is actually the catalyst when the 'others' are part of your 'in-group', such as family members and close friends. Reasoning is relegated to a catalyst only for 'out-group' considerations, yet that is the majority of the discussion here I think.

All this says nothing about the importance of either factor. Empathy is far more important and is required for morality, where reasoning is only required for larger groups where moral behavior has no survival benefit. Without the survival benefit, there is no reason to act morally regardless of empathy, but that's another discussion entirely.

In a nutshell, reasoning 'initiates', and empathy 'drives', but only when considering 'out-groups'.

I that think to some people, morality shouldn't be a part of human nature that's explored. It should simply be, or simply is, as divinely authorized. We shouldn't seek to understand it neither with science nor with philosophy, that's blasphemy!

We blasphemers could propose other methods of discovery, but I'm not sure what that would be if not science nor philosophy. Make-believe perhaps? It's painfully obvious that morality has it's roots in how we've evolved. Evolution is a scientific endeavor, but philosophy has much to say on morality as well.

I'm baffled that some would think morality can be known by avenues other than philosophy or science. Even to the enlightened theologian, the most pragmatic stance would be that god has instilled humans with morality, but the knowledge of the workings of this gift aren't also instilled. To know this gift, we must explore it. To explore it, we must use the best tools currently at our disposal for understanding our reality, and they are philosophy and science.

What about empathy?

What are you asking Patrick?

Whether empathy plays a role?
I think that was addressed.

Patrick Kilgallon wrote:What about empathy?

me: "Empathy is far more important and is required for morality, where reasoning is only required for larger groups where moral behavior has no survival benefit."

Hi Interbane,
I wanted to let you know that I responded to your post over in the Primates and Philosophers forum under the "Morally Evolved' thread. I thought people reading the book would be interested in what you said.

I asked to spur conversation and to see what people's idea of morality is, and how they view it in relation to their religion, or lack therof.

I think the roots/origins of morality are more complicated than the theory I am putting forth here, as this is very simplistic. We know from de Waals that some of our moral behaviors are inherited from the great apes. However, I believe that the biggest influence on a person's morality comes from their parents' and peer groups' behavior, not religion. I am speaking from my own experience here as I was raised Catholic and wanted to be a nun in 7th and 8th grades. However, neither of my parents went to church and I think both were agnostic. I think that atheists can absolutely be just as or more moral than those who are not. It depends on the person, not the religion.

Even if we are not conscious of it, we watch and to some degree mimic/assimilate our parents' behavior, especially when we are young. When we become teenagers we usually shift this behavior to our peer group and friends. By the time we finish high school/college, we should know what behaviors of our parents/friends we want to incorporate into our morality system and those we don't want to incorporate. For example, if the father beat his wife, the son does not have to continue this pattern because he has a choice (and empathy/sympathy for his mother).

I think that what you learn in church/synagogue can contribute to how you view the world and your morality system, but I don't think it is one of the major influences.

I have to admit that many criminals do not fit into my theory. So many times you hear that this or that serial murderer was abused by his parents and that is why he committed such atrocious crimes. What happened to the reasoning faculties of these people? Why could they not choose the proper course of behavior? It must be that these people are sociopaths and have no morality system to fall back on?

Suzanne,

your comments about morality and religion are very true as ar as I see it. Regarding the people who were abused, many who were abused also lived in substandard environments where peer and societal influences were also not supportive of a moral life. Morality has been defined differently amongst gang members, for example. It may be ok to kill an opposing gang member in cold blood but immoral to rat out your brother. In this way we mediate our morality to fit in with what we think we have to do in order to survive and have a support network. Those who grow up with only violence feel that is the way that they have to cope or deal with situations. lack of coping mechanisms, consistent role models and connection to a criminals life are reasons why morality is not the same at all class levels. Just because I see that the rich people or those with June cleaver worlds do something specific that is moral doesn't mean it applies to me. I live in a different world where I need to survive and, as I've seen in my own life, its the survival of the meanest, the toughest and the strongest.