Part I: Morally Evolved (Pages 1 - 58)

[Interbane]

RT: "Overall, emotion is necessary but not sufficient for morality and ethics."

I was actually going to say something exactly like that. I completely agree.

[Grim]

Behavior may not be determined at the genetic level, but it could certainly be altered by changing genes! I'm not challenging Neitzcshe's understanding, I'm saying he didn't have access to what we know of evolution. Mostly the past few decades, long after both he and Darwin.

I'm not sure I get your point then.

[Grim]

There is also a distinction between the concepts that thinkers articulate about morality and the everyday actions and interactions that we all have: morality in practice.

Not only morality but all expressions of human creativity and individuality. Without a certain amount of indistinctive individuality I feel that little would be possible, reasonable or otherwise. To question the origin of morality in any philosophic sense...well I think that that is best left as an strictly anthropomorphic/anthropological inquiry (see Neitzsche, Hume, et al) . In terms of a primatological inquiry...I don't see the relevance in relation to contemporary philosophy (at least any philosophy done since Darwin - so we can excuse Hume in this instance) except in specific normative applications. Primatologist philosophers a priori? I can only hope not.

Isn't it obvious that the books title should have been: Primates and Psychologists?

[Grim]

Overall, emotion is necessary but not sufficient for morality and ethics. We need a higher rational faculty, which is where human language is a major evolutionary step over the limited communication methods available to apes. Human moral DNA is from the apes, but advances above their level through the impartial rationality of moral duty and law.

There is no such thing as moral DNA. The instinctive drives you seem to feel point to, our ideal essences, moral or emotional, are fallacious. It's called the genetic fallacy dude. It can be the result of opinions from a biased source - which is something that Neitzcshe writes about - or as a misunderstanding/confusion of causal relationships in respect to an observable effect as an essentially relative event, even potentially independant of cause. De Waal wants you to ignore relativism, and for good reason. Hume's argument as you present it is a redundated slogan, a mere catch phrase that you use to hang irrelevance on.

Ultimately if you were to teach a monkey to speak it would still have the mind of an ape, emotional or otherwise.

[Interbane]

Grim: "There is no such thing as moral DNA."

Chuang Tzu: "“The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grapsed, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten the words? He is the one I would like to talk to.”

I do think our moral behavior is affected by our genes. Even if it's simply the neurochemical mechanism for empathy, it affects our moral behavior. There may be other such primal tendencies, but it's nothing more than speculation. Robert is right that whatever the source of these effects, they may be necessary but aren't sufficient. There are certainly moral acts which we consider moral based on reasoning, rather than empathy.

[Dissident Heart]

It is a moral prejudice that equates empathy with morality: more precisely, a particular moral system elevates empathy above the other impulses and drives, assigning it a premiere status and worth...why empathy is deemed primary is not a scientific decision: more precisely, science did not assign the moral value of empathy- no, choosing empathy is an act of submission...like all moral evaluations, it involves kneeling before something superior- throwing oneself at the feet of a value one cannot live without, understanding that to do otherwise, to offend this value would mean death- or a fate worse than death.

Likewise, choosing reason as one's moral gatekeeper, (the engine and foundation of one's morality- the filter that separates good from evil, right from wrong, moral from immoral) is a similar prejudice, and one that is not entirely rational...assigning regency to reason is still an act of submission: a falling at the feet of something/someone begging for mercy and protection, asking for guidance and wisdom....but why you select reason above all else is the result of a prior moral evaluation- meaning that reason is not the premiere point of departure.

[Grim]

[Grim]

I do think our moral behavior is affected by our genes. Even if it's simply the neurochemical mechanism for empathy, it affects our moral behavior. There may be other such primal tendencies, but it's nothing more than speculation. Robert is right that whatever the source of these effects, they may be necessary but aren't sufficient. There are certainly moral acts which we consider moral based on reasoning, rather than empathy.

There is moral and then there is behavior. Since moral is a value judgement it would seem prudent to ask what value these values have, since behavior is an act it would seem efficient to consider only the most relevant factors resulting in the effect.

Much of philosphy deals with reality as a metaphor. Moral DNA as a metaphor juxtaposes with Dawkin's Selfish Gene as a metaphor. The result: a morality of the selfish. It is in reality actually non-sense. DNA has nothing directly to do with morality. If you think that it does you are simply confused about the relationship between the physical and the abstract within the context of the present. This is de Waal's failing as well, too much emphasis on genetic relationship as an abstraction (which it is not) and not enough on practical difference as expressed physically (which it is).

If genetics influenced our morality then we could expect differing morality based on race due to intraspecies-interracial genetic variation. The slave subspecies as opposed to the morally slavish mentality.

Empathy is easily duped. Primal tendancies (whatever the f- that means, to whatever relevance) are not any more reliable. Genetic fallacy. While it may be true that we possess "primal tendences" pointing to that as such is not enough of an argument to be persuasive.

"May be necessary but aren't sufficient." - you are seemingly the man who has forgotten several words.

Next sentence: obviously.

[Interbane]

DH: 'understanding that to do otherwise, to offend this value would mean death"

Emotions such as empathy are the largest hurdle to evaluating situations with a critical eye. Understanding the role of empathy in morality isn't moral prejudice, whatever that means.

DH: "...assigning regency to reason is still an act of submission: a falling at the feet of something/someone begging for mercy and protection"

Being unreasonable is always an option.

DH: "...the filter that separates good from evil..."

Any why would we want them separated? Do good and evil really exist? The very dichotomy of what is good and evil is a prejudice of the relationship between uncaring nature and subjective, selfish homo sapiens.

Grim: "There is moral and then there is behavior."

And then there are certain behaviors which we consider moral.

Grim: "If you think that it does you are simply confused about the relationship between the physical and the abstract within the context of the present."

Perhaps it is you who is confused about what I mean. You say DNA has nothing directly to do with morality, and that may be correct. However, our genes most certainly have something to do with morality, although it is most likely not a direct correlation since any emergent behavior resulting from changes in brain structure are indirect. What won't change are the things we deem moral. What would change is the guilt and empathy and other chemical feedback mechanisms that influence behavior. Do you deny that there are most likely genes that control the chemicals responsible for guilt and empathy?

Grim: ""May be necessary but aren't sufficient." - you are seemingly the man who has forgotten several words."

Grim, sometimes I think you honestly don't understand what I mean. I've asked this many times in the past, rephrase what you think I mean with the above sentence. There really is nothing wrong with it.

Grim: "If genetics influenced our morality then we could expect differing morality based on race due to intraspecies-interracial genetic variation."

Right, just like we can expect people of different races running around with their heads attached to their asses instead of their necks since there is genetic variation.

[Robert Tulip]

Morality is genetic in large part. De Waal proves this with his trolley example, where people who reject a calculative decision in favour of an emotional response use the reptilian part of their brain to do so, while those who calculate the consequences use the cerebellum, the newly evolved higher rational human unique faculty.