origins of morality

To most theists, Christians in particular, the notion that humanity could exist under the aegis of a moral code that did not originate in their god is utterly inconceivable. Without a code of behavior defined by their god, by what means could we possess a moral standard; how could concepts of good or evil possible be known to any of us in a universe that is void a higher power? Of course, this attitude exists under two very false assumptions: A) That a code of morality requires an objective predefined source; and B) A god can be trusted to develop a code of behavior that has our (not his) interests at heart. Now, in case A, they have a point...not necessarily a good point, but a point none-the-less...where does morality come from if not a god? We'll in a sense, our morality does have an objectiveness to it; that being the human condition...we're all human, we all share a a large number of things in common and a basic realization that in order to achieve even our most minimal desires we have play by the rules that will get us there. Now, if we could achieve our goals by killing, robbing and raping everyone we come across, then perhaps that's how we'll behave; but of course a species that incessantly preys upon itself can only go so far in a Darwinian sense. In truth, there is within the majority of the members of our species an intrinsic abhorrence of chaos, wanton violence and what we would call anti-social behavior in general. The Christians assert that this innate avoidance of disorder and selfishness could only come from god; but they make this claim despite the obvious fact that this innate “mortality” can and does come about via evolutionary mechanisms. Again, a species that preys upon itself has a greatly reduced chance to survive as a whole and a species that can act collaboratively and act in unison to meet it's goals and overcome its challenges; a species that can do this increases it's odds of surviving exponentially. This is achieved to a large extent via our emotions, which are nothing more than bio-chemical reactions to certain stimuli. Love, pride, jealousy, remorse, fear even altruism and empathy combined with our natural maternal and paternal instincts are again nothing but bio-chemical responses to stimuli which at one time or the other had and still have an effect upon our our survivability as individuals and as a species. This is a biological fact, our emotional urges are physical rather than spiritual in nature; now, maybe a god gave us these urges (along with virtually every other mammal on the planet), but the existence of a god is not necessary to explain why we have them; however what is easy to see is just how maternal and paternal instincts as well as our emotions can be and are the foundations upon which our morality is based. Maternal and paternal instincts can lead one to have what would otherwise be an irrational attachment and concern for another members of one's species (specifically one's child). Fear of death and injury can lead one to form partnerships with others who share their circumstance and characteristics;with the understanding that existing in unison with one's clan or tribe can greatly increase both their and their child's chances of survival. Individual acts of altruism and heroism can lead to the strengthening of the species as a whole in manners which should be obvious to us all. Guilt can make us hesitant to do harm to fellow members of our species even when we would benefit as an individual but the species would suffer as a whole. I could go on. These are all, known bio-chemical realities and while one may insist upon attributing their existence to a god; god is a none-the-less unnecessary inclusion as their existence can be explained without a single mention of a first cause (i.e. a god). Now, precisely how these emotions actually developed is and will remain a mystery as there is no means by which the circumstance behind their origin can be recreated; however science can tell us just how they could have developed. Each of these bio-chemical reactions drove our forbearers to exist in unison in a world where death and dismemberment was a day to day reality; aided by our intellect humanity slowly evolved a code of what is considered acceptable behavior...a code which appears to have at it's heart the survival of our particular individual sociological groups (from family to village to nation to species). In truth, our behavior is probably effected as much by our intellect as our emotions. Virtually every conscious creature on the planet shares with us to varying degrees the same emotions that we feel (even altruism studies have shown); however none of these other species can be said to have as elaborate sense of morality as does ours. Most of the other inhabitants of the planet seem to base their actions largely upon instinctive responses to stimuli (although it's wholly inaccurate to think that cognition plays no role in their behavior); whereas, our behavior seems to be effected as much by our intellect as any other factor...why is this? Even as emotional responses played a key role in our survival as a species (particularly early on); they are at the same time limiting when they control us. One of the factors that can be said to separate humans from the animals is our ability to overcome our emotions. For good or bad we can elevate ourselves above the base emotions that we share with nearly each of our fellow mammal brothers and sisters. It's the ability to, in a sense, define our response to a situation rather than to allow the situation to define us. It is true that among multi-celled organisms on this planet, humanity has achieved supremacy. This supremacy is the direct result of the intellectual capabilities that our brain provides us, which is in turn the direct result of eons of evolution. The more complicated and capable the brain of a species is, the more complicated and extravagant it's desires become. Lower species seek only to consume, reproduce and survive, that's all they know and that's all the care about. The more complicated the brain, the more complicated the desires. A dog will seek to consume and reproduce, but will also seek to develop emotional bonds with others; sometimes they are very deep bonds. Dogs will also seek to be entertained. Humans whose brains are far more developed than a dog's will also seek these things, but will also have other intellectual pursuits when given the chance. Humans will attempt to answer questions that a dog could never even conceive of and to seek knowledge that a dog would have no interest in. Maslow does an excellent job of describing what drives the average human (individual and society) and under what circumstances a human will elevate what he perceives he has need of. Morality is the behavior that we perceive can place humanity in a position where it can pursue those needs, whether real or perceived. To one extent, whether morality affects our survivability as a species or not is somewhat irrelevant, but rather it's a consequence of our development as a species. Morality is the consensus as to what will and will not make our existence here on earth as close to pleasant as possible. We know that we don't like to be killed, so we make rules against it; we know that we don't like to be tortured so we make rules against it; we know that we don't like to be enslaved so we make rules against it. Selfishly we know that while the rules prohibit us from acting upon our every whim (if said whims involve doing harm to others) they also protect us from being the target of the whims of others; however, sometimes we selfishly protect only whose who share our characteristics (e.g. race, religion, gender, economic status, nationality) and sometimes we make the enlightened decision to protect everyone equally. Sadly, sometimes we have no say in the matter as our code of morality can be hijacked by dictatorships, religious beliefs and occasionally a constitution based law systems. Of course, some people may not care about protecting others but will at the same time understand that living within the bounds of the moral consensus is their best chance of living a happy and fulfilling life as the punishment associated with refusing will often exceed the reward. Intellect or cognition is essentially the ability to recognize the relationship between cause an effect, and while sociopaths may lack the ability to care about the impact their actions have upon others they none-the-less understand that indiscriminate acts of violence will eventually have consequence that even a sociopath would likely prefer to avoid. As a consequence a sociopath will likely curb his behavior to reflect, at least publicly, his compliance with the social mores of his particular culture. Now, some people will correctly point out that a secular based moral consensus is not consistent with anything other than the current perceptions and attitudes of society, but at the same time somethings will never change. Humans do not like being killed, tortured, disrespected, robbed...etc.; and to that extent our morality will possess a certain degree of consistency as it will likely reflect these truths. Now in a perfect world we would all be able to live our lives according to how we each see fit, and if the theist's notion that we all have an innate knowledge of right and wrong given to us by a god were true this might be a possibility. Clearly this is not the case as the majority of our urges do not fit the traditional Christian notion of righteousness. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins, they each stems from our innate tendency to offend the god of Abraham; our internal tendency to fall short of what their god demands of us. There is literally zero evidence that we have a natural knowledge of how the god of Christianity wishes us to behave or that this knowledge somehow exists in our subconscious. As is usually the case with theists, in the absence of a precises explanation as to how something could exist (in this case morality) the assumption is always that god did it. Humans have always had a need to explain the inexplicable, and in the absence of a coherent alternative explanation it can be understood why god has always been the default. From “where do babies come from” to “what is lightening” humans have never been content to admit that they just didn't know the answer. In the past god has been the answer to every question, up until the point that a plausible alternative explanation has come to light. Now, as science continues to find an explanation for everything, god is found to be no longer needed to explain anything; and in a sense, the second Darwin explained the origins of species, god died. Well, at the very least, with Darwin god's existence became superfluous.Anyway, back to morality. As well all know, frequently while in the pursuit of one's desires an individuals actions (whether intentional or not) may come to interfere with another's ability to live their life in peace. A moral consensus must be developed in such situations to determine who's “rights” would take precedence. Also, there are times when a consensus must be developed when it becomes clear (or at least perceived) that a behavior which once seemed acceptable turns out to have consequences that were not originally considered. For example, violent movies. Originally, many people thought that what goes on in the privacy of one's home is nobody else's business; but what if it turns out that allowing children to watch violent movies makes them more prone towards violence when they grow up? In such a situation, a consensus could develop that such media should be strictly limited to adults or banned all together. The same thing could also happen even if in reality these forms of media had no real effect on a person's disposition towards violence at all. Sometimes a moral consensus is based on nothing more than perception.Ultimately, there are countless things that effect a communities morality; primary among these factors is where the community as a whole lies within Maslow's hierarchy. Essentially the more evolved a species' intellect is, the greater the desire of each member of the species will be to exist in an orderly and peaceful environment...and the greater it's intellect the more likely it is to figure out how to accomplish this. Morality which is the means towards that end is naught but our understanding of how we wish to live and how best to achieve that goal. Morality has nothing to do with intrinsic goods and evils. Our intellect is the result of our evolution and our morality is the result of our intellect in combination with the previously mentioned autonomous bio-chemical reactions (Freud does an excellent job of explaining this relationship in his concept of the personality (Id, ego and super-ego) which he himself based upon the Platonic concept of the soul (intellect, spirit and appetite)). If somewhere in this universe there is a species with a greater intellect than our own (not too hard to imagine) then it may have developed a better understanding of how to exist in peace and harmony; and thus one could argue that they were morally superior to ourselves. Whether that species exists or not...who knows. Of course we don't consciously make decisions based on whether or not it fits the Darwinian definition of survivability. In fact, for good or bad, I believe that the evolution of our intellect has allowed our species to move to the point where each of our actions are no longer carefully balanced instinctive and emotional responses. I differ from the majority of evolutionist in that I do not assume that every aspect of our morality is a direct result of Darwinian causality. I believe that while evolution has lead us to our current level of intellectual development; we now make decisions that go beyond the mere survival of our species. We are often inspired to act in manners that are not directed solely by our urges to gather food and reproduce. For good or bad, human intellect has risen above the meager concerns of our pre-human ancestors; in a sense we motivate ourselves. While our actions are none-the-less the result of strict determinism, the factors that influence our actions are so elaborate and incalculable and so specific to each individual that we do in fact have de facto free will. We make decisions based upon our flawed understanding of how they will benefit us and our loved ones. However, merely because our behavior seems to be influenced at times by factors no longer directly connected to evolutionary mechanics it does not mean that that those mechanics are no longer present. Evolution is always a work in progress, and never could it be said that a species has completed it's evolution. It is just a series of beneficial accidents that currently can be neither predicted nor controlled. Furthermore, evolution is not a process that leads to our “perfection” as a species; evolution is a process that is driven by our ability to sexual propagate and to the extent that our intellect enhances this likelihood we can expect our intellect to continue to evolve. Should our intellect eventually become a detriment to this process (as in some regards it appears to be) our intellect will then begin to recede and our sense of sense of morality would be effected as a result.Our present level of intellect gives us the ability to strive towards the reality we perceive as best suiting our needs, but it is not necessarily sufficient to accomplish this reality. Our efforts are still limited by many things, not the least of which are the limits of our intellect. Superstitions (religion, faith) and emotions (hatred, racism, love, fear) still control many of our decisions and cloud our perceptions of reality. Environment (both political and physical), and access to resources (food,water, fuel) also play a significant roles in our abilities to exist as we would choose. What we value is not intrinsic but rather subjective and based upon our needs both real and perceived. Obviously a man who is locked in a cell may be less concerned about his right to vote than his own physical freedom. Once freed that same man may willing re-enter that same cell if it means he'll have access to food and water if otherwise he did not. Our values are as much based upon our circumstances in this world as any other factor. But again since we all have things in common, we should expect to all have a certain number of similar values. Again, most of us a fear of death, no sane person like pain, etc. Those realities are going to influence the moral consensus of all societies to one extent or the other.