The evolution of morality
Radiolab is another National Public Radio program which often has a program which causes me to question what I think I know. A recent program dealt with questions about the concept of morality – a subject which has occupied the mind of philosophers and theologians for as long as we humans have been capable of critical thinking. Those disciplines can now join those of scientists who can record changes in the brain as individuals make different “moral” choices. Some of the questions being asked include:
· What is morality?
· Is empathy a primary example or indicator of morality?
· Are sharing and cooperation evolutionary behavior?
· Are sharing and cooperation the same as empathy?
· Is the sharing which has been observed and studied among chimpanzees an example of the evolution of empathy?
· Do all members of a species, i. e. chimps, humans, or others, evolve at the same rate?
· If all members of a species do not evolve at the same rate in terms of empathy, how do we justify punishment for the lack of empathy?
The Radiolab program on morality explores studies with children, adults and other animals such as chimps. As we know, scientists may be able to study some behavior or concepts which seems “obvious” to some of us and ascertain if what we think we are observing holds true when studied more extensively and objectively.
Any of us, for example, who have seriously spent time with and observed children have probably observed that from birth children seem to have a distinctive behavioral pattern which could not have been learned. Some children are “naturally” kinder, happier, and seem to easily learn sharing behavior. Others are unhappy, less kind or easy to be with and seem to have a terrible time learning sharing behavior. Some of these in the latter group may be “late bloomers” in terms of empathy while others seem to never understand or adopt an empathetic life dance. A more extensive and rigorous scientific study of antidotal truths about these may help determine whether this is indeed the case and whether a difference in brain activity in these children can be detected.
First, perhaps we need to define morality. What does it mean to be moral or immoral? Is this this same thing as being ethical or unethical?
Wikipedia suggests that:
“Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymouswith "goodness" or "rightness." “
Oxforddictionaries.com defines morality as:
· Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good or bad behavior.
· A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
· The extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Oxforddictionary.com defines ethical as:
· Relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
· Morally good or correct
· Avoiding activities or organization that do harm to people or the environment.
It seems that often the words ethical and moral can and often are used interchangeably. I tend to use the term ethical when referring to behavior related to an agreed upon behavioral set such as those adopted by many professional associations. Thus, health care professionals, teachers, and other professionals have detailed ethical rules or codes to which all members must agree if they are to retain the license to practice their profession. Certainly a behavior may be considered in both moral and ethical terms. We may find a behavior immoral but technically ethical. On the other hand, we may determine a behavior is unethical but technically moral. When I think of moral, I think of the core values by which I personally judge all of my behaviors.
Any behavior which violates my core values is immoral for me but may not be for another person. For example, someone who is married to someone else and who has committed to a monogamous relationship may ask me on a romantic or sexual date. My moral values dictate that it is wrong to engage in behavior which is going to be hurtful to another person. The agreement these two people (the person who asked me and their partner) is to only have sex with each other if I had a relationship with the person who asked me I would be part of creating a situation which could be very emotionally hurtful to another person. My experience has been that if my partner keeps a secret from me I always sense that something is off and when they deny it, I feel a disconnect between what my gut is telling me and that my partner is telling me. So, in this instance having a romantic relationship with this person would be immoral. Since neither of these people are my clients I would not be breaking a professional ethics rule.
The state licensing board which grants my professional license has gotten very fearful of potential violations of privacy if one uses email, texting or face time/skype to do therapy. They have written ethics rules forbidding the use of these tools to service clients. Many allied professionals have decided that the need to expand access to health care overrides concerns about privacy and, thus, encourage the use of these tools. I think it is immoral to not use these tools if someone needs help and cannot get to my office, but the ethics board of my professional organization would determine that it is unethical and could censure me.
It seems to me that any behavior which allows me to be present to myself and others in an empathic way is moral and creates a more loving and just community. To be empathic acknowledges that:
· My behavior affects others in a positive or negative manner.
· My needs are never more important than the needs of others.
· If I have a gift or certain material advantages it is not because I am more special, better or more deserving than others. I think in terms of blessings.
I suspect that future scientific studies will reveal the following about the ability to be empathic:
· That it is dependent on some function of the brain
· Some people may be born with a brain which is almost immediately capable of some level of empathy.
· Some people have a brain which is potentially able to be empathic.
· If the potential for empathy is present in a brain then the person may be able to benefit from role models and teaching.
· The brain of some people may take a long time to develop that potential to be empathic.
· Some people may never be able to develop the capacity to be empathic. We now call those people developmentally delayed/disabled, or sociopathic.
· Many factors including trauma, diet, environment (enriched or impoverished), exercise or lack thereof, emotional support, and exposure to certain chemicals or other substances in the environment affect the development of the brain and, thus, the ability to be empathic.
It does not make sense to punish someone who is, for whatever reasons, unable to be empathic. It the reason that they their brain is unable to be empathic is past emotional, physical or nutritional trauma then that person may benefit from being in a loving treatment facility. There may be times when it is necessary for the protection of others to put them in a secure facility until they are able to experience and practice empathy. This is not a recommendation for jail or any other facility whose main purpose is to use negative reinforcement, punishment or neglect.
It is an exciting time in which we live. We are able to scientifically study many conditions and work towards developing tools or methods for studying other conditions of we humans. This allows us the potential to quit punishing each for behavior over which has no control.
I am fully aware that I am herein suggesting that the more we explore these issues the more we may have to explore a more complex understanding of free will and choice. I find this an exciting challenge.
Written June 12, 2016
Radiolab is another National Public Radio program which often has a program which causes me to question what I think I know. A recent program dealt with questions about the concept of morality – a subject which has occupied the mind of philosophers and theologians for as long as we humans have been capable of critical thinking. Those disciplines can now join those of scientists who can record changes in the brain as individuals make different “moral” choices. Some of the questions being asked include:
· What is morality?
· Is empathy a primary example or indicator of morality?
· Are sharing and cooperation evolutionary behavior?
· Are sharing and cooperation the same as empathy?
· Is the sharing which has been observed and studied among chimpanzees an example of the evolution of empathy?
· Do all members of a species, i. e. chimps, humans, or others, evolve at the same rate?
· If all members of a species do not evolve at the same rate in terms of empathy, how do we justify punishment for the lack of empathy?
The Radiolab program on morality explores studies with children, adults and other animals such as chimps. As we know, scientists may be able to study some behavior or concepts which seems “obvious” to some of us and ascertain if what we think we are observing holds true when studied more extensively and objectively.
Any of us, for example, who have seriously spent time with and observed children have probably observed that from birth children seem to have a distinctive behavioral pattern which could not have been learned. Some children are “naturally” kinder, happier, and seem to easily learn sharing behavior. Others are unhappy, less kind or easy to be with and seem to have a terrible time learning sharing behavior. Some of these in the latter group may be “late bloomers” in terms of empathy while others seem to never understand or adopt an empathetic life dance. A more extensive and rigorous scientific study of antidotal truths about these may help determine whether this is indeed the case and whether a difference in brain activity in these children can be detected.
First, perhaps we need to define morality. What does it mean to be moral or immoral? Is this this same thing as being ethical or unethical?
Wikipedia suggests that:
“Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymouswith "goodness" or "rightness." “
Oxforddictionaries.com defines morality as:
· Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good or bad behavior.
· A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
· The extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Oxforddictionary.com defines ethical as:
· Relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.
· Morally good or correct
· Avoiding activities or organization that do harm to people or the environment.
It seems that often the words ethical and moral can and often are used interchangeably. I tend to use the term ethical when referring to behavior related to an agreed upon behavioral set such as those adopted by many professional associations. Thus, health care professionals, teachers, and other professionals have detailed ethical rules or codes to which all members must agree if they are to retain the license to practice their profession. Certainly a behavior may be considered in both moral and ethical terms. We may find a behavior immoral but technically ethical. On the other hand, we may determine a behavior is unethical but technically moral. When I think of moral, I think of the core values by which I personally judge all of my behaviors.
Any behavior which violates my core values is immoral for me but may not be for another person. For example, someone who is married to someone else and who has committed to a monogamous relationship may ask me on a romantic or sexual date. My moral values dictate that it is wrong to engage in behavior which is going to be hurtful to another person. The agreement these two people (the person who asked me and their partner) is to only have sex with each other if I had a relationship with the person who asked me I would be part of creating a situation which could be very emotionally hurtful to another person. My experience has been that if my partner keeps a secret from me I always sense that something is off and when they deny it, I feel a disconnect between what my gut is telling me and that my partner is telling me. So, in this instance having a romantic relationship with this person would be immoral. Since neither of these people are my clients I would not be breaking a professional ethics rule.
The state licensing board which grants my professional license has gotten very fearful of potential violations of privacy if one uses email, texting or face time/skype to do therapy. They have written ethics rules forbidding the use of these tools to service clients. Many allied professionals have decided that the need to expand access to health care overrides concerns about privacy and, thus, encourage the use of these tools. I think it is immoral to not use these tools if someone needs help and cannot get to my office, but the ethics board of my professional organization would determine that it is unethical and could censure me.
It seems to me that any behavior which allows me to be present to myself and others in an empathic way is moral and creates a more loving and just community. To be empathic acknowledges that:
· My behavior affects others in a positive or negative manner.
· My needs are never more important than the needs of others.
· If I have a gift or certain material advantages it is not because I am more special, better or more deserving than others. I think in terms of blessings.
I suspect that future scientific studies will reveal the following about the ability to be empathic:
· That it is dependent on some function of the brain
· Some people may be born with a brain which is almost immediately capable of some level of empathy.
· Some people have a brain which is potentially able to be empathic.
· If the potential for empathy is present in a brain then the person may be able to benefit from role models and teaching.
· The brain of some people may take a long time to develop that potential to be empathic.
· Some people may never be able to develop the capacity to be empathic. We now call those people developmentally delayed/disabled, or sociopathic.
· Many factors including trauma, diet, environment (enriched or impoverished), exercise or lack thereof, emotional support, and exposure to certain chemicals or other substances in the environment affect the development of the brain and, thus, the ability to be empathic.
It does not make sense to punish someone who is, for whatever reasons, unable to be empathic. It the reason that they their brain is unable to be empathic is past emotional, physical or nutritional trauma then that person may benefit from being in a loving treatment facility. There may be times when it is necessary for the protection of others to put them in a secure facility until they are able to experience and practice empathy. This is not a recommendation for jail or any other facility whose main purpose is to use negative reinforcement, punishment or neglect.
It is an exciting time in which we live. We are able to scientifically study many conditions and work towards developing tools or methods for studying other conditions of we humans. This allows us the potential to quit punishing each for behavior over which has no control.
I am fully aware that I am herein suggesting that the more we explore these issues the more we may have to explore a more complex understanding of free will and choice. I find this an exciting challenge.
Written June 12, 2016
RSS Feed