Morals and Ethics
Where do morals and ethics come from and is there a difference between them?
If you ask a religious person they will say that morals come from religious books and represent a kind of code of conduct handed to us by God. They use the Bible or the Quran or the Upanishads or the Torah or whatever their religion prescribes as their moral compass. Whatever is written in the Holy Book is God's message to humans and should be followed without question as a matter of faith. This can be corrupted and has often been used to justify Crusades or Jihad. Killing someone who belonged to a different faith became 'moral'.
Religious people are deeply distrustful of atheists. They think that since we do not accept the 'word of God' as given in the 'Holy Book', we must be immoral people. They seem to think that without religion (fear of God) there is nothing to prevent humans from killing, raping, stealing and the various other crimes that their 'Holy Book' proscribes. However, let us look at a more common-sense approach to 'morals' and 'ethics' and try and see if the two words are used differently.
A lot can be understood using evolutionary mechanisms (another thing religious people hate is Darwin and his explanation of evolution). Much of what is understood about evolution is common sense and can be understood by anyone. Darwin pointed out that traits which provide a survival advantage are passed on to the next generation of organisms and over a long period of time, species change, compete and become better adapted to their role in the ecology. We consider a few examples before we come to humans.
Consider a simplified system. We have vegetation, herbivores which feed on the vegetation and carnivores which feed on the herbivores. If there is no check on the population of the herbivores, then the population grows too large and they eat all the vegetation beyond its capacity to renew itself and then the herbivores also starve to death. The system is unstable. The carnivores provide the balance. The carnivores, say lions, have ways of hunting the herbivores, say zebras. They sneak up to the zebras stealthily, depending on camouflage to avoid being spotted and spring upon the zebras suddenly, bringing down the slowest of the prey. Lions who blend in better with their surroundings are more successful in the hunt, are healthier and more likely to have offspring that survive. Stronger lions also have a survival advantage but beyond a point this is offset by requiring more food to maintain muscle mass. A dynamic balance is struck. Similarly, zebras which can run faster survive the depredations of the lions and leave more offspring which also inherit the physical characteristics which allow them to run faster. However, too much speed and too much caution means they are unable to graze enough and a balance is struck there as well.
Humans evolved by developing more intelligence. Unlike many humans, I don't think there is a qualitative difference between human intelligence and that of many animals. However, the combination of intelligence and hands that could perform delicate manipulations allowed humans to develop weapons, aggregate into social groups which could cooperate and eventually become a successful species and spread all over the planet. Evolution of physical characteristics takes hundreds of generations in a competitive environment. As humans have evolved socially, the physical evolution has become less relevant. We have recognised the need to cooperate with each other and work, at least some of the time, for the common good rather than in a purely selfish manner. Cooperation began when some humans became hunters and shared their kills with others who performed different roles like gathering vegetable foods, guarding the home, bringing up children etc. Groups of humans which cooperated better grew stronger and left more descendants.
As these groups of cooperating humans became larger, they developed mechanisms for discouraging those who did not cooperate. Competition for mates was harmful where it led to humans killing each other or even hurting each other enough to significantly diminish their contribution to the useful activities of the group. Patterns of leadership developed, initially based on strength and later on other qualities, including intelligence and mechanisms to punish the 'criminals' developed. Initially physical punishment and in the modern day, incarceration.
At this point the 'tribes' were still competing with each other. Those which cooperated better were more successful. A tribe which was too warlike would not have enough members to do useful work and would become dependent on enslaving other tribes and would eventually stagnate and be replaced by larger and more cooperative social structures.
At this point, the structure of human society is sufficient to give us ethics and codes of conduct. 'Thou shalt not kill' is already an obvious rule. Other rules also develop logically. With specialisation of roles, the concept of property ownership arises. 'I will give you some of the meat I hunt if you will give me some of the vegetables you found or if you will make arrowheads for me.' With the concept of property, 'thou shalt not steal' also appears. From the point of view of child rearing, a relatively monogamous relationship makes sense since it is easier to rear children if the parents are focused on looking after them than if they are courting other partners. Human children take many years to become independent. Perhaps the mid-life crisis represents Darwin losing interest in monogamy once the offspring are weaned.The maternal or paternal feeling is also driven by evolutionary mechanisms. The biological children represent the continuation of the parent's genes. Parents who are not good at looking after children will lose them and not pass on their genes and be thus eliminated from the population.
So obviously, the important rules on which the structure of society is based develop on their own with no need for religion. So how did religion develop? My impression is that when humans became intelligent enough to think about the future and make long term plans, they were also faced with the unpalatable fact of their own mortality. The fact that you and everyone you love are going to die must have been terrifying. The common thread which joins all religions is not the belief in a Creator or some other kind of supernatural God but the denial of death. The concept of a soul which survives the death of the body is a very appealing concept and most humans will believe what they want to believe rather than making a determined attempt to figure out what is true. From life after death to attributing unexplained phenomena (the sun, rain, floods, lightning etc) to supernatural beings was an easy step and the early religions were born.
Is there a difference between 'morals' and 'ethics'? In common usage, the term 'moral' is used to describe something proscribed by a religion. For instance, using contraception or eating the muscles or other tissues of particular species of animals is immoral to many religious groups. However, it is certainly not considered unethical to use a condom or eat a hamburger. 'Ethics' seem to be used to refer to actions that harm someone or undermine the structure of society. For instance, Yudhishtir's lie to Drona that his son Ashwatthama is dead is certainly unethical or Krishna's use of a fake sunset to unsettle the enemy was certainly unethical but were they immoral? Apparently not. God's instruction to Abraham to kill his son was certainly unethical but religions seem to require the justification of the unethical on the grounds that they were moral.
As an atheist, I see no harm in many things that may be considered immoral. However, the 'categorical imperative' of Kant is an easy way of evaluating the ethical basis of an action. In simple terms, when contemplating a course of action, subject it to the test: 'what would happen if everyone did this?'
If you ask a religious person they will say that morals come from religious books and represent a kind of code of conduct handed to us by God. They use the Bible or the Quran or the Upanishads or the Torah or whatever their religion prescribes as their moral compass. Whatever is written in the Holy Book is God's message to humans and should be followed without question as a matter of faith. This can be corrupted and has often been used to justify Crusades or Jihad. Killing someone who belonged to a different faith became 'moral'.
Religious people are deeply distrustful of atheists. They think that since we do not accept the 'word of God' as given in the 'Holy Book', we must be immoral people. They seem to think that without religion (fear of God) there is nothing to prevent humans from killing, raping, stealing and the various other crimes that their 'Holy Book' proscribes. However, let us look at a more common-sense approach to 'morals' and 'ethics' and try and see if the two words are used differently.
A lot can be understood using evolutionary mechanisms (another thing religious people hate is Darwin and his explanation of evolution). Much of what is understood about evolution is common sense and can be understood by anyone. Darwin pointed out that traits which provide a survival advantage are passed on to the next generation of organisms and over a long period of time, species change, compete and become better adapted to their role in the ecology. We consider a few examples before we come to humans.
Consider a simplified system. We have vegetation, herbivores which feed on the vegetation and carnivores which feed on the herbivores. If there is no check on the population of the herbivores, then the population grows too large and they eat all the vegetation beyond its capacity to renew itself and then the herbivores also starve to death. The system is unstable. The carnivores provide the balance. The carnivores, say lions, have ways of hunting the herbivores, say zebras. They sneak up to the zebras stealthily, depending on camouflage to avoid being spotted and spring upon the zebras suddenly, bringing down the slowest of the prey. Lions who blend in better with their surroundings are more successful in the hunt, are healthier and more likely to have offspring that survive. Stronger lions also have a survival advantage but beyond a point this is offset by requiring more food to maintain muscle mass. A dynamic balance is struck. Similarly, zebras which can run faster survive the depredations of the lions and leave more offspring which also inherit the physical characteristics which allow them to run faster. However, too much speed and too much caution means they are unable to graze enough and a balance is struck there as well.
Humans evolved by developing more intelligence. Unlike many humans, I don't think there is a qualitative difference between human intelligence and that of many animals. However, the combination of intelligence and hands that could perform delicate manipulations allowed humans to develop weapons, aggregate into social groups which could cooperate and eventually become a successful species and spread all over the planet. Evolution of physical characteristics takes hundreds of generations in a competitive environment. As humans have evolved socially, the physical evolution has become less relevant. We have recognised the need to cooperate with each other and work, at least some of the time, for the common good rather than in a purely selfish manner. Cooperation began when some humans became hunters and shared their kills with others who performed different roles like gathering vegetable foods, guarding the home, bringing up children etc. Groups of humans which cooperated better grew stronger and left more descendants.
As these groups of cooperating humans became larger, they developed mechanisms for discouraging those who did not cooperate. Competition for mates was harmful where it led to humans killing each other or even hurting each other enough to significantly diminish their contribution to the useful activities of the group. Patterns of leadership developed, initially based on strength and later on other qualities, including intelligence and mechanisms to punish the 'criminals' developed. Initially physical punishment and in the modern day, incarceration.
At this point the 'tribes' were still competing with each other. Those which cooperated better were more successful. A tribe which was too warlike would not have enough members to do useful work and would become dependent on enslaving other tribes and would eventually stagnate and be replaced by larger and more cooperative social structures.
At this point, the structure of human society is sufficient to give us ethics and codes of conduct. 'Thou shalt not kill' is already an obvious rule. Other rules also develop logically. With specialisation of roles, the concept of property ownership arises. 'I will give you some of the meat I hunt if you will give me some of the vegetables you found or if you will make arrowheads for me.' With the concept of property, 'thou shalt not steal' also appears. From the point of view of child rearing, a relatively monogamous relationship makes sense since it is easier to rear children if the parents are focused on looking after them than if they are courting other partners. Human children take many years to become independent. Perhaps the mid-life crisis represents Darwin losing interest in monogamy once the offspring are weaned.The maternal or paternal feeling is also driven by evolutionary mechanisms. The biological children represent the continuation of the parent's genes. Parents who are not good at looking after children will lose them and not pass on their genes and be thus eliminated from the population.
So obviously, the important rules on which the structure of society is based develop on their own with no need for religion. So how did religion develop? My impression is that when humans became intelligent enough to think about the future and make long term plans, they were also faced with the unpalatable fact of their own mortality. The fact that you and everyone you love are going to die must have been terrifying. The common thread which joins all religions is not the belief in a Creator or some other kind of supernatural God but the denial of death. The concept of a soul which survives the death of the body is a very appealing concept and most humans will believe what they want to believe rather than making a determined attempt to figure out what is true. From life after death to attributing unexplained phenomena (the sun, rain, floods, lightning etc) to supernatural beings was an easy step and the early religions were born.
Is there a difference between 'morals' and 'ethics'? In common usage, the term 'moral' is used to describe something proscribed by a religion. For instance, using contraception or eating the muscles or other tissues of particular species of animals is immoral to many religious groups. However, it is certainly not considered unethical to use a condom or eat a hamburger. 'Ethics' seem to be used to refer to actions that harm someone or undermine the structure of society. For instance, Yudhishtir's lie to Drona that his son Ashwatthama is dead is certainly unethical or Krishna's use of a fake sunset to unsettle the enemy was certainly unethical but were they immoral? Apparently not. God's instruction to Abraham to kill his son was certainly unethical but religions seem to require the justification of the unethical on the grounds that they were moral.
As an atheist, I see no harm in many things that may be considered immoral. However, the 'categorical imperative' of Kant is an easy way of evaluating the ethical basis of an action. In simple terms, when contemplating a course of action, subject it to the test: 'what would happen if everyone did this?'
I liked the denouement very much.
ReplyDelete