Is morality a biological function?

Posts 1–10 of 10 · Page 1 of 1

The mystery of our inherent morality seems to be a deep one. It's often argued by creationists that religion is the only logical cause for moral values, which would be true if it wasn't for nations that have no religious justification of morality and still have a understanding that people want to be good. This is not so much on a rational level but rather on a emotional one.

Morality as an evolutionary by-product seems perfectly logical and fits easily in the evolutionary model. Research has provided perfectly fine evidence of morality being nothing but a biological function yet we seem to search for a different, still undiscovered, source for morality. Why?

Morality is based on a humans brain chemistry with decisions in their everyday living environment. If one is brought up where killing others is an everyday norm, they will have no difficulties in deciding whether or not to kill another person, as their brain does not register this as something that is "wrong", so to speak. Morality is based off ones upbringing in circumstantial environments based on that environments social culture. When we register something as being "wrong", our brains light up with activity, adrenaline is released, our senses are heightened, and we go back to the primal instinct of "fight or flight", even if the fight is not physical and only verbal in context. Depending on said situation, morality is only determined by what our brains have been trained to perceive as "proper morals", and nothing more or less than such. It's not based on religion, nor is it evolution. According to biochemistry, it's based on what we are taught in comparison to the brains ability to decipher such instances as being "right" or "wrong" in said social culture.

You say according to biochemistry morals are derived from social environments, knowledge and the interaction between those. Which completely opposes my original standpoint. I suppose providing evidence for my standpoint is redundant, as I claim morals are nothing but biological functions, the most basic they could possibly be. You say they are too, but these chemical functions only exist because they are created through social environments and so forth (which contradicts biology), can you provided any evidence for this?

Originally Posted by C4Vendetta.

You say according to biochemistry morals are derived from social environments, knowledge and the interaction between those. Which completely opposes my original standpoint. I suppose providing evidence for my standpoint is redundant, as I claim morals are nothing but biological functions, the most basic they could possibly be. You say they are too, but these chemical functions only exist because they are created through social environments and so forth (which contradicts biology), can you provided any evidence for this?

Search up any medical article on the effects brain research and the differences in brain chemistry between those who help others vs those who do not.

Also read up on Prozac: Brain-Toxic Lifestyles, Natural Antidotes & New Generation Anti-Depressants. And before you say "well how does research into a medical substance correlate to this debate" you will realize it directly correlates with the subject at hand as it explains in great detail the Biochemical process that is enacted in the brain as ones emotional conscious is affected by every day social upbringings in a said circumstantial environment, along with the effects on the chemistry based in the brain for such. I had to read it for my advanced biometric chemical synthesis lecture.

Originally Posted by Lehsyrus

Search up any medical article on the effects brain research and the differences in brain chemistry between those who help others vs those who do not.

Also read up on Prozac: Brain-Toxic Lifestyles, Natural Antidotes & New Generation Anti-Depressants. And before you say "well how does research into a medical substance correlate to this debate" you will realize it directly correlates with the subject at hand as it explains in great detail the Biochemical process that is enacted in the brain as ones emotional conscious is affected by every day social upbringings in a said circumstantial environment, along with the effects on the chemistry based in the brain for such. I had to read it for my advanced biometric chemical synthesis lecture.

You're right. Although biology and evolution provide a sound explanation as to why we would have morals, it doesn't provide enough reason for particular moral values. Seeing how certain moral values seem to be universal (even in secluded nations whom you'd expect to have rather controversial morals due to their circumstances) and yet higher educated people show consistently different moral values compared to less educated people it seems only reasonable that society has to influence, and even adjust and create, morals.

I can't read the Prozac articles right now, but I'll look into it eventually.

Originally Posted by C4Vendetta.

You're right. Although biology and evolution provide a sound explanation as to why we would have morals, it doesn't provide enough reason for particular moral values. Seeing how certain moral values seem to be universal (even in secluded nations whom you'd expect to have rather controversial morals due to their circumstances) and yet higher educated people show consistently different moral values compared to less educated people it seems only reasonable that society has to influence, and even adjust and create, morals.

I can't read the Prozac articles right now, but I'll look into it eventually.

It's a great read, and really helped me understand the correlation between our everyday humanistic functions versus what actually happens in our brains. The subconscious by itself is just, well, astounding to divulge into. It has the power of a multiplex of data, and is ever expanding. No knowledge is too much. Evolution versus religious ideals does make sense in the input, however. When it comes to ones religion, there tends to be more brain activity when one is watching something their religion considers "immoral", than for someone who doesn't believe at all. Even though it is a biological process it can still be attributed to evolution as well. As we evolve(in my opinion I prefer the term adaptation), we expand our current knowledge on certain articles as a species in a whole, such as the technological boom with computers. It's a normality for every household to have a computer, and kids at the age of three are now outsmarting people in the ages of fifty and sixty with such devices. This is the same concept for ones upbringing in religious matters as well, as we grow, religions tend to adapt to ever changing communities and the social norm (even if the Islamic people say theirs doesn't change, it's inevitable, all religions change unless they are completely separated from the rest of the growing world) causing the idea of "morality" to ever expand on these concepts. So in essence you are somewhat correct yourself, but in the entire subject as a whole it is all inter-connected.

Life nowadays is one giant woven fabric, and if we remove a single strand the entire fabric will fall apart and need to be re-woven. Such as when the Persians fell from the empiric rule they once held over most of the world, many communities and socially advanced communities now had the ability to improve the techniques the Persian emperor used on the empire as an example for their own bodies of government, and such rules also applied to technology, pushing us forth. The entire fabric was demolished, but rewoven even more tightly and securely than before. Eventually we will have this fabric down to consisting of only a few strands, but the human element will never allow it to fall to one strand on its own.

Originally Posted by C4Vendetta.

I don't know about "evolutionary", it seems you are somehow arguing evolution vs. religion in this. But evolution doesn't really explain morality, and religion explains it, but they are wrong.

Morality is psychological, so its both bio and not at the same time.

But morality is in the most simplest terms "judging a situation". Its based off of previous knowledge and experience.

The mystery ..is why you think we have an inherent morality !

Depends on culture and the times you live in, would for instance you class the Myans as Immoral ?

Originally Posted by crybaby1965

The mystery ..is why you think we have an inherent morality !

Depends on culture and the times you live in, would for instance you class the Myans as Immoral ?

That was the most horrendous contribution to a debate I have seen yet. Fix your grammar and post something more worthwhile than an opinionated example.