Today moral opinions are everywhere, but what exactly is morality and does it even exist?
No one knows for absolute sure, but what’s the most logical guess today as to what it is? In this
video I’ll be giving my own personal take on what morality is and where it comes from. If you like
a 101 breakdown into the various philosophical positions of morality and ethics check out the
video in the description. Again, this video is just my own guess as a few commenters were asking.
When answering the question, what is moral or what is morality? We first have to establish if moral
statements like good and bad even exist and where they come from. This is a part of moral philosophy
called metaethics which deals with the foundations and nature of moral values, properties, and words.
So I approach morality from a Cognitivist viewpoint meaning ethical
claims are propositions, statements, assertions that can be either true or false. In other words,
morality and morally good and bad things actually exist in the world; they are ontologically real.
I’ll detail why evidence suggests this is the case,
but first I’ll explain my position a little more.
Now,I don’t think there is any objective good and bad in the world,
like a good or bad rule that applies to everyone no matter what,
a position called moral realism. Think like 10 commandments, or pain equals morally bad.
That makes me a moral subjectivitst, is a type of moral anti-realism, which states moral
statements are made true or false by individuals or groups of individuals like specific cultures.
I’ve heard this also referred to as moral constructivism, that cultures and individuals
determine what morality is. Morals and ethics are made up by us and come from within us,
and societies will treat those morals they’ve constructed as the correct ones.
Now, there’s been some pushback against this view because it does lead to seemingly uncomfortable
conclusions. For example, the Nazis in a way were morally correct in the things they did.
To them, they felt the actions they took to their citizens and others were morally necessary.
Now, we today may think they are morally reprehensible but the truth is, at least
according to this stance, we’re both correct since morality is relative and culturally constructed.
Depending on your normative ethical stance, or system of morality,
you may feel the need to fix other cultures or individuals' moral perspectives.
This is exactly what America, where I live, did at that time to the Germans.
Today, we see this playing out even within cultures. Many individuals
and groups of individuals communicate what they believe is right and wrong
and update and construct new moral systems from the discourse.
So why this metaethical view? Well, simply because that’s what we seem to have the most evidence for,
not because I necessarily like it.
Before you can claim to know what morality is, what good and bad are,
you have to provide evidence for your claim. This is a part of metaethics called moral epistemology.
The best epistemological evidence appears to lead to the claim that morality is real
and it's essentially a biological and social construct.
That means some aspects of human morality are ‘hardwired’ in us due to evolution,
while the society we live in and the people we grow up around determine other parts.
Morally wrong or morally right are combinations of emotion and cognition and, according to emergent
theories of ontology, exist. The phenomenon of feeling and thinking that something is morally
wrong is just as real as the neurons that make up that combination of thought and feeling, and
the neurons are as real as the cells that make up the neurons, and the atoms that make up the cells.
Sure, that phenomenon of something specific feeling morally wrong to me doesn’t exist for
everyone, but it’s real to me as an individual. So I don’t buy into these non-cognitivist or
moral nihilistic philosophies that say morality doesn’t exist at all.
What evidence do we have that it’s real other than individual subjective experience?
Neurological research also points to morality as something biologically innate.
Researchers have done studies using EEG
imaging devices and MRI scanners on subjects as they performed moral tasks and activities.
Findings point to specific parts of the brain lighting up again and again within seconds in many
subjects, suggesting that specific parts of the human brain are involved in moral decision-making.
Also, research has shown that neuromodulators,
or special chemicals in the brain, influence moral decision-making.
For instance, all mammals produce a very old chemical called oxytocin, which increases
generosity and trust. It also reduces fear and encourages bonding in mother-child relationships.
Serotonin, another neuromodulator, enhances the bad feelings we have
when we see a friend get hurt and is a key chemical involved in many social behaviors.
Research into evolutionary biology and psychology provides evidence
as what could be called ‘building blocks’ of morality have been seen in non-human animals.
Researchers Frans de Waal and Barbara King have believe morality to have evolved from
primate sociality. They have studied chimpanzees, our closest relatives
with whom we share common ancestors, and have seen them exhibit some traits that would have
been necessary for the evolution of morality--what some call pre-moral sentiments.
These sentiments include attachment and bonding, sympathy and empathy, cooperation and mutual aid,
direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism,
conflict resolution and peacemaking, and more.
Research into children’s first few months of life indicates they experience of empathy,
judge actions as harmful, and sense right and wrong.
These observations suggest that these feelings are wired into us and gradually develop as we age.
And much more than that, those are just a few examples.
If morality is real, as indicated by increasing epistemological evidence,
then we have to decide whether it’s objective or just subjective.
There’s no rational argument or evidence that moral realism is right as of right now.
This includes moral naturalistic stances like Sam Harris takes that
seem to fall into fallacies, such as David Hume ‘is-ought fallacy.
Morality appears to be partially wired into us, as indicated by scientific studies,
and part culturally formed, i.e., America’s realization as a nation
from slavery being OK to being immoral. That lends itself to moral subjectivism.
Again no one knows for absolutely sure what morality is and if it exists. This
just seems to be what the best rational guess based on what evidence we have.
That would mean there’s no objectively perfect moral system to follow for everyone.
Some people may feel deontological normative ethical theories like rule-based
moral systems are right, while others may argue consequentialist systems in which right and wrong
are based on the consequences of someone's actions are right. Each individual has their
own subjective answer, as there’s no objective, perfect moral system or objective right and wrong.
So, those are my thoughts on morality and what it is, at least of the recording of
this video. Of course my theories may change in the future based on
new evidence or better arguments. Let me know what you think morality is or isn’t,
and if you want any more on this position or anything covered in this video let me know below.