On Morality

A few days ago I had an argument with my mom about morality. She holds the commonly accepted view among religious people that morality comes from religion. Additionally, without a god dishing out eternal punishments, there's no reason to be good. (In other words, without god, you can be as selfish as you want as long as you can get away with it) I would argue, of course, then plenty of people (religious and nonreligious alike) do that anyway. My point is that morality has no basis in religious practice or dogma. Morality is based both in evolution (thus built into our dna) and a social construct. (Note: I write as I go, so excuse any lack of construction)

As far as it being a cultural/social construct, it's not hard to see how the collective conscious of humanity has changed over the past few thousand years. We no longer allow slaves, we're learning to treat everyone, regardless of race, as equals. Just last week, gay marriages were made legal in California, which is a big step. The ironic thing is, religious people claim morality as their own, yet they are the big force in which equality is denied those which disagree with their views. The fact is, the more secular humanity becomes, the more moral we become, and more disrespected groups come under the wing of equality.

When homo sapiens were fresh, we lived in tribes and family packs. It was beneficial to the group to look after each other. Those who were a detriment to the tribe would be much less likely to survive and/or reproduce. Thus, the genes which predisposed individuals to contribute to the group continued through the generations. If we look to nature, there are four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. I'll list them here, pulled from Richard Dawkins:

First, there is the special case of genertic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising.

I'm sure you'll say to yourself: "Well yes, we humans do that, no doubt." The fact is, however, that many animals base their survival on these tenents. A species of 'cleaner fish,' (those that clean parasites off bigger fish) Labroides dimidiatus were preffered over their rival Labroides by client fish, as they cleaned diligentily, unlike their rival which often neglected to clean. In this way, Labroides dimidiatus held a good reputation.

In a species of babblers (a bird) the role of sentry is a dangerous one. The individual must expose himself to hawks in order to watch over the group feeding down below. The strange thing to us, however, is that the dominant babbler holds this position, in a sort of "I am better than you, look how helpful I am." This encourages the sentry to be ever vigilent, not only for his safety, but for the safety of the group. If this position was given to the babbler at the bottom of the ladder, it is possible that he would shirk his responsibility. In this way, the group of babblers can survive more easily.

As a final note, evolutionary morality predisposes individuals to be good, it does not force them. For humans, the free will granted to us by our brain allows us to choose to go against this morality, though it is not an easy thing to overcome. That's where culture comes in, if a child is taught from birth to be cynical and selfish, then he will become that. He is simply predisposed to goodness, meaning, if it was possible to raise yourself, you would naturally be good.