Can Science Explain And Account For Human Morality?

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

Human morality is a product of evolution by heritable variation and natural selection. It is fully part of the natural world but is none the worse for that – on the contrary. In the last sentence of On the Origin of Species, Darwin states that “there is grandeur in this view of life… on which endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” The beautiful and wonderful forms include true moral agents who respond to real moral facts and who form a natural moral community. Their existence contributes to the grandeur of Darwin’s evolutionary view of life.

This information must come in the form of empirical support. Since there is inadequate empirical support for moral claims, there is no moral knowledge. A problem arises because there is no determinative empirical evidence that would verify if the previous statements on empirical support were true. This argument proceeds to the comparison of philosophical and moral claims. If we were to explore these claims fully, such as the existence of God and free will, we will run into controversies.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: religion, culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual's morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect

The link between morality and human nature has been a progressive reoccurring theme since ancient times (Prinz, 2008). Moral development is a characteristic of a person’s general development that transpires over the course of a lifetime. Moral development is derived by a wide variety of cultural and demographic factors that appear to influence morally relevant actions. Turiel (2006) defined morality as an individuals “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Individuals’ moral judgments are frequently considered to be a product of culturally specific controls that provide a framework for behavioral motivations that are sensitive to the effects of gender, education, religion and politics (Banerjee, Huebner & Hauser, 2010). While several approaches have been utilized to examine the interaction of multivariate contributors to fundamental moral differences such as: disputes about family life, sexuality, social fairness, and so on, research has suggested that ideological considerations have provided a potent and diverse explanation for the polarization of contrasting views (Weber & Federico, 2013).

The concept of morality plays an important role in human society. Through the discovery of what, exactly, determines that which is “good” and that which is “bad”, humans develop mechanisms that determine how they respond to or judge any given situation. What remains a mystery, however, is what, exactly, is the basis of morals. It is commonly believed that morals are learned through lived experiences, as well as, from those who act as each person’s individual caretaker(s). Even though these factors do play a significant role in determining morality, these factors alone neither create nor determine a person’s moral compass. In Paul Bloom’s work, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, we are introduced to the idea that morality, while partly learned, is something that is ingrained in humans from birth. Through multiple studies, performed both by Bloom as well as other psychologists, it is revealed that not only are babies able to perceive what is right and what is wrong, but also, from birth, babies are instilled with the innate knowledge of empathizing, valuing fairness and status, and valuing those who look similar versus those who look different. In spite of previous ideas, Bloom proves that babies are smarter than previously thought, while simultaneously recognizing the shortcomings of this “elementary” form of morality. Bloom’s finding prove to be revolutionary, in that they allow for the examination of different social structures, their shortcomings, and what

In the article Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Laws, Arthur A. Leff took an agnostic approach when determining what morality should be comprised of. He suggested that humans struggle with desiring to follow a predetermined and unchallengeable set of moral rules, while at the same time wanting the autonomy to create those rules.

Douglas J. Futuyma on the limits of science: [[S]cience seeks to explain only objective knowledge], [knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment]. [Many human experiences and concerns are not objective] and (so) [do not fall within the realm of science]. (As a result), **[science has nothing to say about aesthetics or morality]**….[The functioning of human society, then, clearly requires principles that stem from some source other than science.]

No, i don’t think science can answer moral questions; at least, not all moral questions in its current capacity, and human emotions usually trump rational thought. Because flawed as we are, and keeping in line with Hume’s thesis, reason alone cannot move us to action. Our emotions hold more sway over us than reason or rational thought ought to have, and in most cases it can be argued,

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

The argument from relativity starts from the common notion that all moral codes and moral judgements vary from society to society and from one period to another (Mackie, 189). The simplest explanation for such intractable moral disagreements is not a lack of evidence or fuzzy perceptions of moral facts, but rather that there are no objective moral facts. However, it is not enough, as Mackie notes, to point to disagreements or inconsistencies between societies to show that moral judgements are not objective, because other disciplines such as biology or chemistry have disagreements as well and we certainly

I agree with Audi because the beauty of moral knowledge is that it is different for everyone yet somehow for many it is quite similar even if they’re generations apart or worlds apart. Moral knowledge may come from an idea, like the idea of hitting an innocent dog is absolutely horrible and no one should ever hurt a dog no matter what by simply just thinking about it or through previous ideas with empirical evidence, such as past observations, basically like rationalism.

Frans de Waal begins his argument by first stating the question as to whether or not a human’s moral actions originated from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. He concludes this thought by saying that our moral actions do, in fact, originate from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. De Waal further argues that the foundations of human morals are found in the primates of today. They are composed of actions and emotions whose evolutionary role assists us in our social organization and unity. In the beginning pages of his book, De Waal