Social Investigations In Animal and Human Cooperation

The instinct that once aided in the survival of people in the past serves a purpose in today’s modern society. Even today “herd behavior can aid in bonding, and it can clarify social expectations” (Moore 1). Humans are social creatures and strive to be part of a group whenever possible. By conforming to the norms of a group, a person is able to relate to the other members and therefore create a bond. In confusing situations, humans also look to people who posses more knowledge or appear to be stronger than themselves for guidance. Following others creates a set of guidelines which help to solidify social norms and expectations. By following others, people actually gain “relative morality” (Jasmine 1). Relative morality is the culturally influenced view of ethical and moral standards. Humans are not only affected in their understanding of societal standards, but also in terms of their ethical and moral values, which provide a basis for their actions. When a person’s ethical and moral standards change to match those of their peers, their actions inevitably change as well. Otherwise good people will suddenly start behaving in a way that is uncharacteristic to them because of relative

Philosophers have debated for centuries the question “Are humans are selfish or selfless?” There are two main arguments for debating human nature, ethical egoists and ethical altruists. Ethical egoists believe that “even though we can act in others’ interests because we are concerned for others, we ought always to act in our own interest” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 460). Ethical altruists believe quite the opposite; ethical altruism is the belief that “people ought to act with each other’s interests in mind” (Solomon et al 2012 p. 461). In discussing the four theories, psychological egoism, psychological altruism, ethical egoism, and ethical altruism, with my husband, there was not a clear dividing line for whether humans are selfish or selfless in nature. After much debate, we concluded that humans are born ethical egoists; however, ethical altruists are made through proper training, care, and nurture.

Each action we take as humans determines our personal character and ethical theories guide us and teach us right from wrong (Mosser, 2013).

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.

Wade’s article offers the idea that morality is that the the core of creation of social norms and that in order for humans to get along their selfishness must be limited (Wade, 2007). The works of Dr. Haidt are discussed and how they believe that morality is motivated by two separate mental systems. The first system are what he calls moral intuition, which are based on emotional behaviours that evolved before the evolvement of language (Wade, 2007). The second mental system of morality is moral judgement, which is where people are able to tell the difference why something is right or wrong (Wade, 2007). This relates to the idea of reciprocity, this explains why people choose to either help someone or refuse based on their moral judgements of the situation. Dr. Haidt uses the moral response to disgust in order to understand what actions take place in people making judgements about what the person is doing (Wade, 2007). When disgust is elicited by someone, about a particular situation both moral intuition and moral judgement are at play in order to make assumptions of whether the person is “good” or “bad”; and morally right or wrong (Wade, 2007). This connects to his view of

In our daily life we hope that there is an innermost balance of morality, evidently determining how we act and react to various situations. However, it is not always clear what that reasoning is, if the sense of morality in each of us is actually a social inventive to do the right

However, as we mature, we are expected to understand morality through the means of reason and not only follow them blindly because of consequential motives. Unfortunately, most people persist in the method of sanctions and never truly evolve to be moral individuals. Morality should be regarded and pursued for its essence, not as a reward

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

Guilt is a raw instinctive emotion of the human nature. Is there a general way through human beings and all other forms of life would be distinguished from one another. Both humans and other forms of life on earth have the element of life, the element of survival. Through feeding and excretion they are both similar. In almost every aspect of life for both human and other forms of life, they are identical to each other. If for example, both did not feed, their fate would be equally the same. Through the theory of evolution of man, it is argued that he evolved from the most basic form of life and over the years evolved in what he is today, a prime being, at the top of the list. But what differentiates the two apart. Intellectuality and the ability to use reason is the very fundamental difference between human beings and other forms of life. Having intellect means the ability to use reason to make decisions and choices. There however, is a difference between choices. Choices could either be voluntary or involuntary. Actions that are made through involuntary choices could be termed as the raw instincts elements of man, some of which could probably be compared to those of animals and other living organisms. On the other hand, there are actions that are based on voluntary choices, actions that an individual knows their consequence but goes on to do them.

* Things we want out of life and things we expect others want out of life too

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

evolved over time by a extended group of people. Actions are moral only if they accepted

ABSTRACT: Social standards guide us in what to do and what to refrain from doing. But can social — moral or legal — standards be trusted? This paper presents an evolutionary ethical theory that generates trustworthy ethical norms. Each norm is assigned a demonstrable risk, called an ethical risk, that depends on both human behavior and danger to the survival of society. The assigned risk is minimal if and only if everybody obeys the norm. The higher the risk assigned to a norm, the higher the norm’s rank (an empirical quantity depending on the evolutionary status of society). An ordered finite set of ethical risks and ethical norms allows the settlement of ethical

Ethics has developed as people have reflected on the intentions and consequences of their acts. From this reflection on the nature of human behavior, theories of conscience have developed, giving direction to much ethical thinking. Each individual

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