From: michaell@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Michael A. Lowry)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: source of morality for atheists (A reasonable theory)
Summary: Morality and ethics originate in our animal instincts.
Keywords: morality ethics instincts intuition evolution
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:01:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

I'm responding to a message in alt.atheism about the origins of
morality in a godless universe.  I've tried to tackle this very
question myself, and I think I've come up with a reasonable answer:

Morality, in and of itself, does not exist. However, in the minds of
humans around the globe, morality DOES exist, and plays an important
role. I suspect that morality, like love, anger, envy, and
intellectual satisfation, arose from the process of natural selection.
For example, humans who took care of their young to an almost
fanatical degree (call it love) had children that had a better chance
to reproduce. Therefore, as this thing, love, took hold, and became
more universal in the human gene pool, people, who were also beginning
to think about things, tried to explain why they cared for their
children. It obviously came to be believed that it was just the
"right" thing to do. Thus, right and wrong were born, and justice
evolved from these concepts.

This caused me to ask myself: "Am I really that cynical??"  Well, on a
very scientific level, in an attempt to explain the origins of
morality, I am cynical. But it is not the purpose of logic or rasoning
to be optimistic; they are merely employed to explain the unexplained.

By nature, we are all hedonists. We live for pleasure, and we try to
avoid pain. But we also have certain instincts, hardwired into our
brains by natural selection, which influence what we want. Thus, we do
not care for our children through their terrible twos because we hope
to gain satisfaction later, but because instinctively, we think of it
as the right thing to do. If humans were to be without this instinct,
people might abandon their childrenin favor of other immediate
pleasures, and there would be no next generation. 

Thus, these hardwired intuitions, our instincts, often serve to
benefit the species. But they can get in the way in an intelligent
society that has used logic to formulate its rules of conduct. But, as
I mentioned, the instincts form the basis for the process by which
those rules are formulated. 

So we cannot escape our instincts into some pure form of reason... not
entirely. And if we are to use instincts and logic to arrive at a code
of ethics, let it be for the greater good. My favorite philisophical
theory is "Rule Utilitariansm", based on the Utilitarian theory of
John Stuart Mill. Essentially, it says that a society should make laws
such that a society with those laws will be a society in which
happiness is maximized, and unhappines is minimized. I like this
theory because it recognizes the basic pleasure-seeking nature of
humans (we are animals), but it allows for laws which protect the
individual's rights, even if doing so in a particular instance means a
temporary greater unhappiness for others. Therefore, this theory is in
agreement with my instincts, and my reasoning.

Have a good day. :)


_Michael Andrew Lowry_
EMAIL michaell@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
SNAIL L145 Prather 305 E. 21st Street / Austin, Texas 78705-9004 / U.S.A.
PHONE +1 512-495-5129
QUOTE   _____________________________________________________________
	    Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty