Morality is genetic. It is an evolutionary adaptation to want to do “good” for the rest of the tribe. There is no other factor. Completely determined by evolution. I could go into details, but I’m busy masturbating to my favourite nativity scene. Will talk later.
“Lord of the Flies” would have never been such a smash hit if what you say were true. Ratty Ratty Ratty, do you ever think before you open your mouth? If morality is genetic, explain feral humans. Please allow something to pass through your ears besides air.
Yes, there is research on genetics and morality. I’ve not seen anything at all convincing and at best all genetics does is give us a moral tendency. Genetically we are herd animals, and we do what is best for the herd, for our survival we bond. This is as much an evolutionary trait as a genetic trait. Those who did not bond with the tribe, wandered off and got killed, Evolution in action effecting morality.
That makes it social. Two people get together and begin making rules for the comfort of their mutual survival. Herd mentality is genetic. Morality is completely made up, and it evolves with our intelligence. For Example: 20 or 30 years from now, human beings may no longer kill animals to eat meat, Synthesized meat may be the standard, and it may be immoral to kill an animal to eat it. Only the ignorant tribal peoples of the world would kill an animal and eat it. An evolutionary adaptation directly linked to our intelligence.
You could not go on with details. There is nothing at all in our DNA that says “Do not kill another human being.” There is nothing at all in our DNA that tells us “Do not rape or have sex with children.” There is nothing at all in our DNA that tells us, “Don’t kill and eat animals.” Morality may be an expression of our nature or nurture that passed on through DNA but saying Morality comes from DNA is a far reach. Morality at best is an outward manifestation of out drive to survive. And nothing will vanish as quickly as morality in a world short of food. (Reference 'Lord of the Flies) again.
5 Likes
The necessity of distinguishing between what is acceptable behaviour in a societal group likely was a survival tool, getting it wrong and being killed or ostracised before passing on your genes, would likely “select” the genes that enabled this. However human concepts of morality are now an intricate part of our evolved brains, and their ability to problem solve. We can examine choices in a massively complex way, and humans often assume that many of their subjective ideas of morality are somehow innate, when they’re not.
Well Golding’s idea is that while the ability to be moral is innate, what modern societies perceive as moral is not, and in his seminal work he portrays a scenario where those notions of “morality” would break down very quickly if young male humans were removed from those societies. Not hard to understand why really, since many of then notions of morality post industrial societies find useful might not help us at all to survive in a purely feral environment.
Anyone ever seen the film “The Admirable Crichton”? Well worth a watch, as prima facie it may seem like a typical 50’s romantic drama, but in some ways it reinforces some of Golding’s ideas, but in a far less grim way obviously.
Exactly, this sums it up very succinctly.
Again I can only concur completely.
1 Like
That’s as far as I’m going with the statement. The rest, as you say is a social construct - a kind of dance we perform as if by the persuasion of our elders.
I suppose on a phenomenal level we fear pain, failure, ostracism, punishment - and we behave within the social norm to not risk the things we have that are valuable to us.
But it’s a fabrication. It’s not the fear of prison that stops me from murdering people who get in my nerves. It’s a basic respect for life.
That basic respect can be theorized as social or psychological. Or it can be boiled down to a few dozen genes which inhibit me from killing things as a kind of reproductive strategy.
Not everyone will abstain from killing things. And there are severe circumstances where typically non-violent humans will kill their fellow men. And they pay severe mental consequences for doing this - even if in war there are no criminals for the basic murder of your enemy.
Now that shows that the so-called social fibre of morality is extremely brittle and that we humans kill, in general, when it’s deemed fit. In general, any enemy encroaching on our territory or possessions might feel the sharp end of a stick. Whether or not that “habit” is genetic or learned is likely a well studied question in both evolutionary behaviour and human psychology.
Neither branch of science needs to be the right one. We ultimately chose the one we prefer and go about life as usual.
Hmm. I don’t disagree with that assertion.
I would offer that the genetic proclivity for having morals at all was probably established a long time ago and at this point is a variable imperative–one whose intricacies are more defined as a social and cultural construct than a predetermined protocol.
I do agree completely with your explanation of why we developed the ability to have morals as a part of evolution. I just think there is a layer of socialization which is necessary for that ability to even work.
Morals mean nothing if they don’t jibe with the ethos of our community, often informed by extremely disparate conditions like climate, geography and available resources. So a chemical predisposition for moral development doesn’t necessarily prescribe specific morals (even the aversion to murder).
I guess it’s part of that old nature vs. nurture chestnut.
*Edit to add prior post quote.
Such an excellent point!
BULLSHIT! You have respect for life because your stomach is full, you have some kind of education, and you were well-trained. Nothing more. Break a human down and you can convince them to kill, the military and religion have been doing it for thousands of years. Your “morality” is bullshit. If you can manage to hang onto it until the day you die, that is an achievement. It has nothing to do with genes. You have just never been challenged.
5 Likes
Lyudmila Trut was a graduate who was chosen as manager of the program. In 1952, she began to collect the tamest foxes from fur farms. They started with 30 male foxes and 100 vixens. The foxes were not trained, in order to ensure that their tameness was a result of genetic selection and not of environmental influences. (Sounds like I am going to argue for genetics doesn’t it?) These foxes would have never met up in the wild and due to their tameness probably would have been killed by the alpha males. They were not good breeding stock, but we brought them together. THAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL.
by the 30th generation, 70% to 80% were “DOMESTICATED ELITES.” After over 40 generations of breeding, in short, Belyayev produced “a group of friendly, domesticated foxes who 'displayed behavioral, physiological, and anatomical characteristics that were not found in the wild population, or were found in wild foxes but with much lower frequency.”
The New York Times wrote that they "were clean and quiet and made excellent house pets, though — being highly active — they preferred a house with a yard to an apartment. They did not like leashes, though they tolerated them.
It is complete blindness to call the changes in the foxes Genetic when the environment of the selective breeding program had everything to do with domesticating the foxes. You can’t attribute the change to genetics without completely ignoring the intervening variable of environment.
NOW WHAT ABOUT HUMANS?
We have at least 10,000 years of breeding domestic populations. Those humans who don’t fit in are locked away, banished, or killed. That’s the way it was 10,000 years ago, and that’s the way it is today.
For the full article.
2 Likes
As depressing as this sounds it’s likely true.
Golding made the characters male children quite deliberately, as he believed that their moral and cultural conditioning would break down pretty quickly. There is a reason religions target children quite deliberately and want to interfere in their secular education.
Here’s another rather depressing piece of research:
“The Milgram Shock Experiment”
“One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.”
Oh yea. I didn’t think of that. There are a bunch of these…
“The Stanford Experiment” was so shocking they made it into a movie. A two week experiment that divided normal people into prisoners and guards. The experiment got so violent it needed to be shut down.
THE BLUE-EYED, BROWN-EYED EXERCISE, Jean Elliot.
Another psychological horror that demonstrates human morality turned into a movie.
The Bobo Doll experiment (Bandura)
In yet another 1960s-era Stanford experiment , psychologist Albert Bandura initiated an experiment meant to demonstrate the ways in which children learn behavior.
There are a ton of animal experiments… These three are very well known … most of you have probably heard of them.
3 Likes
Good morning, JC1432.
While I’m sure that many, many sources claim that the Bible records historical truth with perfect accuracy . . . please keep in mind that there was a time when everyone in the world believed that the Earth was flat . . . and there was also a time when everyone believed that the Earth is located at the center of the Universe.
Even though countless millions of people believed that these ideas were absolute truths . . . this did not mean that the Earth was unrounded by so much as a millimeter, or that we exist in some other place besides the outskirts of a medium-sized galaxy in a vast (and, perhaps, infinite) Universe.
Widespread belief is not an indicator of objective truth.
Odd… Maybe I’m strange, but for me it is the opposite. I’m more concerned about getting in trouble. Let’s face it… Some people just need to be killed. Give me a hunting license and a list of approved targets, and I’ll supply my own weapons/ammo.
3 Likes
Exactly my point. Cut through the fabricated non-sense and fear of repercussions, or simply starve a man, or simply threaten his life - and his genetic directive orders will kick in.
Ie. he will kill anything in order to eat it - genetic predisposition to consume “food”. Ie. he will kill anything in order for that thing not to kill him - genetic predisposition to maintain the biological organism.
So, yeah. No one is threatening my food source, or my well being. Well, that’s not true - I work in the most crime ridden part of my province with the word SECURITY written on a slash vest I wear for “protection”.
I’m well aware I might die on the job, which is why I’m having the word “to protect the interests of my client” tattooed on my penis, so that when I die, and go into rigermortis, my boner will show everyone that I died in the line of duty.
He who has the biggest schlong, rules the dawn. 
seize the day people. Life is short.
1 Like
Because, of course, it takes a penis to be in charge, eh?
3 Likes
Only a fool charges with his penis.
1 Like
Uh, I’ll just be mopping the floors in the latrine if anybody needs me.
1 Like
Well. Look at hyena packs for example. The alpha female has an enlarged clitoris which rivals the male’s penii. I mean, what you say is at least true for hyenas. And if it’s true for hyenas, then I would just naturally assume it’s the same for all mammals. I mean, hyenas ARE mammals, after all.
Mines something akin to a joust of sorts. Mine horse is jealous. But we ride together nonetheless. Hear yea! Hear ya!
Now, this deserves analysis. It has a few levels.
My first thought was that your dong is so long that it reaches the floor and literally mops the latrine when you use the washroom. If that’s the case, time to ring that knob out 
But then, I realized … when has Tin Man ever aggrandized the size of his tinker toy? That’s simply not like him.
So, it’s this then, I assume. Mopping the latrine is the lowest of the low in the totem pole (rhyme not intended. I just naturally do that because my grandmother was a famous poet and I inherited her facial hair).
Tin Man! Now come, come. I know you’ve got some junk in the trunk. A nice monkey wrench in to throw into the gears (as it were). Don’t be so “hard on” your self.
Remember, there’s no point going to work if you’re not going to work hard. And that applies to mopping the latrines ESPECIALLY.
1 Like
While it is true that out of the thousands of mammal species “three colleagues identified eight species that exemplify female leadership: hyenas, killer whales, lions, spotted hyenas, bonobos, lemurs, and elephants.”
Keep your penis in your pants 
private please… it’s obvious it does your thinking for you.
BTW - this is a warning 