Why do humans create morals?

[Kroni]

Every known human civilization has speculated the existence of a higher power such as Morality and God. We are aware of ourselves in a way that no other animal has ever been. We make judgements about our actions and ponder on existential thought. But why do humans think this way? Why do we have an internal need to be morally correct people? And to be ironic, why am I asking this question?

[prothero]

So we can live together in a social setting with a minimum of conflict and violence. The same reason we create customs and laws. Behaviors have their own evolutionary causes and patterns.

[Kroni]

What about when being morally correct towards others comes at a high expense? (If a mother and father spend their retirement savings to pay for a heart transplant for their son.) Logically, the old couple would be physically better off having retirement money than their son, but the love for their son overrides their desire to minimize conflict in life.

[prothero]

Originally Posted by Kroni

What about when being morally correct towards others comes at a high expense? (If a mother and father spend their retirement savings to pay for a heart transplant for their son.) Logically, the old couple would be physically better off having retirement money than their son, but the love for their son overrides their desire to minimize conflict in life.

Well who said morals were logically derived or that human behavior was driven by reason. Reason is a thin veneer for human behavior.

[Kroni]

That's my point. When you answered my original question you said that we use moral guideliness to minimize conflict and violence, which is a rational solution to a problem. But with my example I have shown that by using those same moral guidelines my actions will result in something irrational. The social contract is flawed because it demands that following morals should result in the best possible result for everyone, yet we will still choose to save the life of a family member over our retirement money. This implies that to us having that person around is more important than our ability to minimize financial conflict, which means that there is a deeper reason for why we develop our moral attitudes.

[GoshisDead]

Because its biologically rational to preserve your offspring, and in situations where altruism isn't for offspring, that is simply a rational transference.

[Kroni]

Rational transference? A soldier in Iraq was engaged in a shootout when a grenade landed near his platoon. Even though he had time to escape, he chose to jump on the grenade and die in order to save the rest of the soldiers. You can try to say that anything can be rationalized and is only a biological reaction, but in my opinion self-sacrifice is not rational for any living being. Even the social contract theory would say that self-sacrifice is too much to expect from another human being, and is therefore not a part of our natural agreement to cooperate and mutually benefit.

[GoshisDead]

Originally Posted by Kroni

Rational transference? A soldier in Iraq was engaged in a shootout when a grenade landed near his platoon. Even though he had time to escape, he chose to jump on the grenade and die in order to save the rest of the soldiers. You can try to say that anything can be rationalized and is only a biological reaction, but in my opinion self-sacrifice is not rational for any living being. Even the social contract theory would say that self-sacrifice is too much to expect from another human being, and is therefore not a part of our natural agreement to cooperate and mutually benefit.

Human behavior is not rational in the way logic is rational. A soldier jumps on a grenade. The biological imperative = altruism to save my offspring, the social imperative = people are basically the same and worthy in general of my effort and I have a certain role in society to preform. And in this specific example the fraternity of soldierhood emotionally creates a familial bond. As exemplified in popular media "never leave a man behind" "the captain goes down with the ship" and so forth. It is completely rational for a soldier to end his life for those of his brothers, it is the biological imperative modified by the social situation.

This goes for many other altruistic scenarios as well, even for those of perfect strangers. It is an inherent doctine in many religions as exemplified by John 10:13 - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Heroic altruism is glorified in stories, legends, comic books, television, movies, and news stories. It may not be requisite to the 'social contract' but it is glorified and mythical, and thus a rational choice for human so make given the circumstance.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by Kroni

Every known human civilization has speculated the existence of a higher power such as Morality and God. We are aware of ourselves in a way that no other animal has ever been. We make judgements about our actions and ponder on existential thought. But why do humans think this way? Why do we have an internal need to be morally correct people? And to be ironic, why am I asking this question?

I believe that there are evolutionary reasons for why we value morality. For starters, I believe that morals can be reduced to inherent emotions that are shaped by environmental influences. Emotions like empathy, sympathy, pain, pleasure, happiness and suffering have evolutionary value. It is important for our individual survival that we are able to experience pain and joy. Empathy and sympathy are important for interpersonal reasons, for we are a social species (the most social species in the world). Some of us are lacking in these emotions (psychopaths and sociopaths), and this lacking leads to destructive behavior, both for the individual and for the society.

The economic, political, and religious elite have been manipulating these emotions to their liking for thousands of years. Because of this, we should always question the authoritarian enforcement of morals, and societal norms, but we shouldn't reject them for the sake of rejection.

---------- Post added 11-13-2009 at 08:21 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Kroni

What about when being morally correct towards others comes at a high expense? (If a mother and father spend their retirement savings to pay for a heart transplant for their son.) Logically, the old couple would be physically better off having retirement money than their son, but the love for their son overrides their desire to minimize conflict in life.

This also has evolutionary value. Parents of a child, especially female parents, are more likely to sacrifice their own well being for the well being of their offspring. This psychological altruism evolved because it helps to secure the survival of the next generation.

[validity]

Originally Posted by hue-man

For starters, I believe that morals can be reduced to inherent emotions that are shaped by environmental influences.

It is an interesting comment. Emotions have historically been intentionally discarded due to subjectiveness. Yet I all I am familiar with is emotion based morals. Is there any benefit in emotionless morals? I am somewhat lost in this topic. Should the setting of morals be founded upon an emotional response?