Are instincts Morals?

[wolly.green]

Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?

 

[froggyprincess1984]

First time responding so be gentle with me.... Instincts and morals are not the same thing. Instincts are that momentary urge leftover from cave days and morals are something that we are taught. Do that help or does that just muddy the waters for ya?

 

[wolly.green]

First time responding so be gentle with me.... Instincts and morals are not the same thing. Instincts are that momentary urge leftover from cave days and morals are something that we are taught. Do that help or does that just muddy the waters for ya?

Hi foggyprincess1984, welcome the sight! ' I'll try to be gentle.

My intention here is to start a debate to stimulate conversation. So if you don't like debate, look away!

If morals are a guide to help you make decisions, then surely instincts are an evolved morality.

 

[Wyote]

My gut tells me you're on to something here

 

[froggyprincess1984]

Debates... That thing where people intelligently converse and pretend to adult... I'm in. Make me think!

Back to the OP then..... It's a conscious decision vs a subconscious one. When you hatch outta the egg, you don't fly the same day, it takes time. Get your body acclimated to the world outside your egg. You watch to know who and what will eat you and what will just carry on with nary a thought for you. Then you practice flapping those wings to build muscle. So on and so forth. We learn to be better and and hopefully continue to do so. Here's the sticky section of your life tho... Morals that are learned based on societal dictate, trends, religion and such are learned behaviors. I could learn to be sane in front of people but I choose not to...
Instinct however is an entirely different drop of water. It does not care about morals, upraising, location... It is dependant on a non thinking reaction. Stove hot. Touch. Burn. Instinct says 'Hey you, get your hand off the stove.' Logically there is no reason to place your hand on the stove. But since you chose to do so, the unthinking instinct will always tell you to stop. Because it's part of the fail safes we are designed with. I can turn my morals off. But my instincts will continue to meander on.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?

William Hamilton advanced the selfish-gene theory as an explanation for altruism (though Dawkins gets more credit for the idea now); that we are altruistic to people who share our genes because it's the genes themselves that are 'attempting' to survive rather than the vessels which house them.

The implications of this are that we are more altruistic to people with a greater degree of genetic relation to us, less so to those more distant, with unsettling implications for a twentieth century wracked by ethic division.

I always remember the story of George R. Price's reaction to this theory - he was so disturbed that he attempted to counter his 'instincts', giving away his money, taking in the homeless and especially attempting to 'do good' to those people much more genetically distant from himself (mostly using ethnicity as a marker). However, it was no good ultimately, because he simply didn't 'feel' the instinctive level of kindness he was chasing, and so he committed suicide by cutting his carotid artery with a pair of scissors.

True ethics are not instincts. Instincts are fallible and misleading, holding no wisdom whatever and attempting to drive us in directions which often bear no relation to our conscious thoughts and desires.

 

[John K]

Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?

It depends, I think, on how you define a moral system. E.g. For many people it’s part of their religious framework and animals aren’t religious so it seems unlikely that their instincts fall into the same space as that kind of morality.

But if we take morals as a code of behaviour that governs how social creatures live together in (relative) harmony, then yes I think you could be right. I remember visiting briefly a small sub-Antarctic island which had a colony of several million macaroni penguins on it. It was the breeding season and these guys filled an entire hillside about half a mile long running down to the sea. They are very territorial and you could see that they had protocols for how you got to the sea to eat - they had common highways through the colony for example. You still got a load of grief as you made your way through the other guys’ patches to the nearest one, but you were allowed through. The highways were nomansland and anyone could be there without being challenged.

There was a leopard seal lurking in the kelp a few metres from the shore. A group of about 20 penguins were there at the shore waiting to jump in, but they were obvious aware of the seal so they were holding back. There was a lot of pushing and shoving going on though, and eventually one got shoved into the water. The seal went after it, and immediately all the others jumped in and shot off like mad while it was distracted. The whole thing was quite choreographed.

Morality - maybe? There were certainly a load of instinctive social rules there on how to behave in community though.

 

[VekenUssar]

I think lot of good instincts derive from morals eg. you instinctively help person who is about to die of fatal dextromethorphan overdose.
Thats moral imperative, save life of another human being, you don't wonder too much what to do.

I think good and strong moral values system in oneself can also prevent acting - on preceived as "bad" in society, insticts. Eg. rape, or murder revenge. That is, more primal instincts.

 

[o2b]

I think morality is an attribute of consciousness whereas instincts are predispositions invoked on consciousness.

So even if an instinct is a predisposition to do right, the underlying motivation for doing so has nothing to do with a creature's moral value system.

Suppose a man (somehow) has an instinct to help old ladies across the street. And he submits to that influence. But what if the underlying motive to submit has nothing to do with morality? He just helps old ladies across the street because of his instinctive pull. Whereas, if the act was motivated by thoughts such as, "She is really old. I want to ease her situation because I like being nice to people."

To me, the difference is so vast due to the underlying motivation differences which to me is much of where morality resides.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

There are many immoral instinctual actions which give preference to momentary pleasure or gain over sustainable benefit to yourself and others, but I would agree that there's some marginal overlap between the two from which sprang some of the basic moral tenets upon which all societies are based. This would be the objective facet of morality.

There are moments for me where I experience something akin to instinctual morality, but this is different from an a priori moral system which you're alluding to. It would be better described as unconscious morality, as its contents are something that I've personally lived and formed the principle as a response to it. I still wouldn't consider this a system, which implies intentionality and a distinct understanding of its parts. It's the Cartesian distinction between vivid and clear- the first indicates wholeness and obscurity, something that you experience while being aware of 'it', but unable to understand it. The latter stems from reasoned observation, being able to navigate and define each part of the logical process underlying the moral phenomena.

That's why it's becoming more and more important to me to not be simply right, but philosophically right. Ultimately, this is what constitutes a moral system - not instinct, but full awareness and adherence to organized principles.

 

[Krypton]

If morals have any kind of external reality, we have to be able to "see" them somehow, and things like gut feelings make the most sense as far as that goes.

That said, what we see in the world and what the world is actually like are two provably different things, so there might need to be a process by which you analyze and verify what you "see" morally. I have no idea what that would be though. Maybe gathering up moral perceptions and trying to design a system that fits them all?

That said, if morals are just an extension of evolutionary survival instincts and social conditioning, I see no reason to consider them "real" in the sense most people would like. If morals exist as facts, they would have to be true independent of what we evolved or are taught to do.

 

[David54]

No

 

[Asa]

Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in? Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?

Ohhh, interesting question, Wolly. My first reaction was, "No way," but I see what you're saying.

 

[o2b]

Hey Krypton,

If morals exist as facts, they would have to be true independent of what we evolved or are taught to do.

I like this!

 

[mintoots]

Firstly, great thread Wolly.

Are instincts a kind of evolved morality that contain knowledge about the niche they evolved in?

Conversely, could morality be a kind of evolved instinct? If morality is an output of trials and errors in society, is it possible too that it may have been derived from lessons we earned, including that which we "learned" via our instincts?

Do the instincts that animals use to "make a living" in their respective niches constitute a moral system? Albeit, a very limited one?

Possible. If we could redefine it as such, it is possible. For example, we could state as per lion morals that a zebra hunt shall be satisfying. Sadly, we don't know much about the intricacies of the societies in the animal kingdom. I suppose it's an entirely different field of expertise much like the quantum cosmos is not like earth. In total, I am open to this possibility. This is an interesting thing to ogle.

 

[Quiet]

This is a brilliant question.

What do we mean by instincts though? Seems there is a large scope there....gut instincts, reflexes, intuition, conditioned or programmed behaviour.... or impulses?
I feel that my 'conscience' is instinctual. Like I feel it literally in my gut....ignoring it can make me ill...it just feels wrong.

I feel there is some sort of truth to this.

However, it's also true that what is 'humane' or ethical is often not 'natural' in the sense of evolution or 'survival' or the animal kingdom.

Firstly, great thread Wolly.

Conversely, could morality be a kind of evolved instinct? If morality is an output of trials and errors in society, is it possible too that it may have been derived from lessons we earned, including that which we "learned" via our instincts?

.

This is really cool.

 

[HJpAjcdO0X]

Instincts are fallible and misleading, holding no wisdom whatever and attempting to drive us in directions which often bear no relation to our conscious thoughts and desires.

If all instincts are misleading then what is the explanation behind humans and non-human species natural instinct to protect their offspring? What would be the livelihood of survival for an abandoned one month old, or 2 week old bear cubs if the mother dies? There is a fundamental difference in animal ethics vs. human ethics, one is based in instinct and the other in rational thinking.

However, by definition: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (such as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans. The differences in intelligence are clear but so is the fact that a human is still a mammal. The fact that this instinctual behavior can be observed in both human and non-human species undermines the claim that it is always misleading, or that it often does more harm then good. I think it overlooks the possibility that evolution can also be applied to evolution of instinct to compensate for the constant evolution of danger. Changes in laws are a good example, think of how many new laws in regards to cyber crime increased as technology advanced, or laws regarding transgenders. Proof that change is constant. If threats to our safety and survival are constantly evolving, is it not possible that our instincts are evolving to counteract them to survive?

If that's sounds ridiculous, Joe Kenda a retired Colorado Springs Detective solved over 400 homicides using the same intuitive style approach to solve cases that's currently under question in this forum. He states frequently he is using a gut instinct style approach, the evidence always corroborates the assumption in the end of course. However, that gut instinct wasn't off.

 

[Deleted member 16771]

If all instincts are misleading then what is the explanation behind humans and non-human species natural instinct to protect their offspring? What would be the livelihood of survival for an abandoned one month old, or 2 week old bear cubs if the mother dies? There is a fundamental difference in animal ethics vs. human ethics, one is based in instinct and the other in rational thinking.

However, by definition: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (such as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans. The differences in intelligence are clear but so is the fact that a human is still a mammal. The fact that this instinctual behavior can be observed in both human and non-human species undermines the claim that it is always misleading, or that it often does more harm then good. I think it overlooks the possibility that evolution can also be applied to evolution of instinct to compensate for the constant evolution of danger. Changes in laws are a good example, think of how many new laws in regards to cyber crime increased as technology advanced, or laws regarding transgenders. Proof that change is constant. If threats to our safety and survival are constantly evolving, is it not possible that our instincts are evolving to counteract them to survive?

If that's sounds ridiculous, Joe Kenda a retired Colorado Springs Detective solved over 400 homicides using the same intuitive style approach to solve cases that's currently under question in this forum. He states frequently he is using a gut instinct style approach, the evidence always corroborates the assumption in the end of course. However, that gut instinct wasn't off.

This is a straw-man. The thread asks 'are instincts morals?' and the answer is 'no'. Our instincts evolved for very different purposes than our cultural notions of 'morals' or 'ethics'. By definition, therefore, it is also nonsensical to speak of 'animal ethics'.

This does not mean that instincts aren't very often incredibly useful, or accurate in what they purport to tell us, but still they are not 'morals'; they do not constitute a source of 'wisdom' on ethical questions.

It does not mean, either, that 'ethics' as we understand them don't have an origin in social instincs, or that they can't be used to inform our moral choices.

 

[John K]

This is a straw-man. The thread asks 'are instincts morals?' and the answer is 'no'. Our instincts evolved for very different purposes than our cultural notions of 'morals' or 'ethics'. By definition, therefore, it is also nonsensical to speak of 'animal ethics'.

This does not mean that instincts aren't very often incredibly useful, or accurate in what they purport to tell us, but still they are not 'morals'; they do not constitute a source of 'wisdom' on ethical questions.

It does not mean, either, that 'ethics' as we understand them don't have an origin in social instincs, or that they can't be used to inform our moral choices.

I thinik you put your finger on something at the heart of this question Hos. I suspect thathuman ethics has at least some of its distant roots in animal instinct, but goes far beyond that. The more fundamental question is what distinguishes us from other animals. All of human mental capability of course rests on our animal inheritance, and all of it is linked to the instinctive, but we might as well ask if rational thought and logic are based on instinct as well as our morals. They will have originated in that, not least because they have given us a major Darwinian advantage, but morals and rational thought transcent instinct in my view. As @Sidis Coruscatis implies, these are crucially fields in which our conscious engagement is paramount and that places them beyond the instinctive. The fact that their primitive origins lie in the instinctive doesn't mean that they are instincts, any more than the design and use of a car is instinctive.

 

[Faye]

Instincts can be morals, but most morals are not instincts. I can't remember the Latin term for it, but sometimes there are situations where you have a moral obligation just because (for instance, if you came across a small child drowning and had the ability to help them). We don't need to be taught that we should save the child's life- its programmed into us from thousands of years of evolution that helped our species survive.

Most of what people think of when they talk about morality is different from situations like this because it is something that we arrive at through reason or faith in some sort of ethical system (most commonly virtue ethics associated with major religion). This sort of morality has to be taught and tends to vary across culture and time.

There is some gray area with this distinction, especially since we don't entirely understand our own minds and how evolution shaped them. Some evolutionary psychologists and philosophers go down a rabbit hole debating this subject.