Morality Has Biological Roots

[K. A. Pital]

Whether altruism was inherited from learned traits (which it isn't, because it's impossible) or genetic traits, it would still show up as hardwired traits, and we would still need to know that it wasn't or couldn't be something programmed into the brain during the person's life that made for what appeared, at first glance, to be a genetic trait.

Holy fucking shit, yeah, it's not Lamarckism all right, but the claim that it is aquired sounds way off. If it were a lifetime-aquired reflex as opposed to a non-aquired one, would there not be major differences from person to person?

And why is that belief that society "rewards" for putting interests of others before your own or some other bullshit? There are hardcore egoists among people, and more or less altruistic ones as well, just like various people in society get various stimuli. The mechanisms of aquired reflexes are well-known, if you constantly experience some irritating factor, you get used to react the same way.

It's more complex with morals here, I don't think hyperaltruists are the most successful members of society, or even "always rewarded" at all, so your claim sounds like bullshit to me.

That aside - the article explicitly says that the experiments have shown it to be a result of darwinian processes in earlier species. The researchers must have good base for claiming that now, don't they? So how the fuck can this be non-genetic, if it came from other species?

The idea that groups which stuck together due to genetic altruism, which gave more chance for survival and thus propagated, looks more rational and valid than the idea that society is somehow encouraging altruism in all it's members with behavioural irritators.

[Turin]

First of all, don't throw around "Lamarckian" so blithely if that's not what you mean.

Holy fucking shit, yeah, it's not Lamarckism all right, but the claim that it is aquired sounds way off. If it were a lifetime-aquired reflex as opposed to a non-aquired one, would there not be major differences from person to person?

And ahem:

There are hardcore egoists among people, and more or less altruistic ones as well, just like various people in society get various stimuli. The mechanisms of aquired reflexes are well-known, if you constantly experience some irritating factor, you get used to react the same way.

In any event, the argument isn't that altruism doesn't come from evolutionary roots (which no one here is disputing), but that this particular experiment isn't sufficiently controlled to prove that point because the brain structures in question could have potentially been modified by environment.

[K. A. Pital]

First of all, don't throw around "Lamarckian" so blithely if that's not what you mean.

The article said that the findings imply this is a result of evolution in earlier species.

The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species.

Now, how the fuck do you explain that if you were to explain it with "society rewards, psychological connections form over lifetime"? No fucking way without Lamarckism. But pretty simple if you don't stick to the idea that it's an aquired reflex which was installed by the society.

In any event, the argument isn't that altruism doesn't come from evolutionary roots (which no one here is disputing), but that this particular experiment isn't sufficiently controlled to prove that point because the brain structures in question could have potentially been modified by environment.

If that were so, why would they even care to mention that it's probably a result of earlier evolutionary processes? Clearly if it were a behavrioural-pressure aquired reflex, that would not even surface here.

And how do you "control" such an experiment? Random clusters of people who had been possibly subjected to different behavioural pressures.

Would you really think it's possible for all the sampled people to form such a identical connection? That would mean society extorts uniform pressure to aquire altruism on all it's members. That's certainly bullshit.

[K. A. Pital]

Also:

In another experiment published in March, University of Southern California neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that patients with damage to an area of the brain known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex lack the ability to feel their way to moral answers.

When confronted with moral dilemmas, the brain-damaged patients coldly came up with "end-justifies-the-means" answers. Damasio said the point was not that they reached immoral conclusions, but that when confronted by a difficult issue -- such as whether to shoot down a passenger plane hijacked by terrorists before it hits a major city -- these patients appear to reach decisions without the anguish that afflicts those with normally functioning brains.

Should NOT pose a problem if it were an aquired reflex.

[K. A. Pital]

And finally, about one of the researchers in question:

Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has found that people all over the world process moral questions in the same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human brain, rather than a product of culture.

I guess the idea that such basic instincts can be set by "rewards" or aquired due to social pressure doesn't really work.

[Turin]

First of all, don't throw around "Lamarckian" so blithely if that's not what you mean.

The article said that the findings imply this is a result of evolution in earlier species.

The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species.

Now, how the fuck do you explain that if you were to explain it with "society rewards, psychological connections form over lifetime"? No fucking way without Lamarckism. But pretty simple if you don't stick to the idea that it's an aquired reflex which was installed by the society.

Geez, Stas, you're a swell guy, but now you're just being deliberately dense. I don't want to see you use the word Lamarckism again unless you figure out what the fuck it means.

In any event, the argument isn't that altruism doesn't come from evolutionary roots (which no one here is disputing), but that this particular experiment isn't sufficiently controlled to prove that point because the brain structures in question could have potentially been modified by environment.

If that were so, why would they even care to mention that it's probably a result of earlier evolutionary processes? Clearly if it were a behavrioural-pressure aquired reflex, that would not even surface here.

And you're taking the assertions the article is making as fact, when they are clearly extensions of the experimental conclusions. My argument is that the brain experiment (specifically) doesn't have enough controls to make said assertions.

And how do you "control" such an experiment? Random clusters of people who had been possibly subjected to different behavioural pressures.

Or you eliminate the possibility of environmental changes to that portion of the brain by running similar experiments on other aspects of human behavior that supposedly aren't "hard-wired." See below for why this is a better attempt at a control.

Would you really think it's possible for all the sampled people to form such a identical connection? That would mean society extorts uniform pressure to aquire altruism on all it's members. That's certainly bullshit.

Nothing in the article demonstrates that it's that specific of a reaction. Just that the portion of the brain in question is activated. Differing degrees of activation could be caused by genetic or environmental differences between individuals. Again, making my point that while altruism is clearly Darwinian in origin, environment may still have influence. Surely you're not claiming that all people have an identical reaction?

Also:

In another experiment published in March, University of Southern California neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that patients with damage to an area of the brain known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex lack the ability to feel their way to moral answers.

Should NOT pose a problem if it were an aquired reflex.

Of course I made the argument that morality is totally environmentally based. Oh wait...

Altruism arising via Darwinian selection is certainly the case, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that acquired reinforcement (i.e. memetic or environmental reinforcement) of said altruism can't then alter the brain's structure. You just can't pass that alteration along to your offspring.

No I didn't. Kindly shove your strawman up your ass, please.

Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has found that people all over the world process moral questions in the same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human brain, rather than a product of culture.

The Hauser Dilemmas. Which are a pretty cool experiment. Of course, what you're ignoring is that because human beings share the same fundamental genetic structure, one would expect that human beings would develop cultural environments that are similar enough to reinforce their genetic tendencies towards altruism. In other words, the genes hold the leash of the memes and vice-versa.

And of course you're also ignoring that if the brain can be shaped by environment that we would expect people who grow up in psychologically unhealthy environments would have reduced mental function in various respects, which we know they do (don't make me drag up a source on this, this is trivial) -- most likely as the result of physical changes to the brain that occur as a result of environment. See: B.F. Skinner's experiments with the "cloth mother" vs "wire mother".

[Turin]

Stas, I'm going to have to be away from the computer for a while (big Friday night/Saturday planned with the new GF), but the main thrust of this whole argument seems to be that you're saying that any and all elements of brain structure (including these new altruism findings) are necessarily the product of Darwinian evolution, whereas I am saying that in addition to being the products of Darwinian evolution, an individual's brain structure can change as a result of their environment. You're making a totally unnecessary black-and-white fallacy of the thing.

Additionally, what's got my ass chapped is that you keep using the term Lamarckism as if it means "biological characteristics can be acquired," but you're missing the other and more important half of the definition, which is that "biological characteristics can be acquired and passed down to descendants." If I lose a finger in an accident, it's an acquired biological characteristic. I can't pass it down to my children, however (as you of course know).

In the same way, an individual can have the brain structures for a particular behavior (such as altruism or language) and have those brain structures modified by their environment. The individual will pass down the original brain structures (ex. a language center), but not the modification (ex. a language center fine-tuned to the phonemes of the Russian language). Darwinism has no problem with this.

I'll try to be back on Sunday if you'd like to continue this discussion.

[K. A. Pital]

...the main thrust of this whole argument seems to be that you're saying that any and all elements of brain structure (including these new altruism findings) are necessarily the product of Darwinian evolution, whereas I am saying that in addition to being the products of Darwinian evolution, an individual's brain structure can change as a result of their environment. You're making a totally unnecessary black-and-white fallacy of the thing.

I'm just wondering about the extent of possible changes as a result of "their environment". I think science has developed methods to discern aquired and un-aquired reflexes, did it not? And if so, why would the researchers even want to misinform the public?

Additionally, what's got my ass chapped is that you keep using the term Lamarckism as if it means "biological characteristics can be acquired," but you're missing the other and more important half of the definition, which is that "biological characteristics can be acquired and passed down to descendants."

Indeed. The problem is, I take the statement about evolution in earlier species as correct and then think how could that become an aquired characteristic. The only possibility here is Lamarckism.

If you say the experiment lacks controls, what sort of controls would definetely prove that it's non-aquired in such a case?

[Jesin]

I actually got an excellent book on this subject a few weeks ago. It's called The Moral Animal, and it explains this all very well. I really like its explanation of why some animals will sound a loud alarm if they see a predator nearby, and why it is beneficial even if it causes the animal's own death.

[Turin]

I'm just wondering about the extent of possible changes as a result of "their environment".

Maybe more than one might think. It's been long established that simple lack of affection can have serious negative affects on a developing brain. Another example that I gave in another thread recently are the changes caused to the language areas of the brain by the learning of a child's primary language. These changes are what makes it difficult for adults to learna second language.

I think science has developed methods to discern aquired and un-aquired reflexes, did it not?

Well that's precisely what's in dispute here. Does the experiment described sufficiently discern acquired versus innate traits?

And if so, why would the researchers even want to misinform the public? <snip> The problem is, I take the statement about evolution in earlier species as correct and then think how could that become an aquired characteristic. The only possibility here is Lamarckism.

Just to clarify, I don't think the researchers are misleading the public, I just think the Detroit Times article is written in a slightly misleading way (see below). But yes, if I were to take the entire article at face value I would of course concede that only Darwinian genetic evolution could result in the results described.

However, as far as I can tell from the article, Graf's brain experiments are not the same experiments that produced the rat results. Unfortunately the rat results aren't sourced in any way in the article and only vaguely described, so we can't check them to make sure they aren't just showing the results of kin selection. Nor can we verify that it isn't some sort of selfish reciprocal altruism, such as reciprocal altruism shown by meal-sharing in vampire bats wherein "debt" is levied against the borrower.

These are specific types of altruism but not the only ones we see in humans, who demonstrate uniquely non-selfish altruism. Example: I (and many other people) gave a significant amount of money to relief efforts after the big tsunami in SE Asia a few years back... none of the people helped by that are related to me in any way and I personally stood nothing to gain by it. This is only one example.

The underlying roots of this sort of human altruism originate in earlier species (and are obviously passed on to humans via Darwinian genetics), but humans also demonstrate unique forms of non-kin altruism which we have built on... either through additional genetic changes or through memetic changes. Animal experiments that demonstrate non-kin altruism that doesn't have some other selfish root would of course force me to concede this point entirely, but the rat experiment mentioned in the article is unsourced and we can't check it.

If you say the experiment lacks controls, what sort of controls would definetely prove that it's non-aquired in such a case?

That's the rub. I can imagine controls that disprove that it's a non-acquired, but I have trouble doing the reverse. An easy one, which I mentioned earlier, would be to compare the brain results against brain scans resulting from other phenomena that we "know" don't have biological roots.

Check the results against similar brain scans undergoing profound religious experiences, for example. We certainly didn't inherit religious experience from our mammalian ancestors, but we nonetheless know that people "experiencing God" ( ) show some pretty deep-rooted brain activity (apology here: I remember seeing the article on this board a while back but my Search-Fu fails me). Whether this is because the religious experience is hijacking that part of the brain or whether it's modified that part of the brain over years of indoctrination is up for dispute... but you can make the exact same argument for uniquely human forms of altruism as well.

If we extend the argument to the Hauser Dilemmas you brought up earlier, we run into another problem. These experiments rather conclusively demonstrate that human beings more-or-less all use the same methods of reasoning through moral dilemmas -- using the concepts of Utility combined with the Kantian imperative not to use individuals solely as a means to an end. The problem is that, away from the experiment, we obviously see a great many people not conforming to the experimental results in day-to-day life. This can only be explained if we assume that while human beings have a deeply-rooted biological basis for our altruistic behavior, that we are also affected by our environments to a great enough extent to modify this behavior... unfortunately often to bad ends.