How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes

Mark S

I am preparing a paper presently titled “How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes” for submission to a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on biological and cultural evolution and its insights into prosocial behaviors. The editor has OK’d the abstract but has not yet seen the paper. Before I submit it, perhaps some here could comment on the extracts below —the parts most relevant to moral philosophy, a subject I have studied only superficially.

How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes
Oct 11, 2025

Abstract:
There is a growing scientific consensus that the primary reason cultural moralities exist is that they solve cooperation problems. This paper proposes how insights from evolutionary game theory and moral psychology into the origins and functions of cultural moral norms can help resolve disputes about their enforcement. Case studies include “homosexuality is evil” and “abortion any time after conception is wrong”. Revealing the shameful origins of these two norms in exploitation of outgroups to increase the benefits of cooperation for ingroups could help groups decide if they will be enforced. Starting with The Golden Rule, “do not kill”, and the above disputed norms as examples, I show how a behavior’s morality can be categorized as descriptively moral, universally moral, and immoral (within a morality as cooperation framework) based on if they solve or create cooperation problems within groups and between groups. Reasons are given for why rational people might prefer to advocate the three principles implied by this categorization as a moral reference for refining cultural moral norms. No claims are made that all rational people will or somehow ought (except as an instrumental ought for achieving their goals) to advocate for morality as cooperation’s implied principles. Such claims are assumed to be beyond science’s domain.
…
I make four main claims that may not have previously been explicitly stated. First, virtually all the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms can be explained by evolutionary game theory and moral psychology as parts of cooperation strategies. Second, cultural moral norms are those norms whose violation is commonly thought to warrant punishment of at least reputation damage. Third, these explanations imply three cultural-independent moral principles that define what is descriptively moral, universally moral, and immoral within the framework of morality as cooperation. Fourth, the ultimate source of our moral psychology and cultural moral norms lies in cooperation strategies that are as innate to our universe as the simple mathematics on which evolutionary game theory is based.

….
To illustrate how this perspective can be culturally useful, I will explain what this perspective reveals about 1) the Golden Rule and “do not kill”, 2) the sometimes fervently defended norms “abortion is wrong from the moment of conception” and “homosexuality is evil”, 3) the strange norm “eating pigs is morally wrong”, and 4) “women must be subservient to men” and “slaves must obey their masters”.

…
These categories define three culture-independent moral principles:
1) Descriptively moral behaviors solve cooperation problems in groups but may exploit, and thereby create cooperation problems with, outgroups.
2) Universally moral behaviors solve cooperation problems without exploiting others.
3) Immoral behaviors create cooperation problems.

…
Why might people prefer the proposed morality as cooperation principles as references for understanding and reﬁning cultural moral norms?

1) Based on their explanatory power for the superficially chaotic data set of past and present cultural moral norms, these moral principles are arguably true in the usual scientiﬁc sense, making them uniquely valuable as objective references for resolving disputes about cultural moral norms.
2) These principles reveal that cultural morality is not a mysterious burden (Blackford 2015) but rather a powerful means for increasing the beneﬁts of sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community.
3) They will be more harmonious with our moral sense than other options because, for the most part, the cooperation strategies they employ are already encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense.
4) In addition to its material benefits, increased cooperation can reliably trigger innate psychological rewards, feelings of well-being and moral elevation (Haidt 2003; Von Hippel, W. 2018), that evolved to help motivate cooperation with family, friends, and larger ingroups.
5) By deﬁning only moral ‘means’ (cooperation strategies) and not ‘ends’ (the goals of that cooperation), these principles are compatible with common ultimate moral goals from moral philosophy. Variations of well-being for all and Stoicism’s personal eudaimonia are goals that could be well served by reﬁning cultural moral norms to more effectively solve cooperation problems.

...
Implications for moral philosophy

The morality as cooperation scientific consensus explains why cultural moralities exist. This is not a philosophical claim about what morality ought to be. Answering moral philosophy’s ‘ought’ questions such as “How should I live?” and “What are my obligations?” requires assumptions about imperative moral oughts and ultimate moral goals that are beyond science’s domain.

However, philosophers who argue that ethical theory depends on intuitions (Audi 2022) may find these scientific insights into the ultimate source of our intuitions relevant to what moral means ought to be. This science shows that the ultimate source of our moral psychology and cultural moral norms is not in our semi-random biological and cultural evolution as many philosophers have implied (Street 2006). These evolutionary processes merely encoded morality. The ultimate source of cultural moralities is in evolutionary game theory. Evolutionary game theory is independent of biology or culture because it is as innate to our physical reality as the simple mathematics it is based on. Perhaps a culture, species, and time independent definition of what cultural moralities ‘are’ could be useful?

Conclusion and recommendations for further work

Morality as cooperation implies three moral principles that, with insights from game theory and moral psychology, may be culturally useful for helping to resolve disputes about cultural moral norms.

However, work is needed to 1) more ﬁrmly establish that the three moral principles proposed here are grounded in robust science, 2) explore how kin altruism, hierarchies, network reciprocity, group selection, rule of law, and money economies (none of which are addressed in this paper) help solve cooperation problems and how to use that knowledge to refine cultural moral norms to better meet human needs and preferences, and 3) integrate morality as cooperation into moral philosophy’s toolkit for resolving disputes about enforcing cultural moral norms.

L'éléphant

First, congratulations on your submission. Not an easy thing to write for publication.

I make four main claims that may not have previously been explicitly stated. — Mark S

First, virtually all the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms can be explained by evolutionary game theory and moral psychology as parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

Not all. Tyrannical moral laws were part of the past (and present). There was no "cooperation" strategy, except the laws made by the one person in power. There were also tribes, nation, communities that had become extinct because morality was to serve the almighty being, to the detriment of the population.

Second, cultural moral norms are those norms whose violation is commonly thought to warrant punishment of at least reputation damage. — Mark S

Good.

Third, these explanations imply three cultural-independent moral principles that define what is descriptively moral, universally moral, and immoral within the framework of morality as cooperation. — Mark S

Good.

Fourth, the ultimate source of our moral psychology and cultural moral norms lies in cooperation strategies that are as innate to our universe as the simple mathematics on which evolutionary game theory is based. — Mark S

The veil of ignorance as a hypothesis should counter evolutionary game theory in one way. The VOI theory wants to bring up the least advantaged members of society without the members knowing their own talents and abilities. If wages are the measure of equality, would you agree to equal wages for both non-productive and highly productive members of your society?

Mark S

First, virtually all the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms can be explained by evolutionary game theory and moral psychology as parts of cooperation strategies.
— Mark S
Not all. Tyrannical moral laws were part of the past (and present). There was no "cooperation" strategy, except the laws made by the one person in power. There were also tribes, nation, communities that had become extinct because morality was to serve the almighty being, to the detriment of the population. — L'éléphant

Hi L'éléphant, thanks for commenting.

Since “cultural moral norms are those norms whose violation is commonly thought to warrant punishment of at least reputation damage”, a tyrant can try to impose tyrannical moral norms, but may fail, because that would require convincing the population that violators deserve punishment. Moral norms are what a culture says they are.

Of course, tyrants can dictate laws and claim, like a current politician does, that anyone who opposes him has violated the norm “don’t criticize the tyrant” and has acted immorally. While tyrants can make a law and he can punish violators, it does not make the law a cultural moral norm.

Tribes and nations could become extinct because, for example, their cultural moral norms focused on cooperating to increase the general welfare rather than cooperating to defend against or attack their neighbors. Morality as cooperation is about what moral means are, and is silent about what the goals of that cooperation (such as general happiness or exterminating the group’s perceived enemies) ought to be.

Counterexamples of cultural moral norms that might not be parts of cooperation strategies are always welcome. In the OP, I write:

To illustrate how this perspective can be culturally useful, I will explain what this perspective reveals about 1) the Golden Rule and “do not kill”, 2) the sometimes fervently defended norms “abortion is wrong from the moment of conception” and “homosexuality is evil”, 3) the strange norm “eating pigs is morally wrong”, and 4) “women must be subservient to men” and “slaves must obey their masters”. — Mark S

That is, I explain how all of these moral norms are, surprisingly to me when I was looking for counterexamples, parts of known cooperation strategies. Almost all contradictions and strangeness in past and present cultural moralities are due to different definitions of favored ingroups and disfavored or exploited outgroups, different ethnic marker norms, different strategies, and emphasis on different ultimate goals for moral behavior.

The veil of ignorance as a hypothesis should counter evolutionary game theory in one way. The VOI theory wants to bring up the least advantaged members of society without the members knowing their own talents and abilities. If wages are the measure of equality, would you agree to equal wages for both non-productive and highly productive members of your society? — L'éléphant

I am in awe of Rawls’ VOI theory. It is a wonderful heuristic for designing a society without exploitation of others (without creating cooperation problems). Consider two cases.

Case 1 - If the non-productive members of society are free-riders who could help others and not harm them but self-interestedly choose not to, then yes, they are creating cooperation problems and that is immoral in the morality as cooperation framework. They deserve punishment of at least reputation damage.

Case 2 - - If the non-productive members of society are doing the best they can, then in a moral society (again in the morality as cooperation framework) they would be helped by others and not deserve punishment.

But you asked if, regardless of their contribution to the public good, all deserved the same wages. If giving everyone the same wages creates cooperation problems (as I expect it would by demotivating hard work) then that would be immoral (in the morality as cooperation framework).

I don’t remember that Rawls claimed that everyone should (in effect) get the same reward regardless of contribution. To the extent that Rawls VOI does advocate behaviors in the designed society that create cooperation problems rather than solve them, then yes, morality as cooperation does contradict VOI.

But I would disagree that VOI can “counter” morality as cooperation. The scientific truth of morality as cooperation is in a different domain of knowledge from morality based on assumed ethical premises.

L'éléphant

But I would disagree that VOI can “counter” morality as cooperation. The scientific truth of morality as cooperation is in a different domain of knowledge from morality based on assumed ethical premises. — Mark S

Actually I was referring to the evolutionary game theory you mentioned when I said VOI could counter it.
I'm still not quite sold on morality as cooperation. Morality might have that unintended effect of cooperation, but not quite as the goal. There are moral principles that followers do for the sole purpose of their soul and conscience regardless of what the outsiders looking in think. In the one example where a bandwagon effect happens, do I really want to follow a moral principle because it's good for the whole group?

What if I want to deliberate first and eventually come up with a different conclusion that what the group has concluded? Is a deviation from the norm a bad thing automatically?

Mark S

Actually I was referring to the evolutionary game theory you mentioned when I said VOI could counter it. — L'éléphant

Evolutionary game theory is in the domain of mathematics and morality as cooperation is in the domain of science since it is a claim about why cultural moralities exist. VOI is in the separate domain of knowledge based on assumed moral premises. VOI can not contradict either because they are in different domains of knowledge.

Can you imagine a moral premise that counters (shows an error in) mathematics? Of course not. Similarly, a moral premise cannot show an error in empirical observations about why cultural moral norms exist – they are what they are.

Consider Kantianism. It defines moral means differently than morality as cooperation. Can Kantianism show that science is wrong about why moral norms exist? No, of course not. What moral norms 'are' is in a different domain of knowledge than what moral norms ought to be.

What if I want to deliberate first and eventually come up with a different conclusion that what the group has concluded? Is a deviation from the norm a bad thing automatically? — L'éléphant

Yes, you can “deliberate first and eventually come up with a different conclusion (about moral norms) than what the group”. The drawback to that is potentially losing out on the benefits of cooperation which can be a big deal.

Here is an extract from my paper about why we have a moral sense and cultural moral norms. Perhaps it will answer some of your questions.

“Cooperation problems arise when individuals or groups could mutually benefit by cooperation but conflicts between self-interest and shared interest, short and long-term self-interest, free-rider problems, and lack of trust prevent that cooperation. Creating civilizations required finding biological and cultural solutions to these problems (Nowak 2011).

Fortunately for us, the biological evolution of our moral sense and the cultural evolution of moral norms did that for our ancestors. The cooperation strategies encoded in our moral sense and cultural moral norms have enabled us to become an incredibly successful social species. Martin Nowak (2011) describes us as super cooperators.”

L'éléphant

Can you imagine a moral premise that counters (shows an error in) mathematics? — Mark S

This is presumption.
I have not actually accepted the premise that evolutionary game theory is the explanation for morality.
Remember, religion was the first to spread moral principles.

Mark S

I have not actually accepted the premise that evolutionary game theory is the explanation for morality.
Remember, religion was the first to spread moral principles. — L'éléphant

No problem for me. But I would point out that the hypothesis that evolutionary game theory explains morality is supported by its explanatory power for the vast, chaotic dataset of past and present cultural moral norms. No other explanation comes remotely close to explaining why they exist.

Regarding religion, it started with the need for punishment of free riders which is a necessary part of cooperation strategies. But punishment by people can be risky. It can also incite cycles of retribution that destroy cooperation. The perfect punisher would be all-seeing (so he could see wrongdoing) and all-powerful so retaliating against him would be pointless. Hence gods were created. The moralities religions advocate are still cooperation strategies. Religions exist because they provided useful supernatural punishments.

Copernicus

cultural moralities — Mark S

I think the very word "morality" is a term with a collectivist (cultural or not) origin. Ethics, values, laws, and norms are all communitarian inventions. To even mention them or define them is an act of tyranny.

The individual lives within his own consciousness.
His perception, will, and moral sense are confined to his mind.
If liberty means self-determination, then it should begin and end within the self — not in the social contract that others draft on his behalf.

But when the state dictates what one can do, it transforms autonomy into permission. The “Bill of Rights” then is not the liberation of man but the institutionalization of his boundaries.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Illusion of Liberty: When Individual Rights Become Communitarian Grants [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17351527

Mark S

I think the very word "morality" is a term with a collectivist (cultural or not) origin. Ethics, values, laws, and norms are all communitarian inventions. To even mention them or define them is an act of tyranny — Copernicus

Copernicus,

You can choose liberty as an over-riding ultimate goal if you like. But you should be aware of the high price in mental and material well-being you will likely pay if ‘liberty’ means that you reject cooperation with others.

Your quotes about morality’s impingement on liberty were prompted by and aimed at pre-scientific understandings and implementations of morality. And, yes, some past and present moral norms were and are horrible transgressions of liberty.

But morality as cooperation offers an objective basis for refining cultural moral norms to reduce and eliminate those transgressions.

Understanding morality as strategies for solving cooperation problems, rather than a set of rules that reduce your liberty mostly to benefit others, is a new perspective you might consider.

Perhaps you think you are at liberty to cooperate only when it pleases you. Moral norms are enforced by punishment of at least reputation damage in order to exclude free-riders who choose when to cooperate based on their expected benefits. Prepare to be excluded

Copernicus

↪Mark S

what's your view on the social contract?

Mark S

what's your view on the social contract? — Copernicus

I prefer to keep this thread on the topic of morality as a cooperation.

Copernicus

↪Mark S

Social contract forces cooperation (and morality) without prior consent upon birth.

Hanover

There is a growing scientific consensus that the primary reason cultural moralities exist is that they solve cooperation problems. — Mark S

How do you define "culture" here? Is there an American morality at variance from the one in Madagascar? Or is the human culture throughout all time and place, leaving us with just a single absolute morality?

There is a growing scientific consensus that the primary reason cultural moralities exist is that they solve cooperation problems. — Mark S

Cooperation isn't always a goal, so the lack of cooperation may not be a problem. The idea of universal equal sharing of resources would not necessarily yield greater results for all of humanity. Those nations currently not fully cooperating (the entirety of the West, for example) find themselves with far more technological advancements (including many life-saving ones) that would not exist if everyone were treated equally in the co-op you describe.

Why is cooperation the highest goal of morality? Why not reward things like sacrifice, altruism, purity, or other things?

Case studies include “homosexuality is evil” and “abortion any time after conception is wrong”. Revealing the shameful origins of these two norms in exploitation of outgroups to increase the benefits of cooperation for ingroups could help groups decide if they will be enforced. — Mark S

How are we defining "ingroup"? If I'm from the US, am I an ingroup of the Americas, and so I should be protected from the outside nations that might wish to impose their will on me? Does this not create a justification for xenophobia? But if I'm an ingroup homosexual, I should be a protected ingroup, now offering a justification for civil rights. How do I know when to use this system since it might yield very different sorts of results?

Why is the protection of fetuses shameful? What principle do you rely upon to arrive at any conclusion that involves entities that cannot cooperate, like fetuses (some aged 1 week, some 8 months), the mentally incompetent, or animals? Is shame a punishment mechanism exerted on the non-compliant or is it a self imposed thing that arises through the conscience? If we have a conscience, why don't we just rely upon that?

But, coming back to your opening line:

There is a growing scientific consensus that the primary reason cultural moralities exist is that they solve cooperation problems. — Mark S

How isn't this this a textbook naturalistic fallacy. Just because something "is" does not mean that is how it "ought" to be. It's a category error - conflating the descriptive (this is how things are) with the normative (this is how thing ought to be).

Mark S

Is there an American morality at variance from the one in Madagascar? Or is the human culture throughout all time and place, leaving us with just a single absolute morality? — Hanover

All cultures have moralities. America has subcultures with contradictory moral norms. Morality as cooperation explains the origins and functions of contradictory norms.

Cooperation isn't always a goal, so the lack of cooperation may not be a problem. — Hanover

Cooperation is a means, not an ultimate goal. Cooperation without a goal is pointless.

How are we defining "ingroup"? — Hanover

An ingroup is a preferred group for cooperation. We are all members of many ingroups, such as family, friends, and larger groups like religions and nationalities.

Why is the protection of fetuses shameful — Hanover

I do not claim that the protection of fetuses is shameful. What is shameful is the exploitation of women by norms such as "abortion anytime after conception is immoral" (which holds that the moral worth of a fertilized egg cell and a woman are similar) to benefit political and religious elites gaining and holding on to power and as an ethnic marker strategy.

How isn't this this a textbook naturalistic fallacy. — Hanover

Explaining why cultural moral norms exist is entirely in the domain of science. I do not claim that everyone ought (as either an imperative ought, or as the rational choice) to use what morality 'is' as a model for what morality 'ought' to be. What ought to be is not in science's domain.
Science helps determine instrumental oughts of the form "If your goal is X, then science says you ought (instrumental) to do Y." Instrumental oughts of the usual kind in science are the only kind of oughts I am claiming. They have nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy.

ProtagoranSocratist

I agree with the basic premise that morality is a cooperation tool. However, this seems false and dangerous:

They will be more harmonious with our moral sense than other options because, for the most part, the cooperation strategies they employ are already encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense. — Mark S

I think here we risk confusing "specific x moral law is encoded in our biology" with "our biological encoding to nuetralize threats and shoot for personal equilibrium leads us to develop moralities". As can be easily confirmed, there's nothing encoded about morality in DNA. If that were the case, there would be no disagreements about how to punish rulebreakers. Things would be much easier.

Nor is there any shared sense of strategy in DNA, which is what makes that statement confusing. I ain't no geneticist, but thats not how it works...

Hanover

I do not claim that the protection of fetuses is shameful. What is shameful is the exploitation of women by norms such as "abortion anytime after conception is immoral" (which holds that the moral worth of a fertilized egg cell and a woman are similar) to benefit political and religious elites gaining and holding on to power and as an ethnic marker strategy. — Mark S

I don't think I'm following. What moral rule are you presenting that leads to the conclusion that it's wrong to subjugate woman in order to promote political and religious elites? I'm not suggesting you're wrong. I'm just trying to understand how you've arrived at that. Was it through a scientific means because, as you've noted, "

Explaining why cultural moral norms exist is entirely in the domain of science. — Mark S

It would seem if we live in a culture where homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, we can then use science to understand why that is, but then you suggest that the "moral norm" we've identified isn't moral at all.

Science helps determine instrumental oughts of the form "If your goal is X, then science says you ought (instrumental) to do Y." Instrumental oughts of the usual kind in science are the only kind of oughts I am claiming. They have nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy. — Mark S

So, if I want to have a society that promotes only traditional man/woman marriages, then scientifically I ought forbid homosexuality, correct? And through cooperation we can acheive that goal, correct?

Am I correct that you are not presenting a moral theory? You're just saying that the most pragmatic way to implement a goal is through scientific analysis and methodology, regardless of whether we're seeking to build a house or seeking to institute our agreed upon social norms?

Mark S

I think here we risk confusing "specific x moral law is encoded in our biology" with "our biological encoding to nuetralize threats and shoot for personal equilibrium leads us to develop moralities". As can be easily confirmed, there's nothing encoded about morality in DNA. If that were the case, there would be no disagreements about how to punish rulebreakers. Things would be much easier.

Nor is there any shared sense of strategy in DNA, which is what makes that statement confusing. I ain't no geneticist, but thats not how it works... — ProtagoranSocratist

ProtagoranSocratist,

Would you agree that the design of the human body is encoded in our DNA? In comparison, the encoding of the behaviors that implement some cooperation strategies seems trivial.

We have a moral sense that, when triggered by detecting morally relevant circumstances, can produce strong emotions such as empathy and loyalty (that motivate initiating reciprocity strategies), disgust and "righteous indignation" (that motivate punishment of moral norm violations) and shame and guilt (that motivate internal punishment of moral norm violations). Together, these emotions motivate a sustainable, and powerful, reciprocity strategy called indirect reciprocity.

From this perspective, indirect reciprocity is encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense and I would say it is therefore encoded in our DNA even if no one knows how to find it.

Is your screen name a reference to the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras? I am an admirer of Protagoras. He patiently explained to Socrates that the function of morality was enabling cooperation and, if you replace "Zeus" with "evolution," you get a remarkably accurate account of the evolution of morality. Socrates did not respond to that claim at all, perhaps because it was too common at the time and therefore not interesting.

Mark S

[

Am I correct that you are not presenting a moral theory? You're just saying that the most pragmatic way to implement a goal is through scientific analysis and methodology, regardless of whether we're seeking to build a house or seeking to institute our agreed upon social norms? — Hanover

Right. I am not proposing any moral premises that would enable answering moral ought questions such as “How should I live?” and “What are my obligations?”

I am presenting 1) scientific explanations of why the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms exist and 2) how understanding why they exist can be useful for resolving disputes about their enforcement.

I use the word shameful simply because I expect people, when they understand the origin and function of moral norms such as “homosexuality is wrong”, to commonly think enforcing such norms is shameful. I propose no moral premise that would tell us whether something is shameful.

Without a moral premise, this science (like the rest of science) is useful only for the instrumental oughts it suggests.

Thanks for commenting.

Mark S

↪Hanover

Your comment suggested how I might improve my abstract. Here is the updated version. I hope it is clearer.

Abstract

There is a growing scientific consensus that the primary reason cultural moralities exist is that they solve cooperation problems. I propose that 1) insights from evolutionary game theory and moral psychology can explain why the contradictions and strangeness of past and present cultural moral norms exist and 2) how understanding why they exist can be useful for resolving disputes about their enforcement. No moral premises are claimed. Case studies include the norms “homosexuality is evil” and “abortion is wrong from the moment of conception.” Exposing the exploitative origins of such norms—where outgroups were exploited to enhance ingroup cooperation—can assist societies in deciding whether to continue enforcing them. Beginning with examples such as the Golden Rule, prohibitions against killing, and the above contested norms, I outline how behaviors can be categorized as descriptively moral, universally moral, or immoral within a morality-as-cooperation (MAC) framework, depending on whether they solve or create cooperation problems within or between groups. I then argue why rational individuals may prefer to advocate the three principles implied by this categorization as references for refining moral norms. No claim is made that all rational people will, or ought to, advocate for these principles except as an instrumental means for achieving their goals.

ProtagoranSocratist

From this perspective, indirect reciprocity is encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense and I would say it is therefore encoded in our DNA even if no one knows how to find it. — Mark S

And this takes me back to what i was originally was criticizing: a lot more than "the human body" is encoded in our DNA (another example is the growth trajectory of a human, "the healthy growth"). Morality is clearly not one of them: the moral aspect tends to come from human creation and assent. If you look at a DNA sequence in a lab, you will see absolutely nothing about morality, religion, philosophy, or political ideology. The DNA sequence can help someone deduce reasons for human behavior, and it may be true or false, but "thou shalt not kill" did not directly come from your DNA.

What likely occurred is these moral ideas came out of desire for survival, and the instructions for brain development are in fact encoded in your DNA. That's an enormous difference from saying your culture or groups moral ideas are encoded in your DNA. I grew up with christian moral ideas being preached to me, a muslim grew up with islamic moral ideas being preached to them. Since i disagree with both religions about morality, i can't possible agree with your ideas on DNA encoding...

Is your screen name a reference to the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras? I am an admirer of Protagoras. He patiently explained to Socrates that the function of morality was enabling cooperation and, if you replace "Zeus" with "evolution," you get a remarkably accurate account of the evolution of morality. Socrates did not respond to that claim at all, perhaps because it was too common at the time and therefore not interesting. — Mark S

Yes, my screen name is a commentary on the ideas i like that came from protagoras, but also acknowledgling the inability to arrive at a neat conclusion in philosophy (socrates loved to contradict others), but your comment on Zeus and evolution seems not to be relevant to Protagoras. Protagoras largely commented on the subjectivity of all things, "Everything is true, contradictions are impossible." He also commented on civic morality, i.e., how affairs should be conducted. He also got in some trouble because he said something like "...i don't know whether the Gods exist, the matter is vague." According to writings from the time period, the greeks burned his books in response to his agnosticism, and he fled the city out of fear.

I don't know why on earth Protagorus would have, or could have, discussed the evolution of morality. It seems like you are just trying to argue your paper instead if improve it...but i could be wrong.

Hanover

[

Your comment suggested how I might improve my abstract. Here is the updated version. I hope it is clearer. — Mark S

Let me ask a couple more questions with your helpful clarifications:

Do you assume that people of all stripes will submit to scientific explanations for the origins of morals as opposed to some holding they are of divine origin? That is, wouldn't the people of scientific, secular leanings already reject anti-homosexual moral codes and not need persuading, yet the ones who hold firm to them will reject your scientific worldview and will remain firm?

If someone accepts the parting of a sea as an actual event, do you think a course in hydrology will change their mind?

And now I do get what you're saying on another matter, and I think my misunderstanding was based upon my failure to appreciate your very strong Enlightenment leanings. You assume as a given (and I don't mean to be presumptuous, so feel free to correct me) that morality is a naturalistic outgrowth of reason so all reasonable people will reject moral rules with immoral origins. This excludes those people who disagree and insist a realism to morality without human existence at all. That is, even if homosexuality can be shown to have been prohibited in the past for some horrible reason, those who believe it absolutely wrong will just see that horrible reason an unfortunate aside but that it still should have been prohibited for the correct reason, which is that it stands in that place of absolute wrong.

Mark S

↪ProtagoranSocratist

Regarding Protagoras,

In retelling the perhaps common myth of how Zeus gave people a moral sense, Protagoras explained that the function of our moral sense (the primary reason that it exists) was to enable cooperation to form societies and said that without a moral sense, “societies couldn't exist at all.” If indeed it was a common myth about our moral sense, his morality as cooperation perspective would likely have been a common view at the time.

Just before this, Protagoras describes how people got fire and technical knowledge from the gods.

‘So now that people had their little share of what is given to the gods, in the first place, on account of their connections in high places, they alone among living things had any notion of the divine, and they set about building altars and making statues of the gods. And as well as that, by using their ingenuity, they soon came up with words for things and formed articulate speech and invented shelters, clothes, shoes and bedding, and worked out how to grow their own food.

‘Now, supplied with these advantages, in earliest times people lived scattered here and there. There were no societies. So they started being killed by the wild animals, since they were weaker than them in every way, and their technical skills, although up to the task of providing them with food, just weren't good enough for the battle against the beasts (they didn't yet have any civic and ethical know-how, remember; and knowing how to fight a war is part of that). So they kept on trying to find a way to gather into groups and defend themselves by founding communities, but every time they came together, they would do one another wrong, since they didn't have any ethical know-how, and so they would scatter again and go back to being slaughtered.

‘At this point Zeus became worried that our species might perish altogether from the earth, so he asked Hermes to take down to people a sense of right and wrong. This was to bring order to societies, and to serve as the bonds for friendship and love, and bring us together. So Hermes says to Zeus, “But how? How am I supposed to give people this sense of right and wrong? Should I hand it out in the same way we handed out the technical skills?

You remember how they were handed out. One person with, say, knowledge of medicine is enough for a large number of people who don't know anything about it; and it's the same with the other skilled professions. So shall I put a sense of right and wrong in human kind like that, or should [d] I hand it out to all of them?”

“Give it out to all of them,” said Zeus. “Every single one must have a share. The fact is, there's no way societies could exist at all if only a few people possessed a sense of right and wrong, the way it is with those other skills. In fact, make it a rule, on my authority, that anyone who proves incapable of acquiring some sense of right and wrong must be thought of as a sickness to society and put to death!”

Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin Classics) (Kindle Locations 875-887). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Mark S

You assume as a given (and I don't mean to be presumptuous, so feel free to correct me) that morality is a naturalistic outgrowth of reason so all reasonable people will reject moral rules with immoral origins. This excludes those people who disagree and insist a realism to morality without human existence at all. That is, even if homosexuality can be shown to have been prohibited in the past for some horrible reason, those who believe it absolutely wrong will just see that horrible reason an unfortunate aside but that it still should have been prohibited for the correct reason, which is that stands in that place of absolute wrong. — Hanover

Hanover, you are pointing out a very real problem for how religious people will or will not benefit from understanding the evolutionary origins of cultural moral norms. I expect many will not benefit at all.

Perhaps some will understand the science of morality as describing how God created morality. In the paper, I quote Jesus as saying the Golden Rule summarizes morality and then explain why that is the case. Maybe that is a start.

But many religions are currently in the midst of internal disputes about the morality of sanctions for homosexuality. Perhaps those on the “no sanctions” side would gladly accept a scientific explanation of the shameful reasons that moral sanctions against homosexuality exist. That would not convince everyone on the other side, but it might help.

It is my goal to figure out how this science of morality can be useful for religious people, but that is still a work in progress.

One perspective I have been thinking of is that if God created the universe, he set things up so that the mathematics underlying game theory innately contained solutions to cooperation problems. These are the solutions that biological and cultural evolution encoded into our moral sense and cultural moral norms. Therefore, God created morality as cooperation. What do you think? Any chance? .

Mark S

Morality is clearly not one of them: the moral aspect tends to come from human creation and assent. — ProtagoranSocratist

Your use of the word morality is as an answer to ought questions such as "How should I live?", "What are my obligations?", and "What should our ultimate goals be?". The answers to these questions are human creations and, I agree, are not encoded in our DNA or biology or to be found in science.

The paper proposes 1) scientific explanations of the origins of the contradictions and strangeness in past and present cultural moral norms and 2) how, within the morality as cooperation framework, we can categorize behaviors as descriptively moral, universally moral and immoral. Here, universally moral and immoral refer to what is universal to cultural moral norms and what has the opposite function of cultural moral norms.

I describe what moral norms 'are' as products of evolutionary processes (a topic within science's domain) not what moral norms 'ought' to be - a different subject that is in the domain of moral philosophers.

My paper, like science, is silent on the big-ought questions in moral philosophy that I understand you to be concerned with.

ProtagoranSocratist

Your use of the word morality is as an answer to ought questions such as "How should I live?" — Mark S

that is very true: morality is ultimately a "should". I personally, as "ProtagoranSocratist" do not really have strong opinions on morality. I think honesty helps, yet it can also be dangerous to be honest, so it's not really a "should". Probably the most important rule i vaguely fallow, is avoiding unnecessary harm. I do harm (the byproducts of my life are inevitably pollutants, sometimes my very presence irritates others), but if i can benefit myself and avoid doing harm to someone else as the same time, then this is desirable. However, it's still not a should, as i recognize that doing harm is part of life on this planet...and while i may judge someone for harming me, I may have to do harm in order to survive...but that is a worst-case scenario, like having to kill someone who is trying to kill me.

That Protagoras story certainly isn't true in a historical sense, but it does show that a society is made up of different kinds of people who rely on each other...the dire emotional implications of "right and wrong" (put the wrongdoer to death!)...and other things.

ProtagoranSocratist

Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin Classics) (Kindle Locations 875-887). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. — Mark S

i'm wondering what Plato was basing this on: the book I read on Protagoras was "The Greek Sophists" by John Dillon (also published by Penguin). It's not very good to be honest with you, as the fragmented way they talk about the texts makes it kinda annoying to read, but it does comment on the evidence we have on the real life Protagoras. I would recommend ordering that book from your library, and only reading the section on Protagoras since you're unto this stuff. It does clarify where the documentation comes from, but information on Protagoras is hardly reliable or extensive(i don't think it's much more valid than your Plato account, if better at all...). I look forward to reading entire books written by Heraclitus and Parmenides (they go back even further), yet the little I learned from Protagoras was pretty satisfying.

Hanover

Therefore, God created morality as cooperation. What do you think? Any chance? . — Mark S

Given that they are more adept than your upstart group, I think should you enter their church for the purposes of saving them, more of you will become Christian than Christians will become you.

My paper, like science, is silent on the big-ought questions in moral philosophy that I understand you to be concerned with — Mark S

This was the topic of most of our first posts, but it's a bit unraveled now. You have an agenda, which is to convert those who deny your modern secularism into the fold by showing them the light and way of your Reason, which you state is rooted in a historical analysis of human moral evolution. That is, you do in fact have a solid understanding of the "big oughts," as they are all derivable by scientifically excluding all current moral rules that show historically problematic origins.

That is, why not just tell us what morals can withstand your scientific analysis and etch them on tablets to clear this all up? That way you can preach from the tablets and invite the skeptical to visit with you on Sunday so they can then dig deeper into understanding the Reasoning behind your Rules.

Better yet, write a book that explains all the logic behind all your rules and call it, I don't know, "Guide for the Perplexed."

Someone beat you to it almost 1,000 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guide_for_the_Perplexed

So you see my point, and maybe I carried on too long with it, but that might be the response from your potential converts.

Mark S

Given that they are more adept than your upstart group, I think should you enter their church for the purposes of saving them, more of you will become Christian than Christians will become you. — Hanover

I have little interest in converting anyone (unless their morality really is despicable). My interest is in presenting morality as cooperation in ways that anyone might find helpful.

Astorre

↪Mark S

Each new approach, whether naturalistic or otherwise, adds another voice to the polyphony of ideas, heightening the sense of "splitness." Authors attempting to construct comprehensive systems or substantiate moral and epistemological principles often find that their efforts merely highlight the pluralism of modern thought. And each new work only exacerbates this.

A paradox of modernity, if you will.

And yet, each individual's aspirations seem immaculate. Each of us (probably) wants to make a creative contribution, resolve contradictions, or add clarity. But what emerges is only more questions (upon closer examination).

Mark S

↪Hanover

Hanover,

Here is a very rough draft of one approach Ithat might encourage religious people to consider what science can tell them about morality as cooperation.

To avoid misunderstandings, remember that morality as cooperation describes what morality 'is' which is in science's domain, not what morality ought to be - moral philosophy's normal focus.

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Jesus is quoted as saying that this version of the Golden Rule summarizes morality. For over 2,000 years, across cultures, people have said that versions of the Golden Rule summarize morality. What makes the Golden Rule so special?

Building on advances in evolutionary game theory, scientists have begun to unravel the mysteries of cultural moralities and moral norms. Cultural moral norms, no matter how contradictory and strange to outsiders, are parts of cooperation strategies. Versions of the Golden Rule can be said to summarize morality because they advocate initiating indirect reciprocity, a powerful strategy for cooperating in groups. The cooperation strategies encoded in our moral sense and cultural moral norms by biological and cultural evolution are primarily what have allowed the emergence of civilizations. Scientists call what they have discovered morality as cooperation.

Evolutionary game theory relies on simple mathematics that are as innate to our universe as gravity. Morality as cooperation is then as innate and universal to our universe as gravity.

If God created the universe, he wove simple mathematics into its foundations, along with that mathematics’ product—the strategies that compose morality as cooperation. Morality as cooperation is then God’s creation, pure, without any of the self-interested modifications people are so inclined to add. As you might expect of the creator of the universe’s morality, the core of morality as cooperation is universal and the same in every galaxy for every species from the beginning of time to the end of time. How species with civilizations apply morality to solve cooperation problems and the goals they choose for that cooperation will vary, but the function of their morality will everywhere be the same – solving cooperation problems.

Hanover

Here is a very rough draft of one approach Ithat might encourage religious people to consider what science can tell them about morality as cooperation.

To avoid misunderstandings, remember that morality as cooperation describes what morality 'is' which is in science's domain, not what morality ought to be - moral philosophy's normal focus. — Mark S

I have little interest in converting anyone (unless their morality really is despicable). My interest is in presenting morality as cooperation in ways that anyone might find helpful. — Mark S

I do think you wish to convert the religious to a very different way of thinking, specifically from a revealed morality to a naturalistic one. The former references revelation from a divine authority through scripture or other means believed to identify God's will versus the latter which references locating morality from reason alone. While those finding truth through revelation don't concede the irrationality of their views, an inability to locate the rationale isn't fatal to them, nor is it fatal to them that the revealed truth challenge their rationality.

Persuading a truly religion person away from religion would require identifying their drivers for being religious, which you are assuming is a desire for a morality consistent with reason. I would suppose that plays a minor role in most religious people's lives. The sense of community, meaning, certainty, comfort,ritual, etc play more critical roles.

From what it appears, people typically leave religion because they were misplaced into religion in the first place and never truly religious (as when kids grow up and develop their own views that just don't fit their personality) or religion failing them by not providing a sense of community, comfort etc (as when rejected for sexual preference, abusive leaders, etc).

I trust fully in the benevolent intent of your objective, just as I do with the young men on bicycles providing me their religious literature, but the two aren't terribly different. I would also suppose that those most easy to convert will be those in emotional need, needing saving from a harsh reality, either one devoid of meaning or one overly oppressive.

The growth of non-religious thinking is organically growing, and those adherents already reject the views you oppose, but I just truly question whether direct efforts to logically persuade a religious person to secularism would be at all effective.

And I am absolutely convinced you don't wish to convert anyone as a matter of principle and likely bristle at my suggestion that that is what you seek to do because you've said iit a number of times. But understand that is how you will be perceived, and ask yourself if you don't truly hope to change someone who relies on revelation to rely on reason.

How Morality as Cooperation Can Help Resolve Moral Disputes

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions