One More 'Go' on Morality

 

 

It should be easy to see that fraud, theft, murder and assault are harmful to both the individual in a group and to the group at large. It should also be easy to see that empathy would be a component to understanding that harm done to an individual in a group is also harmful to the group at large. Individuals within the group at large could empathize with the harm done to an individual within the group.

 

Other studies demonstrate that individuals initially only extend empathy to member of their own group (family, extended family, group, tribe, nation, etc.) However, as individuals become more familiarized to members of disparate group, then empathic tendencies extend beyond members of the ‘home’ group to the familiarized group.  This tendency would allow for the growth of a small group, such as a family, to a larger group such as a tribe.

 

“When we witness what happens to others, we don’t just activate the visual cortex like we thought some decades ago,” said Christian Keysers of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience in Amsterdam. “We also activate our own actions as if we’d be acting in similar ways. We activate our own emotions and sensations as if we felt the same. Very rapidly, we got this unifying notion that when you witness the states of others you replicate these states in yourself as if you were in their shoes, which is why we call these activities ‘vicarious states,’” Keysers said.

 

Studies have suggested that this ability to mentalize the experiences of others so vividly can lead us to take prosocial steps to reduce their pain. Referring to Dr. Meade’s observation about the healed femur and Dr.  Valkai’s tale of the toothless homo erectus ‘elder’; both individuals needed care-givers to survive for any length of time. Both indicate that that care-giving has delivered over a long period of time; time enough for the femur to heal and for the gums to heal over after losing teeth. Such care-giving must surely have been the result of empathy.

 

Studies of the behavior of social mammals of all kinds and stripes indicate that there are codes of behavior within such groups. Indeed, such groups of wolves, bonobos, whales, cats, guinea pigs and rats show a level of empathy and a sense of morality (i.e. accepted social behavior).

 

It is internalized laws and regulations of behavior which allow mammals to live together. It is the presence of laws and regulations which are the foundation of human civilization, as well. It should be clear that laws, regulations and codes of behavior are the basis of society and civilization without which societal structures of mammalian groups could not exist, perpetuate and thrive.

 

It has been inferred that our moral code – genetically sourced -  didn’t need to be written down or chiseled into rock; that it preceded writing and language. Law, on the other hand, requires just that. It might be said that law is the codification of a moral code. The governing class; king or congress, prince or parliament must need refer to a written text if law is to be enforced. For a common moral order to be maintained in groups larger than familial or tribal communities, such as kingdoms and nations, laws are needed.  

 

Hammurabi, the Babylonian king, is known as the one who codified the laws of his kingdom. Legend erroneously indicated that he was the first to do so. However, the Code of Hammurabi was an adaptation of earlier Sumerian codes, such as the Code of King Ur-Nammu of Sumer, the earliest known civilization (c. 4500 – c. 1900 BCE) and the oldest known law code surviving today. It was written on tablets, in the Sumerian language (c. 2100–2050 BCE), long before the Mosaic Law was handed down in the Sinai.

 

The Egyptian city of Memphis (founded about 2925 BCE) was the first capital of ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians worshipped the goddess, Ma’at, wife of Thoth, the god of Wisdom. Ma’at embodied the principles of law, order, justice and balance. To maintain harmony of the communities, truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice ancient Egyptians observed the 42 Ideals of Ma’at. Many of them are reiterated in the Mosaic law; (e.g. I have not committed adultery. I have not uttered lies.) All 42 ‘commandments’ are worded as pledges or confessions.

 

This reference would seem to amplify the notion that laws are bequeathed to humanity from on high. Such was not the intention, here. The intention was to illustrate that deities long known to be forgotten, debunked and discarded have been claimed as the law-givers. One imagines that such attribution might have provided a sense of legitimacy and mystique for the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians. 

 

Imagine the Pharaoh of Egypt and his bureaucrats ruling without rules. Collecting taxes without tax laws. Building immense structures such as pyramids, temples, dams and palaces without rules, regulations and codes of behavior – without a moral grounding. As a matter of fact, here is an article on the 42 Laws of Ancient Egypt; the ‘42 Negative Confessions of Ma’at’ code of law which preceded the Ten Commandments;

https://www.perankhgroup.com/commandments.htm

 

The notion that it is the tablets which Moses brought down the mountain (the Ten Commandments) upon which our morality derives is preposterous. In fact, The Code of Hammurabi and the Law of Moses in the Torah contain numerous similarities which is not surprising as the Hebrews were governed by the Babylonians. 

 

Must it be stated that none of the aforementioned civilization (Egypt, Sumer, Assyria, et al.) worshipped, YHWH, the god of the Israelites?

Moreover, are apologists for the Bible claiming that the Israelites had no standing injunctions against theft, murder or lying before they fictionally escaped slavery in Egypt? What, then, were the ‘commandments’ based on? Are the apologists further claiming that the empires of Sumer, Assyria, Egypt, China and Sheba had no law and no moral codes of behavior before Moses? Asinine. Particularly given that the god of Moses was so stridently opinionated about eating shellfish, performing circumcision and wearing mixed fabrics while warranting slavery, commanding genocide and establishing an oppressive patriarchy which denied civil and human rights of women.

 

It would also infer that all of the other civilizations established around the world which were not privileged to have Mosaic law were chaotic, hot messes of debauchery, murder and theft. This is absurd on its face. Clearly, any group of humans would be bound by a code of behavior that was beneficial to the sustainability of the group.

 

This is not to say that moral codes are immutable. Acceptable social behavior changes with the times. Slavery was an acceptable condition until it wasn’t acceptable anymore. Sexual harassment, the subjugation of women and child labor are all conditions which have rightfully become unacceptable; but not because of heavenly decree or godly fiat but by a shift in the moral sensibility of the general populace. 

 

Perhaps, it is the supposed theistic definition of morality that is the stumbling block. Perhaps what is meant by morality to the theist is the demeanor of the penitent; the attitude that one is a ‘lost soul’, corrupted and redeemable only by the grace of their specific ‘god’. If the theist considers all people incorrigible and woefully venal, the inheritor of original sin and the curse of Adam, the mythological first man, then one might concede the point as special pleading within the specialized, liturgical sense of the common vernacular. 

 

If such is the case, then there can be no rational counter-argument. It would be much the same as if one were to state that they were experiencing hunger to another, godly one, who only understood the simple word in the context of ‘hunger for god’. One could imagine that the first one would not expect an offer of food from the second one. Rather the hungry one would be lead in pious prayer by the godly one. Empathy would still play a part but the suffering of the hungry one would be seen only through the ‘god’ lens.

 

This discussion of morality has by no means been exhaustive. It was never meant to be. The intention was to dispel the notion that a moral code is reliant on the dictums of a deity. If that notion hasn’t been quite dispelled perhaps this discussion has defused it somewhat by proposing the contention that biology and sociology in populations are the sources of moral codes rather than their being the pronouncements of gods and goddesses. 

 

As for modern law-giving, the American Constitution, was written by humans without input from gods or goddesses; its legitimacy is accepted without deific source or underpinning. The renowned French mathematician, Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, was asked to explain planetary mechanics to the Emperor Napoleon. When Laplace had concluded his presentation, Buonaparte observed that he’d left no room for god in his explanation.  Laplace reportedly replied, ‘There is no need of god’.

And yet again - Morality

 

Empathy is a basic neural mechanism in humans. Empathy refers to the awareness and understanding of the sensory and emotional states of other people, In more primitive communities, this ability to interpret the mental states of ‘the other’ and put oneself in their place served to identify the emotional and mental state of ‘the other’ and enhance survival tactics.

 

Empathy is, then, essential for human relationships. So much so that, except for psychopaths or autistics, all humans are empathic beings. The part of the brain responsible for empathy is the cerebral cortex, specifically the anterior insular cortex. It is the size of the cerebral cortex that is the difference between human and animal brains. The human brain has a disproportionately large cerebral cortex, accounting for more than 80% of the total brain mass, while the cerebral cortex of other animal brains is comparatively small. Research gives us confidence that the advent of modern humans (i.e. Homo sapiens) was achieved through expansion and elaboration of the cerebral cortex.

 

Research from the University of Colorado at Boulder (USA) has mapped the areas of the human brain associated with empathy. The brain areas that appear preferentially related to empathic distress are also activated while we experience or observe actions, sensations and facial expressions (i.e. non-verbal communication).

 

It must then be proposed that apes other than man also have such behavioral strictures (i.e. morals) based on empathy and reciprocal altruism. Such behavioral regulations have been witnessed by those who study ape behavior; Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall being the most famous. This proposal must then logically be extended to monkeys and other primates and thence to mammals and perhaps to chordates since all have a common genetic ancestry. Consideration as regards the sophistication of those codes depend on the level of social organization perceived in each group as well as the size and make-up of the brains of each of species. 

 

Empathy is the key that enables a group to be cohesive and self-sustaining; the stronger look after the weaker, parents look after children, leaders look after their social group. It is also contended that much of what had developed is initiated biologically, genetically, perhaps in the structure of the brains of individuals of each of the aforementioned groups. The genetic code of a population was passed on to the next generation as a result of the first population thriving by dint of empathy and the primal moral code that stems from that empathetic behavior. 

 

Basically, it must be asserted that morality is an emergent property which develops from the cerebral cortex in the brains of hominids and mammals. The cerebral cortex, with its typical layered organization, is found among mammals, including humans, and non-avian reptiles such as lizards and turtles. Likewise, the anterior insular cortex is a mammalian brain structure. 

 

It has been observed that small mammals (dogs, cats, etc.) appear to have modes of behavior which indicate that they have a sense fairness and propriety. Anyone who has ever had a pet or an animal companion can attest to the idea that animals are empathic. That animals organize in groups is verified by the observance of prides, flocks, herds, schools and flights. Such organization is a matter of social necessity which in turn is engendered biologically.

 

Dr. Forrest Valkai, a biologist, speaks often of empathy; specifically, that empathy in humans is biological, based in evolutionary science. He cites the skull of a Homo Erectus which is toothless. He points out that the skull shows that jaws healed after tooth loss indicating that the individual lived long enough to heal from the loss of his teeth.

Being without teeth would have been a distinct liability for any individual of his species. Even though he (male) was without teeth – which were used as tools as well as mastication of food – the individual survived to a relative old age. 

 

Once again, this indicates that the individual was provided for; soft food was prepared (perhaps pre-chewed) and given him to eat. His duties as a group member must also have been undertaken by his care-givers. Dr Valkai cites that specific part of the brain mentioned earlier – the anterior insular cortex - which would have been ‘inherited’ by our species (Homo Sapiens) from Homo Erectus, which lived more than a million years earlier!

 

‘An international team led by researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York has for the first time shown that one area of the brain, called the anterior insular cortex, is the activity center of human empathy, whereas other areas of the brain are not.’

 

Empathy, the ability to put oneself in the ‘shoes’ of another, to re-state for emphasis, is the key to morality (i.e. a code of behavior acceptable within a group). Which, again, means that empathy may well be the basis of moral and social systems of organization. And it is the result of genetic evolution of the human species.

 

It has been claimed amongst humanists that secular morality is superior to moral codes derived from deities. Thus, the assertion concerning empathy as a biological basis for moral codes might be limited to what is called ‘secular morality’ and considered apart from moral codes bequeathed by ‘god’ figures. That makes the task of delineating the two less daunting yet still massive.

 

Secular morality has been condensed to ‘what promotes well-being’. That well-being is experienced by both the individual in a group and the group at large. Theft is a harm to the individual who has lost something by theft. It is also a harm to the group at large because if theft were to become pervasive in the group, more individuals would be harmed by theft. Thus, theft would be banned on moral grounds because it harms both the individual and the group at large. The same could be said for murder or assault, lying, fraud and deception. Empathy drives this injunction against theft. 

Morality - (yes, again; 4th in a series)

  

Christian theists claim that the Bible is the source of their morals (i.e. the Ten Commandments and the pronouncements of Jesus). Quite often, they’ll put the Golden Rule into the mouth of the guy from Galilee as if he invented it for the Sermon on the Mount. He didn’t. In various forms, in various wordings, it had been around for thousands of years. In fact, the 'Golden Rule' can be found in some form in almost every known ethical tradition. The Golden Rule in a prohibitive form was a principle in ancient Greek philosophy about 500 years before the tales of Jesus. 

 

Possibly the earliest version of the ‘Golden Rule’ appears in the story of ‘The Eloquent Peasant’, which dates to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (c. 2040–1650 BCE): ‘Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.’

 

A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE) Egyptian papyrus contains a negative version of the Golden Rule: ‘That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.’

 

But it wasn’t just an Egyptian thing either:
The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BCE–1000 CE) were an early recording of the Golden Rule: ‘Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.’

 

Thales of Miletus, a Greek mathematician, astronomer, statesman, and pre-Socratic philosopher (c. 624–c. 546 BCE), said something like it: ‘Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.’

Isocrates, an ancient Greek rhetorician, (436–338 BCE) said it:

 ‘Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you.’ 

 

Plato (c. 420–c. 347 BCE) said it: ‘…do to others as I would that they should do to me."

 

The books of Tobit and Sirach (neither of which were part of the canon of the Old Testament but both of which were used by Christians in the earliest form of the Christian Bible; the Codex Sinaiticus) offer versions of it: ‘Do to no one what you yourself dislike.’; Tobit 4:15

 

And ‘Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes.’; Sirach 31:15

 

It's also in Leviticus 19:34: ‘The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself’.

 

Moreover, it was not just a good saying or tenet of behavior in the Mediterranean area.  In the ancient epic of India, the Mahābhārata, (c. 400 BCE and 400 CE) there’s a lengthy version of the Golden Rule: ‘One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self.’

 

In the Tamil tradition, in the Book of Virtue (c. 1st century BCE to 5th century CE) the Golden Rule pops up twice: ‘Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself’ and ‘Why does one hurt others knowing what it is to be hurt?’

 

Finally, Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) had a version: ‘Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you.’

 

While it could be argued by a Christian apologist that Seneca, who lived as a contemporary to Jesus, had got his thought from the Sermon on the Mount, it seems highly unlikely, given that the concept of reciprocal altruism was already well-established throughout the region as evidenced by the preceding quotations.

 

Jesus purportedly delivered the Sermon on the Mount between 28 C.E. and 30 C.E. Whether he had learned it from the Torah or not, the sentiment was not peculiar to the Hebrews; it was known from Rome to the Indian sub-continent and beyond in some form. It must be considered that the common knowledge and the practical application and exercise of the ‘Golden Rule’ long predated the recording of this dictum by the anonymous authors of the New Testament. It must also, once more, be asserted that reciprocal altruism, as expressed in Golden Rule and its variants, was and is genetically motivated.

 

It should be obvious that human moral codes not only predate the Bible but are not derived solely from Hebrew tradition. It can once more be contended that the sense of morality predates all of those aforementioned civilizations (e.g. Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc) which were established and dominant before the Mosaic codes were produced. It can be contended again that a sense of morality – as it is essential to the establishment and sustaining of the most rudimentary social system - must predate humans and human civilization. That all having been said, let’s dive further even further into the morass of the source of morality.

 

 

Since larger organizations than ‘tribes’ or clans have yet to be observed in other great apes, the 3% genomic difference between chimps and modern humans, then, must be, again, considered very significant. One substantial, definitive difference between humans and the other great apes resulted from the expansion of the neo-cortex and the development of the pre-frontal lobe.

 

Between 2 million and 700, 000 years ago, the size of the brain of Homo erectus actually doubled. This remarkable growth was in the neo-cortex of the brain, primarily. The other major increase in brain volume occurred between 500, 000 and 100, 000 years ago, in homo sapiens. Additionally, the brain size of hominid brains has tripled since the Pliocene age (from an average of 450 cm³ in Australopithecus to 1,345 cm³ in H. sapiens. The human brain today has a volume of 1,350 cubic centimeters. Our closest living relatives have much smaller brains: modern chimpanzees and orangutans have brains averaging about 400 cc, with gorillas averaging about 500 cc.

 

With the larger brain came an evidential increase in the brain-state called ‘empathy’. It has been inferred that empathy is biologically intrinsic to the brains of hominids. Homo erectus, as an ancestor of our species, exhibited empathy. Our own species (homo sapiens) exhibits empathy as well; as a Biblical reference, the story of the ‘Good Samaritan’ is good example of empathy and reciprocal altruism. 

 

Let us turn to science; the science of anthropology. When Dr. Margaret Meade was asked her opinion, based on her knowledge and understanding of her field of anthropology, what was an early sign of empathy, she replied by sharing a story of a discovery of a femur which had fully healed after being broken. The fact that the individual survived long enough for the bone to mend indicated that the individual was cared for and tended to during his invalidity. 

 

That indicated to Dr Meade that the individual had lived in a society which was caring and attentive – empathetic – enough to provide food, drink and shelter for the individual. It may also indicate that any group responsibilities the individual had (e.g. hunting, gathering food, providing shelter, etc.) were undertaken by those who had cared of the individual during their infirmity, as indicated by Dr. Meade’s observation of a healed femur. It, therefore, could be inferred that the brain-state we call ‘empathy’ was inherited genetically from earlier man such as Homo Erectus.

 

Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal.

 

A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery. Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said."

 

We are at our best when we serve others. Be civilized.

Morality (3rd in a series)

 

Consider that the feeding of squawking baby birds by its parents is genetically driven. Parental care is a common trait across many species; this is known informally as the maternal instinct. The parental ‘instinct’ can be seen in a wide variety of animals. It can be observed in all mammals; cats, dogs, horses, giraffes, monkeys and humans. Additionally, deviation from that behavior is considered a perversion. A mother who neglects or abandons its off-spring is seen as a vile aberration and is viewed as immoral or amoral; a moral judgement is made about such aberrant behavior. 

 

Now, consider that the cuckoo (cuculus) uses that genetically motivated behavior - mothering - to trick other birds into feeding and caring for the cuckoo’s own young. We do not lay blame on the cuckoo for this seeming aberration but somehow we perceive its deception as inequitable and unjust. We find the behavior of the cuckoo reprehensible and unfair; that reaction comes as the result of our own sense of right and wrong; a moral judgement.

 

It is our own sense of morality which is activated in reviewing these well-known cases regarding the parenting instinct of birds. The deviation from the expected norm of parental care by the cuckoo and the trickery practiced by the cuckoo in its renegation of that norm is deemed suspect. Our reaction is derived from the sense of right moral action based, presumably, in our own genetic code. 

 

Should a human mother depart from the expected mothering of her off-spring or other children in her care, that individual would be judged as being morally deficient. The Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, cited motherly ‘instinct’ as an evidence for ‘god’. It is here cited as evidence of animal behavior determined, in part, by our genome. While it may be informally called ‘instinct’, morality is the emergent property of our genome. The only alternative explanation, Lewis’ explanation; god did it!, is untenable and without demonstrable evidence.   

 

Moral codes and laws are not solely genetically based, of course. Each society has a specific mythic story which underpins the group; democracy, kingship, religion, tradition, etc. England has its own story about what makes the English English. France has a story about what makes the French French. China has a story about what makes the Chinese Chinese. It’s not only about language – which change over time – but all of the specifics characteristics of each societal and cultural identity. The society-wide story or myth serves as an accepted over-lay of morality. 

 

It is the commonly accepted story or ‘societal myth’ which serves as an addendum to nuance social behavior. Such shared ideals of as those listed above may call for laws and regulations to be enacted and enforced. Exceptional, noncompliant behavior due to psychological and physical disorders such as psychopathy, schizophrenia, dementia, etc. are taken into account and are addressed by laws or local regulations. If a neighbor beats his dog or his children, or if the neighbor persists in lighting firecrackers late at night, for example, authorities might be called to quell the violence or the noise as prescribed by law or regulation.

 

Turning from the hypothetical and returning to the history of humankind and the refutation that Moses’s god was the law-giver from which our moral code is derived, consider these brief synopses of ancient civilizations: 

 

Consider:

The Sumerian civilization is the oldest civilization known to mankind. The term Sumer is today used to designate southern Mesopotamia. In 4500 BCE, a flourishing urban civilization existed. The Sumerian civilization was predominantly agricultural and had community life. Could there have been a civilization without a moral code?

 

Consider:

Ur, the Assyrian city (c. 2030 to 1980 BCE) was once the largest city in the world. Its population was approximately 65,000. Ur was governed by laws which were based, most assuredly on a moral code; the Code of King Ur-Nammu, in this case. Imagine a metropolitan center of such size without, at the very least, a collective understanding that murder and theft were frowned upon.

 

Consider:

The Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age, Aegean civilization on the island of Crete and other Aegean islands, whose earliest beginnings were from c. 3500 BCE, with a complex urban civilization beginning around 2000 BCE, and then declining from c. 1450 BC until it ended around 1100 BCE, during the early Greek Dark Ages. It must have had an inherent moral code and laws based on that code. 

 

Consider:

Ancient Egypt was a civilization in ancient Northeast Africa, situated in the Nile Valley. Ancient Egyptian civilization followed prehistoric Egypt and coalesced around 3100 BCE with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under Menes. Could there have been a continuous culture if there hadn’t been a code of morality?

 

Consider:

Most Biblical scholars who accept the historical core of the Exodus, date this possible exodus group to the thirteenth century BCE at the time of Ramses II, with some scholars dating it to the twelfth century BCE at the time of Ramses III. Does that mean that the Hebrews had no moral code until Moses came down the mountain with the tablets? 

 

Note: All of the aforementioned ancient civilizations (Sumerian, Minoan, Egyptian) pre-date this Biblical episode. 

 

Consider: 

How could the aforementioned civilizations, not to mention Babylon, Persia, China, India, etc. organize and maintain cities, cultures and dynastic, kingly authority without a moral code? I contend that they could not. As a thought experiment, imagine a town, village or tribal gathering of nearly any size in which theft was not considered wrong. Or murder. Or sexual assault. Or lying. Imagine a conclave of Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon or, indeed, any group of hominids which did not have accepted codes of behavior prohibiting murder and theft.