Morality, Instinct, and Law

The interrelationship between these 3 parts of human motivation are not always delineated. They are often blurred together, so they all seem the same, and the nuances of each element are missed. I propose a deeper look into each element, parsing them as different, for better understanding of ourselves and the peculiarities of the human animal.

First, definitions:

Morality is an embedded sense, classically considered to be 'endowed' by a Creator, as in the American declaration of independence,

*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights*

Merriam's: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Morality is a 'self evident' standard that humans in every region, time, and culture have appealed to. It is equivalent to 'natural law', from reformation and Enlightenment philosophers. It is something internal, embedded, and universal in humanity.

Instinct is an animal quality, where certain responses are programmed internally, apart from a learned response. Migration of birds. Self preservation. Maternal care. It differs from morality in that is involuntary, not a rational choice.

From Merriam's: *a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason*

Law is a codefied rule, enforced by a human agenct.

Merriam's: *a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority*

Law can be a moral imperative, or even an instinct. Or, it can be something arbitrary, contrary to a moral sense or instinct. Power to enforce a law is the determining factor. Morals can be observed with or without the force of law. Law can be immoral, or counter instinctive.

The relationships between these human elements are fascinating, and are rooted in a fundamental belief about the universe.

The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality.

Morality', as defined here, is different from instinct and law. It is an inner, 'felt sense' of right and wrong that transcends instinct or law. Its only philosophical basis is from a Creator, or some kind of embedding Agent. It is a Standard of behavior EXPECTED from this Creator or Agent, and is not a human construct or animal instinct.

In a godless universe, no morality like this is possible. It is a delusion or manipulation, to control people. There is only animal instinct, or declared Law, in a godless universe, with no absolutes to appeal to.

IF... there is a God, or Something, that embedded a moral 'sense' in humanity,
THEN that is the philosophical basis for morality.

IF... there is no God, or no moral 'sense' embedded,
THEN any moral 'sense' is a delusion. It is not there.

Those are the logical conclusions of each premise.

The basis for morality, as defined in this article, can ONLY come from an 'Embedder'. It is different from instinct or arbitrary Law.

Here is the logical progression. We will assume both premises, and follow the implications and conclusions, as they relate to morality.

IF... there is a Creator/moral Embedder..
AND IF... this Creator/moral embedder embedded moral standards in humans..
THEN... that is the source of embedded moral standards.. a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality.

BUT..

IF.. there is no Creator/moral Embedder..
THEN... morality is a human construct. ..a 'sense' of universal, absolute morality is a delusion or manipulation of man.

For example..

IF.. a Creator embedded, 'thou shalt not steal', into the inner conscience of man..
THEN.. any 'sense' of property rights are an inherent moral value, embedded by God.

But in a godless universe, 'thou shalt not steal!', is a human construct. It is not even an instinct, as every animal species rewards stealing as a virtue. It can be (and is) codefied into Law, to deter theft by a human enforcer, but at its root, it is only a human construct, to control weak minded dupes. It is an imposed platitude, to control people. There is no overriding moral imperative to sting one's conscience, if they steal something.

'Conscience!' is also a human construct, in a godless universe. With no moral values embedded, but only human manipulation, any appeals to 'conscience!' are manipulations from human controllers.

If you remove the 'Higher Power' source of Morality, it becomes nothing more than situation ethics, or no morality at all. People do what they want to do, & who can say they are wrong? Unless many band together with some kind of agreement, (and what basis is there for that?), all you have is the changing winds of relativism, tossing everyone to & fro until they shipwreck on the rocks of anarchy.

Why are sociopaths considered an aberration in humanity? Most of them were raised with moral values, but chose to 'switch off' that part of their psyche, or some other psychobabble theory. Why would there be any morality in humans, if it is not there inherently?

A male lion will kill cubs, if he can, with no consequence. Theft is a common virtue, in the animal kingdom. How are these human moral platitudes different, from the rest of the animal world, if they are just instinctive? Why should we submit to moralizing platitudes from manipulators, and follow their constructs?


'Thou shalt not steal'

Let's examine this moral imperative.

Moral value? Yes
Animal instinct? No
Human Law? Yes

This is a good example of a moral belief, that has been codefied into Law, in almost every human society. In every animal setting, theft is a virtue.. it enhances survival, and better thieves have better chances of survival.

But in humanity, this has been declared a 'sin!', or a criminal act. Religions, throughout the human experience condemn theft, and all human societies that have any law respect the basic right of property.

The Enlightenment philosophers waxed long and eloquently on the essentials of 'Natural Law', and summarized it thusly:

Right to Life
Right to Liberty
Right to Property

The BASIS for this 'moral', is that it is a God given right, to your property, and any who take what is another's is guilty of a crime.

Bastiat confirmed the basic right of property, which is the foundation for the 'moral value'.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Morality, such as described by philosophers, can only exist in a God made universe. They are meaningless platitudes in a godless one.

If we are in a God made universe (Who has embedded moral values in man), then morality is a Real Thing, and we ought to follow our moral inclinations, as given by the Creator.

BUT... if we are in a godless universe, then all such moralizing are human constructs, to manipulate and control. Morality is NOT Real, but is a delusion, indoctrinated into people for some human agenda. We are fools and dupes, to submit to such manipulation.

Theft is a good example of the difference between a moral precept, a law, and instinct.

The Sociopath

Dictionary definition:
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

I probably should define and analyze 'conscience', first, since it is foundational to defining a Sociopath. But, since we have been using the concept of 'conscience', as a moral 'sense' that is universal and self evident, it should be unnecessary.

The very existence of the term, 'sociopath' implies a normal human standard.. a 'sense' of right and wrong that the Sociopath lacks. How can anyone condemn a sociopath, if all moral values are arbitrary or relative? He just exhibits his values, and not yours.

So the 'science' of psychiatry, the justice system, the media, and all human institutions accept and reflect a belief in a 'normal' human standard, or sense of conscience, that the sociopath does not have.

Whether a biological aberration, or a learned condition, sociopathy is a negative condition, in the human collective. That judgement is made by appealing to a self evident standard of acceptable and normal human moral values, as reflected in the conscience.

Conscience

What is it? Is it a Real Thing, or a human construct, imposed upon a pliable herd? Conscience is closely related to morality. It is the 'thing' within humans that reflects the inner, felt morality. It provides the 'sting' when it is violated. It could be correlated to pain, the negative feedback our body gives when we do something injurious to ourselves. In the same way, conscience provides negative feedback when we injure it by violating it's sensitivity.

As usual, I'll give a dictionary definition:

Conscience: the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good
All of the terms used in these definitions are steeped in moralizing undertones. 'Sense', 'moral goodness', 'do right', etc, ALL reflect the underlying assumption of common knowledge of these things. 'Good' carries a moral judgement, as well as 'bad'. Nobody is confused, or thinks that murder, theft, lying, etc are 'good!', and bravery, honesty, and altruistic acts are 'bad!'

So there is a common base of communication, even crossing language, culture, race, and time. You can ask anyone, in any culture, era, or region, to list 'good & bad!' things, and they will very nearly correlate. There may be a few specifics, or arbitrary cultural mores that vary, but the core elements of morality are consistent and constant, throughout the human experience.

An Indian might have, 'eaten by tiger' as bad, while a pacific islander might use shark. But the basics, murder, theft, assault, fraud, lying; are universally held in disdain by the human collective. I know of no culture or society where these things are esteemed as virtues.

On the 'good' side, bravery, hard work, altruistic acts, kindness, honesty, helping in time of need, and personal responsibility are universally esteemed and held as virtuous, among human beings.

I haven't had many quotes in this article, but i will rectify that immediately. 

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ~Martin Luther King Jr

Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. ~Carl Gustav Jung

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the 'still small voice' within me. And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority. ~Mahatma Gandhi

The torture of a bad conscience is the hell of a living soul. ~John Calvin

It is neither right nor safe to go against my conscience. ~Martin Luther

A clear conscience is the sure sign of a bad memory. ~Mark Twain

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question, “Is it politic?” And Vanity comes along and asks the question, “Is it popular?” But Conscience asks the question, “Is it right?”... The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of convenience, but where he stands in moments of challenge, moments of great crisis and controversy. ~Martin Luther King Jr.

Nobody can turn you into a slave unless you allow them. Nobody can make you afraid of anything, unless you allow them. Nobody can tell you to do something wrong, unless you allow them. God never created you to be a slave, man did. God never created division or set up any borders between brothers, man did. God never told you hurt or kill another, man did. So why is man your god, and not the Creator? ~Suzy Kassem

There is no witness so dreadful, no accuser so terrible as the conscience that dwells in the heart of every man. ~Polybius

How pitiful is an intelligence used only to make excuses to quieten the conscience. ~Ignazio Silone

Natural Law

This is perhaps the Central Theme of the Enlightenment. Man is endowed with Rights, inherently, not granted by human power.

it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. ~Frederic Bastiat

Life, Liberty, and Property. These are the Basic Rights of Man, summarized by the Enlightenment.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.. ~Thomas Jefferson

Natural law is the basis for almost all human rights declarations, since the 18th century. From wiki:

..natural law has been claimed or attributed as a key component in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776), the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) of France, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948..)of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) of the European Union.

It is the basis for almost all perceptions of human rights, in contemporary culture. It is not always credited with the ASSUMPTION of human rights, but it is always there.

Again from wiki:
Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal;[1] it exists independently of human understanding, and of the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.

Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior from nature's or God's creation of reality and mankind. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[2] and was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to natural law are also found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.

Natural law is an extrapolation of universal morality:

IF... God or some Creative Power has imbued morality into mankind, as evidenced by the universal acceptance of conscience, THEN.. it follows that this same endowment would include rights, as well as obligations. If murder is 'wrong', then each person has a 'right' to life. If property is a 'right', then theft is 'wrong!'. Morality and natural law are 2 sides of the same coin.

But both morality and natural law are contingent on an Embuing Power. A godless universe has no such power, but only human law and animal instinct. Morality and natural law are human constructs, for manipulation, in a godless universe.

There is nothing inherently 'wrong!' about murder, or theft, or exploiting anyone.. there are only human laws for those things, passed to manipulate people.

Theft, murder, and exploitation are virtues, in the natural world, and enhance survival.

Instinct and Anthropomorphism 

Projecting human emotion, reason, and decision making onto animals is called Anthropomorphism.

Studies that attempt to 'prove!' uniquely human attributes in animals are roundly criticised for anthropomorphic projection.

Chimps have been studied extensively, trying to prove anthropomorphic qualities, when there are other, more reasonable explanations, than 'human like!' projection.

The attempt, here, is to blur the distinction between morality and instinct. But instinct is not morality. There are no 'good and bad!' judgments in instinctive behavior.

Animals might SEEM to exhibit human qualities, but that is merely projection.. anthropomorphic projection. YouTube videos, showing animals exhibiting human behaviour, are just tricks, trained by conditioned response. Talking animals, oozing human emotion are Disney films, not biological reality.

There is no 'justice', or 'morality', in any animal society. There is jungle law. Might makes right. There are thousands of studies of animal societies, and any 'human like!' behavior is projected. There is no moralizing taking place, or abstract reasoning.

But in the Brave New World of Progessive mandates, real science must take a back seat to religious belief, and fantasy as reality. Here, animals talk and are just like people. You pick your own identity, regardless of your born biology.

'Morality', if it is real in humans, is not the same as animal instinct, no matter how hard we try to project it upon them. Only humans have this abstract sense of morality.