Can we truly be thought of as 'moral'?

Question

If all altruistic behaviour can be explained by evolutionary theory, then can we truly be thought of as moral?

Answer 1

NO, as long as there is greed ther is no morality.

Answer 2

We're not robots being run by something called "evolutionary theory".

We happen to have the part of our brains developed that is involved with altruistic behavior and higher forms of thinking. The reason humans have developed as they have is separate from whether the person of free will choose altruistic behavior.

Whatever may be the down-deep root of an instinct or principle that makes some people be altruistic the decision to behave altruistically is something that is processed on an intellectual level and decided on intellectually as well. So, yes, we can be thought of as truly moral.

People's degrees of altruistic behavior vary as much as their personalities do, which means their level of morality varies as well. When a person behaves in a very highly moral way it doesn't matter why he is moral. The fact is his behavior is moral behavior or he happens to have ended up a very moral person.

If we have evolved "up and out of" the more basic instincts and to the point where higher thinking and morality more and more govern our actions I don't think it means people are not "truly moral" at all. I think evolution has moved, and is moving, the species toward operating on the higher level of thinking and morality and toward true morality; so even if evolution is at the root of it that doesn't necessarily mean that altruistic behavior and morality are not "true" or "real".

Answer 3

First of all, there's an arguement about whether a truly altruistic act exists, which is, I guess, what you're asking. If you're looking at theories then the humanistic approach (Rogers??) basically states that out actions are driven by what we believe to be best for us, so . . .
I spose, it all depends! I mean, on an idividual basis I am moral, I do try to do the right thing at all times, whether self-serving or not (e.g. doing it makes me feel good and moral), but on a more global scale, then no. I drive when I should get public transport or walk, I don't give enough to charity when really I live a comfortable life, luxury even in comparison on others, and I do buy clothes that are probably made in a sweatshop, thus making me immoral.
I think humans are selfish and self-serving, but at the same time we shouldn't impose high unachievable morals on ourselves.
Good question though!!

Answer 4

that's if you accept that all altruistic behaviour can be explained by evolutionary theory
yes, i believe that we can truly be thought of as moral...however, in my opinion, it's not a question of what you're thought to be as people always judge according to their own ideals and frames of reference... the most moral person in the world could be like just one little white flower in a sea of white flowers on a mountainside and completely unnoticed by the many

Answer 5

Peace be with you. The idea of "moral" or of morality is not absolute. It will depend on the level of enlightenment that an individual is currently on. You see there are different stage or level of enlightenment in our life. As they say, "what seems incomprehensible for a fool, will be very simplistically annoying to a genius". Morals are determined by the level of enlightenment that a society or its culture has reached. This is the reason why there can never be an absolute or universal law on what is right or what is wrong.

Answer 6

yes, of course. simply because *moral* is just a word we use to describe certain behaviours and someone who exhibits them.
and, as has been pointed out before, morality is a social construction. a behaviour which marks me as a *moral* person in one culture can mark me as *immoral* in another one.

we decide that behaviour x is *moral* and therefore someone who does x is moral.

describing a behaviour as moral says nothing about *why* people behave that way. that's what the theory is doing - trying to explain the why behind the behaviour. we all have a mixed bag of motivations undrelying our behaviour, and it's pretty impossible to identify or sort them all out: the deeper you dig, the more you uncover. and imho the motivation doesn't really affect whether the action itself is moral or not.

which is more *moral*?
to abstain from extramarital sex because you believe you will burn in hell if you don't? or because you respect your spouse too much to hurt them? or because are afraid of the repercussions of being caught? or because you are too lazy?

i would say none is more or less *moral*, as the behaviour is *moral* in and of itself.

:)

Answer 7

Morals came about for our own protection. Without them, human beings would be a danger to themselves, and we would not be able to function in groups or societies. That is why those among us who don't conform to our 'morals' (thieves, murderers, sexual perverts, etc) are considered outlaws, and are generally shunned or removed from society.
Morals and ethics can be considered 'evolutionary' only in the sense that they change as societies mature and grow. For instance, homosexuality has variously been accepted or abhorred in different societies, at different times. As has nudity, religious tolerance, and even cannibalism.

Answer 8

But don't we humans set what is morally right and wrong. It is these morals that we set within our own societies and cultures that causes conflicts. What I would deem as immoral in the UK like arranging marriages would be seen as fine in India. However, having sex before marriage and homosexual relationships are not necessarily considered moral in India.

Answer 9

Hi Sugar Hiccup

I don't think that there is such a thing as altruism.....it don't think it exists ...to invent a word that tries to explain something that may not exist or at least can't be proved to exist.. dosn't make it truly exist.
Evolutionary theory is still theory

but... there is a moral to this story somewhere.

Answer 10

I think morals are set up by God, but some evolutionists seem to think that our morals evolved so that we can survive longer. I would say the better route to take is faith and lifestyle (religion). Why do people die for their faith if they are supposed to be surviving. There are martyrs all over the place (I mean true martyrs, not the extremists who murder innocent people and claim to be martyrs, but martyrs who are persecuted and killed for their faith in God). They die when they are supposed to live for survival, surviving is the purpose for living in evolutionary law.

Answer 11

Everyone and anyone can call them selves moral, it is only when these are truly tested that someone can prove to be so!