Talk:Morality

Comments

I fixed the "gods know what's best for us" statement by deleting it. Am considering changing the "moral core" bit to include some mention of maturity- think this would also fix the problem directly below, rather than changing the footnote?

I have heard the footnote at the end "Moral core" called by a different name: maturity.

Example: 'the god(s) know what's best for us' is using language to disparage the view, not objective in the least.

Some parts copied and adapted from Sexual morality because already clear enough in that article.

that article is one of many subtopics in morality that need to be written about.

24, my changes are not opposing what you had said, but adding instead some other notes, that I imagine can combine with your definition. You added the element of personality of the conduct, that is effectively correct on a "subjective" level (by which I mean, the matter regarded from the side of the individual). But I can see that the "social" relevance of this concept can be perhaps of more commonly known evidence.

very true. The classic argument about morality is whether it comes from inside or outside the person. The Greek word "mores" or "custom" clearly defines it as a matter of what you get *caught* doing.  ;-) But they were a *shame*-based culture, as the sociologists call it. We are *guilt*-based and expect inner decisions rather than external pressures to catch us before we do things we shouldn't.

This more properly should regard those cultures that admit the "original sin", therefore those cultures influenced by the Byble (or by other eventual religions containing similar beliefs). But, even in this case, the sense of guilt only regards the relationships with religion and can influence morality only when it is a religious morality: I can see no evident effect of the sense of guilt (and I live in one of those topic areas, as you can imagine) in a common concept of morality as the abstinence from theft, which should be valuable also in Gauguin's far islands.

Not being enforced by law, morality is always volountarily accepted by the individual, but it has to be proposed before. Admitting it is a personal acceptance of what even the same individual can impose himself, the point is whether a definition of morality necessarily regards the rules to apply in the relationships with others-from-yourself, widely intended, or we can admit it in an alone individual's self-sufficient determination.

there's more on this in some of the essays at meta

I can mainly read there a distinction from ethics focused on the derivative authority or etymology. This does not help on a definition. I evidently agree with those definitions by which morality is instrumentally what a common individual has at his disposal as a help for his decisions and as a parameter for evaluating other individuals' conduct.

Of course the personal aspect is very important and as you can see, nothing was deleted, I just added some points that perhaps you might develop :-) --Gianfranco

hard to know where. Some of what is written about morals is effectively about ethics, or etiquette, and I'd like to make that distinction clear. But Morality is contentious so I'd like to see this settle down first.

Well, as above, IMHO morality is often a pragmatical effect or evolution or application of ethics, which produce theoretical schemes. But not always a morality is backed by a complex phylosophical process, and basically it does not need it to exist: just to say one, religion is not (or not always) phylosophy, but it's evident there is a religious morality. And however a morality can be expressed even in the eventual ignorance of ethics: less instructed classes do have a morality, perhaps a spontaneous one. Etiquette regards the methods of relating with other individuals, not general goals, I'd say. --Gianfranco

---

I've added a paragraph about evolutionary psychology, and another slightly rambling and speculative one following on from it, about octopuses. I think the octopus idea is highly relevant, but if the general opinion is that it is too diffuse, and not suitable for an encyclopaedia, then I have no problem with that second paragraph being condensed or removed. :-) GrahamN

the octopus example includes this phrase: "our revulsion for infanticide." The problem is, the example is comparing two species of animals, humans and octupuses. But the statement, "our revulsion for infanticide," is not true of all humans, it is likely culture-specific.

this fact does not invalidate the octopus example (not that I am so enamored of it), but it does reframe the issue. For certainly, our intelligence is closely connected with our being cultural animals, and creating different cultures. Thus, were one to suppose that octupuses had human-like intelligence, one might suppose that there would be different octopus cultures as well. And that would indeed play into discussions of morality.

That said, I am uncomfortable with comparing octopus intelligence and human intelligence -- as I would be comparing ant intelligence and human intelligence. Species survive because they are adapted to their niche. It is very difficult to compare adaptations then, because the niches are different. Surely human intelligence evolved as an adaptation to our niche. Since octopuses and ants evolved in other niches, it makes more sense to say that they have different kinds of intelligences. Slrubenstein

[Sorry about the curly apostrophes. I hadn't noticed that my word processor was doing that.]

I've never heard of a human culture that tolerated infanticide. However, I'm no anthropologist, and I may well be wrong, so I will remove the word. However, there is surely a core set of moral codes that are not culture-specific. I would be very surprised if there were any human cultures in which incest or rape were considered respectable.

In Ancient Egypt, pharoahs regularly used to marry their sisters. In Pakistan it is not infrequent for gang-rapes to be condoned or even encouraged to regain a community's honour. It may be illegal, but it is certainly acceptable to that part of the culture. "Honour killings" are another example where murder is considered to be acceptable. According to current wisdom, genocide was considered acceptable to the Nazis. You'd be surprised what has been considered to be morally justified by various cultures over the ages. AngryStan 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding to the above statement, the Spartans regulary practiced infantacide. As far as incest goes(and this, admittedly is dealt with in the appropriate article), it has long been my belief that this taboo has much to do with biological necessity.

    Responding the above statement regarding Spartans 'practicing' infanticide. There is a fine line between that practice performed on one's own people, and those considered 'enemies'. Morality does not play a large part on this action to 'enemies'. Given an example, if a society condones infanticide (modern China, though not explicitly) due to varying degrees of necessity (arguably not biological), 'societal' morality can be considered; while the other society that commits infanticide through conquest (the Mongols) to prevent those conquered from reproducing as 'war' morality. I do not argue one is righteous to the next, but the conquest infanticide fits well into the kill/murder aspect of war. I hope we don't begin arguing semantics.

As to your point that human intelligence evolved as an adaptation to our niche, that is precisely the idea I was trying to explore. It seems probable to me that our morality has evolved along with our intelligence, to be very specifically suited to our biological make-up and to the kind of social animal that we have evolved to be. A hypothetical animal of equal intelligence but very different physiology and habits would surely have evolved a very different moral code. This notion might suggest that our concept of right and wrong are not universal absolutes, but are particular to the human species.

I take it that you think my idea does have some relevance in this article, so I will try to re-work the octopus paragraph to make its purpose clearer, and, if I can, to make it a little more concise, and to make its tone more neutral. GrahamN 19 July '02

I've just edited the octopus paragraph a bit, but I'm not happy with it. It is now even longer! I'd value any suggestions how it could be cut down. Maybe it would be a good idea to drop my super-octopus altogether and to stick with general terms? I'm quite fond of her, but I can see it might be for the best. :-( GrahamN 19 July '02

I have no strong objection to octopuses. I guess my larger point was this: IF you want to make claims about the intelligence of non-humans, THEN I believe octopuses, ants, pigeons, spiders, flatworms and human beings are all equally intelligent -- just intelligent in radically different and perhaps incomensurable ways.

As for culture and morality, there are many societies in which certain forms of infanticide is mandated. Whether you would consider this moral or not is another matter -- on other pages there have been recent debates over morality and cultural relativism; some people believe in a universal morality which leads them to condemn certain societies as immoral. My point is simply that there are some societies in which infanticide, at least under specific conditions, is considered not only permissible but necessary. The same is true by the way for rape. In some societies, the gang-rape of women is a socially legitimate punishment for certain crimes. Of course, we define rape as a crime, so perhaps in those societies we shouldn't call the practice rape -- call it what you will, it is the violent violation of a woman by several men.

Look at it this way: it may be true that all societies think of murder as wrong (I hesitate to say this only because it is an empirical question). Certainly, in U.S. society, people think that murder is wrong. Nevertheless, we have the death-penalty. People who support the death-penalty either do not think it is murder, or they think that it is murder that is somehow justifiable. And when the U.S. goes to war and bombs other people, many believe that is entirely justifiable.

So, is there a universal morality? What do you mean moral principles that all people SHOULD believe in, or moral principles that all people do in fact believe in? Some philosophers think there is a basis for making claims about the first kind of morality. But my sense is, if you mean the second kind (an empirical issue), there either is none, or it is so abstract (e.g. killing is wrong except when it isn't) as to be practically meaningless. Slrubenstein

I don't agree with everything you say, because since all humans have a common evolutionary ancestry, there is likely to be some common moral core, hard as it may be to define. However, your arguments are sufficiently convincing for me to delete Olivia the octopus from this article. I will miss her. I will think about her sometimes on lonely nights at home, and I hope you will too.  :-( GrahamN

I promise I will think of Olivia often. As for morality -- do not get me wrong; I would bet that in every society on earth people would agree that

killing = bad

I am just pointing out that in most societies not only do people violate this more, they also construe it so that various forms of killing are considered either justifiable or even good. And it is this fact that makes me dubious about universal mores. Perhaps the one thing we have in common, thanks to our evolution, is such plasticity in behavior, thought, and feeling -- far more plastic than even the sweetest of octupi -- that our overwhelms such quests as the attempt to define a single universal morality. Just a thought. Slrubenstein

I moved the moral back to a separate page, as it represents a separate (abit related) concept. All its changes were preserved. --Yurik 15:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Philosophers (please see history)

I removed the portion "(although they [philosophers] often use both words [i.e. morals and ethics] interchangably)...yes, they did...but do we need the ambivalence? Reinsert if we do. --VKokielov 02:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i HAD to get rid of a h (at the end of one of the headings with =='s on either side) it looked like this ==heading==h.

I have removed the main article, as it was considered nonsense, and no-one disagreed. Please do not attempt to recreate it, it will be considered vandalism. Thanks--131.111.8.96 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Add a section about Nietzsche's view of morality. He offers a good arguement on the issue of morality in some of his works.

Proposed Merge from Moral Code

I put in a merge tag, because I think Moral Code would fit better as a subtopic here. --Michael 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd second this, and suggest also including Public Morality 81.86.104.187 08:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

MERGED. I'm no mergist, but seriously this needed to be merged. We need less articles on Wikipedia that are more comprehensive... If someone thinks this was a mistake they are free to revert, but there's been no comments to the contrary in three months, that sounded like a call of action to me. - JustinWick 08:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was looking around for "public morals" and found "public morality" instead. Whatever you may decide on "public morality" as it stands, I need to find a place for a batch of material on the law relating to "public morals". If I put it into "public morality", this will potentially pre-empt the decision on the proposed merge, so I give you a few days to make a decision. David91 17:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed minor revision

Here is a minor suggested revised wording for Rational Morality:

ORIGINAL: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...

REVISED: Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus, rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest ...

Thank You, --EScribe 05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Why did the following entry disappear within the last few days from the article? =

Rational Morality

Whereas "derived" morality may depend on religion or collective thought, rational morality is the idea of morality as innate or self-evident, based on reason. Thus rational morality is necessarily one of self-interest and looks at man's nature and the reason he needs values, then defines the virtues, known as a moral code, that must be practiced to reach those values. Morality is "rationally accepted" and chosen. Rational morality asserts that all other "views" of morality are subjective and require some sort of sacrifice, either to the supernatural (i.e., God) or the social collective, whereas proper morality is self-evident and in the interest of the individual's happiness. Thus rational morality is synonymous with individual rights.

Thankz 66.61.36.55 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Odd use of evolutionary critique

This passage makes a weird claim.

The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide, incest, and paederastry, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time.

It sounds like the POV being pushed is that there is no common standard of morality across different cultures. What is odd about this passage is that it is not looking for moral standards across most cultures; it is claiming that for something to be universal morality it has to be always condemned by all cultures . That's kind of an impossible standard. Most cultures think it's always wrong to slaughter large numbers of your tribal 'in-group', but the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually, so I guess mass murder is just another subjective Western standard of morality. Let's see an authoritive (anthropology?) source for these "some people" who think morality is "simply whatever norms are present" Seriously. I weant to see a source for these some poeple. MPS 14:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... For something to be a "universal" morality, it would have to be condemned by all cultures, by definition. The only one I've been able to think of is some variant of "keep your commitments."

Septegram 15:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I also want to see some citation for your remark that "the Mubutushuku tribe of the Momobotosoku region of Africa kills off 90% of their tribe annually." First of all, that would result in a non-viable population in a matter of a few years--kill off 90% of the much larger planetary population at that rate, and in ten years you don't have a viable breeding population. Second, the only Google references I've found link here. Frankly, I don't believe you.

Septegram 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would appreciate a citation for this remark. I don't see how such a society could survive more than a decade or two.

As a second point, I would like to point out that for something to be "universally wrong," it is not necessarily required that it be condemned by all cultures.

In fact, almost the reverse is true. To say that "for something to be 'universally wrong' it must be condemned by all cultures" is equivalent to saying "morality is determined by cultural acceptance", i.e. to support a morally relativist position, and to deny a morally universalist position. If something is 'universally' or 'fundamentally' wrong then it is wrong *regardless of* cultural acceptance or condemnation. If the existence of universal morality were to be accepted, it would be conceivable that something could be universally wrong if *no* cultures condemn it. As a trite example, if we accept for the sake of argument that "hacking into computer systems to cause damage is universally wrong" we can reflect that not one single person or culture in 1837 thought this.

If we do not equate "universally wrong" with "absolutely wrong", then a "universally wrong" act is just an act which is "relatively wrong for all cultures at a given point in time", and the qualifier "universal" has no sensible or useful meaning other than to reflect upon similarities between different cultures at a given point in time.

The fact that some individuals or culture do not accept particular moral codes is no evidence at all as to the existence or non-existence of "universal morality" - it could well be that there is just a minority or majority of "immoral people". This is indeed the problem with any concept of universal morality, it is (in my opinion) impossible to determine what such a code would actually be, therefore the concept is a singularly useless one regardless of whatever "truth" it might have. AngryStan 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

First, how are we defining "culture" anyway? Mightn't someone be able to make an argument that culture is a purely individual thing, and therefore a total consensus -- among every single person on the planet -- is required before anything can be called "universally wrong"? The fact that some people or some groups of people commit acts which are seen to be wrong and condemned by others is not necessarily evidence of the non-existence of a universal morality. It simply demonstrates that some people, for some reason, are choosing not to follow it in practice. Arguing this line is essentially saying that our criteria for moral judgments ought to follow after moral actions and not vice versa -- that is, "good" actions are whatever we choose to do and "bad" actions are whatever we choose not to do. Rather self-defeating, is it not? --Todeswalzer|Talk 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between ethics and morality

Should Anglo Saxons be allowed to muddle themselves up? Is this an ethical question or a moral question? Please see the German language entry for a useful distinction between ethics and morality.

___________________________________________________________________________

I agree.

This is ethics not morality:

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life

Obviously written by someone not objective enough. Emphasis on the religions part.

Regards, dcer

_____________________________________________________________________________

I believe Aristotle would make a distinction between morality and ethics. Morality concerns guidelines for living a 'good' life. What will make one happy in the long run. It has no 'direct' concern with how one treats others. For example; reading, learning, brushing one's teeth, embracing the idea of delayed gratification are all behaviors that improve one's life but do not involve other people.

Ethics is the subject of acceptable behavior and interaction with other people and the world.

Paul

______________________________________________________________________________

Minor issue

Perhaps it would be more grammatically correct to change the title of the first section of the article (Evolution of Morality) to Development of Morality. A very small issue, but the term evolution should be limited to biology. Dilbert 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be more specific when using the term "development" -- do we mean the progressive expression of moral traits over the course of human development from infant to child to adult or do we mean its evolutionary bases? I agree they're separate, but they shed light on each other and if we're going to have a section devoted to the ontogeny of morality, we should also have one devoted to its evolutionary history. --Prionesse 16:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is prostitution Immoral?

I want a clear answer on this one.

144.132.1.37 11:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "No," as long as all parties have given their informed consent. Others would say otherwise. Are you seriously looking for an absolute answer, applicable universally?

Septegram 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no clear answer. Is it right to contribute to the suffering of the downtrodden? Is it right to contribute to the possible spread of disease? What effect do your actions have? To what extent are you personally responsible for things that are out of or only slightly in your control?

On the other hand, if we constructed a robot prostitute that had no feelings and was incapable of spreading disease or participating in any of the social ills associated with prostetution, would it be wrong to engage in the act? Of course not.

Sexual conduct in and of itself is a cultural and/or religious value judgement, not a question of morality. We only begin to discuss morality when we begin to discuss the ramifications of the act. These are seperate questions.

Yes, it is. Definately so. Provided you have 'morals' to begin with...

Yoda921 11:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Reader Comment

At present this article reads like a survey rather than a clarification; or, to contrast it in another way, a summary of the academic views on Morality as opposed to the everyday view.

Perhaps a better way of presenting it would be to begin with the everyday understanding of morality. I'd suggest that (as a discussion point, not as a fixed idea) that Morality in the common Western understanding, has religious underpinnings: it implies (or has come to be understood as) what is 'universally supposed to be', or is declared by God or the gods. This, as opposed to what is legal, or has been declared by humans to be right or wrong; or what is "socially acceptable": defined by society to be correct or incorrect.

Philosophers and academics have tried to explore all these ideas, attempting to find a solid universal basis as well as boundaries for moral concepts. In doing so they have muddied the water, taking all of these into the general mix of "morality", indeed, groping into areas such as ethics, etiquette, and further afield into ideas about the good life.

Philosophers may have entered such areas in their discussions but it is confusing and perhaps even wrong to suggest that all of these ideas are really in the field of morality. The laws of physics play a role in biology but we would not suggest that biology is some sub-study of physics.

Put another way, the "common understanding" of a distinction between legality and morality is not necessarily a correct view and the academic view incorrect. But, for practical purposes--which is what an encyclopedia serves--it provides a clearer and more useful view...with academic views as an interesting but subordinate discussion....IMHO.--207.81.127.107 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Small deletion

Paragraph "In any society, actual behavior patterns diverge.." deleted as not relevant to morals as construct/in definition. Whilst I like the first sentence I couldn't leave it standalone. The remainder, in my opinion, is of the class "this [subjectively classed] group of people (pundits) definitely do [semi-subjectively classed] action (pose politically)", which strikes me as unnecessary/POV. mr happyhour 18:10 04 AUG 06

Morality or Moral Relativism?

It seems as though most of the posters here are conflating or confusing morality with moral or cultural relativism.

Seems like an old discussion, but I'll respond anyway. To save time, upshot is that I think you are the one who is confused here.

Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This means that which is always right and wrong and has some level of universal acceptance even if not always adhered too. Murder was considered wrong even in Nazi Germany.

Incorrect. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy defines morality as as term that "can be used either (1) descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, (a) some other group, such as a religion, or (b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or (2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons". The idea that "morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong" is simply incorrect, by any accepted standard.

The notion that morals change according to culture is simply a fallacy.

"Philosophy 101", as you mention below, should make it clear that the two main sides in the morality debate deal with absolutism (which you are describing) and relativism (which you are calling a fallacy), so it is hardly a "fallacy". Rather, it is a position you personally do not agree with.

Consider the following argument.

Back during the slave days, owning slaves was commonly accepted. Therefore, there was nothing immoral about owning slaves.

This is simple reduction to absurdity - so much for cultural norms. Those with background in logic should also spot the circular argument.

The argument is not circular. As per the definition (1) from the SEOP given to you above, if we define morality as the "code of conduct put forward by a society", then if something is commonly accepted, it is considered to be moral, or at least, not immoral. Therefore it is a syllogism of the form: 1. By definition, what is/was commonly accepted is/was not immoral. 2. Owning slaves was commonly accepted. 3. Therefore, owning slaves was not immoral. Classic example, nothing circular about it.

You can argue with the definition if you like, but you cannot reasonable argue the logic that flows from this definition. At least, nobody with "background in logic" would reasonably try to do so.

It is also wrong to conflate sexuality with morality.

Again, according to your personal definition. According to definition (1)(a) above, it may not be.

Unless we are talking about a violent act such as rape, morality as it refers to consensual sex between adults is a misnomer. Although it is common to use the term “morality” with regard to sex, it is simply a miss-use of the term. I have little doubt that this point is difficult to understand

because it's incorrect.

due to the wide acceptance of this error. Also, there can be numerous debates about the moral consequences of some sexual practices but these things must all be debated on there individual merit. Promiscuity in and of itself has nothing to do with morality.

Again, according to your personal definition.

It is also wrong to suggest that people acting in violation of a given religion are immoral and it is wrong to suggest that any actions sanctioned by religion are necessarily moral.

According to definition (1)(a) above, it isn't.

Consider the practice of “honor killing” in which a woman must be killed by her male relatives if she is perceived (regardless of fact) as committing a sexual indiscretion that brings shame on the family. The use of religion to justify the murder does not constitute a change in morality it only means that an attempt is made to justify the murder based on circular reasoning. i.e. It’s right because my book says so.

Which, as already explained, can be a basis for morality. It's not circular reasoning at all, you just don't agree with that particular basis. You are attempting to decry something you personally find distasteful on the incorrect grounds that it is "illogical".

A very different notion is one of “thou shall not murder.” This is not only a religious statement but a logically defendable one as well.

The existence of god is "logically defendable (sic)", just not defensible very well. Likewise for your statement, which is only logically defensible according to the truths which you accept as being self-evident.

Note that the commandment does not read “thou shall not kill.” That would be a very different and ethically problematic statement.

The bottom line is that morality is correctly defined separately from theology which is a different branch of philosophy.

Again, "correctly defined" if we accept your definition, which almost all philosophers do not. So this is not "the bottom line" at all.

Likewise, the term “morality” must not be improperly used with regard to sexual conduct.

Morality is the branch of philosophy that deals with that which is always right and wrong. This is the definition.

Incorrect, see a proper definition given to you above.

Really, this is all philosophy 101. Unless you have never taken it or have been de-educated by an imposter, this should all be quite basic.

In that case, I'd suggest taking a course a little more advanced than 101 for this level of discussion. AngryStan 20:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Toems

Near the beginning of Morality#Morality in judicial systems, what does this mean? "it is not difficult toems" Art LaPella 17:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Moral Logic

Some forms of morality can be deduced from the following statement, "Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate." (I call it the Base Rule.) From this statement the incest taboo can be derived. Family members are, of course, related. Also, there is homosexuality which occurs from related genders and is widely considered to be immoral. Another example is cannibalism which is caused from related species. In each of these instances, related subjects are being combined when they were already combined in the first place. Without this logical statement morality is abstract. JHuber 07:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal about genetic altruism

Social primates - especially chimpanzee show altruism in a sense that "I will scratch your back if you scratch mine". It speculates about an altruistic gene that is needed in a social population.

If for example anarchy will develop in a country because of poverty, then both poor and rich individuals get a increased risk in being injured. That outcome is bad for all parties. Hence it is in everybodies interest to have a good social security.

If we look in the human population. We as population set up rules together that is benificiant for the population. Some individuals break against our common rules even that there lives are not at risk, Why?

Just some thoughts

--Msitua 09:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You should note that wikipedia is not for original research or ideas. Is there a published source (e.g. in a journal) for what you describe? Notinasnaid 10:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are actually a number of thinkers espousing the view that morality is at least partly the product of our evolutionary development. I can think of at least three different authors which have recently written books devoted partly or entirely to this idea: Michael Shermer (in The Science of Good and Evil), Marc Hauser (in Moral Minds) and Richard Dawkins (in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion). This article might be very much improved if their work could be incorporated here. --Todeswalzer|Talk 03:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is already there a bit in the development of morality section. Imagine coudl be better covered, or worse EverSince 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

p.s. there is an Ethics and evolutionary psychology page which had quite strange content but I've recently rejigged so it could start to serve as an expansion of a section on this page. EverSince 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)