What are the scientific reasons why humans need morality to know what is good, bad or evil?

Part 1 (I may be back for more, it’s an interesting question)

Most animals actually kill and fight for many of the same reasons humans do, or visa versa, maybe the other way around. They kill other species for food, as we do, and they fight and kill each other to protect themselves, defend their young, to defend and establish territory and over resources and to establish dominance. We’re not so different.

I think morality is probably something that evolved with civilization. As we began to congregate into large, organized groups, we had to develop a way to keep from killing each other .

It is written that is only one lawgiver. I would assume that this does not include man created laws like j walking and whatnot. Nor would I believe that what the individual deems right or wrong is also from God for obvious reasons. Animals and nature is beyond me, however, corruption effects everything in ways we can’t grasp. I must say, I have always found it ludicrous that individuals run around declaring things to be good and bad! To sum it all up, we are not the determining factors.

Ah, I neglected to mention science. Although a grand task for anyone to undertake, scientifically, the individual morality is simple to pin down there’s just numerous details! Laws are the easiest aspect to analyze. I mean, according to laws, morality differs by region. Stealing a pack of gum in the states would not have be the same consequences as others where you’d get your hand cut off. On an individual basis apart from physical law, I’m inclined to believe that it’s a matter of what agrees with you or does not.

Moral behaviour has survival benefits.

Human morals are quite simplistic really, If it has survival benefits for you or your clan it is good morals, and if it hurts the survival of your self or your clan it is bad morals.

Any bad morals you can mention will be detrimental to survival, even more so in an uncivilized work (the wild).

Murder: If I kill there is a chance I’ll be killed.

Stealing: If I steal food I will maybe be killed or stolen from.

etc..

At the very very core of human morals, is selfishness. Sure, our large brains have helped us develop complex arguments on the topic, but in reality, it all boils down to selfishness. If we call it good, it has selfish benefits of some kind or another, be it indirect or direct.

I have been tinkering with the theory that in early humans and our immediate ancestors, the females of the tribe would probably have been taken by the really strong men. If those men did not treat them and their children well, they would likely get a rock in the head as they slept. I imagine this would eventually select for nicer, yet still constantly improving, humans.

If we don’t see morality in other animals it is because we aren’t looking for it. Man is not the only moral animal. What makes man different is the degree of organisation and scale of his societies where individual morality is disconnected from the actions of the group.

@athenasgriffin As we began to congregate into large, organized groups, we had to develop a way to keep from killing each other. I considered those while pondering the question. Many species gather in large numbers and while they would kill or harm another species to protect territory, young, the herd, pride, or group they are in, they don’t appear to murder each other arbitrarily, and no where close to the numbers humans do. If lowly animal can survive in groups in the same species without wanton killing among themselves why it is humans cannot. If two males of a given species were battling over the right to mate a female which human feminist would find appalling and immoral, and one of the males should receive a mortal would. Does the others in the group feel some injustice was done? Would they have any capacity to mourn the fallen combatant? Would the victor feel he did anything wrong in the death or the fight or guilt when he mounts the female knowing it cam by way of a death? No other animal in that group will try to bring the victor to justice because of the death because the death or the fight that led to it would not be wrong either. If humans were a product of the same nature, winning a mate by force or wrestling her away from a weaker one would be the natural order of business with nothing wrong about it. Should there be a death it would also be just the way things are. Humans see it as wrong for the most part, because of morality. Why is it that some develop morality and others didn’t? Those who would feel it as the animals are labeled sociopaths or worse.

@broughtlow It is written that is only one lawgiver. That would imply to some that man isn’t in charge, so for the spirit of this question nothing exist beyond man so all of his emotions, traits, etc came by some developmental or scientific process.

I mean, according to laws, morality differs by region. Stealing a pack of gum in the states would not have be the same consequences as others where you’d get your hand cut off. Why would that from a scientific angle? If I run into a great white shark off the coast of San Fran it will behave the same as a great white I encounter off the coast of Queensland even thought they are 1,000s of mile apart and not part of the same group or had any contact with each other. The one off San Fran will not think it shouldn’t eat me because of some arbitrary reason that the shark off Queensland will fail to see. Why is it humans who live apart from another group come up with a complete value system, for lack of a better word?

@poisonedantidote Human morals are quite simplistic really, If it has survival benefits for you or your clan it is good morals, and if it hurts the survival of your self or your clan it is bad morals. That is an interesting point. If it hurts survival of your group then it is bad morally for your group, but in general is it bad morally. If I am a member of clan ‘A’ and our infant mortality rate is way down, our numbers are increasing, and we became more efficient hunters. If we start to out hunt the game that is our staple because of disease or natural predators that might be keeping the numbers of the animals down but the scouting party see 45 mils over the foot hills is a valley teaming with game and we decide better to break came and haul everything over there than starve where we are. However, upon arrival we find clan ‘B’, a much smaller clan with one quarter the amount of warriors. They have three choices, if we let them take any, is to accept that they are taking second fiddle and will hunt what we leave after we have hunted first; leave and go find another place to call home; face decimation by resisting us. For us in clan ‘A’ it would seem the logical and moral to do whichever would make out clan strong and well fed, even if it meant killing off clan ‘B’. Whatever happens, clan ‘B’ more than likely is not very happy with it because their way of life is changed. Universally who is to say we of clan ‘A’ were immoral for taking and or wiping out clan ‘B’ to assure our survival?

@Hypocrisy_Central Perhaps animals have their own brand of morality. Perhaps what humans have arbitrarily labeled as instinct is more complex. In my answer I was talking about morality as a concept, not morality as the typical person from any particular culture might see it. For instance, in America it would be considered immoral to do something that in Iran would be considered immoral not to do.