Consciousness and MoralityMembership Status
Registration Date: May 08, 2002Usergroup: Sponsors
Articles Submitted: 0 articles
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Total Time Online: 4 days, 7 hours and 36 minutes
Last seen: 05/08/12 - 21:41:00
Biographical Information
Location: Calgary, Alberta, CanadaHomepage: http://www.andrewkicksass.com/
Occupation: IT
Birthdate: July 27, 1986 (25 years old)
Contact Information
Guestbook: View or sign guestbook (0)MSN: immissing@hotmail.com
Submission History
Most recent articles:Consciousness and Morality
Infinity and Chaos Theory
Find all articles submitted by Distortion
By Distortion
05/21/03 (Edited 02/27/12)
There is no absolute reality with which all of our collective consciousnesses flows from - we all have our own individual subjective experience that can be gleamed from our consciousness. Also, how it is constructed in a brain is a complete mystery as of yet because there is conflicting information between scientists studying different senses. In summary, we build the illusion of consciousness every time we look, and even scientists can't explain how this works as of yet.
Despite the fact that we are questioning our view of consciousness and reaching the ultimate conclusion that it is somewhat of an illusion, I don't see how this ties into or affects morality. My understanding of morality of ethics is that it is basically evolved and instinctual behaviors combined with learned mannerisms that humans behave by in order for them to get along and survive in society. Ultimately, there is no divine or absolute morality as so many people seem to think, as morality is completely relative to the people that have it, and each person has their own perspective. This can be demonstrated by the fact that in North America, cannibalism would generally be considered immoral, and disgusting. However, in some tribal cultures in Africa, cannibalism was perfectly moral, ethical, and accepted. Just by that example, it's easy to see that morality is relative, and that each culture or group of people generally has their own model or general rules for morality. It would seem that the only common thread throughout all of human morality comes from a purely evolutionary thread - and this is the value of the sanctity of human life. In general, despite war and murder and slavery throughout history, humans value the lives of others in their family, their culture, and even their society. This can be explained in simple evolutionary terms that humans had better survival chances if they supported their group and their family, who share many of the same genes. Also, there is power in numbers. In summary, ethics or morality just seem to be terms applied to each person's conceptions of the behavioral mannerisms and guidelines that people abide by to function and prosper in a society or a group. Without other people, there is no morality - so therefore morality is relative to other people, and there is no absolute morality.
How this ties directly into our conception of consciousness I don't know, but it would seem to me that in general it is thought that our consciousness combined with morality and ethics separates us from the other species on our planet, in a way setting us above them. I would tend to think that this perception has no real basis for it other than a common sentiment, and that although animals lack our complexity in morals, communication, and understanding - they too share it with us. In packs of wolves it is clear to see that they also have a societal structure, a hierarchy and a basic set of rules. Such as - you adhere to the structure or you are ousted from the group (Alpha Male, ect.) and in a way they almost have a very rudimentary set of mannerisms that we could call morality - although some may think this a high and lofty title to give to the behavior of wild animals. In reality, this is just sentiment and the only appreciable difference in the behavioral structures between humans and the wolves is in complexity. Although we'd like to think otherwise, in society there is a clearly defined society structure, a hierarchy, and a set rules - this is clear throughout history.
Also, it would seem that we like to separate ourselves from the animals on the basis of our consciousness - our ability to think, plan, and conceptualize. However this too upon analysis seems to be merely a common sentiment with no factual basis. Furthering the example of the wolves, there is a wildlife reserve in Alaska that houses wolves, bison, many others. Every so often the bison pass through one particular area, a mud flat. The wolves long ago noticed that the bison are slow crossing this mud, and the weaker ones fall back. The wolves go to this spot at the right time, before the bison arrive. They roll in the mud to hide their scent, and lay down in the mud so you can barely see them even if you know what you're looking at. They wait for the heard to cross, and jump the weakest at the back. This demonstrates observation, planning, and an understanding of consequences. Clearly, observations such as this show foresight on the part of an animal. Despite these observations, people in general seem to cling to the sentiment that we are divinely or absolutely above animals or all other species in a clearly defined way. In reality, we simply evolved increased intelligence faster, and have much the same, just more complicated processes.
In conclusion, humans like to think that their consciousness and perception is the way reality is - however it has been proven that it is just a subjective experience that doesn't necessarily correlate directly to an completely deterministic reality. There is also a common sentiment that our morals and rational ability set us apart from animals, and above them. Upon further reflection however, evidence and logic suggests otherwise - that we are not separated in any clearly defined way - or by some attribute that is uniquely our own. We are simply more complex in thought and morals, resulting in the sentiment that we are alone in these attributes.
