On Morality and Heroism (WARNING: LONG POST)

Foreward:

Hello once again, everybody.

I wanted to share an insight I had with all of you. Forgive the indulgence upon your time here. However, you may well find this to be a most worthwhile and enriching topic as you begin reading it.

On my introduction thread, I entered into a rather spirited rant, for lack of a better term regarding the topic of morality. I will not entreat you to read the thread directly. In fact I implore you not to, as it is one of my more irrational pieces of writing. The point that I was trying to make was that I believed morality to be a falsehood- That we have no true "moral compass". Of course my VERY next statement in the my aforementioned previous post, "That which you call morals are actually traits hardwired into our DNA", completely contradicts my first statement which was simply, "I don't have a moral compass. Nobody does".

It was only upon rereading this former post that I was realised something: I need to learn more. A LOT more. The subject actually gnawed at me: Could I actually be wrong? What if I am right? Regardless of the answers I arrive at, will I be able to reconcile them with my actions and lifestyle? And if I am unable to do this, what sort
of changes will I need to make within myself to, "get right" as it were.

I believe this is what is more commonly referred to as a moral quandary. Hey, who knew?

I have spent the last thirty some-odd hours reading everything I could find about this topic. It was only during my morning quest for coffee, serenaded with the beautiful sounds of Mr. Kurt Cobain, that I had reached the state that Japanese Buddhists refer to as Kensho (literally meaning, "seeing one's nature"). I had found my answer...

...And I found that my previous belief as to the nature of morality was only half-right.

As it turns out, everybody has a moral compass. Even those who pursue more distasteful ends have a rigid moral code encoded within them that guide their actions. In short, every man, woman, and child on this planet has this strict moral code. Everybody from Mother Theresa to Joseph Stalin has morals.

So, if this is true then for me the question remained: Why does everybody have them?

Well readers, the answers are stranger than even I would have previously believed.

As I stated prior, I had thought morality to be nothing more than impulses encoded in our genetics formed during our many transitions from the bonobo chimpanzee into the form we roam about in at present. So one can imagine my amazement when, upon further research, I had discovered that I was right in this assumption, but it was only the tip of the iceberg!

I will now endeavour to run down a short list of some notable factors which define our morality, each with a ally named science to back me up:

Evolution:

Evolutionary biologists posit that Morality has its foundations in emotional instincts and intuitions; that is to say that they have become literally wired into our genetics because they proved the most fit to aid in survival and reproduction. We see this in human behaviour in such examples as the maternal bond and the mind's ability for imprinting, as in with both sexual and reverse sexual imprinting (Westermarck Effect).
Humans are a social animal by nature. We are not alone in this trait; we in fact share it with 
a great deal of creatures, including whales, pigs, cows, horses, primates, canines, and so on. The one common behaviour we can observe within all of us herd animals is the phenomena of reciprocity. Now there are three different types of reciprocation we engage in as posited by Evolutionary Biology Professor R.L. Trivers (Rutgers University).

There is Direct Reciprocity, in which when there repeated and numerous meetings between two different people and an opportunity comes to betray 
or defect from the other. Both will favour cooperation and trust even when betrayal proves more fruitful
in the short term, if the chances for future encounters exceeds the cost/benefit ratio of the altruistic act. In other words, if somebody within your tight-knit circle of friends and family is being maligned or attacked by somebody who is seperate from your group, would you support them?

Second is Indirect Reciprocity, which comes to light in the instance when two random strangers meet within the donor/recipient framework. The person who has assumed the role of donor does not feel any bond 
this person and as such, can choose whether to donate based on whether the prospect of encountering them again exceed the cost/benefit ratio of the altruistic act. For example: You walk down the street, and a stranger approaches you, asking for spare change. What exactly do you do?

Finally, there is Network Reciprocity, where if it is shown that one is asked to pay a cost for everybody else within their social group to receive a benefit, and there is no cost for not paying, but no benefits will be received by everybody else, payment is favoured if the benefit is greater than the cost. To put it thusly: The head of your team requests a small donation to be put towards snacks and refreshments at the next meeting. Would you donate so that everybody may eat well?

Neuroscientific/Psychiatric:

Since it's discovery in 1996, the mirror neurons within the brains of social animals are thought to have a very strong role to play in the development of empathy. In fact, brains of those who suffer from psychopathy have been found to have a good percentage less mirror neutrons than the average person.

According to Professor of Neuroscience Jean Decety (University of Chicago), the ability to 
comprehend and vicariously experience what another person is going through is a key step in the evolution of Morality. As psychopaths lack empathy, the number ratio of mirror neurons between a psychopath's brain and the brain of a normal person with empathic capability lends strong physical credence to Decety's findings.

Morality As Byproduct of Rationality:

Phil Roberts, Jr. put is so much better than I ever could. So take it away, Mr. Roberts!

"Guilt is a maladaptive manifestation of our need to justify our existence, in this case by conforming to a shared subconscious theory of rationality in which 'being rational' is simply a matter of 'being objective', as exemplified in the moral maxim, 'Love (intrinsically value) your neighbor as you love (intrinsically value) yourself'. Although none of us can actually measure up to this standard, we nonetheless come to experience feelings of worthlessness (guilt) along with a corresponding reduction in the will to survive (depression) when we deviate from the standard to an unreasonable degree. In other words, a capacity for guilt (having a conscience) is a part of the price we humans have had to pay for having become a little too objective (too rational) for our own good"To put it succinctly, guilt is nothing more than a psychological punishment for our individual acts of nonconformity to an arbitrarily imposed set of standards.

Moral Zeitgeist:

Richard Dawkins introduces this concept in chapter seven of his (fantastic) book, The God Delusion.In this chapeter, he notes how the moral standards shift 
with the changing times. Hence the term Moral Zeigeist (which means, "Spirit of the times"
in German). History proves him correct as you think about it: As Mr. Dawkins himself states:

"Slavery, which was taken for granted in the Bible and throughout most of history, was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman's vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man's. In today's enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, Saudi Arabia), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times. Any modern legal system would have prosecuted Abraham for child abuse."

What this means to you is this: Today's Joker could become tomorrow's Batman, if society universally calls for it.

Moral Education:

According to the late Dr. Jean Piaget, there are two basic principle's in the moral education of a developing child. The first is that a child develops their moral concepts in stages. The second view is that the child is one who constructs their worldview based solely upon what they observe. In other words, children learn their morals from they observe from their peers. Morals that go beyond that of equality, reciprocity, and justice are nothing more than the flat autonomous morals impressed into them by adults. Or, to quote the Doctor himself, "Education, for most people, means trying to lead the child to resemble the typical adult of his society . . . but for me and no one else, education means making creators. . . . You have to make inventors, innovators—not conformists"

Since we receive our earliest education from our family, is it not entirely wrong to blame them if we turn out intrinsically wrong?

Are you still reading? Excellent, because I've saved the best for last...

Parasites In Your Brain:

Yep. I kid you not.
The parasites name is Toxoplasma Gondii. We'll call him Tommy for brevity's sake.
So, what Tommy does is this: He first infects mice, most likely through water. Once inside the host mice, Tommy will assume limited control of their brains' ability to produce dopamine, increasing the dopamine levels in the brain. As a result, this makes them less fearful of their natural predators, namely cats. they will even go so far as to seek out areas marked with cat urine.
Sooner or later, Tommy will move to a nice, new, more spacious home within the brain of the cat. In that cat brain, Tommy can finally breed and go on to infect bigger and better hosts.
Humans will eventually become infected with Tommy either congenitally or through other means like eating undercooked infected meats, drinking infested water, and my personal favourite, the ingestion of cat feces.
Once Tommy gets round to getting inside the human brain, well, that's when it gets REALLY interesting.
In humans, Tommy produces a number of both reproductive and psychological changes within the brain.
Infected women will suddenly find themselves giving birth to roughly 27.7% more boys than girls.
Behaviour-wise however, Tommy can perform a great deal of wondrous things for people. It is shown to decrease the desire for novelty, slow reaction and hand-eye coordination...but here's the kicker:

The effects of the parasite in humans are different depending on your sex. Infected males are much more prone to jealousy, rule breaking, depression, and paranoia, while women become more outgoing, friendly and vivacious. Oh yes...have I failed to mention that infected people of both sexes are also more promiscious? (All the better to breed parasites with, my dear!)

Oh yeah...the flip side to all of the above is that there is also a possible link between Tommy the Parasite and schizophrenia and manic-depression. (so wear those condoms, kids)

I forgot one more tiny detail: Studies estimate that between 30% and 65% of people worldwide are infected with Tommy the Parasite.
So, to conclude this section of my missive, I have to conclude that while there are a number of very complex factors that shape our sense of morality a number of questions can be asked with regards to morality and the RLS.

1) As a hero, do you feel you fight to protect society's morals
or your own? 
2) Are your personal morals different from the morals presented in society and if yes, how?

3) If your personal moral beliefs were in direct conflict with society's, whose morals do you defend and why?

4) Of the above stated factors in defining morality, which do you feel was the most vital in influencing your choice to be heroes? Can you list a brief example of how it influenced you?

Now that I have posted this, I am going to just sit back a while and read your answers. I promise not to chime in every other post. Should I have more questions for you, I will ask in private to keep from flooding the thread.
Once I have settled down to read your answers and better frame my own, I will write once more to tell you what conclusions I have personally come to.
You have my utmost thanks for your time in both reading and answering this post.
-AN

I believe there are different tiers of what is right and wrong. There are social issues of right and wrong and there are instinctual beliefs of what is right and wrong.
An example of social issues compared to instinctual right and wrong
I guess one class is how you treat one another as oppose to social issues. How I treat my neighbor is different then what I believe as a society. For example, I do not believe in same sex marriage (on the side I believe the term marriage should only relate to religious beliefs and I think civil unions should be for people outside of that). However, I do know people who are gay and I do not wish them harm or have any ill will at all. Every person is unique and precious. Two different sides when it comes to right and wrong.
But core issues like murder, stealing, or anything else that causes harm to self or others is something we are born with an intuitive knowledge. We are too eager to downplay ourselves. Mankind is self aware. We are aware of our environment and of others. We develop and work to improve ourselves. And hopefully we will meet other races in the universe that are the same. If you believe in evolution or not, it does not remove that fact that we developed the ability to rationalize and form ideas.

1) As a hero, do you feel you fight to protect society's morals
or your own?
I think society's morals are subjective and therefore cannot be protected. But basic issues that help others or harm others are issues to be focus on.

2) Are your personal morals different from the morals presented in society and if yes, how?
Yes. This is because I my choice in what I believe. I am not ashamed of these beliefs. And all theories must be respected.

3) If your personal moral beliefs were in direct conflict with society's, whose morals do you defend and why?
If what I do is positive for the person next to me, then it is not in conflict. What my beliefs are and how I treat other people are two different things. I do not have to agree with someone but I should not hurt another person.

4) Of the above stated factors in defining morality, which do you feel was the most vital in influencing your choice to be heroes? Can you list a brief example of how it influenced you?
I have no clue how to answer that. I guess I am oversimplifying things. But for me, why over think what I do? What good will it do to brood over my actions rather then to just do it? I don't know. Maybe it is just easier to make things simple. Don't harm others; take care of your brother. Do the best you can at all times. Accept your mistakes, learn from them, and do better the next time.

Wow, Mr. Peabody! That sure was an excellent Sociological/Phycological/Philosophical/Biological Reseach Paper, I'm gonna have to dock points, though, for no bibliography page. You left out the other entity of Willpower. Will power drives kids to intentionally want ot be different than their parents, breaking said genetic code. Will to want to be like other people. Hell, the Will to help people drives some folks to put on a mask and run around helping people. Will can overpower any genetic feed, guilt trip or lack of promise of reciprocity. Thoughts?

1) As a hero, do you feel you fight to protect society's morals
or your own? I have to fully agree with Zetaman, everyone thinks something different or don't know what they think, we call those politicians. I do what I think is right to the best of my judgement.

2) Are your personal morals different from the morals presented in society and if yes, how? There have been reports of people stepping over a dying stab victim to continue shopping. Then there are people who go out of their way to help a random person carry their groceries. Can you make the questions a little more vague? I've almost got a straight answers...

3) If your personal moral beliefs were in direct conflict with society's, whose morals do you defend and why? I will defend my morals, but I will defend to the death their right to disagree with me.

4) Of the above stated factors in defining morality, which do you feel was the most vital in influencing your choice to be heroes? Can you list a brief example of how it influenced you? ......true? My friend stop to smell the Roses. Enjoy a painting. Eat a good tuna fish sandwich. Make sure its not one from a vending machine, they are not checked daily. Point is, you are putting way too much thought into something as simple as a drive to help other people. You don't have that drive? Eh, neither does David Beckham. That doesn't him a Villian. Other traits make him that. If you don't feel it, questioning other peoples feeling aren't going to help you. You have to search in you!

MK

1) As a hero, do you feel you fight to protect society's morals
or your own?
society no longer has any morals. they have laws. And i dont fight to protect morals, i fight to protect people from being tortured for the rest of their lives by one moment. Or being dead.

2) Are your personal morals different from the morals presented in society and if yes, how?
see now youre using the right terminology. Morals "presented" in society. What they want you to think are societies morals. Its all a facade. My morals say, have your fun as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. Drug dealers i could give a shit less about. People make a choice to buy drugs, i know cause i was there. I grew up in the drug world and the outlaw world. I dont fight to protect people who make their own bad choices. thats a losing battle. Honestly, morals have nothing to do with me. I deal in fact and consequence. You cant impose your beliefs on a fact.

3) If your personal moral beliefs were in direct conflict with society's, whose morals do you defend and why? Mine. because i know that i deal in realism, society means too many hands in the pot. statistically one of those hands is dirty, if not most of them. You should read the origins of some of these laws, my man. ridiculous.

4) Of the above stated factors in defining morality, which do you feel was the most vital in influencing your choice to be heroes? Can you list a brief example of how it influenced you? i decided (eventually, after the depression lifted) to be a hero for the simple fact that some things the law cant do. Theres a kind of overflow of things theyre equipped and allowed to handle. I dont need a warrant. Im a private citizen and if i see something i want to stop to prevent trouble in the future, i do it. half the problem with the world is upbringing and people who experience a betrayal early in their lives, which is why my main targets are child porners and molestors.

I suppose I shouldn't put this off any longer.

I have read everyone's responses. And those of you who replied all receieved further correspondence from me on this topic. I have read and re-read, did yet more reading and pondering. And you know what I came up?

It's alright: Neither do I.

I mean, I know I can no longer say that society's morals shackle us. They really do not. What truly enslaves us morally are the laws that a chosen few within society use to enforce one set of morals.

I recognise the value of willpower. But I think that all of the factors which shape our morality are also what gives us our free will; that is to say that we as sentient beings are the sum of our parts.

So then, the question now finally becomes: How does morality shape a hero? Well, again, I can't really say for sure. But here's what I think:

I think that what seperates heroes is that they have this choice. You don't have to be heroes at all. You could have easily just went on living the mundane life, and nobody would be the wiser. However, despite your individual upbringing, genetics, levels of toxoplasmosis, or anything else...you CHOSE to rise above that because you wanted to.

You know something? That wasn't quite the answer I was looking for. I'm not even sure if that was an answer at all. But I'm cool with that.

-AN