Reproduction is a Moral Good

[Bob]

@Carleas

Old Carleas:

@Carleas

I am unsure of where morality functions, i.e. what thing’s survival it’s influencing. On the one hand, certain parts of the inheritance must be genetic, but I am unsure how much. I am unsure, for example, whether a group of people left to their own devices would benefit from the inherited mental machinery that, when it develops within a culture, leads to a positive survival impact. If the group itself is part of the context for which the moral machinery of the brain evolved, then it’s not just the genes that produce that machinery that matter, the group itself also matters. I tend to think that’s the case (thus my concern that the “society” continue, and not just genetic humans), but I’m uncertain about it. That uncertainty leads me to want to leave this as an open question.

New Carleas: Whatever else the evolutionary origins of morality entail, they create the strong presumption that reproduction is a moral good.

Reproduction is a necessity if we want our species to survive, but I’m not sure I would call it a moral good.

Morality is the collection of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, or the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those distinguished as proper and those improper. As such, it seems to arise from trial and error, and the survivors assume their strategy to be right, proper, or appropriate as a result.

If everybody decides to have no kids, there is no one to learn from the error. If one couple decides that it is less of a problem.

@Carleas

Morality is an instinct in humans; while specifics differ, the existence of some moral system is a human universal. Humans (and some other social animals) instinctively adopt moral beliefs, both about their own behavior and the behavior of others. Humans lacking those instincts, or in whom those instincts are repressed or stunted, or viewed as mentally disabled.

It is considered mentally unstable if you permanently endanger your health or the health of your family and friends. But in most Western societies, you can essentially do what you want in your personal freedom, as long as you don’t infringe on other people’s freedom or break any laws. It is generally referred to as “common sense,” but I wouldn’t see it as strictly instinctive. There is an impulse to look for your own good, but good behaviour is generally instilled by upbringing, not instinct.

@Carleas

The evidence of moral sentiments in non-human animals in particular suggests that these instincts are not accidental, but evolved: that they’ve been selected for because the organisms who have them tend to be ‘fitter’ in the evolutionary sense. In social species, moral instincts increased fitness.

Animals aren’t moral. They can appear to follow a code of morality, but it is often the hierarchy of the pack that is adhered to, which is enforced rather than instilled. They can show emotions like affection and jealousy, they protect the herd – especially the young, and can learn from constantly being with human beings, but it is dangerous to assume that an animal has assumed a moral position. Too often, people who have lived amongst wild animals find that the animals turn on them for whatever reason, mostly when they reach sexual maturity, or feel they are stronger, or if they assume that their mate is being taken from them. A guy who had lived with bears for years had a girlfriend who joined him, and just after they were both found dead, mauled by the bears.

@Carleas

Part of this effect is, as ‘Old Carleas’ points out, the way in which morality creates stable groups. In a social species, the line between individual and society is more porous than in solitary species, so an adaptation that benefits the group might be selected for if it benefits the group even if it’s not particularly beneficial to the individual. Morality certainly seems to help the group, by increasing cooperation and enabling the group to compete against common threats almost as a single organism.

When single organisms are mentioned, single-cell organisms exhibit behaviours that can be interpreted as reciprocal. For example, bacteria can engage in quorum sensing, where they release signalling molecules to communicate and coordinate actions. This cooperation can benefit individual cells and the group as a whole. On the other hand, morality is a complex concept and often involves reciprocal actions, where individuals cooperate and reciprocate to maintain social harmony and well-being, but we must ask: Does the presence of reciprocal behaviour in single cells suggest a rudimentary form of morality in all living beings? How does understanding the biological basis of cooperation inform our understanding of human morality?

[…]

@Carleas

But individual selection still matters – [arguably, it continues to dominate]. The prominence of morality among humans suggests that it is not only beneficial for the group, but for the individual, i.e. that even within a group, the moral members have a fitness advantage over the immoral members of the group.

This suggests that, under a meta-ethics of functional morality, individual genetic reproduction is one of the ends of morality.

This isn’t to the exclusion of other functional ends of morality: the perpetuation of the group, the preservation of the environment in which the individual and the group live, the very broad consideration of various theories of groups election – individual genetic reproduction is not the only moral good.

Nor is it necessarily the highest moral good. The balance between competing functional ends is an open question, to be sure, and given the degree to which morality is a set of shared conventions across the group, significant weight should be given to group interests where those interests conflict with individual interests in genetic reproduction. To be specific, the fact that genetic reproduction is a moral good does not justify asocial behavior in pursuit of reproduction.

But it should be considered presumptively good: certeris paribus, having children is morally preferable to not having children.

Ultimately, whether procreation is considered a moral good or a basic need depends on one’s worldview and ethical framework.

From a more secular or utilitarian perspective, procreation can be seen as a basic biological need driven by instincts for survival and reproduction. In this view, individuals are motivated to procreate by evolutionary imperatives to ensure the survival of their genes. While procreation may fulfil biological drives and desires, it is not inherently morally good or bad. Instead, the moral implications arise from how individuals choose to fulfil this need and the consequences of their actions on themselves, their offspring, and society.

Some ethical and religious perspectives view procreation as a moral duty or a positive good. In these views, bringing new life into the world is seen as participating in the continuation of the human species and fulfilling a natural or divine purpose. Proponents of this view often emphasise the value of family, parenthood, and the bonds created through procreation. They may argue that raising children contributes to society’s well-being and fosters personal growth and fulfilment.