Atheism and Morality

[Philosopher]

Atheism is not a coherent worldview. It is merely the rejection of the existence of a God/s. There is nothing else attached to it. Moral philosophy exists external from Atheism and there is nothing within Atheism which prevents anyone upholding ethical ideologies.

Agreed. There are atheists who believe in the afterlife.

 

[Woodrow]

I have no doubt that cannablism occurs in nature , so does it occure in humans. It may not be the norm but is does occure.
As you mentioned earlier it often occurs in nature as a form of dominance. Humans also tend to murder as a form of dominance. We will often get in fights among other things for sex and love etc.. And the fact that we dont kill as much as we did in the past is due to laws.

And the fact that we dont kill as much as we did in the past is due to laws

What is the evolutionary or social advantage for there to be a law forbidding Murder? In nature that seems to be an ideal method to assure an overall increase in the strength and intelligence of the species.

 

[ranma1/2]

Expounding a bit on this. I really doubt that cannibalism would be harmful to society from a scientific and socialogical view. In fact socialy it could be highly beneficial.

The cost of maintaining prisons would be eliminated, simply serve convicts at the local McPeople.

No more costly funeral expenses. A very strong incentive to breed stronger and healthier people. Only the best could survive and only the second best would be suitable for lunch.

I have to agree with Rav. there is some reason cannibalism and murder are considered an abomination by nearly all people and it goes beyond evolution biological or socialogical. Socialy and scientificaly murder and cannibalism make sense and I believe would be the order of the day if there was not some factor that causes us to see it as an abomination.

Contrary to popular belief cannibalism has never been a wide spread acceptable practice and in the few areas where it was practised it was part of a bizarre religious ceremony and not a food source. ( I am excluding obviously mentaly deranged people, and speaking of the norm)

Im sure you joking for most of this but using the prison population as a food source defintly would go against human rights in the US at least.

Can you please explain how cannablism makes sence socially? Science makes no comment on cannabilism to my knowledge. Socially eating members of your socitey would be bad for most societies. In some cultures though and defintily in more animalistic religons eating parts of your enemy is often deemed as a way to gain there power.
However eating someone you have developed social bonds with is pretty difficult and i would say antisocial.

 

[ranma1/2]

What is the evolutionary or social advantage for there to be a law forbidding Murder? In nature that seems to be an ideal method to assure an overall increase in the strength and intelligence of the species.

Evolutionarly speaking there is an adavantage in not killing your own group members. You and your group have a greater chance of survival if you are not killing each other or eating each other. Nature and Natural predators are their to weed out the week. Intelligence is another matter.

 

[Woodrow]

Im sure you joking for most of this but using the prison population as a food source defintly would go against human rights in the US at least.

Can you please explain how cannablism makes sence socially? Science makes no comment on cannabilism to my knowledge. Socially eating members of your socitey would be bad for most societies. In some cultures though and defintily in more animalistic religons eating parts of your enemy is often deemed as a way to gain there power.
However eating someone you have developed social bonds with is pretty difficult and i would say antisocial.

You are pointing to some of the things Rav was pointing out as indicaters that Murder and Cannibilism are abominations to all normal people and the reason for this is because it is any inner belief of a God(swt)

However eating someone you have developed social bonds with is pretty difficult

What is the source for that bond, it serves no biological purpose. As far as I know a bond that strong only occurs in humans and it serves no biological purpose to have been a preserved gene.

Socially eating members of your socitey would be bad for most societies.

Nope, economicaly and biologicaly it would be a boost to society, if God(swt) did not exist.

Im sure you joking for most of this but using the prison population as a food source defintly would go against human rights in the US at least.

I don't think it would pose a problem if life was simply the result of random molecular combinations and the only source of current human status was the result of evolutionary processes.

 

[ranma1/2]

You are pointing to some of the things Rav was pointing out as indicaters that Murder and Cannibilism are abominations to all normal people and the reason for this is because it is any inner belief of a God(swt)

What is the source for that bond, it serves no biological purpose. As far as I know a bond that strong only occurs in humans and it serves no biological purpose to have been a preserved gene.

Nope, economicaly and biologicaly it would be a boost to society, if God(swt) did not exist.

I don't think it would pose a problem if life was simply the result of random molecular combinations and the only source of current human status was the result of evolutionary processes.

No evedince has been shown that god has implanted it in us. And for that matter which god? No one has yet to answer this. If Its the christian god then how can muslims and others be moral. If its the jewish god then how can christians etc... This kind of thinkiing amounts to we dont know why we act the way we do so god did it.

Actually it is from the social bonds created within groups. And social bonds form in more than just humans. Other things that help are empathy. Empathy being a social advantage that aids in the care of a group. If you care more about your group you are more likely to aid in its survival.

Economically and biologcially perhaps but we arent talking about that we are talking about society. Not to mention it would be biolgoically better to let sick people die and not have medice but we dont. Why? Becuase we want ot live and we have developed social bonds with others. Of course we care less about those we dont have bonds with. Many people murder others in wars with no qualms. Many people dont give a peach pit about the sick and poor they dont see.

And for your last comment, it would be a problem since we have asighned value to life and freedom. We are not a society of survial of the fittest "which is a horrible misunderstanding of evo anyway" And as commented in other threads we have somewhat removed ourselves from evolution.

I would suggest looking at my avatar if you want to get my opionon on the meaning of life as you seem to deem that without a god there is no meaning.

 

[Joe98]

……that Murder and Cannibilism are abominations to all normal people and ……..this is because [of an] inner belief of a God(swt)

How then do you account for the Romans. They were pagans and yet murder and cannibalism were abominations to them too!

I believe that cutting off as hand for theft is an abomination and yet religious people do it!

-

 

[wilberhum]

Murder and Cannibilism are abominations to all normal people

Normal people? How do you define "Normal"? Every one that thinks like you?
Do "Normal People" like Opera?
Did you ever here of "Ritual Cannibalism"?
Though it is not my concept of "Normal", it is a form of respect and love that goes far beyond our concepts.

I just have a real problem with terms like "Normal People". It is derogatory to all people who think differently. And therefor I think it is immoral.

 

[ranma1/2]

How then do you account for the Romans. They were pagans and yet murder and cannibalism were abominations to them too!

I believe that cutting off as hand for theft is an abomination and yet religious people do it!

-

I imagine that they will answer that god implanted that into them.

Of course they still havent answered my question of what makes other religions any different from atheists.

 

[rav]

Shalom Eleichem, (Peace be upon you), I still cannot believe I am replying to this thread. I am an addict to mental workouts and intellectual discussion. ;-) I'm going to bed, and not even touching my computer tommorow. I still cannot believe I wasted so much time coming on here and replying to so many posts.

No once again atheism is only concerned with the existence of god. It makes as much comment on morality as it does on cooking or what clothers to wear or the existence of George Bush. It makes no comment on evolution, commerce, ethics, zoology, geography etc....

You basically said this over, and over in a recurring manner, so I will only quote you only once on this, please forgive me if another important point was in the post, and you wished for me to respond specifically to that point, just point it out to me. I must point out now that Atheism is the rejection of G-d or the Creator. I understand this, but therefore, the lens an atheist will view the world through, is the lens of one who does not believe in any deity and concludes that the world has come about in a series of accidental events. Maybe this may not be the proper definition of an Atheist, but this is who I am speaking about when I say “atheist”. Maybe I should say “accidental evolutionist” if there is such a term. Religions like Buddhism are not included when I mention “atheism” no matter how atheistic of a religion it may be.

Evolutionarly speaking there is an adavantage in not killing your own group members. You and your group have a greater chance of survival if you are not killing each other or eating each other. Nature and Natural predators are their to weed out the week. Intelligence is another matter.

So may I ask your opinion on the current subject? What is the difference between murdering an animal and murdering a human, since we are both of the same roots but differ in our accidental evolutionary development?

Actually it is from the social bonds created within groups. And social bonds form in more than just humans. Other things that help are empathy. Empathy being a social advantage that aids in the care of a group. If you care more about your group you are more likely to aid in its survival.

Why do animals not develop the exact same social bonds? What makes them so different?

Not to mention it would be biolgoically better to let sick people die and not have medice but we dont. Why? Becuase we want ot live and we have developed social bonds with others. Of course we care less about those we dont have bonds with. Many people murder others in wars with no qualms. Many people dont give a peach pit about the sick and poor they dont see.

The social construct is developed by participants in a particular culture or society, therefore, the values placed in it were for some off reason, not the most natural, nor the most useful for society overall (read Woodrow’s posts). So why is that? Why do we have such a complex that resides in our very core that is so different than that of the rest of the animal kingdom?

How then do you account for the Romans. They were pagans and yet murder and cannibalism were abominations to them too!

You misunderstood his post. The Romans, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists all believe these things are wrong because inside they are implanted with specific morals that are a sort of guide to demonstrate what is right. Of course, many have them buried so deep they cannot find them, but they are there, it is evident by the differences in morality between animals and humans. Why is cannibalism so wrong? Why do we show the empathy for fellow humans to chose not to be a cannibal, yet other animals do not do so?

Here is a perfect example:

Infanticide, or pup-killing, is found in many species, including rats. In rats, the infanticidal animal may be the mother, a strange male, or a strange female. Each of these may commit infanticide for different reasons. Most infanticide is directed at newborn rats.

Mothers tend to kill deformed or wounded infants, which may allow her to allocate resources to the healthy pups who are more likely to survive. Mothers may also kill entire litters when they are stressed, perhaps because the mother perceives the environment as too hostile for pup survival, or she perceives herself as unable to rear the litter successfully, so she recuperates some her energetic investment by consuming the young. Malnourished mothers, and mothers who have an abnormal birth experience, may also become infanticidal.

Unrelated adult male rats may kill young in order to bring the mother back into estrus sooner and thus hasten the arrival of a litter of his own. To keep from accidentally killing his own young, infanticide toward all infants is reduced in males from 18-50 days after copulation, a time that roughly corresponds to the period from birth to weaning of their own offspring. Infanticide is also reduced by cohabitation with a pregnant female. A chemical produced by pregnant females may suppress infanticide, and maternal aggression after the birth may also play a role in preventing male infanticide, though its success is mixed. Repeated exposure to young also inhibits infanticide in males, and generates parental behavior.

Unrelated females commit infanticide to gain a food source by consuming the litter, and to take over the nest of the destroyed litter. As with unrelated males, infanticide in unrelated females can be reduced by cohabitation with the pregnant female and by exposure to pups. Relatedness and familiarity also play a role: pregnant sisters who have lived together since birth are rarely infanticidal toward each other's litters, and often participate in cooperative rearing. In contrast, nearly half of pairs of unrelated pregnant females who cohabit just during their pregnancies experience infanticide, and cooperative rearing is less common.

http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm​

It is not unnatural for this to happen in many species. Why does not occur in humans though? What makes us so morally superior? All social constructs were never always there, they were “developed by participants in a particular culture or society” so why are we the one species that label many things to be “wrong” just because they are “wrong” and for no other reason than that.

Another great example is this:

Size structured cannibalism, in which large individuals consume smaller conspecifics, is more common. In such size-structured populations, cannibalism can be responsible for 8% (Belding Ground Squirrel) to 95% (dragonfly larvae) of the total mortality, making it a significant and important factor for population and community dynamics. Such size structured cannibalism has commonly been observed in the wild for a variety of taxa, including octopus, aardvarks, wolves, foxes, lynx, sheeps, horses, cattles, mooses, bears, pandas, cheetahs, tigers, parrots, rabbits, hippopotamuses, kangaroos, sealions, koalas, iguanas, orangutans, dolphin, hedgehogs, orcas ,bats, toads, fish, monitor lizards, red-backed salamanders and several stream salamanders, crocodiles, spiders, crustaceans, birds (crows, ostriches, eagles Barred Owls), mammals, and a vast number of insects, such as dragonflies, diving beetles, back swimmer, water strider, flour beetle, caddisflies and many more.

Unlike previously believed, cannibalism is not just a result of extreme food shortage or artificial conditions, but commonly occurs under natural conditions in a variety of species. In fact, scientists have acknowledged that it is ubiquitous in natural communities. Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to ~90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle. Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores and detritivores.

Another common form of cannibalism is infanticide. Classical examples include the chimpanzees where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants, and cats, elephants, dogs, baboons ,lions, where adult males commonly kill infants when they take over a new harem after replacing the previous dominant males. In agricultural settings, pigs are known to eat their own young, accounting for a sizeable percentage of total piglet deaths.​

Why are humans so different if we are in reality related to them?

 

[Woodrow]

Normal people? How do you define "Normal"? Every one that thinks like you?
Do "Normal People" like Opera?
Did you ever here of "Ritual Cannibalism"?
Though it is not my concept of "Normal", it is a form of respect and love that goes far beyond our concepts.

I just have a real problem with terms like "Normal People". It is derogatory to all people who think differently. And therefor I think it is immoral.

I apologise I was thinking of mathematical normality in which the norm is the majority. I should have used the word majority instead of normal.

 

[wilberhum]

I apologise I was thinking of mathematical normality in which the norm is the majority. I should have used the word majority instead of normal.

Thank you. :thumbs_up
I should know that some times we all mis-state something. :skeleton:

 

[snakelegs]

What is the difference between murdering an animal and murdering a human, since we are both of the same roots but differ in our accidental evolutionary development?

we all have to kill in order to live. the more something resembles you, the harder it is to kill it. (why veggies are easier to kill, and fish easier than mammals). the bad part of this is that when some dictator can convince you that another group of people is not like you, they become easier to kill.
people often forget that just because you believe in god, does not mean you believe in any of the holy books and their portrayal of god. i believe in god, but not the holy books.
i share the belief that we are born with an innate sense of "goodness" (for want of a better word) and later we acquire "not-goodness" and we all have both.
the question you have raised is not answerable. there are many things that are simply beyond our understanding and not knowable. which is why, i believe, religion was invented.

 

[ranma1/2]

Shalom Eleichem, (Peace be upon you), I still cannot believe I am replying to this thread. I am an addict to mental workouts and intellectual discussion. ;-) I'm going to bed, and not even touching my computer tommorow. I still cannot believe I wasted so much time coming on here and replying to so many posts.

Well im sure many of us cant believe you have amde so many strawmen.

You basically said this over, and over in a recurring manner, so I will only quote you only once on this.

Yes and you seem to ignore this.

I must point out now that Atheism is the rejection of G-d or the Creator.

Its not a rejection but a simple non belief. I dont believe in your god nor do i believe in muslim gods or christians or zeus. If you wish ill say I reject them all since none have shown themselves to me and have left no evidence. But i use the term Reject loosely.

I understand this, but therefore, the lens an atheist will view the world through, is the lens of one who does not believe in any deity...

Not exactly, it is the disbeif in a god. There are of course many levels of atheism. You are an atheist wether you admit it or not. You do not believe in Zeus, or the many other gods out there.

...and concludes that the world has come about in a series of accidental events.

Nope atheism has no comment on that. Many atheists have different views of life and how it came to be. I personally see evolution as being the best explanation for the diveristy of the species but it does not touch on how life began.

Maybe this may not be the proper definition of an Atheist, but this is who I am speaking about when I say “atheist”. Maybe I should say “accidental evolutionist” if there is such a term.

SO that would include buddhists, christians, jews and other people that see evolution as being the best answer then. So is your entire post about how immoral evolution is then?

Religions like Buddhism are not included when I mention “atheism” no matter how atheistic of a religion it may be.

Interesting you seem to select and choose. Why do you not count buddhism?

So may I ask your opinion on the current subject? What is the difference between murdering an animal and murdering a human, since we are both of the same roots but differ in our accidental evolutionary development?

For me? Well id say killing human or animals in selfdefence is fine. I personally would never kill any animal for sport as many humans do. I have no problem with eating meat. I think animal cruelty is immoral. ect...
I would not kill my pets since i have developed social bonds with them. My pets seem to have also developed bonds with me. They seem to be happy to see me and get sad when I am gone.

Why do animals not develop the exact same social bonds? What makes them so different?

Many animals do develope social bonds. What do you mean by exact? I would say evolution has a lot to do with it.

The social construct is developed by participants in a particular culture or society, therefore, the values placed in it were for some off reason, not the most natural, nor the most useful for society overall (read Woodrow’s posts). So why is that?

He is mistaken as i and im sure others have pointed out. Social constructs hold a great advantage in group survival. Same with empathy.

Why do we have such a complex that resides in our very core that is so different than that of the rest of the animal kingdom?

Complex? Why dont you have gills? IN short different things work for different animals. We have developed in such a way that social constructs provide an advantage.

You misunderstood his post. The Romans, Atheists, Jews, Buddhists all believe these things are wrong because inside they are implanted with specific morals that are a sort of guide to demonstrate what is right.
Of course, many have them buried so deep they cannot find them, but they are there, it is evident by the differences in morality between animals and humans.

Evidence?
We have explained the difference between morality of humans and other humans and animals. You seem to believe that all humans have the same morals unless they are broken. This is just wrong. And for the sake of argument lets say you are right and something put the barriers on us. Then atheists once again are perfectly capable of being moral.

Why is cannibalism so wrong? Why do we show the empathy for fellow humans to chose not to be a cannibal, yet other animals do not do so?

You seem to have ignored all of the other posts.
Cannablim is not wrong or right. The conditions that canablism is performed we have given good or bad meanings to. Some cultures think eating your enemy is ok. Some would say that if you are on a deserted island and everyone is dead but you and you need food it would be ok to eat the dead. Some dont. Canablism is performed by humans just like other animals.
It is only in different cultures and societies we see differences.

I just had another thought. We tend to identify with things we know. Would you eat your dog? Or your pet? Most likely no. Same for most people in more modern cultures.

Here is a perfect example:

Infanticide, or pup-killing, is found in many species, including rats. ..
​

and including humans.

Mothers tend to kill deformed or wounded infants, which may allow her to allocate resources to the healthy pups who are more likely to survive.

including humans. especially in less developed countries.

Mothers may also kill entire litters when they are stressed, perhaps because the mother perceives the environment as too hostile for pup survival, or she perceives herself as unable to rear the litter successfully, so she recuperates some her energetic investment by consuming the young. Malnourished mothers, and mothers who have an abnormal birth experience, may also become infanticidal.

including humans. except maybe for consuming the young but other ape mothers usually dont eat their young either.

Unrelated adult male rats may kill young in order to bring the mother back into estrus sooner and thus hasten the arrival of a litter of his own. .....
.....
Unrelated females commit infanticide to gain a food source by consuming the litter, and to take over the nest of the destroyed litter.

Humans are known to do this too.. not eat the babies normally,but kill to get rid of rivals.

As with unrelated males, infanticide in unrelated females can be reduced by cohabitation with the pregnant female and by exposure to pups.

Relatedness and familiarity also play a role: pregnant sisters who have lived together since birth are rarely infanticidal toward each other's litters, and often participate in cooperative rearing. In contrast, nearly half of pairs of unrelated pregnant females who cohabit just during their pregnancies experience infanticide, and cooperative rearing is less common.

So other animals act differently and have evolved differently who would have though. As i have pointed out these behaviours are common for "moral" humans as well. We dont normally eat our babies but neither do rats. Rats like humans are also less likely to kill their own or those that they are sociallized with.

It is natural for this to happen in many species. Why does not occur in humans though?

It does occure with humans. Murdering of others happen all the time with humans. We normally dont eat those we murder but as stated many times that is due to socialization, empathy, and other possibilities including familiarity.

What makes us so morally superior? All social constructs were never always there, they were “developed by participants in a particular culture or society” so why are we the one species that label many things to be “wrong” just because they are “wrong” and for no other reason than that.

I dont think we are morally superior. And yes all moral constructs were developed over time. Perhaps you are understanding us.

Another great example is this:

Size structured cannibalism, in which large individuals consume smaller conspecifics, is more common. In such size-structured populations, cannibalism can be responsible for 8% to 95% (dragonfly larvae) of the total mortality, making it a significant and important factor for population and community dynamics.
​

And? This shows that in these cases cannablism is usefull for survival, none of the animals listed there were particularly social.

Unlike previously believed, cannibalism is not just a result of extreme food shortage or artificial conditions, but commonly occurs under natural conditions in a variety of species. In fact, scientists have acknowledged that it is ubiquitous in natural communities. Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to ~90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle. Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores and detritivores.

ANd how many of these cannabils are of social groups like apes?

We do not deny that cannablism exists. We know it does and we have explained how it is a benefit for us not to eat each other.

Another common form of cannibalism is infanticide.

Did that already....

Classical examples include the chimpanzees where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants, and cats, elephants, dogs, baboons ,lions, where adult males commonly kill infants when they take over a new harem after replacing the previous dominant males.
And this holds an advantage. You notice that they dont just kill for food but usually for dominance. Same with humans. We however dont tend to eat the babies. "tend to is a key word"

Why are humans so different if we are in reality related to them?

Because geuss what, we evolved differently.


I would strongly recommend reading about evolution.
And remember this, evolution makes no comment on creation. NOr does gravity.​

 

[Chuck]

The point that rav has brought out is quite interesting. Us humans are the only creatures on earth that normally do not engage in cannibalism. If you stop and think of it biological cannibalism is very logical as it does guarantee for only the survival of the fittest and does eliminate the waste of protein.

Socially there is no basis for there to be any stigma against it.

So the question arises why is there world wide repulsion about it? What evidence is there of any biological or social reason people do not normally practice it?

To me that is at least evidence that there is a guiding force beyond convenience that shapes human moral values.

I think that topic is related http://www.islamicboard.com/health-science/43420-sense-justice-discovered-brain.html

Check that out

 

[Trumble]

Interesting you seem to select and choose. Why do you not count buddhism?

I should point out, perhaps slightly correctly myself earlier, that Buddhism need not be atheistic. The essential distinction is not so much that Buddhism denies the existence of God or gods as makes no distinction between them and humans in the aspect of most importance, i.e that all people, gods (and animals, and everything else) are subject to the same fundamental laws of cause and effect. Buddhism does specifically exclude a 'First Cause' (as that would entail the existence of something outside the laws), which would include God or gods in that role.

In this particular context 'atheist' is probably appropriate.

 

[Joe98]

I must point out now that Atheism is the rejection of G-d or the Creator. I understand this, but therefore, …… blah blah blah blah

I shall now complete the blah blah blah……


…….therefore all athiests have green hair.


Yes sireeeee! All atheists have green hair!

The lack of a god obviously must mean green hair!

It is sooooooo obvious!

Every thinking person knows this and I look forward to the next 265 threads on this topic confirming it!

 

[Skavau]

You may be correct, but do you concede that atheists in general tend to have the same views on how mankind came to be (i.e. evolution)?

I would say so.

Joe, on the contrary, “common sense” is ”what people in common would agree: that which they "sense" in common as their common natural understanding.” If the common understanding in a society was that everyone thought that cannibalism was okay, than atheists would most likely partake in it as well since the common natural understanding would be that is okay. If 99.9% of a population believes with no problem that there is a G-d, then would it not be common sense to believe in G-d?

Argumentum ad populum, I think you'll find is a logical fallacy.

That is all.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I have yet to see in this thread or the one that came before it, or the numerous ones that came before that, any evidence or argument to show that religion provides any kind of moral sense that is absent without religion.

Our natural sense of morality comes from empathy and survival needs. Period. Socialization then modifies it.
Religion further twists and turns our natural sense of morality, and often for the worse.

Early on you suggested that "normal" people find murder repugnant, yet many religions grew up with ritual human sacrifice. And before you banish those religions to irrelevance note that Christianity (one of the most mainstream religions today) is based on this very thing - blood sacrifice of a human being to appease a God. And also note that the same story pushes the immoral idea that we are responsible for the wrongdoing (sin) of our ancestors and deserve to be punished eternally simply for being born to them (and need to be saved). And note that the same story pushes the immoral idea that it is acceptable for one person to take the punishment for others.

Other religions teach us to feel self important in an US vs THEM relationship, and that we are the "chosen people". Some teach us that it is GOOD to mutilate the genitals of our children (how natural do you think THAT "moral" comes?) and to be ashamed of the very activity that allows us to procreate.

There are so many warpings of our moral sense by religious dogma that they could fill many books.

No, our moral sense doesn't come from religion. Religion warps our moral sense. And religious "Morals" are not morals anyway, it is only obedience to he with the biggest stick.

 

[wilberhum]

I found this under Sense of justice discovered in the brain on the Health & Science Forum
Thought it might have some insight for some
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10239&feedId=online-news_rss20

Moral centre?
"Self interest is one important motive in every human," says Fehr, "but there are also fairness concerns in most people."
"In other words, this is the part of the brain dealing with morality," says Herb Gintis, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, US. "[It] is involved in comparing the costs and benefits of the material in terms of its fairness. It represses the basic instincts."
Psychologist Laurie Santos, at Yale University in Connecticut, US, comments: "This form of spite is a bit of an evolutionary puzzle. There are few examples in the animal kingdom." The new finding is really exciting, Santos says, as the DLPFC brain area is expanded only in humans, and it could explain why this type of behaviour exists only in humans.