|
Disclaimer: No, this is not a homework assignment or anything of the sort. I just want to start a nice discussion to give us a break from the current infestation of CSL blogs...
In "What Makes Us Moral" (Time Magazine), Jeffrey Kluger writes that
"[m]erely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we always practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. [Marc] Hauser [professor of psychology at Harvard University] believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar - the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of the structure of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone gives you the tools that allow you to apply it effectively."
Kluger provides the example of a preschooler, who "will learn it's not all right to eat in the classroom, because the teacher says it's not. [...] But if the same teacher says it's also O.K. to push another student off a chair, the child hesitates."
Since TL, for some odd reason, seems to be a philosophical hub, the questions I pose for discussion are: is morality truly inherent (yes, another nature vs nurture debate)? If so, which aspects are instinct - unshaped by society, and which are learned? (If you have read Hobbes or whatever, I'm sure you can provide some good insight, because I sure haven't.)
Some interesting points: Neuroscience research has discovered that the decision-making process is located primarily in four regions:
- The amygdala - associated with strong, "primal" emotions, such as fear. It tells you to run away if you're being attacked by a velociraptor.
- The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - associated with rational, utilitarian choices. It tells you to take two pieces of pie instead of one.
- The medial prefrontal cortex - associated with empathetic thinking. Tells you to give the famished hobo your extra piece of pie.
- The anterior cingulate cortex - not sure, to be honest. The best I can make of it without slogging through the swamp of pretentious crap that is wikipedia is that it activates whenever a difficult moral decision needs to be made, like in those dramatic movie death-or-death situations.
Any discussion of morality is permitted, and everyone is encouraged to participate, as you all should have a well-developed sense of morality (well, most of you...) Regardless, please stay on topic (don't turn this into a CX debate genocide/Hitler/end of the world flamefest).
|
I've always felt that morality is just a somewhat unconscious attempt by people to set a bunch of social norms so that they could promote their own well-being. For example, if you robbed someone and took their money, you would benefit by being able to purchase more goods. However, you wouldn't want to be robbed yourself, so you try to steer clear from that kind of behavior and discourage it in others. If there were no consequences to our actions, there would be no morality. I think that we learn morality when we are young and watch how our parents and other adults interact. Even before we learn to speak, we can see what is good and what is bad and parents enforce these social norms by punishment, positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. By the time you are 6 or so and are able to go to kindergarten, you have a general idea of "right" and "wrong"
|
Does the concepts morality, right and wrong only exist for Human? Can we find evidence of other species that follows whatever concept of morality we humans do? If we can find such evidences then how do these other species develop these moralities? According to the theory of evolution if such moral concepts benefits survival, then life will adapt with such concepts. As species evolve, could it be possible that these moral concepts be past down to the newer species from the old? all the way to the human specie?
For answers to all these questions, check out wikipedia!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolutionary_perspectives
|
On September 04 2009 04:27 ghostWriter wrote:
I've always felt that morality is just a somewhat unconscious attempt by people to set a bunch of social norms so that they could promote their own well-being. For example, if you robbed someone and took their money, you would benefit by being able to purchase more goods. However, you wouldn't want to be robbed yourself, so you try to steer clear from that kind of behavior and discourage it in others. If there were no consequences to our actions, there would be no morality. I think that we learn morality when we are young and watch how our parents and other adults interact. Even before we learn to speak, we can see what is good and what is bad and parents enforce these social norms by punishment, positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. By the time you are 6 or so and are able to go to kindergarten, you have a general idea of "right" and "wrong"
I know a lot of people who think this way, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but, from the same article that I quoted above (a little something to chew on):
"Marc Hausser [...] cites a study in which spouses or unmarried couples underwent [fMRI] as they were subjected to mild pain. They were always warned before the painful stimulus was administered, and their brains lit up in a characterist way signaling mild dread. They were then told that they were not going to feel the discomfort but that their partner was. Even when they couldn't see their partner, the subjects' brains lit up precisely as if they were about to experience the pain themselves."
...which is pretty much empathy, not selfishness, at it's best.
|
On September 04 2009 05:14 rei wrote:Does the concepts morality, right and wrong only exist for Human? Can we find evidence of other species that follows whatever concept of morality we humans do? If we can find such evidences then how do these other species develop these moralities? According to the theory of evolution if such moral concepts benefits survival, then life will adapt with such concepts. As species evolve, could it be possible that these moral concepts be past down to the newer species from the old? all the way to the human specie? For answers to all these questions, check out wikipedia!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolutionary_perspectives
I appreciate the trolling effort, but that would defeat the purpose of a "discussion," which is to gather and compare different points of view, and not to spend an hour deciphering one wordy article and deciding that half of it is absolute bullshit and that the rest is either too vague or just blind assertions.
|
Saracen, define trolling, and support your argument with evidence.
you said
"which is to gather and compare different points of view"
what I suggest is evolutionary perspectives of morality, which is a different point of view from yours. how can people take you seriously if you call ppl who have a different perspective from you trolling and not even willing to hear what they have to say?
Why are you so condescending to me? I am trolling? (signifies whatever i say should not be taken serious) I ask questions and provide evidences that might or might not answer the questions I asked. It leaves you as the reader to decide if what the article talked about is valid and sound in logic.
"not to spend an hour deciphering one wordy article and deciding that half of it is absolute bullshit and that the rest is either too vague or just blind assertions."
you calling ppl such as Richard Dawkins absolute bullshit?
Can you give some example as evidence on my "trolling" attempt?
|
Hmm. Well, it must have something to do with how you're raised, simply because of the vast differences in morality between different cultures. Although there are a few things that should all be the same, because I don't think there's ever been a culture where it's moral to kill people for no reason. (I guess there's no way of knowing, because they would have finished themselves off!)
But even so, it seems to me as if the manners and morals that you wind up with are due to what you are raised to believe is "good" and "evil". But that leaves the question of where morals initially came from. Maybe from the time when people had to band together to survive, they had to come up with these things so that they could stand being around each other?
|
|
|
Good opening post. If by "moral grammar" that guy means we have the natural capacity to learn values, to contemplate our actions then yea I don't think anyone can disagree.
The example Kluger provides is bullshit though as I'm sure is obvious to everyone.
Is morality inherent? No we are not born with values. They are social.
|
yeah i think he means we have the natural capactiy to learn our morality. but he doesn't mention anything about our natural capacity to learn immorality either. ppl definately have immoral grammar built into them.
|
I think by morality he just meant values and not the natural capacity to do good, at least I hope that's what he meant.
|
On September 04 2009 05:45 rei wrote:
Saracen, define trolling, and support your argument with evidence.
you said
"which is to gather and compare different points of view"
what I suggest is evolutionary perspectives of morality, which is a different point of view from yours. how can people take you seriously if you call ppl who have a different perspective from you trolling and not even willing to hear what they have to say?
Why are you so condescending to me? I am trolling? (signifies whatever i say should not be taken serious) I ask questions and provide evidences that might or might not answer the questions I asked. It leaves you as the reader to decide if what the article talked about is valid and sound in logic.
"not to spend an hour deciphering one wordy article and deciding that half of it is absolute bullshit and that the rest is either too vague or just blind assertions."
you calling ppl such as Richard Dawkins absolute bullshit?
Can you give some example as evidence on my "trolling" attempt?
Sorry. If you were really being serious, then
Can we find evidence of other species that follows whatever concept of morality we humans do? We can find that other species has empathy, which is the foundation of morality.
If we can find such evidences then how do these other species develop these moralities? According to the theory of evolution if such moral concepts benefits survival, then life will adapt with such concepts. Perhaps you could relate this to what ghostWriter posted above, about mutual benefits, which is necessary for society to prosper, or Zozma's post below.
@ zulu and blue_arrow: IMO, Hauser is just pulling a random example out of his ass, but yes, he means the natural capacity to learn "moral values."
Is morality inherent? No we are not born with values. They are social. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any empirical evidence that can prove/disprove this, but why do you say this? Do you two think that, if someone was brought up from birth that it was okay to kill people, even at the very first time he kills, he would not have a shred of hesitation, doubt, or regret?
Another example: Phineas Gage - the guy who had a railroad spike or something lodged in his medial prefrontal cortex - after the accident, although he survived, he was significantly less able to empathize with people, and had a much more violent, "immoral," nature. Just throwing a little bit of biology into the mix...
Anyways, I think it would be best if we defined "morality," "moral values," etc. Since there's so much social descrepancy, I think it's best just to use "the ability to empathize" (and that's really helpful from a biological standpoint as well) - but you could argue that it's not as fun to argue 
|
@ your question, it would be impossible to prove and meaningless to hypothesize since we are all born into a social setting. But there was a time in history when the notion of guilt was foreign and cruelty/murder went hand in hand with festivity.
Morality at least in philosophy, describes any idea which governs human action. As far as I can tell it doesn't necessarily have to do with empathy. The example of the experiment you provided, I think it would be fair to deduce some biological phenomenon that can be called empathy in the couple, but it would be awfully hard to extend that observation to a greater setting or to argue that it's something biologically given. I believe we are all capable of empathy, and this concept is certainly real enough to construct a normative ethics upon, as we have. But to believe it is something natural, universal, and/or inherent would be difficult.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On September 04 2009 04:27 ghostWriter wrote:
I've always felt that morality is just a somewhat unconscious attempt by people to set a bunch of social norms so that they could promote their own well-being. For example, if you robbed someone and took their money, you would benefit by being able to purchase more goods. However, you wouldn't want to be robbed yourself, so you try to steer clear from that kind of behavior and discourage it in others. If there were no consequences to our actions, there would be no morality. I think that we learn morality when we are young and watch how our parents and other adults interact. Even before we learn to speak, we can see what is good and what is bad and parents enforce these social norms by punishment, positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement. By the time you are 6 or so and are able to go to kindergarten, you have a general idea of "right" and "wrong"
A can agree we that.
Also, take a newborn kid and give him to extremist islam family, his morality will be so much different from other scenarios. Considering how my own moralities changed over time, it's definitely something that only forms under social influence and your own intelligence and it's pretty flexible, especially in the childhood. Once you are adult, the community can't change your moral beliefs, but you can change it yourself with thinking and reasoning.
|
United States22883 Posts
Nature and nurture both play a role in our psychological development, but when it comes to morality, I do think tabula rasa generally applies. Obviously, all (successful) beings are born selfish with a desire to not die, but I don't think you can define good or bad from that or that any response from your conscience would be triggered without being trained to do so first. As with Phineas Gage, when his frontal lobe was destroyed, he no longer had the ability to think in certain ways like with forethought or a conscience.
It's not as if the mind is some mystical entity, it definitely has some roots in the biology of our brain but I don't think there is really an inherent good or bad. We tend to gravitate towards actions that are consequentially good, which can be argued is moral, but I don't think the acts themselves possess anything inherent like that. And I don't really know that you could definitely prove any of these, but there are some sheds of evidence that we aren't biologically programmed to feel bad about certain things.
On September 04 2009 08:56 Magic84 wrote:
Once you are adult, the community can't change your moral beliefs, but you can change it yourself with thinking and reasoning.
I think this is a bit naive. There is no magical switch from when you're a kid to when you're an adult when outside activity stops shaping your morals.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On September 04 2009 09:22 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 08:56 Magic84 wrote:
Once you are adult, the community can't change your moral beliefs, but you can change it yourself with thinking and reasoning. I think this is a bit naive. There is no magical switch from when you're a kid to when you're an adult when outside activity stops shaping your morals.
It's just saying it in simple way, of course everything is more complicated than that. It's not an instant process. But eventually your morals almost stop adjusting based on how other people interact and what they think as your own intelligence develop, the way to adjust it i to get exposed to information and analyze it intellectually, then you can overcome the social brainwash that shaped up your psyche. If your intelligence is low, then it's easier to accept beliefs of other as facts, so social influence continues to be a more powerful moral shaping tool than intelligent thinking. The other way to ditch or adjust morals temporarily or permanently is to get into situation when primal instincts take over.
is morality truly inherent (yes, another nature vs nurture debate)? If so, which aspects are instinct - unshaped by society, and which are learned?
All of morality is shaped by society with our personal brain structure/dna, our personal hormonal values, levels of neurotransmitters and other stuff having the influence over the degree of how something is right or wrong, good or bad, acceptable or not. We are social animals, to exist as society we need additional sets of rules, that are being passed on to us by parents and society. Of course we need mechanism that will accept and apply the rules too.
+ Show Spoiler +wordswordswordswordswordswords, damn it's a difficult task to express myself using language i don't know well 
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 04 2009 10:12 Magic84 wrote:
It's just saying it in simple way, of course everything is more complicated than that. It's not an instant process. But eventually your morals almost stop adjusting based on how other people interact and what they think as your own intelligence develop, the way to adjust it i to get exposed to information and analyze it intellectually, then you can overcome the social brainwash that shaped up your psyche. If your intelligence is low, then it's easier to accept beliefs of other as facts, so social influence continues to be a more powerful moral shaping tool than intelligent thinking. The other way to ditch or adjust morals temporarily or permanently is to get into situation when primal instincts take over.
Look at the contrast between Locke and Hobbes. Both intelligent men, and both came to completely differently conclusions about morality because of the periods they lived in. Hobbes was deeply troubled by the English Civil War while Locke was shaped by the Restoration. Social influences never stop affecting our viewpoints, both consciously and subconsciously. Reason can affect the former, but you're never going to escape subconscious influence no matter how intelligent and introspective you are.
It almost sounds like you're arguing that intelligent people are more moral, which I think is totally bogus.
|
"Might makes right." Sigmund Freud
I think someone already mentioned it but we use violence to prevent violence
|
well I think you can say people who have thought more about morality have a deeper sense of what morality is, which is redundant I guess.
Greatest moralist = Marquis De Sade imo.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On September 04 2009 10:52 Jibba wrote:
It almost sounds like you're arguing that intelligent people are more moral, which I think is totally bogus.
Actually i think intelligent people tend to be less influenced by society and have more freedom and choice in their morals.
|
These medical terms are getting more complex every single day >.>
Anyway, I believe in nurture over nature. Yes something you cant change, but those things are only bot 1% of your personality. This kind of view may also stem from my belief that humans are all one race, and hence the word racism in my opinion should mean someone who thinks their ethnicity is a race. Also, new borns are like empty boxes, and its up to the parents/caregivers for what to put in it (such as your morals, your initial beliefs, your manners, etc.) If I had bad parents, then I woul dhave probably gotten STD's by the age of 15.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On September 04 2009 11:15 Sharp-eYe wrote:
These medical terms are getting more complex every single day >.>
Anyway, I believe in nurture over nature. Yes something you cant change, but those things are only bot 1% of your personality. This kind of view may also stem from my belief that humans are all one race, and hence the word racism in my opinion should mean someone who thinks their ethnicity is a race. Also, new borns are like empty boxes, and its up to the parents/caregivers for what to put in it (such as your morals, your initial beliefs, your manners, etc.) If I had bad parents, then I woul dhave probably gotten STD's by the age of 15.
Every "empty box" has unique set of genes and i believe it's far from just 1% of personality and behavior, unless it's compared to an identical twin. As for belief of total equality, it's not correct, because people did not evolve at identical pace and in identical direction all around the world, scientifically proven. But i won't go deep into that, it's taboo talk in your culture.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 04 2009 11:06 Magic84 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2009 10:52 Jibba wrote:
It almost sounds like you're arguing that intelligent people are more moral, which I think is totally bogus. Actually i think intelligent people tend to be less influenced by society and have more freedom and choice in their morals.
The first problem in this is that you haven't defined intelligent. Physicists? Economists? Teachers? Second, I don't know that being intelligent (whichever definition you choose) translates to having more freedom or choice, or that even having a better understanding enables you to act differently in moral situations. And again, back to the original post, what is moral?
|
moral = possessing values
immoral = useless term
amoral = having little or no values.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:
moral = possessing values
immoral = useless term
amoral = having little or no values. Ok, so possessing your own values. I suppose that would be more introspective (not intelligent) people, but can you actually choose them? I think they continue to be given by societal influences. And why is having your own better than sharing someone else's?
|
It's not, I never said it was. It has something to do with this idiotic notion that philosophy = better rofl. Just like how in the Brood thread people were talking about how having material goods define your life is worse than figuring out stuff for yourself. I'm not being sarcastic at all, it's ridiculous to think you can transcend the social reality which influences and makes up what you are just because you think harder than the rest or some bs. Some philosophers realize this, some don't. Nietzsche even admits it would take way more than one lifetime or something like that to unravel a man.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 04 2009 12:31 zulu_nation8 wrote:
it's ridiculous to think you can transcend the social reality which influences and makes up what you are just because you think harder than the rest or some bs. Some philosophers realize this, some don't.
Yeah, I'm in complete agreement.
|
Although you can debate if people like De Sade, Artaud, etc who devoted their lives to transcending themselves have actually done anything. And the value of their work, etc. Still for practical purposes, if your friend thinks his values are better than someone elses because he saw fight club you should hit him.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
On September 04 2009 13:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Although you can debate if people like De Sade, Artaud, etc who devoted their lives to transcending themselves have actually done anything. And the value of their work, etc. Still for practical purposes, if your friend thinks his values are better than someone elses because he saw fight club you should hit him.
You can absolutely have enough power to start adjusting your own values and beliefs more efficiently than society does it to you if you have thinking and analytical mind and you don't need to watch fight club, first of all because it a movie=lie and opinion, second of all it's again a social influence. At least minorly, just to realize what values fit better to your character and mind, to human nature and what are less necessary/made-up/detrimental to your self-satisfaction, just so you lie to yourself less, it can be important, morals aren't ultimately set in stone once you accepted them. I don't say that you can fully get away from what you have been taught, programmed in childhood though or ultimately from every other influence.
|
how can you adjust values/beliefs without social influence? Everything you listen, see, read, speak is social. By assuming there are values that are less "made-up" than others or "detrimental to your self-satisfaction" is already falling under a very specific discourse which you are already partaking in. If you want to take a glimpse at the boundaries of your social fabric, go do something like take acid or murder someone, the experiences of those acts are indeed outside or at the very edge of our traditional social experience, and it may lead you to something truly different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
