Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Patriotic Kaz on April 17, 2009, 05:32:10 PM
-
This is an argument not a fight, meaning to participate you must be willing to discuss not as miyabi calls it flame! Are the concepts of Right and Wrong subjective or are they sbujective. Because you are trying to convince the other side that you are in the, forgive the saying, right the supernatural is not a justification of a claim (that means god, ten commandments, & ect.). If you wish to discuss religon go to the religous discussion thread.
P.S. please give some justification for your claims otherwise this thread becomes an IS, IS NOT cat fight...and that is not the purpose.
-
I think right and wrong is *VERY* subjective. There are no universal laws on what's right/wrong and good/evil. Many things based on our sets of morality can be interpretted to us as one way or the other, and some seem so ingrained as "bad things" to us that they seem to be just naturally wrong.
As an example, to us, killing an ant (or even an ant colony) is the "right" thing to do if they are intruding on our living quality, as we consider them an inferior life form. What if one day in the future, we develop space travel, etc., and there's an alien race who deems us inferior and we are intruding on their life/comfort? Do they have every right to destroy us?
Some people may argue that killing an ant is wrong. Ok, that's their choice on the issue of right and wrong. There are also ants that can kill people, if threatened by one of these, or even approached with the possibility of being bitten/stung/whatever, is the human within his rights to kill it? What about in our above scenario with some alien species? What if they feel that our presence is a threat to even one life of their race? Would they be within right to kill said humans?
Once again, the answer as to if it's right or wrong are subjective. I'm sure the human has a different view of what is right and wrong in these two situations than either of the opposing parties (aliens or ants). The ants don't generally have a concept of right and wrong as far as we can tell, all they know is there is a human which can kill it, or it (or they) can strike first and kill. The aliens obviously think protecting themselves is the right thing, which is the same the humans most likely think.
now, obviously, this is an abstract scenario, but it helps convey my point.
-
As human, with a brain full of abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it. Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture. Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality. I wonder if young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong. There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion. Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.
-
As human, with a brain full of abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it. Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture. Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality. I wonder if young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong. There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion. Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.
exactly, animals *DON'T* have a natural concept of right and wrong, which means that there is no universal constants of right and wrong, otherwise they would just know it naturally.
All conceptions of these beliefs come from the ability to distinquish things that you can do, but know you should/shouldn't do, which means that it's subjective to the mindset of the person interpretting it. What's right for some is wrong for others and vice versa. Someone who's live their life in the gutter recognizes that stealing is percieved as "wrong" by others, but is perfectly acceptable for them if the choice is die or steal. They probably have the same viewpoint is the choice is between "kill someone else" or die themselves. They have a much more "Survival of the fittest" instinct, so their view on morality is much different than what you or I would perceive.
if something is not going to be subjective, then it has to be a universal constant. That is, it's the same anywhere and everywhere you go, no matter who or what you consider, otherwise it's quite subject to being of a relative nature.
-
As human, with a brain full of abstract concepts that animals and the natural world do not have, I don't see how you can have a discussion about right and wrong without bringing some form of religion, or morality, into it. Even if you don't reference a specific belief system, most of the general ideas of how we should behave have their basis in someone's culture. Many in the West like to refer to Eastern systems when they dislike Western morality. I wonder if young rebellious Buddhists reference Christianity or Islam?
That being said, I do think that as humans there is an absolute right and wrong. There are certain things that inspire universal revulsion. Bringing natural laws and animals into it confuses and distorts the question, because animals do not have these concepts.
exactly, animals *DON'T* have a natural concept of right and wrong, which means that there is no universal constants of right and wrong, otherwise they would just know it naturally.
All conceptions of these beliefs come from the ability to distinquish things that you can do, but know you should/shouldn't do, which means that it's subjective to the mindset of the person interpretting it. What's right for some is wrong for others and vice versa. Someone who's live their life in the gutter recognizes that stealing is percieved as "wrong" by others, but is perfectly acceptable for them if the choice is die or steal. They probably have the same viewpoint is the choice is between "kill someone else" or die themselves. They have a much more "Survival of the fittest" instinct, so their view on morality is much different than what you or I would perceive.
if something is not going to be subjective, then it has to be a universal constant. That is, it's the same anywhere and everywhere you go, no matter who or what you consider, otherwise it's quite subject to being of a relative nature.
I think you missed readerMom's point completely. I agree with her 100%. There is an objective right. Just becuase people don't adhere to what really constitutes right does not mean that an objective right doesn't exist. The objective right is universal. It is there and it is simply ingnored or not understood by many and maybe all. This whole conversion is moot if you cannot include religion in the discusion. There could be no such thing as objective morality without the existence of a higher power to lay down what constitutes right or wrong. That would be the problem with discussing right and wrong with atheists. They discount your theories out of hand because we live in a "fantasy" world.
-
I think you cannot say right and wrong is a universal constant because universal constants are mathematical in nature. I was a math and physics minor. The only constants are the Planck constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant and similar measurable mathematical things. To speak of anything that happens only inside a human head as a universal constant is nonsense.
Find another definition and you will have a more productive discussion. The first step in any debate is to properly define your terms.
-
I think the metaphor of universal constants with regard to morality arises from buddhist influences, smashing into your earlier observations Mom. For the real fundamentalist Buddhist, all matter and energy is an expression of the universal spirit. So if you accept his view and then begin to deal with moral issues as being a similar expression of some meta-physical (as in Aristotle's meta physica) constant, like whatever governs the absolute speed of photons.
If a constant like the speed of light is an expression of some mindless spirit, then you could argue that the difference between objective good and evil could be a similar constant. Of course, in such an economy, as you eluded there would be a mathematical continuum for good and evil, an absolute neutral, and of course, an absolute value of good.
Sounds a little like Dungeons & Dragons eh?
-
I say, of course they are! Everyone uses someone's definition of right and wrong. Religious people use (or ought to use) their god's definition. Governments codify their own definition into law. Disagreements over what is right and wrong are currently tearing the United States in half. Hmm...actually, maybe there's something to be said for having an absolute source of morality to look to...
-
You also need to define (ironically) what you mean by right and wrong—many atheists believe in an objective right and wrong: Truth is Right, Falsehood is Wrong. This is a strange sort of teleological morality, but it seems to work for some.
Your own particular relosophy will affect what you view as "objective" and "subjective", as well as what you view as right and wrong. Any discussion of epistemology dealing with such cosmological elements as absolute right and wrong is going to get quite involved to begin with...
I will say, however, that the question itself is flawed: Mankind is unable (short of divine intervention) to perfectly see Reality as-it-is. As such, man's ability to know (short of divine intervention) what is absolutely right and wrong is also quite limited and flawed. Right and Wrong may simply be unobtainable for man.
Two more thoughts:
1. There does seem to be some elements of morality which are nigh-universal among humans. C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man illustrates this with numerous examples in an appendix.
2. Many people do not believe that men are simply animals, and, as such, for many, one cannot simply say that we are bound to act as animals do. Only the most extreme naturalists (or biggest animal-rights activists) would argue otherwise.
-
I think you cannot say right and wrong is a universal constant because universal constants are mathematical in nature. I was a math and physics minor. The only constants are the Planck constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant and similar measurable mathematical things. To speak of anything that happens only inside a human head as a universal constant is nonsense.
Find another definition and you will have a more productive discussion. The first step in any debate is to properly define your terms.
Well, and this is sort of off topic, but many string theorists predict that if string theory is correct, you *CAN* mathematically calculate what happens within the human mind, even with regards to emotions. But, since they can't prove it yet, this is hardly any proof of anything. Also, It's worth noting I support string theory, because it's very elegant in its design, and can potentially solve the issues between quantum physics and relativity (classic) physics, if it's true!
Also, there're more constants in the universe than just that, like the Boltzmann's constant, Faraday constant, the Bohr radius, the Fermi coupling constant, etc. There's a whole slew of em. But that's off topic, too. (I've never majored or minored in physics, but I've studied them from a very young age, including taking all my electives as physics classes :P. Physics is actually a big hobby of mine! It's good to hear others around here studied and/or are into it too. Though I concede that those you mention are the only ones that are called "universal constants" )
I think the metaphor of universal constants with regard to morality arises from buddhist influences, smashing into your earlier observations Mom. For the real fundamentalist Buddhist, all matter and energy is an expression of the universal spirit. So if you accept his view and then begin to deal with moral issues as being a similar expression of some meta-physical (as in Aristotle's meta physica) constant, like whatever governs the absolute speed of photons.
If a constant like the speed of light is an expression of some mindless spirit, then you could argue that the difference between objective good and evil could be a similar constant. Of course, in such an economy, as you eluded there would be a mathematical continuum for good and evil, an absolute neutral, and of course, an absolute value of good.
Sounds a little like Dungeons & Dragons eh?
Of course the world is like D&D! Are you trying to say I can't really smite evil?!?! :P
-
I never said that you couldn't discuss morality, what i did say was not to attempt to argue with the reasoning of the supernatural it gets you nowhere except in a fight... One more thing we ARE animals they lack (to our knowledge) the neccesary intelligence to form such concepts as right and wrong but just because of that don't discard the possiblity that they will never come to this understanding i mean the structure of apes and animal packs is pretty complicated right and wrong isn't a big step from that.
-
Kaz, out of curiosity, have you read the literature on the animal studies relating to this? Are you familiar with Amy, the Gardners, or other well-documented cases of working with educated primates? Have you done much reading in the difficulties associated with referencing animal for human psychology?
I happen to have an unnatural interest in Cognitive Science, and am engaged to a Psychologist, so I know more about this topic than I probably have a right to…
-
I never said that you couldn't discuss morality, what i did say was not to attempt to argue with the reasoning of the supernatural it gets you nowhere except in a fight...
I think trying to discuss morality without referencing the supernatural will get you nowhere except...nowhere.
Morality stems from the supernatural. Without the supernatural, all you've got are situational ethics. It's important to remember though that there are principles that are eternal, but the proper application of those principles is contextual and may be different according to society, time period, and circumstance. With situational ethics there's no underlying principles—you just have to do what seems best at the time.
-
@Jade Knight no i haven't read anything I've watched a couple of flicks, but if your point is me being as ignorant as a newborn then the answer is yes i am that, but if a small child can understand the underlying concepts I'm pretty sure the chimps they show on documentaries can't be that far behind, or possibly there.
-
@Jade Knight no i haven't read anything I've watched a couple of flicks, but if your point is me being as ignorant as a newborn then the answer is yes i am that, but if a small child can understand the underlying concepts I'm pretty sure the chimps they show on documentaries can't be that far behind, or possibly there.
It seems to me that you are taking quite a leap here. You're "pretty sure" or that the chimps are "possibly there"? Not really doing alot for your argument by assuming things just to make your point seem more valid. You know what the say about those who assume.....
-
I think you can have a discussion about right and wrong without talking about religion, although you will most likely find that most religious tenets are very sound and based on past experience and instinctual knowledge. Humans are superior to other animals simply because we are aware and able to have these conversations. Non-sentient Animals do not question their existence, nor are they aware of their mortality. If another species obtained sentience, they would become equals to us. That doesn't mean we should wantonly destroy all other life, because we are still tied to it, and therefore must control ourselves for self preservation. Our sentience allows us to live outside of nature, to a degree, so we must have a greater self control over our natural instincts (as ironic as that is). This is what right and wrong breaks down to at it's core. Whether you believe in a higher power, struggle for the future of the planet and humanity, or just out to save your own A$$, the same rules apply. Can we look back at history and see the reasons for the moral tenets written in religious and governmental laws?
-
*claps* well said well said!!!
-
So you're saying it's right to exert self control over our instincts and wrong not to?
-
Yes Ookla he is saying we don't have to go dry-hump every pretty girl that passes by...
-
Ookla that's a very interesting distinction. Is the driving moral that it's venial not to control animal nature or conversely that it is virtuous to do so. If you see it as virtue to control, then it leaves you open to possibly accept that it's neutral rather than venial not to. And if you see it as venial not to, you may not see any real virtue in doing so.
We say it's crime to murder, therefore venial. But do we see any real virtue in not murdering or do we take it as a required minimum standard for normative behavior. Interesting perspective.
-
Yes Ookla he is saying we don't have to go dry-hump every pretty girl that passes by...
this sounds a tad rude, and a tad crass. no need to be that way in a discussion where most people are actually discussing rather than bashing each other.
-
If anyone found that offensive i apologize it was not meant to be so.
P.S. procreaction is a very real instinct and what we gennerally associate with pretty are signs of good health...
-
If anyone found that offensive i apologize it was not meant to be so.
P.S. procreaction is a very real instinct and what we gennerally associate with pretty are signs of good health...
Yes, how odd. What does this add to the discussion again?
I'm going to jump in here by saying I do not think you need to be religious to know the difference between right and wrong. I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience. Animals don't have that; they are driven by instinct. That instinct is based upon the most beneficial course of action for their species. A wolf might fiercely defend her cubs, but a turtle will lay a dozen eggs in the sand and swim away, leaving them to the birds. That's not right or wrong -- thats nature.
-
Kaz: I highly recommend you do some more research before arguing that other primates are not all that different from humans mentally. Certainly, other primates seem to be able, through extensive effort and training, develop the self-awareness of a 3-year old. But that's about the extent of it.
Reaves et al: I recommend you read William James' "Reflex Action and Theism". He makes the point (and quite well) that it is impossible to engage in any sort of moral activity without accessing something teleological (metaphysical or transcendent). You need not consider yourself "religious" or believe in any particular "religion", but your moral determinations are essentially religious, or at least metaphysical, in nature.
If there's interest, I can post a relevant clip from the essay and my thoughts here.
-
Man, I love discussions like this, even if I don't have much to contribute to.
Okay, so I've got a question, if right and wrong is subjective, then was the holocaust wrong? To us it was wrong, but to Hitler it was right, but I don't think that anyone would argue that it was "right".
I also think that religion does have to become involved, because I believe that the "conscience" that we have inside of us is from God. If there were no higher power, then we're just a bunch of life forms, and there is no good and evil, only what we believe to be right and wrong. Without religion in the picture, then yes, right and wrong are subjective.
Sorry if I wasn't very clear on my points or if didn't add much to the discussion, I'm still new to thinking about this topic. I suggest reading the first few(at least 3) chapters of C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity. He makes a great argument for a universal moral code in humans.
I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience.
But Reaves, where does that conscience come from? ( I'm not trying to prove a point or anything here, I genuinely want to know what you think)
-
I also think that religion does have to become involved, because I believe that the "conscience" that we have inside of us is from God. If there were no higher power, then we're just a bunch of life forms, and there is no good and evil, only what we believe to be right and wrong. Without religion in the picture, then yes, right and wrong are subjective.
Sorry if I wasn't very clear on my points or if didn't add much to the discussion, I'm still new to thinking about this topic. I suggest reading the first few(at least 3) chapters of C.S Lewis's Mere Christianity. He makes a great argument for a universal moral code in humans.
I believe that each person has something inside of them that gives them the ability to tell that difference: call it a conscience.
But Reaves, where does that conscience come from? ( I'm not trying to prove a point or anything here, I genuinely want to know what you think)
I guess what I was trying to say is that you don't need to believe in God or a higher power to know right from wrong, but that without God there would be no definition of right and wrong. He defines it.
To answer your question, you might say that God has placed eternity in our hearts. You might also say that we are made in the image of God and that because of that, we are moral creatures. Where did we get a "conscience" from? The one who created us.
-
Yes but that is a circular reasoning and never answers what i would call the big questions, those being; who created us, why does the ego exist, and what does the supreme being deem just (do not I MEAN DO NOT COMMENT ON THE LAST ONE IT WILL LEAD NOWHERE).
-
who created us, why does the ego exist, and what does the supreme being deem just
Isn't that what religions say they answer?
-
Kaz,
You have a romantic partner? You share expectations? That does answer the second point.
As for Ego, well I call it soul or psyche or nefesh. The Bible spends 66 volumes talking about little else besides, why it exists, how to maintain it in good order and what happens to it in death. I don't get how you can think that Judeo Christian religion is targeted at anything but answering those questions in a non-circular way.
-
@ Ookla I wasn't referencing anything but religous concepts with that it was off topic in response... sorry for the mix up
-
I'm not sure which comment to respond to first; there are many good points.
Ookla; that is what I am saying, for the most part, and even if someone is completely incapable of believing in a Higher Power, it can't be denied that history has shown the consequences of selfishness, greed, envy, and pride mastering people. That knowledge obviously still doesn't stop people from being that way, but to discard good knowledge because you don't like the source is foolish.
The reason I want to stay away from faith-based answers is because faith, by nature, is unexplainable. That's the point, in fact. However, I believe that it is possible to show why all forms of worship revolve around similar basic principals (even if they do get perverted by their followers at times) without including talk of a Creator. That is a separate discussion. I will break it down again; If you believe it is OK for you to do something to someone else, but it is not OK for the same thing to be done to you, then you are wrong. If you do not at least consider the potential impacts you will cause, but only what you gain, you are wrong.
The moral compass debate is interesting, especially since the Bible itself reminds us that children need structure and discipline in order to become good adults. If we are truly born with this knowledge, why must we still learn it? It is not completely innate, that's for sure.
-
Bravo, bravo i have always wondered on how we came to the conclusion of right and wrong because it is a learned behavior...but i guess that is a different discussion. :D
-
Knowledge of good and evil are innate, but children are mildly sociopathic. Infants care only for their own welfare. Maturing as a human leads to an awakening of moral agency. But without guidance children make errors and cross lines that you can't uncross. The need for good guidance as a child is to protect he child from psychic trauma, because of that child's own actions, which can lead to habitual crime and violence. Biblically this is reference to as depravity or a seared conscience.
-
Can you prove that?
-
I could but it would take a lot more than a few forum posts. A couple of sections of upper division sociology would likely prove it to you. :)
-
Pah i doubt i have the background to understand it anyways...
-
Everyone IS born with the knowledge of right/good. Children need structure and discipline to help understand that, while they will have a predisposition to do wrong, they should try their best to do what is right/good.
-
I sincerely doubt that if we knew it from birth then the mistakes wouldn't occur so frequently unless your quoting religous beliefs that have no backing and faith is NOT a backing...someone could put the definition up if they want to agrue it does but faith is the belief that defies logic the belief of the i dont know and have nothing to lose...
notice i did not advertise this post as fact...
-
Kaz:
I just want to make sure I know what you are saying because your post was a bit garbled. You are saying that you doubt we know the difference of right and wrong from birth, because people so often choose the wrong thing?
-
YES!!!! I think the concept of right and wrong are learned not instinctual.
-
Ok. I agree with part of what you are saying: people are capable of terrible things. Everyone is guilty of committing "wrong things" (not sure what word to use without sounding religious to you, tbh) However, I disagree with your conclusion, that people are incapable of discerning between right from wrong without being taught.
So far, we've only been looking at part of the issue: whether there is a universal right and wrong that is the same for everyone, and if it is possible to know this universal truth instinctively. However, that is not the end of the story. As humans there is something very wrong with us. I call it sin; you might call it something different. However, no one is unaffected by it. You might look at a small child biting his sister and say that he has not been taught that it is wrong. I would say that he already knows it is wrong, but has chosen to do it anyway.
-
I would agree with Reaves, and the work done by both philosophers (Locke and the ilk) as well as Psychologists (Erikson, anyone?) also seems to support this, though clearly the relationship is somewhat more complicated.
If you believe it is OK for you to do something to someone else, but it is not OK for the same thing to be done to you, then you are wrong. If you do not at least consider the potential impacts you will cause, but only what you gain, you are wrong.
This is an oversimplification. A doctor should believe that it is okay for him to give a child a shot, but not okay for the child to give him a shot. Someone with a sunburn should be able to believe that it's okay for them to give someone a massage when it's not okay for other people to give them a massage.
And my fiancée believes it's okay to step on my feet, but not okay for me to step on hers. She's right, too—it doesn't hurt me in the slightest when she steps on my feet (it's kind of fun, we dance that way), but it hurts her when I step on her feet.
It's clear that there are a wealth of examples to your rule. However, I do agree with you that we, morally, should strive to be more aware of the consequences of our actions. Too few people think enough for that, I'm afraid.
-
I sincerely doubt that if we knew it from birth then the mistakes wouldn't occur so frequently unless your quoting religous beliefs that have no backing and faith is NOT a backing...someone could put the definition up if they want to agrue it does but faith is the belief that defies logic the belief of the i dont know and have nothing to lose...
notice i did not advertise this post as fact...
You say that since I draw my conclusions from faith that there is no backing and thus irrelevant. Yet you seem to draw your conclusions from nowhere. You state: "then the mistakes wouldn't occur so frequently" but where do you get that from??? What path of logic do you have to follow to get to that point??? What authority, on this matter, says as such? It appears that you are also basing everything you say on faith as well. Faith in what though???
-
And that is the point I am trying to make, Knight. I may not have stated it as well as I should have, but I was trying to convey selflessness vs selfishness. People look for reasons to justify their actions rather than question whether the potential consequences of their actions will impact others, or even themselves, negatively.
Sin is just a fancy word for mistake (it literally means "missing the mark"). Since we are imperfect, it is easy to make mistakes. To be honest, I think it is absolutely necessary to make mistakes in order to grow spiritually and emotionally.
I haven't read too many studies on child psychology (although I don't doubt I could find studies and essays that reach the opposite conclusions of those Knight mentioned), I only know from my own experiences, and when my 18 month old smacks my 30 month old because he took her bath toy, she does not know it is wrong. All she understands is that he did something she didn't like, and reacted instinctively. He does the same to her. If they really understood what was right or wrong my wife and I wouldn't need to say "NO" 8 thousand times a day. They are learning what they should and shouldn't do, but it is definitely a process. Also, why is negative consequence required in order to support this teaching? The Bible says "spare the rod and spoil the child". Why is that? Only pain and/or humiliation truly drives home the point? The fear of experiencing that pain again the only true deterrent? If the understanding of right and wrong is innate, it seems to lie dormant for most of our childhood.
-
It's not faith its logic the belief that we are inherently evil is something that exist so strongly SOLEY because people are taught so from birth and while there is to a degree somethings that we find unacceptable with out being taught i say we learn them because we notice society shuns it, a kid is far from stupid merely ignorant. This thought process or belief call it whatever you like are conclusions that do not pop out of the air but are observations i have seen in my environment with growing up with two extremely different parents with morals that did not co-inside and i still learned what society found acceptable from its reactions, i made the mistakes though. And faith is a fire people warm their hands by yet walk away from when it goes against what the want to do, there isn't much difference between me and a religious person the difference is i no longer try to justify my actions i understand why they are condemned and accept, grudgingly it may be, the consequences.
my rant is over
-
If religion were really the marker of right and wrong, or morals. There would not be debate over the death penalty and abortion that goes on between Christians. When 2 Catholics cannot agree on either point, how, then, does religion actually play a part in determining morality? I am an athiest and am against both the death penalty and abortion. I have a similar set of morals as is professed by the bible, yet many religious people do not adhere to these same morals. If religion TRULY taught morals, there would be one voice on homosexuality and it would be loud and dominant. But tehre is not.
Morality (or "right and wrong") comes from a variety of sources. I do not believe you are born with morals, but you are born with the ability to feel various emotions, such as compassion and love and contempt and hate. Religion, in some cases, can foster these emotions into powerful tools. Look at Mother Theresa, for example. She was a tool of compassion carved by her belief system. Then look at Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. He is a tool of hate and lust for power carved by his warped view of his religion. We are all capable of going in either direction, whether carved by religion, or by experience, or by knowledge, matters not. We are who we are. Born by our upbringing, life experiences and capacity for love or hate. Some people are just born with a capacity for evil, some are born with a capacity for great good. Is it genetics? I do not profess to have that answer. Either of those could be mental disorders, or not. The rest of us fall in the middle somewhere, mostly good with a bit of evil, or mostly evil with a bit of good.
-
Darxbane: There's a lot more to acting upon and knowing right and wrong than what is innate. We learn so much through what we see around us, in addition to the painful experiences we have while growing up as children, that our "innate" consciences are merely consciences, and are easily silenced by experience, primal urges, and a number of other things. However, they seem to be the pinnacle of virtue in virtually all ancient and traditional societies.
Mtlhddoc2: Who said that "religion" (in its broadest sense, as you use it) was an absolute determinant of anything? There is no question, demographically (and lots of statistics to back this up) that certain religious viewpoints correlate directly with other demographical trends (many representing direct moral values). However, that correlation is not an absolute correlation. But there is no such thing in Human Psychology/Sociology as absolute correlation.
I certainly think most of us believe that morality come from a variety of sources. One of these is religion. And, as I've said before, some relosophical views appear to help shape individual morality (and many other things) in different ways than others.
-
Jade i believe no-one disagrees with that post...only a clueless blind and deaf kretin see's it derived from one source...
-
I guess I was not quite clear enough.
you can have identical twins, with identical upbringings, identical religions, and one will be an amoral sadistic punk and the other will be compassionate and kind. It is genetics? Possibly. Is it mental disorders? Who really knows. I think in many ways, morality is simply a choice we make each and every day. We can choose to be monogamous, or not. We can choose to be kind and let people cross the street, or we can be rude and obnoxious and cut someone off. These little battles we fight every day may be influenced by outside sources, but ultimately, morality comes down to choice. and in many cases, I would hazard a guess that no amount of religion or proper upbringing will influence those who just do not care to make the "right" choices. We all know that one person who had everything going for him/her at a young age, and then, despite all the perfect parenting, heavy church involvement, just starts screwing up their life, from a moral and legal standpoint (often those two intertwine). All our religions and upbringing give to us is a template for our choices. the rest is up to us.
-
You keep rehashing the same point, which I'm not disagreeing with.
I am simply saying (again) that relosophy has a clear impact on demographically measureable (and quantifiable) moral values. The significance of this, in layman's terms, is that it is easier to be a moral, virtuous person, with when you have certain relosophical viewpoints. It is harder to be a virtuous person with certain other relosophical viewpoints.
And there are a myriad of other similar sorts of relationships (one fascinating correlation is that between religious activity and education).
-
I completely agree, Jade. I was respondin to the implication that knowing right and wrong is innate, and therefore removes any excuse for bad behaviour, even for infants and children. You either have to learn it, or you already know it.
To add to Knight's point, Mtlhddoc2, if it is proven that even with a strong moral upbringing (most often due to the religious beliefs of the parents), still does not prevent some people from being immoral, imagine what happens when people are not given a moral structure? Are you saying that because something isn't 100% effective that it should be disregarded completely?
-
Darxbane you just contridicted yourself you say its inate and then give reason to believe what i've been saying the entire time...right vs. wrong is a learned charateristic
-
I did not contradict myself. I was defending my prior post, which argued against right and wrong being known at birth. If there is an innate moral code, it lies dormant and must be awakened through experience.
-
Where is the logic in that? ??? ??? ???
-
What do you mean? You must be more specific than "that".
-
Kaz, there are lots of things that can lie dormant until you awaken them through experience. Some people are born with athletic talents because they have the genes for it. But if they don't exercise and practice, they never get any good.
-
And even when they do practice, the abilities may not manifest themselves right away. The best example of this is Michael Jordan. Maybe the best basketball player ever, yet he did not make his High School basketball team.
Albert Einstein could not read or write until he was 10, then everything clicked (boy did it ever).
-
Albert Einstein was an idiot savant he had problems counting change
-
Albert Einstein was an idiot savant he had problems counting change
You're joking right??? Please tell me your joking.
idiot savant- person who is mentally retarded in general but who displays remarkable aptitude in some limited field (usually involving memory)
Einstein was in no way mentally retarded and was a wizard in multiple fields including physics, science, mathematics, and philosophy.
-
He wasn't a full-blown idiot savant, but his brain was weird.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_brain
-
Einstein was no idiot savant. He had none of the signs of autism and was quite a ladies man.
-
The more "intelligent" a person is, the more likely they are to fail at the "simpler" tasks. I work with many brilliant people, I see this all the time.
-
I'd like to see statistical evidence of that. I think we just notice it more when brilliant people do something inept... I'm not convinced that they are any more inept on average.
-
It's something that some people use to comfort themselves. The absent-minded professor stereotype, allows people to glory in a lack of interest in learning. They cite the stereotype to suggest that if they learn too much then they would really be stupid. It's the stuff of sitcoms.
It's possible that some people over extend themselves, and after achieving a large body of learning, they have too little mental resource left to retain common sense or social skills. But it's hardly normative.
-
Reonard... I beg to differ on that. I work, and have worked, with people who could, and would, be called "brilliant". The large percentage of them cannot do simple things that an average person can do, they often are so brilliant they cannot fully grasp the concept of these "normal" things. The TV show "Bing Bang Theory" touches on this to the extreme sometimes, but in my experiences, it is not that far fetched. I have met several "Sheldon" type charachters in my time. I know several people that can perform complex algorithms in their head, yet cannot figure out how to use email. And even one or two who do not drive because they simply cannot grasp the more simplistic elements. They are not "absent-minded" usually, just lacking the capacity of mundane thought.
-
Ok my family has i think 3 classified geniouses if you allow me to count second cousins...and while they make errors in mundane thought its gennerally due to them being, guess what, absent minded!!! They function much the same as a normal person with their head in the sky...they can just do much more complex thought patterns...
-
I know its a stereotype we all have in our heads but I, like Jade, would like a bit more concrete evidence than personal experience.
-
there is no more concrete evidence than personal visible experience. Studies and the like are always controlled and manipulated and are almost never truly factual. Remember the study which determined that eggs cause cancer? Or the ones which said smoking is not hazardous? Or the ones who claim global warming as a "fact" even though the mean temperature of the earth has cooled over the past 10 years? I work with these people day in and day out, they are all MUCH more intelligent than I am, yet I have to constantly help them with these mundane tasks, such as sending email or burning a CD. Even though they have been shown how to do these things countless times, they just dont get it.
-
So, you're doing an informal study without controlled variables, with a sample size of what, 10?
Yeah, that's so much more reliable than a formal study with controlled variables and all...
-
you miss the point. Collectively, personal experience is more relative than "controlled variables" because it is NOT controlled. We can do a study to prove that guinea pigs are smarter than humans with the right variable. "Science" has proven that over and over again. (See Global Warming studies, all of them, which all leave out several important factors, such as one of the thermometers they use is on top of a building in NYC right next to an air conditioning unit, and there are only 5 indicators). My personal experiences, combined with others personal experiences, trumps "controlled studies".
-
Everything you claim there flies in the face of Psychological studies, Mtlhddoc2.
Guess what? You are biased. AND your experience accounts for a profoundly small sample of people, which tend to share a great many demographic trends in common, AND they're all being filtered by your own predispositions.
To claim that your personal opinion is superior to controlled research and study makes very little logical sense to me.
(And it goes against my personal experience.)
-
Its seems like he is arguing the fact that the phrase "figures don't lie" is false. Well it is have you ever heard of liar's figure...it applies to various things such as the unemployment rating which leaves out teh chronically unemployed... :'(
-
Certainly, statistics can be misleading, no question. However, statistics can also be fairly accurate. Methodology makes a HUGE difference in that regard. But even a study with poor methodology can frequently provide a more accurate picture than simply guessing based on experience.
-
There will always be poorly conducted studies which give not only misleading but just wrong conclusions. Global warming is an incredibly loaded topic these days and its hard to find anyone that is not simply trying to push their own agenda. My grandfather used to study the ozone layer, in fact he helped invent the TOMS device which is used to map the ozone. However, once the politicians began to move into the subject he started studying volcanoes :P He simply wanted to do science and not be forced to play politics in an increasingly charged arena of study. That is why it is so important to not just accept a statistic "because its a study" but actually look at how they got those numbers.
-
But it's hardly normative.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
But it's hardly normative.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
inconceivable!!
[/off topic]
-
Actually it means exactly what I think it does. It is an adjective or predicate that means fitting with the norms and expectations of the group in question. It's a sociology term. A normative behavior is one that is either a common choice within a group or an integral part of group distinctives. Having to do with norms.
-
I'm familiar with the word normative and its sociological origins, or I would never have commented on your use of it. It sounded to me (both here, and on the "Brandon to Write Wheel of Time Book 12" thread) like you were confusing it with "normal" in the non-sociological sense of "common" or "ordinary" or "usual". My understanding is that the word has more of a "here's what behavior our group expects, approves of, and encourages" connotation, not just "here's what behavior frequently occurs within our group". It is a value judgment, roughly synonymous with "prescriptive".
But people get bored when other people quibble about definitions, so I'm happy to drop this argument. While you and I may disagree on the precise connotations of the word, I freely admit that I underestimated your knowledge of sociology and its terminology. I assumed, wrongly, that you were one of those annoying people who try to sound smart by misusing big words, saying things like "simplistic" when they mean "simple". I'm sorry.
-
No problem. I left out the fact that I agree that for a common behavior in a group to be normative it also needs to be to some degree a distinctive for that group. Which trends toward being prescriptive. So I think we MOSTLY agree anyway.