| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/26/2008 12:32:50 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
The power of reason, and the teachings of experience, both personal and from environment/society.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2008 01:27:39 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
The power of reason, and the teachings of experience, both personal and from environment/society. |
This is a little vague. What if my experience,reason, and environment/society taught me that 'might' makes right? would that then make my actions moral? |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 01:29:55 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
What tells a chimpanzee that murdering his fellows is wrong? Why do philosphers and scientists suggest that animals behave in moral ways? Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 01:34:23 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
The power of reason, and the teachings of experience, both personal and from environment/society. |
This is a little vague. What if my experience,reason, and environment/society taught me that 'might' makes right? would that then make my actions moral? |
Yes it would. You and I (and  NikonJeb) are agreed, or at least I suspect we are, that might does not make right. Indeed, the various factors of experience etc that NikonJeb listed have quite possibly combined to lead us to that conclusion. However if, as you put it, they had led us to the opposite conclusion, then that would be our moral judgement.
Good thing it isn't, I must admit :-) |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:02:23 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Morality and compassion are innate conditions. *snip* Your genes hold the origin of your morality *snip* |
This is interesting, I would believe that morality and compassion are learned through social interaction, not some innate trait. How many times do you have to explain to a child that a particular action(hitting, stealing etc..) is unacceptable. I don't believe these traits are laying in the genes but more of a socially acceptable behavior that has been learned and passed down through the history of mankind, ever evolving as mankind becomes more sophisticated. Not to say that genetics don't play some role in how well one learns these and adheres to these socially acceptable behaviors but I think one has to be taught them first.
Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:02:57. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:11:47 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
What tells a chimpanzee that murdering his fellows is wrong? Why do philosphers and scientists suggest that animals behave in moral ways? Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
Wow. I have to agree with you on two points, today.
1) "Morality and compassion are innate conditions."
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it.
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives.
Likewise, neither books, nor newspapers, nor TV, nor the internet, etc. are the ORIGIN of knowledge. But all of those are used to record and communicate knowledge.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:26:16 PM · #282 |
So, morality's a sixth sense?
|
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:26:49 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
So, morality's a sixth sense? |
I'm thinking no ... |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:29:29 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Louis:
Morality and compassion are innate conditions. *snip* Your genes hold the origin of your morality *snip* |
This is interesting, I would believe that morality and compassion are learned through social interaction, not some innate trait. How many times do you have to explain to a child that a particular action(hitting, stealing etc..) is unacceptable. I don't believe these traits are laying in the genes but more of a socially acceptable behavior that has been learned and passed down through the history of mankind, ever evolving as mankind becomes more sophisticated. Not to say that genetics don't play some role in how well one learns these and adheres to these socially acceptable behaviors but I think one has to be taught them first. |
I think this is demonstrably the case (that morality is learned through social interaction). There was a rather unfortunate example of orphans in Ceaucescu's Romania. They were housed in some sort of institution, but there was no supervision other than to feed them more or less like animals (i.e. just putting the food there and letting them get on with it). I presume they were provided with some sort of functional minimum of clothing, bedding etc. When, after Ceaucescu's demise, some of them were adopted in the West, they were found to lack any basic conscience on which to build or develop reasonable interactive behaviour or, as we might call it for the sake of the topic here discussed, morality.
It's one thing (and presumably an important one) to talk to a child and to tell it about right and wrong. It may well be more important though, that the child be exposed to and experience the behaviour of adults and peers. This, and the child's experience of others' reaction to their own behaviour, are apparently essential to proper development of the human condition.
Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:30:08. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:40:48 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by RonB:
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it. |
Clearly false, as amply demonstrated by both the orphanage example Raish posted and a case of unsupervised elephants. If morality were innately provided, it wouldn't have to be taught. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:45:42 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
What tells a chimpanzee that murdering his fellows is wrong? Why do philosphers and scientists suggest that animals behave in moral ways? Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
Wow. I have to agree with you on two points, today.
1) "Morality and compassion are innate conditions."
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it.
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives.
Likewise, neither books, nor newspapers, nor TV, nor the internet, etc. are the ORIGIN of knowledge. But all of those are used to record and communicate knowledge. |
Ok, not that I like to dive into religious talk but let me pose a few questions then. If morality is innate from God then why and how do some break this morality? Second, if they are innate and we automatically know these traits, then why did God find the need to reiterate this morality code in his book? Why does Jesus teach about loving your neighbor as you love yourself, or turn the other check, shouldn't we already know that if already instilled in us from God? What is the purpose of the bible then? There would be no need to communicate knowledge when we all have it already.
Message edited by author 2008-08-26 14:50:33. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:49:36 PM · #287 |
Morality keeps changing. Having slaves used to be normal, for example (and the Bible approved. Still does.).
Certain kinds of morality may be passed on in our genes. This can explain why certain animals help relatives raise offspring, but not unrelated peers that do not share any genes.
However, I think most of our morality is taught to us by society. Morals vary widely from culture to culture. Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street. Most of you probably have a different concept of morality.
Maybe this is too far off-topic, but it is a very interesting question: Let's say you could write a short text that would be used to teach morality to all children born on this planet. Let's say you had to keep it as short as possible. What would you mention first? What would come later and maybe be omitted? Would "graven images" be mentioned early? |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 02:53:22 PM · #288 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Morality keeps changing. Having slaves used to be normal, for example (and the Bible approved. Still does.).
Certain kinds of morality may be passed on in our genes. This can explain why certain animals help relatives raise offspring, but not unrelated peers that do not share any genes.
However, I think most of our morality is taught to us by society. Morals vary widely from culture to culture. Some people would say it's immoral not to kill a woman who has shown more than her eyes in the street. Most of you probably have a different concept of morality.
Maybe this is too far off-topic, but it is a very interesting question: Let's say you could write a short text that would be used to teach morality to all children born on this planet. Let's say you had to keep it as short as possible. What would you mention first? What would come later and maybe be omitted? Would "graven images" be mentioned early? |
How about: Treat others how you would want to be treated.....unless your a masochist:) |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 03:02:52 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it. |
Clearly false, as amply demonstrated by both the orphanage example Raish posted and a case of unsupervised elephants. If morality were innately provided, it wouldn't have to be taught. |
MANY behaviours that are manifested in mature members of a species, are not or were not manifest in those same members prior to physical, emotional, cognitive maturity. And maturity is not always age determinant.
That's why mature members find themselves at odds with "impestuous" youth. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 03:05:51 PM · #290 |
My sixth sense is working just fine.
I see...people making the same circular arguments they always do on DPC...
|
|
|
|
08/26/2008 03:18:10 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What does tell you that these things are not right to do? How do you arrive at what you consider to be moral and why? |
What tells a chimpanzee that murdering his fellows is wrong? Why do philosphers and scientists suggest that animals behave in moral ways? Morality and compassion are innate conditions. They do not have their origin in any holy book. Your genes hold the origin of your morality, not your gods. |
Wow. I have to agree with you on two points, today.
1) "Morality and compassion are innate conditions."
They are innate in both Man and animals, because...get ready...BOTH were created by God, and BOTH were given a divine degree of morality and compassion compatible with their ability to appropriate and exhibit it.
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives.
Likewise, neither books, nor newspapers, nor TV, nor the internet, etc. are the ORIGIN of knowledge. But all of those are used to record and communicate knowledge. |
Ok, not that I like to dive into religious talk but let me pose a few questions then. If morality is innate from God then why and how do some break this morality? |
Because they can. And that is not meant to be a "flip" answer. We have free will - and that includes the freedom to break the "rules".
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Second, if they are innate and we automatically know these traits, then why did God find the need to reiterate this morality code in his book? |
Why do we in "modern" society have a need to codify the laws - e.g. several different levels of "murder" ( 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc. ). Scripture says that the "law" ( morality ) was codified so that we would recognize that we cannot keep it fully - hence a need for "outside" intervention with God ( read "Christ" ).
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Why does Jesus teach about loving your neighbor as you love yourself, or turn the other check, shouldn't we already know that if already instilled in us from God? |
Yes, we should. But many/most would rather have morality codified in black and white so that they can find loopholes in the code and still justify/rationalize their immoral actions ( e.g. since the laws against fornication ( between consenting adults ) are, for the most part, abolished, one can argue that it's "moral" ( read "legal" ) to engage in extramarital sex ).
Originally posted by trevytrev:
What is the purpose of the bible then? There would be no need to communicate knowledge when we all have it already. |
We have the Bible for the same reason that we have secular books/media - because there is other, non-innate, knowledge that should be recorded and communicated. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 03:27:06 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by RonB:
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives. |
Uh huh. And how do you divine God's moral imperatives? Your holy book. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 03:31:25 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by raish:
I think this is demonstrably the case (that morality is learned through social interaction). There was a rather unfortunate example of orphans in Ceaucescu's Romania |
Whereas I do think that mores are socially learned, I still think that morality, if defined as altruism, compassion, a desire to limit human suffering, is biologically innate. Dawkins does service to this idea in "The God Delusion". We may refine our sense of morality by the culture we live in and the company we keep, and our moral sense may be disfigured by biologically impacting environmental factors or other deficiencies. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 04:14:32 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by raish:
I think this is demonstrably the case (that morality is learned through social interaction). There was a rather unfortunate example of orphans in Ceaucescu's Romania |
Whereas I do think that mores are socially learned, I still think that morality, if defined as altruism, compassion, a desire to limit human suffering, is biologically innate. Dawkins does service to this idea in "The God Delusion". We may refine our sense of morality by the culture we live in and the company we keep, and our moral sense may be disfigured by biologically impacting environmental factors or other deficiencies. |
I think the sentences you've written there are full of semantic uncertainties. This is not necessarily any fault of your own but, e.g., did the cro-magnons wipe out the neanderthals? So who's human?
You may be right but I doubt it. Biologically innate means hard wired. We have mirror neurons, probably, but they require social interaction to fire.
If Dawkins's selfish genes set us up to keep humanity's conditions favourable, is that altruism, compassion [and] a desire to limit human suffering?
It's all very fascinating, but I have to admit I'm way out of my depth by now in this discussion. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 04:20:12 PM · #295 |
Originally posted by raish:
It's all very fascinating, but I have to admit I'm way out of my depth by now in this discussion. |
Come join me in the intellectual kiddie pool, the water's warm:) |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 04:40:55 PM · #296 |
Originally posted by raish:
I think the sentences you've written there are full of semantic uncertainties. This is not necessarily any fault of your own but, e.g., did the cro-magnons wipe out the neanderthals? So who's human? |
Okay. :-) Not really sure what this means, but it made me stop for a minute.
Originally posted by raish:
You may be right but I doubt it. Biologically innate means hard wired. We have mirror neurons, probably, but they require social interaction to fire. |
Yes. They of course wouldn't have developed in a vacuum. Thanks for the link; it seems to strongly support the innateness of morality in my view, if you can link morality with empathy (and altruism).
Originally posted by raish:
If Dawkins's selfish genes set us up to keep humanity's conditions favourable, is that altruism, compassion [and] a desire to limit human suffering? |
Sure. It makes sense that we would want to nurture and protect individuals, in order to benefit the species.
This is a very shallow conversation, I admit, and there is no need to restrict a discussion of something as complex as human morality and ethics to genetics, but I do believe genetics, rather than unseen paranormal phenomena of any kind, is a more plausible explanation for the existence of moral behaviour in humans. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 04:57:19 PM · #297 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I just don't understand why most people define it as necessarily supernatural. Why can it NOT be perfectly natural physical phenomenon, simply not yet able to be pinpointed by scientests? And, for me, Sam's argument that science can't measure it in a lab just isn't proof of non-existance. |
Telepathic ability (dropping the term "sixth sense" as it seems to be too imprecise as to what is being talked about) theoretically could be possible as a natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the phenomenon might exist, but that scientists might not yet be able to "pinpoint" the mechanism by which it operates. However - and here is the sticking point which ends up making it most likely that no such thing as telepathy exists in humans - even if the exact mechanism couldn't be explained under current scientific knowledge, the effects - people being able to hear other people's thoughts/feelings/etc. - would still be observable. That is, if telepathy was real, we should be able to see the effects and "measure it in a lab." We don't.
Say it with me now - no credible research has recorded any claimed human ability to read people's thoughts or emotions through telepathic means, under controlled conditions, that does not fall into the expected result range that would be generated based on mere random chance. This research has not just been done by skeptics. The U.S. government (and other governments, I'm sure) really wanted to find some evidence of telepathic ability - imagine having a telepathic spy. But anytime there appears to be someone with the ability, as soon as you put them into a controlled environment - that is, somewhere where they cannot manipulate the results - the claimed effect vanishes.
Keeping an open mind is one thing. Remaining credulous in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just stubborn,
Message edited by author 2008-08-26 17:36:21. |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 05:28:35 PM · #298 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I just don't understand why most people define it as necessarily supernatural. Why can it NOT be perfectly natural physical phenomenon, simply not yet able to be pinpointed by scientests? And, for me, Sam's argument that science can't measure it in a lab just isn't proof of non-existance. |
Telepathic ability (dropping the term "sixth sense" as it seems to be too imprecise as to what is being talked about) theoretically could be possible as a natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the phenomenon might exist, but that scientists might not yet be able to "pinpoint" the mechanism by which it operates. However - and here is the sticking point which ends up making it most likely that no such thing as telepathy exists in humans - even if the exact mechanism couldn't bee explained under current scientific knowledge, the effects - people being able to hear other people's thoughts/feelings/etc. - would still be observable. That is, if telepathy was real, we should be able to see the effects and "measure it in a lab." We don't.
Say it with me now - no credible research has recorded any claimed human ability to read people's thoughts or emotions through telepathic means, under controlled conditions, that does not fall into the expected result range that would be generated based on mere random chance. This research has not just been done by skeptics. The U.S. government (and other governments, I'm sure) really wanted to find some evidence of telepathic ability - imagine having a telepathic spy. But anytime there appears to be someone with the ability, as soon as you put them into a controlled environment - that is, somewhere where they cannot manipulate the results - the claimed effect vanishes.
Keeping an open mind is one thing. Remaining credulous in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just stubborn, |
Exactly. Before you go and speculate about the mechanisms behind a specific phenomenon you have to test if the phenomenon itself exists at all.
This would be extremely easy for telepathy, as I've already said many times. Yet no effect has ever been observed in a proper test. Why?
Some people wish phenomena like telepathy existed, but at the same time they oppose scientific inquiry. Why? Why shouldn't we want to understand the phenomenon better?
I know people who claim that cell phones and other electrical devices cause them to suffer from all kinds of ailments (headaches, sleep disorder, etc.). This should be studied. You could expose people to different kinds of electrical devices and have them record how they feel in a double-blind study. This would help us find out what technologies are responsible for what kind of ailments and what factors the pain depends on. This would also help improve the lives of the people affected. We could identify measures to reduce their suffering.
Yet many of those people vehemently oppose scientific research. They say things like "I know exactly what causes my pain and I don't need anybody to tell me otherwise!". So is being able to blame some technology more important to them than improving their condition? Are they afraid of "losing" the explanation for their problems?
And why is it so important to people to believe in something like a "sixth sense"? (by the way, here's some interesting reading: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha) |
|
|
|
08/26/2008 05:28:55 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
2) They ( morality and compassion ) do not have their origin in any holy book.
They have their ORIGIN in God. The holy book is merely one method of recording and communicating God's moral imperatives. |
Uh huh. And how do you divine God's moral imperatives? Your holy book. |
No, not the holy book. God's moral imperative is innate. We divine it innately. But we are creatures of the flesh, and so are wont to rebel against those things that would put limits on fleshly thoughts and deeds. The innate morality is called "conscience", and everyone gets one. Some obey their conscience to a large degree - failures create within them a feeling of "guilt"; some "struggle" with their conscience with varying degrees of success and failure - they, too, experience "guilt"; still others ignore or override their conscience for so long, and for so often, that they become oblivious to it - they feel no remorse, and no guilt.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2008 05:36:46 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Louis:
snipperoo
This is a very shallow conversation, I admit, and there is no need to restrict a discussion of something as complex as human morality and ethics to genetics, but I do believe genetics, rather than unseen paranormal phenomena of any kind, is a more plausible explanation for the existence of moral behaviour in humans. |
Right, and having come so far out of my depth, I'll just clutch at one last straw.
I have an idea that our ideas (running short of terms here) are what we are. I know that's pretty trite in terms of individual identity, but I'm thinking more in terms of the later evolution of homo sapiens. While I'm sure we are animals and our perception, desires and maybe our morality, as you've suggested, are to a very great extent formed and decided by our physical form and nature, I think that social structures are cognitively designed. In other words they have to be thought out. We are gregarious animals but, I suggest, only to the extent of forming tribes with the sort of number of people that can all stand round in a circle and establish mutual eye contact. After agriculture allowed larger numbers to be effectively formed into single groups, it was necessary to find ways of describing the necessary behaviour for 'the common good'. I actually believe that's where religion comes from, especially those religions that are associated with post-agricultural man. The word 'religion' owes its etymology to something like 'obligation' or 'binding' (as in ligature) and it does just that in bringing a group of strangers into proximity through their binding and obligation to the same medium.
Ideologies, nationalities and all down to cults group identifications tend to run along similar lines. It's like ideas that are subject to the test of their being fit for the environment in which they are to be practised. They flourish and grow ephemerally, some briefly, some for longer. It bodes ill for fundamentalism, as we know that the physical attributes if those that survive in Darwinian terms include a constant element of mutation to enable them to continue when the environment turns away from them.
I do like a bit of speculation... |
|
