|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2008 10:11:23 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I also explained why morality is essential for teamwork and cooperation in higher social animals. A pack of wolves will not function unless the wolves know they can rely upon their buddies and share the spoils. A dolphin isn't going to help a group corral food unless it knows the group will "do the right thing" by returning the favor. |
Presumably, then, ants and termites and bees are exhibiting at least the onset of moral behavior? |
|
Did you forget to add something?
R. |
No, I don't think so. He merely bolded the word "higher" in quoting his former statement so as to point out that he doesn't consider ants, termites, and bees as being "higher" animals.
At least that's my impression. |
Right, he's remarkable isn't he? We can show examples of cooperation right down to the lowest levels of the animal kingdom, even arguably amongst plants, but it suits his argument to draw a line *right here* and so he does.
Look, if anybody wants to analyze what *I* actually said, it was "exhibiting at least the onset of moral behavior," and I said it for a reason; this is what Doc is talking about when he talks about "building blocks" and how self-preservation can be one...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 08:22:12 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not asserting that man is the ONLY animal that shows basic blocks of morality (I'll give you the fairness in the monkeys even though I think it's a bit shaky). I was asking if there are basic blocks, such as "honesty", which are ONLY exhibited in man. "Decency" was another. Is this ONLY exhibited in man?
It looks like you are saying Apes can show honesty, although you do it by showing they can lie. So when Koko lies, is she going against her instinct for honesty? |
This is an interesting question, but a bit misconceived.
Something that we describe as a virtue, or moral behaviour, is incredibly subjective and dependent upon a thorough understanding of human society. It would surprise me if we could identify every aspect of human behaviour in some part of the animal kingdom: animals live in fundamentally different environments with different physiologies and capacities, making analogies around behaviour very hard to assess.
Taking as an example "honesty", this is a virtue only in the context of society where promises are made, such as in the social contract or in an inter-personal relationship and possibly where there is a concept of property. Even then, it is only an aspirational behaviour in the abstract and deeply subjective in the context of society – humans are regularly dishonest, and boundaries are often blurred. Outside humans, very few or no societies in the animal kingdom have the constructs in place to make “honesty” a meaningful concept.
In particular, for there to be a concept of honesty or dishonesty, there must be the capacity for conscious contrary behaviour. For example, the fact that an ant’s communications with other ants as to its recent path by chemical trail is always truthful does not make it “honest”, and conversely the fact that some butterflies’ wings give the impression of large eyes to misdirect and scare away predators does not make them “dishonest”.
In higher functioning mammals, some animals have exhibited conscious deceitful or lying behaviours (eg chimps, gorillas). However, without higher language capability, it is very unlikely that they would be able to construct the intellectual framework necessary to have abstract aspirations upon which “honesty” would rest.
Your apparent argument that humanity exhibits unique moral behaviours is probably based upon fact (humans are unique in a number of respects). However, it is logically flawed: the fact that we exhibit unique behaviours does not make us exalted among animals. In particular, other animals exhibit behaviours that are also unique to their physiology and societies but we do not regard ourselves as fallen from grace merely because, for example, we cannot maintain efficient group flying dynamics in the same way as do geese.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 09:18:16 AM · #253 |
Originally posted by RonB:
He merely bolded the word "higher" in quoting his former statement so as to point out that he doesn't consider ants, termites, and bees as being "higher" animals. |
Yes, thank you Ron (and I rather enjoyed Bear's dismissal. Tsk, tsk.). It was a brief response since I was busy with a project until the wee hours of the morning, but I thought that it would be sufficient to emphasize that I was very careful to restrict the principle to higher social animals. Insects may exhibit teamwork and cooperation, but that appears to be based upon chemical and physical signals rather than a rational thought process. It's more like the cells in your body, and I would NOT say that your hand cooperates with your brain because it's "exhibiting at least the onset of moral behavior." No, it's responding to a chemical imperative just like ants and termites.
You can get some fascinating behavior out of this, too. For example, Japanese bees respond to the threat of a Giant Asian Hornet by swarming it and vibrating their bodies to raise the temperature to a point that they can tolerate, but the hornet cannot. That might seem like an amazing "intelligent" response, but is it really any different from what the cells of your body do in response to a flu virus?
Again, there's a whole spectrum of behaviors and neural sophistication– the very transitions you'd expect from evolution. The simplest life forms would respond to stimuli like a switch. Move up a bit in neural complexity and an insect still responds to stimuli with automatic, chemically induced reactions, but at the same time may be capable of basic decisions like deciding which flower to land on. Go further and a fish will react to electrochemical stimuli in the water, but can be much more discriminating when it comes to decisions such as whether to strike a lure. By the time you get to the most sophisticated neural structures (many mammals and perhaps even some birds), you have animals capable of weighing decisions based upon what's "right," to the point of even refusing a treat in protest. Even then, their individual cells still cooperate through direct signals.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 09:18:58. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 11:58:49 AM · #254 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
News flash: you were not amoral before you believed in whatever you believe in. Monkeys, dogs, and perhaps many other animals demonstrate a sense of fairness, and I'm pretty sure they're not relying upon ancient texts to do so. Humans MUST generally cooperate and respect one another by evolutionary imperative or they would not have survived as social animals. Your inherent sense of morality and the guidance of your parents largely determine which parts of any given belief system you subscribe to, not the other way around, and even the most fervent theist justifies discarded parts of his religion as irrelevant or "allegorical" when they don't match his own beliefs. |
I quoted Shannon's original statement to refresh us and to point out what I disagree with every time he brings it up. This is all going to be a bit anticlimactic after all the discussion yesterday, but here it is anyway.
All day yesterday we went back and forth and have finally (I think) agreed that animals have instincts that can be called "basic blocks" for morality. He listed a number and we went to and fro, but I think we agreed on some examples like "fairness" (given by the capuchin monkey example), "self-preservation" (given by myself and, I guess, contested), "honesty" (no evidence for this was given but I'll accept it), and "lying" (link provided to show higher animals are capable and apparently hardwired to lie). The list does not need to be limited to this, but it will make my point.
We can see quickly that some of these instincts are in tension with each other. The instinct to be honest is in tension with the instict to lie. The instinct for fairness can be in tension with the instinct for self-preservation. Morality, as defined by Google (click on "definition" next to the word) is "1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct". Now, if we want to use the first definition we are stuck simply saying that what is moral is what our instincts tell us. "Right" or "good" conduct is merely those actions our instincts compel us to do. By that definition all animals show morality as all animals have instinctual behavior. Some obviously are less complex than others. This, however, is not the morality we generally speak of when we talk about morality in man. Here we move to definition #2. As I mentioned, some of our instincts can be in tension with each other. Is it "right" to be honest in a given situation or is it "right" to lie? We have instinct for both and situations may arise when honesty is right or lying is right. Morality, as defined by #2, is a system of rules or algorithms by which we decide which instinct to listen to. It is a map to "right behavior". It is NOT the behaviors themselves (telling the truth is not, in itself, "morality"). This is important because Shannon, in his quote above, uses some debating sleight of hand. He starts out by stating that dogs and monkeys exhibit fairness and that this fairness is obviously hardwired (because they aren't smart enough to get it from an external source). We can agree with this if we think the evidence to be comepelling. These are the "basic blocks" or instincts I spoke of above. However, he later uses a phrase "inherent sense of morality" to refer to these hardwired blocks. Perhaps it was sloppy writing (but I think it wasn't), but the use of the word "morality" is misleaded. We, perhaps, have inherent instincts such as fairness and honesty, but this is different from an inherent "sense of morality". Animals, as far as we can tell, do not exhibit "morality" (ie. a system of rules or algorithms to determine right action). Even the most complex example, the capuchin monkey, is playing a one-note song (fairness). We do not see evidence the monkey is deciding between conflicting actions only that it is demonstrating an instinct for fairness.
Finally, even if we were to concede that higher animals do, indeed, show a system of morality, we should note that morality in man is fundamentally different. Where the morality in animals, as far as we can tell, is basically listening to the strongest instinct (when two are in conflict), morality in man is often listening to the weakest instict. This is, in fact, when we generally think morality to be the most important. We have an instinct to lie and it may be very strong because it will help us avoid punishment (or some other unpleasantness), but morality often dictates that we tell the truth regardless. We have an instinct for fairness, and it is often encouraged over the instinct for self-preservation (the strongest instinct of all).
So, in the end, Shannon can correctly argue that we might see basic blocks such as fairness or lying apparently hardwired into the brain, but I will dispute him every time he misuses the word "morality" in such a situation. Monkeys show instinct. Monkeys do not show morality.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:43:04. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:15:15 PM · #255 |
| Doc, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that the thought processes that lead you to choose to follow one instinct over another are fundamentally different from the thought processes an animal uses (i.e., your alogithm is based on something that the animals cannot possibly possess). Is that a fair statement? |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:25:53 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Doc, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that the thought processes that lead you to choose to follow one instinct over another are fundamentally different from the thought processes an animal uses (i.e., your alogithm is based on something that the animals cannot possibly possess). Is that a fair statement? |
Well, it depends on what your follow-up is. :) I would say it's a generally fair statement. We don't have evidence that animals evaluate between two instincts and can choose the weaker of them. Even if they did, it would be very hard to show. How do we gain access to the mind of a capuchin? In the examples gives by Shannon showing fairness (the monkey and dog), both animals seemed to complain when inequity was exhibited. However, both instances were demonstrations of inequity going against the subject animal. This is in keeping with the instinct for self-preservation. IF the capuchin refused to trade her rock for a GRAPE (the better treat) because her buddy was only getting a cucumber, THEN I'd be impressed and I'd say my argument would be weakened. The monkey would then appear to be encouraging her instinct for fairness over the stronger instinct for self-preservation.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:46:44. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:31:58 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, in the end, Shannon can correctly argue that we might see basic blocks such as fairness or lying apparently hardwired into the brain, but I will dispute him every time he misuses the word "morality" in such a situation. Monkeys show instinct. Monkeys do not show morality. |
For all his sophistic dismissal of my statement, this is exactly the point I was trying to make with my "bees & termites" reference. There's a continuum here. Way down at the bottom we have algae "cooperating" with each other. Somewhere further up the chain the bees & ants & termites have "societies" and "cooperate" with each other. We have higher mammals, wolves and gorillas and whatnot, living in familial groups, "cooperating", and so forth. And we have humans at various levels of development, socially, as well.
Now it's fine and well to say that in the case of algae it's chemical, in the case of ants it's instinctual, in the case of wolves it's the onset of morality, in the case of apes and up it's actual morality, whatever. But where's the authority for that? That's a very arbitrary drawing-of-lines on what seems to me to be a continuum.
And what this tells me is that in a very real sense "morality", as we conceive it in humans, is something wholly other than a behavior that exists along this continuum.
And THAT is the point that Doc is trying to make, and I agree with him. There's a "level of awareness", a level of consciousness, that has to be reached before the concept "morality" can come into play.
R. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:40:11 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a "level of awareness", a level of consciousness, that has to be reached before the concept "morality" can come into play.
R. |
Sentience
The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:41:43.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:45:09 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's a "level of awareness", a level of consciousness, that has to be reached before the concept "morality" can come into play.
R. |
Sentience
The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought. |
Man, all this time Science Fiction has made me think that sentience means the ability to speak. ;) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:48:07 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Man, all this time Science Fiction has made me think that sentience means the ability to speak. ;) |
How come I suddenly had the strong vision of Spock mindmelding with the rock creature?
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 12:48:20. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:49:34 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Man, all this time Science Fiction has made me think that sentience means the ability to speak. ;) |
How come I suddenly had the strong vision of Spock mindmelding with the rock creature? |
For the record, Star Trek isn't proper Science Fiction.
(runs away) |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:52:34 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Doc, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that the thought processes that lead you to choose to follow one instinct over another are fundamentally different from the thought processes an animal uses (i.e., your alogithm is based on something that the animals cannot possibly possess). Is that a fair statement? |
Well, it depends on what your follow-up is. :) I would say it's a generally fair statement. We don't have evidence that animals evaluate between two instincts and can choose the weaker of them. Even if they did, it would be very hard to show. How do we gain access to the mind of a capuchin? In the examples gives by Shannon showing fairness (the monkey and dog), both animals seemed to complain when inequity was exhibited. However, both instances were demonstrations of inequity going against the subject animal. This is in keeping with the instinct for self-preservation. IF the capuchin refused to trade her rock for a GRAPE (the better treat) because her buddy was only getting a cucumber, THEN I'd be impressed and I'd say my argument would be weakened. The monkey would then appear to be encouraging her instinct for fairness over the stronger instinct for self-preservation. |
Well, I guess my follow-up would be this: How are you determining which choice is "weakest"? It seems reasonable to me that if the choice is being made it is being found to be "strongest" by whichever alogithm is being used. If I were to make a seemingly altruistic choice, one that you might label as a weaker instinct, might it not be because the algorithm that I'm using weights it stronger for other reasons. So, to me, it comes down to the algorithm. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 12:58:25 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Doc, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that the thought processes that lead you to choose to follow one instinct over another are fundamentally different from the thought processes an animal uses (i.e., your alogithm is based on something that the animals cannot possibly possess). Is that a fair statement? |
Well, it depends on what your follow-up is. :) I would say it's a generally fair statement. We don't have evidence that animals evaluate between two instincts and can choose the weaker of them. Even if they did, it would be very hard to show. How do we gain access to the mind of a capuchin? In the examples gives by Shannon showing fairness (the monkey and dog), both animals seemed to complain when inequity was exhibited. However, both instances were demonstrations of inequity going against the subject animal. This is in keeping with the instinct for self-preservation. IF the capuchin refused to trade her rock for a GRAPE (the better treat) because her buddy was only getting a cucumber, THEN I'd be impressed and I'd say my argument would be weakened. The monkey would then appear to be encouraging her instinct for fairness over the stronger instinct for self-preservation. |
Well, I guess my follow-up would be this: How are you determining which choice is "weakest"? It seems reasonable to me that if the choice is being made it is being found to be "strongest" by whichever alogithm is being used. If I were to make a seemingly altruistic choice, one that you might label as a weaker instinct, might it not be because the algorithm that I'm using weights it stronger for other reasons. So, to me, it comes down to the algorithm. |
That's a decent point. Two responses. 1) In ourselves we have access to our own "mind". We can observe the conflict playing out in real time. Certainly we know from our own experience that the weaker of the two drives is often the "right" one. We can also judge this to be true because we have so often fail to adhere to our own morality. If morality was very much in line with the strongest instincts, wouldn't we conclude that it would be very easy to follow our moral code? We'd have to make a conscious effort not to. This, however, doesn't generally jive with the world we experience. We see ourselves and others fail all the time. 2) I will fully concede that this will be nearly impossible to evaluate in other animals. I just can't conceive an experiment where we can see how strong/weak each instinct is operating in the situation. However, one cannot make a serious argument that an action exists and say there's no evidence because it's "hard to get". At best we can just say we assume the behavior exists but we can't measure it and at worst we just say the behavior doesn't exist. Neither is a strong position for Shannon to be arguing from.
EDIT: Another way is to realize Self-preservation evolutionarily is the Ace of Trump. It should be the ultimate instinct. If we see activity that is directly in conflict with self-preservation we may understand a weaker instinct was chosen. This COULD be a way to get at it in animals, but is still complex. A mother monkey protecting her young at her expense, according to Dawkins, is still acting out of self-preservation. That is, the monkey's genes are acting to preserve themselves.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:03:20. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:08:06 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's a decent point. Two responses. 1) In ourselves we have access to our own "mind". We can observe the conflict playing out in real time. Certainly we know from our own experience that the weaker of the two drives is often the "right" one. We can also judge this to be true because we have so often fail to adhere to our own morality. If morality was very much in line with the strongest instincts, wouldn't we conclude that it would be very easy to follow our moral code? We'd have to make a conscious effort not to. This, however, doesn't generally jive with the world we experience. We see ourselves and others fail all the time. 2) I will fully concede that this will be nearly impossible to evaluate in other animals. I just can't conceive an experiment where we can see how strong/weak each instinct is operating in the situation. However, one cannot make a serious argument that an action exists and say there's no evidence because it's "hard to get". At best we can just say we assume the behavior exists but we can't measure it and at worst we just say the behavior doesn't exist. Neither is a strong position for Shannon to be arguing from. |
I would say it's equally weak in each direction. Since we can't get into the mind of the animals, we can't know their thought processes. So you can't argue about the algorithm that way. You can only look at the results.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: Another way is to realize Self-preservation evolutionarily is the Ace of Trump. It should be the ultimate instinct. If we see activity that is directly in conflict with self-preservation we may understand a weaker instinct was chosen. This COULD be a way to get at it in animals, but is still complex. A mother monkey protecting her young at her expense, according to Dawkins, is still acting out of self-preservation. That is, the monkey's genes are acting to preserve themselves. |
I'll have to do some searching, but I remember reading about altruistic actions among bird species that was not limitted to direct relatives. It had to do with sharing food with young during times of scarcity. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:19:38 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
hannon can correctly argue that we might see basic blocks such as fairness or lying apparently hardwired into the brain, but I will dispute him every time he misuses the word "morality" in such a situation. Monkeys show instinct. Monkeys do not show morality. |
The capuchin experiments, particularly the followups to eliminate other possible explanations, can only be dismissed with denial. Cover your eyes and dispute away... that ain't instinct. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:23:25 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
hannon can correctly argue that we might see basic blocks such as fairness or lying apparently hardwired into the brain, but I will dispute him every time he misuses the word "morality" in such a situation. Monkeys show instinct. Monkeys do not show morality. |
The capuchin experiments, particularly the followups to eliminate other possible explanations, can only be dismissed with denial. Cover your eyes and dispute away... that ain't instinct. |
Wait, what are you saying here? Capuchins show the instinct of fairness (and to disagree is denial)? or Capuchins show a morality that includes fairness (and to disagree is denial)? I moderately agree with the first (although I pointed out it's less impressive to know an animal can detect when it's not being treated as well as his neighbor). I disagree with the second. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:26:50 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now it's fine and well to say that in the case of algae it's chemical, in the case of ants it's instinctual, in the case of wolves it's the onset of morality, in the case of apes and up it's actual morality, whatever. But where's the authority for that? That's a very arbitrary drawing-of-lines on what seems to me to be a continuum. |
There are plenty of examples all along the spectrum... no apparent hard lines, and certainly nothing arbitrary about it. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:28:16 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, what are you saying here? Capuchins show the instinct of fairness (and to disagree is denial)? or Capuchins show a morality that includes fairness (and to disagree is denial)? I moderately agree with the first (although I pointed out it's less impressive to know an animal can detect when it's not being treated as well as his neighbor). I disagree with the second. |
My turn. Please explain the distinction between a sense of fairness and morality. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:31:33 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, what are you saying here? Capuchins show the instinct of fairness (and to disagree is denial)? or Capuchins show a morality that includes fairness (and to disagree is denial)? I moderately agree with the first (although I pointed out it's less impressive to know an animal can detect when it's not being treated as well as his neighbor). I disagree with the second. |
My turn. Please explain the distinction between a sense of fairness and morality. |
You should read my long post above again. Fairness, is merely an instinct for equality. Monkeys apparently like it when things are equal. (I'll point out however, that monkeys don't seem to mind when things are unequal in their favor. To quote your follow-up link: "Even so, de Waal notes that the monkeys’ aversion to injustice isn’t on a par with humans. They don’t like getting less than their peers, but they don’t react to getting more. If anything, this worsens any inequality since monkeys that do badly end up shunning the task and its reward altogether, while the one that’s better off continues to be rewarded.")
Morality is a system for dealing with that instinct. It isn't the instinct itself. When do I need to act fairly and when do I need to stifle that instinct in order to encourage another instinct (say self-preservation or lying)? THAT is morality and that was not demonstrated by the monkey. Human morality, to go one step further, is knowing when to stifle the STRONGER instinct an ecourage the WEAKER one.
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 13:32:52. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 01:56:49 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Morality is a system for dealing with that instinct. It isn't the instinct itself. When do I need to act fairly and when do I need to stifle that instinct in order to encourage another instinct (say self-preservation or lying)? THAT is morality and that was not demonstrated by the monkey. Human morality, to go one step further, is knowing when to stifle the STRONGER instinct an ecourage the WEAKER one. |
Then we disagree on definition. What you're describing is justification, not morality, which is the sum total of fairness, empathy, compassion and other feelings toward other beings. Your inherent combined senses of fairness, compassion and more tell you that a situation is wrong (morality), while justification allows you to do it anyway. If apes can understand and process fairness, compassion, honesty and similar traits, you'll have a hard time distinguishing that collection from human morality, especially if a higher animal is willing to sacrifice self-preservation for the good of others. If the animal was not also "using a system for dealing with instinct" to choose this action over self-preservation, then protection must be a stronger instinct than survival and every member of the species would act the same way as an automaton. Your model doesn't stand up to observation. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:22:23 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For the record, Star Trek isn't proper Science Fiction. |
Oh. My. God. Well, I guess I can stop participating around here, having heard everything. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:26:42 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
For the record, Star Trek isn't proper Science Fiction. |
Oh. My. God. Well, I guess I can stop participating around here, having heard everything. |
*snicker* |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 02:50:10 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Morality is a system for dealing with that instinct. It isn't the instinct itself. When do I need to act fairly and when do I need to stifle that instinct in order to encourage another instinct (say self-preservation or lying)? THAT is morality and that was not demonstrated by the monkey. Human morality, to go one step further, is knowing when to stifle the STRONGER instinct an ecourage the WEAKER one. |
Then we disagree on definition. What you're describing is justification, not morality, which is the sum total of fairness, empathy, compassion and other feelings toward other beings. Your inherent combined senses of fairness, compassion and more tell you that a situation is wrong (morality), while justification allows you to do it anyway. If apes can understand and process fairness, compassion, honesty and similar traits, you'll have a hard time distinguishing that collection from human morality, especially if a higher animal is willing to sacrifice self-preservation for the good of others. If the animal was not also "using a system for dealing with instinct" to choose this action over self-preservation, then protection must be a stronger instinct than survival and every member of the species would act the same way as an automaton. Your model doesn't stand up to observation. |
A few thoughts:
1) If you want to provide your own definition for morality, that's fine, but you should either denote that in your statements or provide evidence why a common dictionary definition does not suffice.
2) Your definition is self-referencing or circular. You assert that fairness, empathy, compassion are building blocks of morality and then say morality is the sum of those building blocks. When asked for proof of one of those concepts you point to the other. Why are fairness, empathy, compassion building blocks of our morality? Because we can see this reflected in our universal morals. Which morals are universal? The ones we see as building blocks.
3) "If apes understand the process of fairness..." is the $64,000 question. You don't have access to the mind of an ape so it's difficult if not impossible to understand what is going on.
4) The dog example is silly. Does a dog understand what a gun is? Was the dog trained to overcome an instinct of self-preservation? Does the dog mistakenly view its owners as genetically similar? The example can be dismissed in many, many ways. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 03:05:19 PM · #274 |
If we go back to our beloved Wikipedia: Altruisim in animals
This has serveral examples of animal altruism (although not the particular one I was looking for). Moreover, I think this excerpt helps demonstrate that there may very well be neuro-chemical reasons why we act in what we like to call a moral manner:
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman, neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health and LABS-D'Or Hospital Network (J.M.) provided the first evidence for the neural bases of altruistic giving in normal healthy volunteers, using functional magnetic resonance imaging. In their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA in October, 2006,[3] they showed that both pure monetary rewards and charitable donations activated the mesolimbic reward pathway, a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food and sex. However, when volunteers generously placed their interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.[4] |
Message edited by author 2008-12-11 15:05:32. |
|
|
|
12/11/2008 03:35:38 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) If you want to provide your own definition for morality, that's fine, but you should either denote that in your statements or provide evidence why a common dictionary definition does not suffice. |
Show me any dictionary that defines morality as sorting out instincts. All the ones I see talk about the distinction between right and wrong conduct, and what factors do we use to evaluate what "should" be right or wrong? Oh gee... fairness, empathy, compassion and all their cute little relatives. Self-preservation stands on its own as a justification rather than as moral factor ("to hell with what's right or wrong, I'm doing this to stay alive!"). Note that whether you define it with instinct or the senses I referenced, you're still attributing a natural source, which is where this started. ;-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) Your definition is self-referencing or circular. You assert that fairness, empathy, compassion are building blocks of morality and then say morality is the sum of those building blocks. |
Not circular, synonymous. Bricks, wood, windows, electrical components, etc. are the building blocks of a house, and a house is the sum of those building blocks. Duh.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) "If apes understand the process of fairness..." is the $64,000 question. You don't have access to the mind of an ape so it's difficult if not impossible to understand what is going on.
4) The dog example is silly. Does a dog understand what a gun is? Was the dog trained to overcome an instinct of self-preservation? Does the dog mistakenly view its owners as genetically similar? The example can be dismissed in many, many ways. |
Are you and I on the same planet? I'm starting to wonder... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:03:54 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 05:03:54 AM EDT.
|
