RE: Are we born….Good?

RE: Are we born….Good? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If you can put your religious bias aside for just a minute would you not agree that good and evil are concepts that stand outside of religion… Lets just use their dictionary definitions. Don't discard an important point I'm making so quickly. Because science has been kept out of the discussion on morality for so long terms like "good" as defined in dictionaries will tend to have more to do with our cultures legacy of superstition and less to do with scientifically observed reality. Having taken a quick perusal of dictionaries before I opened my mouth on the subject what I found was that "good" was generally defined in such a way as to at best be not terribly useful and at worst add useless baggage to cloud the issue. To give an example of this problem let's talk about Nazi's. Humans are hardwired with a universal moral grammar (barring certain exceptions where certain individuals brains which aren't remotely like the rest of us): quote: ORIGINAL: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser#.Uv94XLTZXTo Hauser argues that millions of years of natural selection have molded a universal moral grammar within our brains that enables us to make rapid decisions about ethical dilemmas. Now with that in mind back to the Nazi's. If I try and talk about Nazi goodness it makes no sense. But what about Nazi morality? As a people the Nazi's certainly had a set of cultural norms/ideas that they used in making their judgements on morality.

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:15:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I cannot see where morality would be a compelling difference over survival of the fittest in a primitive situation. I would suggest looking, because there's a good deal of research on this subject involving a number of different species. Because of this research there's theory on where morality came from and it doesn't involve god using his playdoh fun factory.

mnottertail -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:30:36 AM)
FR: Survival of the fittest was a phrase coined by Herbert Spenser, who used it to conjour an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support, while commonly claiming justification from religion and Horatio Alger mythology. The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944. (clipped from wiki cuz it is compact and succinct in its explanation of Spencer). Darwin used it in an update to his book after 5 years alongside natural selection. It has fallen out of professional use in this field since it doesn't describe what it intends in evolution. So.......

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 8:11:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But in nature it is not the "good" animal that survives ... it is the strong. It is survival of the fittest not the moral. It seems that only humans are moral from birth... we are special in that trait. No! Very, very NO! To all of that. First survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest. Review for a second that we're all much weaker than many many dinosaurs. Survival of the fittest means survival of what fits the best. I thought Bill Nye did a good job of explaining fit-est with his whole it's British bit. Second good is a childish enough concept to render it largely useless in adult discussions on this subject. Third you'll tend to see phrases like "moral grammar" instead of simply morality to designate a distinction between certain hardwired functions of the brain which are universal and learned social mores which very wildly from one group to another. Fourth this is not just a human thing, we've found principles of our underlying moral grammar in a number of other species: http://primates.com/morality/index.html

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 12:17:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub New research as reported HERE seems to show babies as young as three months know the difference between good and bad and given a choice will choose good. One thing that you're neglecting to consider here is, this research and similar studies show only that infants exhibit a sense of fairness and a capacity for empathy. Designating those qualities as "good" is a judgment imposed on them by us. The question isn't why are babies good, the question is why do we categorize those qualities as good. K.

blacksword404 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 12:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Human's are social animals. Our survival has always been oriented towards survival as part of the group. So "moral" behavior is behavior that benefits the social group so it does provide a fitness benefit and will be selected for.. I don't agree at all. If society decides it's a benefit to society that they kill me. I don't consider that moral for them to do. I'd kill every last one of them to prevent them taking my life. And it would most certainly be moral on my part to do so. "Moral" is not whatever benefits society.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 1:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Human's are social animals. Our survival has always been oriented towards survival as part of the group. So "moral" behavior is behavior that benefits the social group so it does provide a fitness benefit and will be selected for.. I don't agree at all. If society decides it's a benefit to society that they kill me. I don't consider that moral for them to do. I'd kill every last one of them to prevent them taking my life. And it would most certainly be moral on my part to do so. "Moral" is not whatever benefits society. What if you were a terrorist with the ability and intent to drop anthrax all over the Great Lakes area and the only way to stop you was to shoot you down. You'd be killing millions as well as poisoning the water. Context is everything, and that's why there are no absolutes in life.

popeye1250 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 2:10:19 PM)
And you have to take into account sociopaths/ psychopaths (which both mean the same thing) And not just theoretically but in plain everyday life we need to develop accurate tests to catch them as young as we can and kill them.

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 2:14:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Context is everything, and that's why there are no absolutes in life. Well hold on. Observing that context is important and in some cases critical does not constitute an argument against there being an absolute morality. It simply takes notes of the fact that circumstances can arise which oblige us to make difficult choices. Any other view encounters a logical paradox. As an instance in point, you claim "There are no absolutes in life." Is that absolutely true? If so, then it's false. K.

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 4:20:08 PM)
In the context of this discussion I believe good as defined…”that which is morally right; righteousness” will do just fine . That definition is not vague to me…perfectly acceptable by science and as useful as any definition of any word. Moral is a bit harder to define but “considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior” will do just fine in this instance. Yes this is subjective but I think the vast majority of people would understand its meaning and its antonyms in relation to human behavior. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 4:39:29 PM)
GotSteel I agree but survival of the fittest gets the meaning across with out wasting a hundred fifty words like you just did. As far as moral grammar is concerned it is just different words saying the same thing as in my original link. The experiments you talk of involve children older than three years where this new study has managed to test at three months. Moral grammar speculated that morality was innate... this new research has taken away the influences of a developing brain by their environment and tested before most of these influences could mold their morality... Otherwise this research gets a bit closer to the truth than the moral grammar theory. Both studies and theories point to innate morality... I don't believe either one really explains why this choice was made and that is what I am talking about. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 4:52:34 PM)
quote: why do we categorize those qualities as good. Kirata I'm not sure how to answer this...I guess you could say what the majority of mankind decides is good will be called that. But I guess any behavior, even what we would call bad, could be considered good as well if we wanted to call it that. But it does seem that what we THINK of as good spans all of mankind even though we are often separated by language, sophistication, social history, and traditions. So I guess it could be that the innate feelings of babies are what decide what we ,as adults, have ascribed to a description of morality. Butch

GotSteel -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 6:42:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub As far as moral grammar is concerned it is just different words saying the same thing as in my original link. But NOT the same thing as you were saying. Moral grammar does not equal righteousness. Going back to the Nazi example, WWII Germans weren't all born mentally defective. Nazi's overwhelmingly were born with moral grammar, same as everybody else. Their society filled in a set of morals, would you say that Nazi's were "that which is morally right; righteousness"?

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:16:47 PM)
Righteousness is just following what is viewed moral...and that fits just fine in the Moral grammar theory. Hitler was immoral and he gathered others around him that were as well... as I said in a previous post I believe morality as we are discussing in this thread is personal. Just because you think something immoral does not mean you will necessarily risk your livelihood to protest it. You have posted many times about what you think of certain political parties and actions of your government. Because you are still a citizen of your country does that make you immoral on a personal level...Or does it mean you now have the same morals as those you don't agree with? The point I was making with Hitler is it is just as possible to dominate a society with an immoral personality as it is to dominate one with a moral one. If we are talking natural selection and societies as some were then I was showing there is no compelling reason either system would not work. And if something can work both ways just as well then over time there should be nothing innate through nature selection. Butch

Kirata -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:22:35 PM)
~ FR ~ It sure didn't take long to drag the Bible and Nazis into the discussion. K.

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 7:28:15 PM)
I dragged the Nazis in I'll admit... but only to show a type of society... I could have also used N. Korea or any number of civilizations in history. I'm trying my best to keep religion out of it... but you know how that goes. Butch

blacksword404 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/15/2014 11:11:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Human's are social animals. Our survival has always been oriented towards survival as part of the group. So "moral" behavior is behavior that benefits the social group so it does provide a fitness benefit and will be selected for.. I don't agree at all. If society decides it's a benefit to society that they kill me. I don't consider that moral for them to do. I'd kill every last one of them to prevent them taking my life. And it would most certainly be moral on my part to do so. "Moral" is not whatever benefits society. What if you were a terrorist with the ability and intent to drop anthrax all over the Great Lakes area and the only way to stop you was to shoot you down. You'd be killing millions as well as poisoning the water. Context is everything, and that's why there are no absolutes in life. When you come into a country you agree to abide by its laws. If I was then running around poisoning people then you have the right to try me in a court of law. To determine my guilt. But you just can't get together in a town meeting and point to me and say " Hey we haven't killed anybody in a long while. I say we kill that guy".

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 5:40:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Human brains are hardwired for empathy, friendship The study you linked *does not conclude that human brains are hardwired for empathy or friendship. From the article... Very cute, Vincent, but your quote "from the article" is not from the article on human brains being hardwired for empathy.* K. Yes, my mistake. From the article on 'hardwiring,' speculation on the functioning of a part of the brain does not translate into genetics. It simply tells us about that part of the brain.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 5:55:27 AM)
quote: The point I was making with Hitler is it is just as possible to dominate a society with an immoral personality as it is to dominate one with a moral one. If we are talking natural selection and societies as some were then I was showing there is no compelling reason either system would not work. And if something can work both ways just as well then over time there should be nothing innate through nature selection. Agreed. The example of Nazi Germany suggests that morality is a social construct. There were people who disagreed with the anti-sematic philosophy and rhetoric but quickly learned to keep quiet about their opinions. This tells us that morality is imposed by structural power.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/16/2014 7:48:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: evesgrden Context is everything, and that's why there are no absolutes in life. Well hold on. Observing that context is important and in some cases critical does not constitute an argument against there being an absolute morality. It simply takes notes of the fact that circumstances can arise which oblige us to make difficult choices. Any other view encounters a logical paradox. As an instance in point, you claim "There are no absolutes in life." Is that absolutely true? If so, then it's false. K. No, because it's not a moral statement with respect to conduct. Lying is bad. Thou shalt not kill. Turn the other cheek. Greatest good for the greatest number. Women and children first. Any moral code or ethical rule you can come up with can be argued down... it's a classic exercise in intro Logic and Ethics. perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "absolutes" in this case. But the intent of what I was saying should be pretty clear.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625