Morality; innate or learned? (Introduction)
by David Turell , Thursday, August 16, 2012, 15:52 (4483 days ago)
Chimps take care of number one first:-http://phys.org/news/2012-08-food-chimps.html-Baby studies suggest the tiny tots do not pick out morality as well as thought:-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-babies-moral-compass-landmark.html
Morality; innate or learned?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 18, 2012, 03:27 (4482 days ago) @ David Turell
There are flaws in the child morality experiments, deeps ones. Having a child pick a toy is not really a good indicator of child morality, particularly not based on the excitation of a particular element of the toy. The experiments neither prove nor disprove child morality, they only prove that children like toys that do something neat.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Morality; religion's place
by David Turell , Thursday, January 15, 2015, 14:24 (3601 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
edited by dhw, Thursday, January 15, 2015, 16:36
A psychologist's take from many reviewed studies:-http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good/-"In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good we must be very clear what we mean by religion and what we mean by good. This rather nuanced conclusion may disappoint the polemicists, but - at least until this research field matures - a measure of restraint before we jump to conclusions about whether religion is inherently good or bad may not be such a bad thing."
Morality; religion's place
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, January 15, 2015, 15:58 (3601 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Thursday, January 15, 2015, 16:36
A psychologist's take from many reviewed studies: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/01/14/is-religion-a-force-for-good... > "In short, in discussing whether religion is a force for good we must be very clear what we mean by religion and what we mean by good. This rather nuanced conclusion may disappoint the polemicists, but - at least until this research field matures - a measure of restraint before we jump to conclusions about whether religion is inherently good or bad may not be such a bad thing."-Interesting article, but I find the methodology of their studies less than rigorous. For example, why not test to find out how thoroughly a person knows their claimed religion, and THEN find out how they behave in a group. Then you could tell if the effects were superficial or perhaps become more deeply ingrained through study.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Morality; religion's place
by David Turell , Thursday, January 15, 2015, 19:05 (3601 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> tony: Interesting article, but I find the methodology of their studies less than rigorous. For example, why not test to find out how thoroughly a person knows their claimed religion, and THEN find out how they behave in a group. Then you could tell if the effects were superficial or perhaps become more deeply ingrained through study.-Excellent criticism
Morality; innate or learned?
by romansh , Friday, January 16, 2015, 21:06 (3600 days ago) @ David Turell
I think we need to tease apart three different things ... 1) morality (as an absolute) 2) a sense of morality 3) the capability of having a sense of morality-we could argue about colour in the same way: 1) colour in an absolute sense? 2) a sense of colour 3) the capability of having a sense of colour
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 01:06 (3600 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: I think we need to tease apart three different things ... > 1) morality (as an absolute) > 2) a sense of morality > 3) the capability of having a sense of morality-I think a child can be taught or given the bounds of morality (a conscience) by age 8-10. Morality absolutes vary with the society one lives in. Dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths tell us some folks are not capable of a sense of morality.
Morality; innate or learned?
by romansh , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 17:20 (3599 days ago) @ David Turell
David I think a child can be taught or given the bounds of morality (a conscience) by age 8-10. Morality absolutes vary with the society one lives in. Dealing with sociopaths and psychopaths tell us some folks are not capable of a sense of morality.-I think a child can be taught there are colours at a very young age. I think a child in their mid teens can be taught colour is literally a figment of their imagination.-The fact you say Morality absolutes vary with the society is an oxymoron.-At best it is societal or cultural morality.-I think in practice what I think is right is pragmatically indistinguishable from what I want.
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Saturday, January 17, 2015, 21:34 (3599 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom: The fact you say Morality absolutes vary with the society is an oxymoron. > > At best it is societal or cultural morality.-I'll accept it your way. > > Rom: I think in practice what I think is right is pragmatically indistinguishable from what I want.-In medical school I was taught that a conscience should develop naturally with parental guidance by age 12-14. We are all influenced by what we want from our lives and in our lives.
Morality; innate or learned?
by romansh , Sunday, January 18, 2015, 01:31 (3599 days ago) @ David Turell
David In medical school I was taught that a conscience should develop naturally with parental guidance by age 12-14. We are all influenced by what we want from our lives and in our lives. In medical school were you told when we can perceive things as having colour?-Just because we can perceive morality it does not mean it exists outside of a whole bunch complicated brain chemistry. A similar argument exists for colour.
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 18, 2015, 05:43 (3599 days ago) @ romansh
Rom: In medical school were you told when we can perceive things as having colour? > > Just because we can perceive morality it does not mean it exists outside of a whole bunch complicated brain chemistry. A similar argument exists for colour.-You use very confusing comparisons. Colors are learned by name when we are children, but each of us see them slightly differently, because all brains are not the same in their functionality. Morality is a concept, and has nothing to do with brain chemistry although the thoughts about morality are in part created by brain chemistry controlled at my will. I think most of us understand what morality is as a concept, although not all of us will ascribe to the same definition of morality. We have to use a biological computer, and it has some very complex biochemistry to aid in its function, but at my 'self' level I'm very satisfied with it and I think it serves me just fine under my control. I assume your view is different.
Morality; innate or learned?
by romansh , Sunday, January 18, 2015, 16:05 (3598 days ago) @ David Turell
David: Morality is a concept, and has nothing to do with brain chemistry although the thoughts about morality are in part created by brain chemistry controlled at my will.-you speak as though your will is somehow separate from your brain chemistry?
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Sunday, January 18, 2015, 19:31 (3598 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom:you speak as though your will is somehow separate from your brain chemistry?-No, I know I have to use my brain chemistry. My biological computer is all I have to work with, but I fell I control it. It does not control me.
Morality; innate or learned?
by romansh , Sunday, January 18, 2015, 21:20 (3598 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by romansh, Sunday, January 18, 2015, 21:29
> > Rom:you speak as though your will is somehow separate from your brain chemistry? > > David No, I know I have to use my brain chemistry. My biological computer is all > I have to work with, but I fell I control it. It does not control me.-While you might feel that you are in control, I would consider a datum point, I would not consider it is anything but an anecdotal story. I suspect if you did a careful study (be more self aware) you might feel less in control.
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Monday, January 19, 2015, 00:38 (3598 days ago) @ romansh
> Rom: While you might feel that you are in control, I would consider a datum point, I would not consider it is anything but an anecdotal story. I suspect if you did a careful study (be more self aware) you might feel less in control.-I doubt it.
Morality; innate or learned?
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, January 19, 2015, 10:04 (3598 days ago) @ David Turell
Rom: In medical school were you told when we can perceive things as having colour? > > > > Just because we can perceive morality it does not mean it exists outside of a whole bunch complicated brain chemistry. A similar argument exists for colour. > >David: Morality is a concept, and has nothing to do with brain chemistry although the thoughts about morality are in part created by brain chemistry controlled at my will. I think most of us understand what morality is as a concept, although not all of us will ascribe to the same definition of morality. -Earlier in this discussion, Rom said that morality was no different than what he wanted, and here David makes the statement that it is just a concept. -This is where I differ with you guys. While morality might be 'just a concept', I think it is based on our flawed understanding of something that is very real. The concepts of 'sin', 'wickedness', 'evil', or simple wrongness are all based on something very simple. Either something is functional or it misses the mark and is dysfunctional. Function and dysfunction are fairly absolute. There is an very specific way things work, and deviations from the way things work causes problems, it becomes dysfunctional. -Our concept of morality is based on our communal experiences and knowledge of function and dysfunction, flavored by our own experiences and desires. So it is certainly something that we have learned. That is why the biblical laws don't get really deep into morality, believe it or not. They typically talk about what works, and what doesn't. -Don't lie, because a lie is not the truth and will inevitably cause problems. Don't Kill an Innocent, because it causes harm and will inevitably cause problems. Don't desire your neighbor's stuff, because that will inevitably cause jealousy, strife, stress, anxiety, greed, theft, etc. Don't sleep around, cause it will cause problems. Don't cheat on your spouse. Don't judge others, because what works for you doesn't necessarily work for them, their weaknesses and strengths are different than your own. (Yes, the bible actually has a section that supports the concept that morality, to some extent, is subjective)-etc, etc, etc, ...-Yes, there is a component to these that is about love and consideration for your fellow man, a large component in fact, but when you boil it all down, it comes down to what works, and what doesn't. If you don't show love for your fellow man, things go horribly wrong. They become dysfunctional (war, greed, murder, jealousy, envy, spite, anger, etc). The 'concept of morality' that we learn is what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, like most human conceptions, our information is limited and our understanding deeply flawed, so we tend to screw it up.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Morality; innate or learned?
by David Turell , Monday, January 19, 2015, 14:38 (3597 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> Tony: Earlier in this discussion, Rom said that morality was no different than what he wanted, and here David makes the statement that it is just a concept. > > This is where I differ with you guys. While morality might be 'just a concept', I think it is based on our flawed understanding of something that is very real. The concepts of 'sin', 'wickedness', 'evil', or simple wrongness are all based on something very simple. Either something is functional or it misses the mark and is dysfunctional. Function and dysfunction are fairly absolute. There is an very specific way things work, and deviations from the way things work causes problems, it becomes dysfunctional. > > Our concept of morality is based on our communal experiences and knowledge of function and dysfunction, flavored by our own experiences and desires. So it is certainly something that we have learned. If you don't show love for your fellow man, things go horribly wrong. They become dysfunctional (war, greed, murder, jealousy, envy, spite, anger, etc). The 'concept of morality' that we learn is what works and what doesn't. Unfortunately, like most human conceptions, our information is limited and our understanding deeply flawed, so we tend to screw it up.-You have fleshed out the concept of morality beautifully. Children learn this by teachings and experience.
Morality; neurobiology of conscience
by David Turell , Thursday, May 30, 2019, 18:13 (2005 days ago) @ romansh
A new book reviewed, which discusses it from the side of socialization:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01658-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20190530&utm_sou...
"What is our conscience, and where does it come from? In her highly readable Conscience, the philosopher Patricia Churchland argues that “we would have no moral stance on anything unless we were social”.
"That we have a conscience at all relates to how evolution has shaped our neurobiology for social living. Thus, we judge what is right or wrong using feelings that urge us in a general direction and judgement that shapes these urges into actions. Such judgement typically reflects “some standard of a group to which the individual feels attached”. This idea of conscience as a neurobiological capacity for internalizing social norms contrasts with strictly philosophical accounts of how and why we tell right from wrong.
***
"Churchland briefly touches on how other primates, such as chimpanzees, have been observed acting in ways that echo conscience. These include behaviours analysed by primatologist Frans de Waal: cooperating towards common goals, sharing food, adopting orphans and grieving. Churchland argues that such examples point to the evolutionary origins of human conscience.
***
"She eviscerates moral philosophers who believe that moral rules can be utterly divorced from biology and find a foundation based on reasoning alone. She points out that the assumption that morality is not properly philosophically grounded unless it is universal is itself merely a rebuttable stipulation. She notes that decades of attempts to define universal rules have not succeeded. And finally, she shows that most moral dilemmas are just that: dilemmas in which it is impossible to satisfy all the constraints, and which put ostensibly universal principles into conflict with each other.
"Such problems would seem to be insuperable for those who believe that moral rules can be rendered absolute, based on moral reasoning alone and disconnected from real life, as if driven simply by a kind of philosophical logic. But, as Churchland notes, “you cannot get morality out of merely not contradicting yourself”.
"Neither does she have much use for utilitarians, with their simple calculus of adding up the greatest good for the greatest number. She rightly points out that living in a utilitarian society would be unsatisfying for most people, because we are not partial to all members of our society equally. We prefer our own groups, our own friends, our own families. For most people, as she argues, “love for one’s family members is a colossal neurobiological and psychological fact that mere ideology cannot wish away”. She concludes that utilitarianism is irresolvably at odds with how our brains function, given that we evolved to care more deeply about people we know than about those whom we do not.
***
"The limitations in Churchland’s account are mostly limitations in the state of the field. As she repeatedly notes, many aspects of how conscience comes to be embodied in the brain, and shaped by natural selection, are simply not yet known. But she nevertheless makes a mighty effort. Conscience is illuminating, entertaining and wise."
Comment: I agree that no referral to God's moral rules are needed. I've never accepted that religion is required for living a moral life.
Morality; neurobiology of conscience
by dhw, Friday, May 31, 2019, 10:07 (2005 days ago) @ David Turell
DAVID: A new book reviewed, which discusses it from the side of socialization:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01658-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20190530&utm_sou...
DAVID: I agree that no referral to God's moral rules are needed. I've never accepted that religion is required for living a moral life.
Thank you for your wise comment. I like the name of Charles Kingsley’s “Mrs Do-as-you-would-be-done-by” as a basis for morality.
Morality; neurobiology of conscience
by David Turell , Friday, May 31, 2019, 15:30 (2004 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: A new book reviewed, which discusses it from the side of socialization:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01658-w?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20190530&utm_sou...
DAVID: I agree that no referral to God's moral rules are needed. I've never accepted that religion is required for living a moral life.
dhw: Thank you for your wise comment. I like the name of Charles Kingsley’s “Mrs Do-as-you-would-be-done-by” as a basis for morality.
Rabbi Hillel was preaching do unto others 50 years before Jesus.