Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology is Destiny?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 121 of 129 (642833)
12-02-2011 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Chuck77
12-02-2011 1:43 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
See answer to Dr Adequate above.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Chuck77, posted 12-02-2011 1:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 129 (642835)
12-02-2011 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Tangle
12-02-2011 4:28 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
Like I say, I didn't make up the definition it came from here:
Yes, but it's still wrong.
The point I'm stumbling to make is that strong moral behaviours of the 'do no harm' type (and others) are normal and universal in people - I don't think that is too contentious.
Well, I think it's more complicated than that. It's usually more like: "do no harm to group X, but do all the harm you like to group ~X".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2011 4:28 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2011 5:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 123 of 129 (642840)
12-02-2011 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2011 4:36 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
Dr Adequate writes:
Well, I think it's more complicated than that.
It sure is
It's usually more like: "do no harm to group X, but do all the harm you like to group ~X"
We can invent all sorts of evolutionary Just So stories about kinship for that of course and maybe that's it's origin. But we also have the other side of the story - the descriptive morality that allows for various authorities to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong' which compliments or overrides the more primitive emotions that are normal in us. (From memory, the normal response is immediate and instinctive whilst the descriptive response is slower and calculated.)
It would be very, very interesting though to see if the bit's of the brain that we've identified as responding to a bit of moral behaviour such as 'do not murder' react differently when asked to harm first a member of your own community and then someone from an obviously dissimilar one. Particularly in a war like situation.
I bet you a pint of warm english beer that there is.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2011 4:36 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2011 7:04 AM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 129 (642846)
12-02-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Tangle
12-02-2011 5:29 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
We can invent all sorts of evolutionary Just So stories about kinship for that of course and maybe that's it's origin. But we also have the other side of the story - the descriptive morality that allows for various authorities to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong' which compliments or overrides the more primitive emotions that are normal in us. (From memory, the normal response is immediate and instinctive whilst the descriptive response is slower and calculated.)
Well, for example, when I heard that OBL had been shot, my response was not slow or calculated. I felt immediate joy, I went around whooping and hugging people. He was ~X. There may be people for whom everyone is X, and for whom Donne's words are true: "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind". But for myself, to be honest, it takes a "slower and calculated response" from me to remember that I should feel sorry for OBL: my instinct was that the world was well rid of him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2011 5:29 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2011 7:55 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 125 of 129 (642850)
12-02-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
12-02-2011 7:04 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
Like you say, this is going to be complicated. Here are a few complications I can think of off hand:
1. The death of a hated enemy who has killed members of your own clan is likely to overide any higher level general impulse not to kill. I think we can put that down to natural selection.
2. It will vary enormously between individuals. My wife's immediate reaction to OBL's death (execution/murder?) was horror. But then she more or less rationalised it. I think I immediately rationalised it. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that his followers felt it an immoral act at gut level. How that works, god only knows, but it would have been very useful to have us all in fMRI scanners to hear the news.
3. How you think you reacted to OBL may not be how your brain actually reacted. When we say that things happen at different speeds, we're often talking about milli-seconds. You are not conscious of the process only the outcome. (We know - and it baffles me - that the brain reacts to your request to pick up that beer BEFORE you are conscious of the desire to reach for it ie 'it' knows before 'you' do - go figure.)

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-02-2011 7:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 8:01 AM Tangle has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 126 of 129 (642851)
12-02-2011 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tangle
12-02-2011 7:55 AM


Them and Us
A lot of this comes down to 'them and us'. Dehumanisation is a common psychological method of making horrific acts more morally acceptable to those who commit them.
So you can argue (as I think you are doing) that we have an innate evolved sense of morality whilst also accepting that we don't always apply it consistently.
We apply morality to 'us' and are much more flexible about applying morality to 'them'. But how exactly we determine who constitutes 'us' and 'them' in any given situation s far from simple and has it's roots in other evolved aspects of behaviour.
Or something like that....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 12-02-2011 7:55 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 6:58 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 127 of 129 (643043)
12-04-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
12-02-2011 8:01 AM


Re: Them and Us
straggler writes:
So you can argue (as I think you are doing) that we have an innate evolved sense of morality whilst also accepting that we don't always apply it consistently.
I think the rational parts of our brain, the more recentlty evolved parts, can overide the more primitive emotions of what we call morality so that it is possible for normal people to, say, kill when they are able to rationalise it.
But also because morality may actually be a physical sense - not just an idea or an ideal that is learnt - that has neurones associated with it, it will vary amongst individuals and sometimes simply be missing. So a psychopath can do things that normal people can not.
For example when psychopaths are given moral puzzles to solve, they produce very effective utilitarian solutions that normal people can't - they actually would be able to suffocate the crying baby in order to stop the Nazis finding the group of fleeing Jews.
I don't know where all this is taking me, I still waiting for either a neurologist or a christian philosopher to put me right. Meanwhile, I'll keep rambling.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2011 8:01 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Larni, posted 12-06-2011 6:22 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 128 of 129 (643304)
12-06-2011 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Tangle
12-04-2011 6:58 AM


Re: Them and Us
Tangle writes:
I think the rational parts of our brain, the more recentlty evolved parts, can overide the more primitive emotions of what we call morality so that it is possible for normal people to, say, kill when they are able to rationalise it.
I would say it is the other way around. We overide our biological urges to not (for instance) kill all who would challenge us.
Tangle writes:
But also because morality may actually be a physical sense - not just an idea or an ideal that is learnt - that has neurones associated with it, it will vary amongst individuals and sometimes simply be missing. So a psychopath can do things that normal people can not.
Well, is that not the point? Damage the physical brain, morality can go out the window. If one view morality as a set of social behavioural limiters, once they are gone, you can do what ever is logical.
Tangle writes:
For example when psychopaths are given moral puzzles to solve, they produce very effective utilitarian solutions that normal people can't - they actually would be able to suffocate the crying baby in order to stop the Nazis finding the group of fleeing Jews.
Same thing happens when people play RPGs. Sometimes they become amoral psychopaths because the NPCs aren't real, to them.
Tangle writes:
I don't know where all this is taking me, I still waiting for either a neurologist or a christian philosopher to put me right. Meanwhile, I'll keep rambling.
Article writes:
Among the psychopathic prisoners, the researchers found weaker connections between the vmPFC [ventromedial prefrontal cortex] and other parts of the brain, including the amygdala.
Bracketts mine.
Inside the Brains of Psychopaths | Live Science
This is a really interesting article about psychopathy and brain injury. The last few sentences are particularly relevent, here.
Article
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 6:58 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 129 of 129 (643814)
12-12-2011 4:24 AM


Brain damage causes good?
It occurs to me that when we talk about brain damage and changes in the neural networks causing behavioural changes, they all seem to be negative.
I've spent an hour or so googling but so far found little evidence of brain damage causing philanthropy and good works.
I wonder if our default natural state is the selfish animal one and that pretty much all incidents that knock out chunks of our moral network just knock out the controls that prevent us behaving badly.

Life, don't talk to me about life.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024