Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do right?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 166 of 168 (381592)
01-31-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by anastasia
01-31-2007 6:08 PM


Re: Right and wrong
anastasia writes:
I just think that we've evolved this conscience for a reason more than survival of the body.
So you keep saying... and saying... and saying....
But what is that reason? All you've done is handwave away everybody else's reasons without proposing anything better.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by anastasia, posted 01-31-2007 6:08 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by anastasia, posted 01-31-2007 9:32 PM ringo has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 167 of 168 (381610)
01-31-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by ringo
01-31-2007 7:05 PM


Re: Right and wrong
Ringo writes:
But what is that reason? All you've done is handwave away everybody else's reasons without proposing anything better.
Our morality is a major factor in our attaining unity with the Divine, in whatsoever way we envision It, and whether or not we envision It at all. If we are all clear about what I believe, I think I will be moving onwards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 01-31-2007 7:05 PM ringo has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 168 of 168 (381611)
01-31-2007 9:46 PM


Interesting NYTimes article
An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong
It's free to sign up to read it. Basically, it's an ad for a new book called "Moral Minds". Maybe I'll pick it up.
quote:
Suppose you are standing by a railroad track. Ahead, in a deep cutting from which no escape is possible, five people are walking on the track. You hear a train approaching. Beside you is a lever with which you can switch the train to a sidetrack. One person is walking on the sidetrack. Is it O.K. to pull the lever and save the five people, though one will die?
Most people say it is.
Assume now you are on a bridge overlooking the track. Ahead, five people on the track are at risk. You can save them by throwing down a heavy object into the path of the approaching train. One is available beside you, in the form of a fat man. Is it O.K. to push him to save the five?
Most people say no, although lives saved and lost are the same as in the first problem.
Why does the moral grammar generate such different judgments in apparently similar situations? It makes a distinction, Dr. Hauser writes, between a foreseen harm (the train killing the person on the track) and an intended harm (throwing the person in front of the train), despite the fact that the consequences are the same in either case. It also rates killing an animal as more acceptable than killing a person.
Many people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, Dr. Hauser says, a sign that it is being made at inaccessible levels of the mind. This inability challenges the general belief that moral behavior is learned. For if people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, how can they teach it?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024