Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 46 of 184 (381080)
01-29-2007 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
01-29-2007 5:01 PM


Re: The same but different?
nator writes:
Some of the most complex animal emotional lives can be seen, not surprisingly, in our closest relatives, the great apes.
I found these two stories in an article by Dutch primatologist Frans B. M. de Waal:
quote:
Nadia Ladygina-Kohts, a primatological pioneer, noticed similar empathic tendencies in her young chimpanzee, Joni, whom she raised at the beginning of the last century, in Moscow. Kohts, who analyzed Joni’s behavior in the minutest detail, discovered that the only way to get him off the roof of her house after an escape”much more effective than any reward or threat of punishment”was by arousing sympathy:
If I pretend to be crying, close my eyes and weep, Joni immediately stops his plays or any other activities, quickly runs over to me, all excited and shagged, from the most remote places in the house, such as the roof or the ceiling of his cage, from where I could not drive him down despite my persistent calls and entreaties. He hastily runs around me, as if looking for the offender; looking at my face, he tenderly takes my chin in his palm, lightly touches my face with his finger, as though trying to understand.
These observations suggest that apart from emotional connectedness, apes have an appreciation of the other’s situation and show a degree of perspective-taking. One striking report in this regard concerns a bonobo female named Kuni, who found a wounded bird in her enclosure at Twycross Zoo, in England. Kuni picked up the bird, and when her keeper urged her to let it go, she climbed to the highest point of the highest tree, carefully unfolded the bird’s wings and spread them wide open, one wing in each hand, before throwing it as hard as she could toward the barrier of the enclosure. When the bird fell short, Kuni climbed down and guarded it until the end of the day, when it flew to safety. Obviously, what Kuni did would have been inappropriate toward a member of her own species. Having seen birds in flight many times, she seemed to have a notion of what would be good for a bird, thus giving us an anthropoid illustration of Smith’s “changing places in fancy.”
Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : Forget to show my signature

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 5:01 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:23 PM Doddy has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 47 of 184 (381083)
01-29-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Larni
01-29-2007 5:29 PM


Re: Any more semantics?
Larni writes:
Dude, is this a question? If so, I can't honestly say I know what you are trying to say.
No, but forget it, it doesn't matter anyway.
Larni writes:
We have covered this already.
Oh yes, we most certainly have 3 or 4 posts between us ago, I think. But then you got nit-picky on my wording, so I kept trying to fix it for you.
Larni writes:
You have learnt that murder is bad for you and react accordingly.
I would have agreed with this before I even started this topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 5:29 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:04 AM Stile has replied

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


Message 48 of 184 (381121)
01-29-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Larni
01-29-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
My bolding.
Larni writes:
People see wrong after the action. At this point the drivers for behaviour have changed.
When we are angry we think angry thoughts, we do angry things. We later re-appraise our actions and conclude:
"I should not have acted that way (because of the internal external repercussions), I feel (insert socialized emotion here)"
Bull-donkey-donks, Larni. I think angry thoughts and I do nothing about them. That is what makes me moral, not this trivial giving in to bad behavior because I can't help it stuff.
What does this mean?
What do our social skille give us? They are but a revalidation of our choice to do something right. They are based on someone else's choice to do right. Where did we get the ability to know what is right for us? Once again, socialization is not an answer.
Yes.
Welcome to cognitive behavioural psychology.
Can I get a nice, in-depth explanation of this, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 5:11 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:27 AM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 49 of 184 (381124)
01-29-2007 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Doddy
01-29-2007 6:32 PM


Re: The same but different?
I had a cat once upon a time who came to me when I was crying. Her name was Gurney. I never once accredited her behaviour to morality, and since a cat can't cry, nor can a chimp, I doubt that they have anything except for body language to go off of. My small daughters react the same way when I am sad or drowsy, and again, it is NOT morality. They have not even reached an age where they know wrong and right. Feeling sympathy is just what it is. If morality was so gosh darn easy to explain, why do we even have a seperate word for it? Why not a simple answer that anyone can grasp, like the way we see a rainbow? Put it in a science book already; Where We Get Morality 101. I do not need any link or example to show me that my dogs and cats have not cried with me, and watching them do so has not opened up any new surprising insights for me. Haven't you ever owned an animal? Do you think my religion was shaken to its core when my cat came over to me as I cried?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Doddy, posted 01-29-2007 6:32 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:33 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 01-30-2007 8:11 AM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 50 of 184 (381126)
01-29-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
01-29-2007 4:00 PM


Re: And now I'll be thoroughly confusing... :]
Stile writes:
This is confusing to me,
Yes, I have seen much confusion here in general.
1. GOOD -> a world state that contains the most happiness for the most people possible. Perhaps this is a Perfect world with unlimited good for all people. Perhaps a world of Perfection is impossible, and GOOD is a world state that only limits the amount of bad to a necessary minimum.
2. good -> specific acts of generosity or altruism or anything that brings us closer to GOOD without compromising anyone's individual rights or priveledges.
A Perfect world is undoubtedly impossible. Good is the closest we come to God/Perfection. That is actually a nice way to look at it. Perfect is, well, Perfect. Good is a good stab at Perfect. Of course Good changes, because we are always trying some new way to be Perfect. Always failing of course.
From now on, instead of referring to 'good' I will refer to Perfect. Good...means, you got a good grade. That could be anything, but certainly not a Perfect Grade. It could be better than last semester, but still not Perfect. Morality is our attempt at perfection, and to each according to his ideals.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 4:00 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 51 of 184 (381129)
01-29-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
01-29-2007 4:50 PM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
nator writes:
It does?
Sure, any relative 'good' changes from day to day. Moment to moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 4:50 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 01-30-2007 8:14 AM anastasia has not replied

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


Message 52 of 184 (381130)
01-29-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by nator
01-29-2007 5:01 PM


Re: The same but different?
nator writes:
We have also evolved the ability to realize that we are going to die someday.
How is that different from;
ana writes:
We have evolved to realize that there is more to life than our body or the visible universe.
In both cases, we wonder what happens when we die.
Where is the "spiritual awareness detector" in humans?
The spiritual awareness is the detector.
ana writes:
We have evolved detectors; emotions, spiritual awareness, etc.
Most higher animals do, indeed, have emotions. Some of the most complex animal emotional lives can be seen, not surprisingly, in our closest relatives, the great apes
I have animals. I see sympathy-type behaviors. I do not see choices, or guilt over lack of sympathy.
Remember, ana, that the ability to imagine a God may easily be an artifact of having such large, complex brains
What does the in-ability to imagine God mean? Small, simple brains?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 5:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by iceage, posted 01-30-2007 1:00 AM anastasia has not replied
 Message 61 by nator, posted 01-30-2007 8:31 AM anastasia has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 53 of 184 (381162)
01-30-2007 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by anastasia
01-29-2007 10:55 PM


Re: The same but different?
Ana writes:
I have animals. I see sympathy-type behaviors. I do not see choices, or guilt over lack of sympathy.
  • Choice - Not going to touch that with a ten foot pole knowing the intricacies about free will, self-determinations, etc.
    However i will note that the arguments you use to reduce animals to automatons are the same arguments that can be used against humans just on another level.
  • Guilt over Lack of Sympathy - Did you have sympathy for the chicken you had for dinner tonight? or for the dead cow that made the leather for your shoes? We humans have a decidedly non-existent guilt over the lack of sympathy.
    The prophet Dawkin's talks about our speciest centered morality that is akin to racism. We exclude many things from our consideration of sympathy and empathy.
    Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 52 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:55 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 163 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 54 of 184 (381171)
    01-30-2007 4:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
    01-29-2007 6:47 PM


    Re: Any more semantics?
    stile writes:
    I also don't think I follow evolution-explanations for my morals. I find these explanations very strange, and sometimes even ridiculous.
    Has this position changed? I would say that psychology offers a better explanation than Dawinian Evolution(or the Modern Synthesis) can.
    However, don't forget that both branches of science use the scientific method.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 6:47 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 62 by Stile, posted 01-30-2007 8:53 AM Larni has replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 163 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 55 of 184 (381173)
    01-30-2007 4:27 AM
    Reply to: Message 48 by anastasia
    01-29-2007 10:10 PM


    Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
    ana writes:
    Bull-donkey-donks, Larni. I think angry thoughts and I do nothing about them. That is what makes me moral, not this trivial giving in to bad behavior because I can't help it stuff.
    You do nothing about your angry thoughts because you have been socialized into a perception that angry actions cause negative consequences to you. Don't forget; that is cognitive as well as physical consequences.
    If you are reaaly sad you will cry. This is because you have been socialized into crying as a form of communication about your state of mind to others.
    Blokes bought up in very macho culture can sometimes be unable to cry or even express sadness.
    Acting in the way an emotion drives you is mediated by your cognitions which is driven (very simply here, I could right essays on cognitions) by what are called 'core beliefs'.
    Note that this is not to be confused with religious beliefs.
    These core beliefs are also called 'schema' (try googling Aaron Beck) and are our lense for assessing the perceptual information we recieve.
    They form in childhood (but also later in life) and are change resistant (my career is based aound teaching people to alter their core beliefs for the better).
    Part of your core beliefs include what you are labling morals. These are formed during your life.
    They are learnt.
    There is no absolute set of morals we all ascribe to, although it can seem that way because for a society to work, it must have created a certain type of culture. The societies that could not manage this are long extinct.
    ana writes:
    What do our social skille give us? They are but a revalidation of our choice to do something right.
    Incorrect. It is our social skill to recognise what our society conciders 'right' and do 'right' so as to increase our (or our associates) standing in the group which gives us meaning, such as society.
    ana writes:
    Where did we get the ability to know what is right for us? Once again, socialization is not an answer.
    Socialization is the answer! Our ability to tell right from wrong is like almost every aspect of human psychology; leant! We have so few hard wired aspects to our brain (language aquisition springs to mind as an exception here) that we cannot even walk when we are babies. We have to learn to do almost everything. Something as complex as right from wrong must be learnt.
    Why do reject this position?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 48 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:10 PM anastasia has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Doddy, posted 01-30-2007 6:23 AM Larni has replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 163 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 56 of 184 (381174)
    01-30-2007 4:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by anastasia
    01-29-2007 10:23 PM


    Re: The same but different?
    ana writes:
    They have not even reached an age where they know wrong and right.
    Bingo! You conceed that a child has to learn right from wrong.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:23 PM anastasia has not replied

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


    Message 57 of 184 (381181)
    01-30-2007 6:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 55 by Larni
    01-30-2007 4:27 AM


    Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
    Larni writes:
    Part of your core beliefs include what you are labling morals. These are formed during your life. They are learnt.
    But it's important to note that we have parts of the brain specifically designed to hold these learnt associations. Both the biological and the cultural aspects evolved co-dependently - one cannot exist without the other. Why else would most past societies around the world tend to have similarities in morality? I'd say that would be due to innate sense of these things, just as the very reason the overall concept of beauty is shared by all cultures.
    Besides, mice probably don't have a culture to teach them things like this, and I'm not sure apes would have much learnt morality, so much of their sense would be biological. But undoubtedly humans have some learnt associations for what is right and not right, because our sense of morality is changing over time (now women and other races are considered equal, nobody is allowed slaves and our standards for modesty are always altering), while our brains are not significantly different.

    "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 4:27 AM Larni has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 58 by Larni, posted 01-30-2007 6:53 AM Doddy has not replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 163 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 58 of 184 (381187)
    01-30-2007 6:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 57 by Doddy
    01-30-2007 6:23 AM


    Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
    DC writes:
    Why else would most past societies around the world tend to have similarities in morality?
    It is adaptive to behave in a 'moral' way. Behaving in a generally moral way allows a co-operative society to prosper.
    Cultures that are full of 'social cheaters' cannot develope the societal bonds required for larger civilization to form.
    If you compare the relative brain size of primates, you can predict the general size of community they live in. Bigger brains (which are needed to dectect 'social cheaters' and so weed out cheaters anr reward co-operative behaviour) means beiiger communities.
    Our big brains and in a large way put to use in coping with life in a community. It is geared towards detecting and sanctioning social cheaters.
    The 'innate' sense is learnt. Humans are just very predisposed towards learning social lessons, just like we are very predisposed towards learning language.
    My contention is that there is no mystery, no 'god sense' of right and wrong.
    We learn it and it varies with culture.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by Doddy, posted 01-30-2007 6:23 AM Doddy has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2169 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 59 of 184 (381207)
    01-30-2007 8:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 49 by anastasia
    01-29-2007 10:23 PM


    Re: The same but different?
    quote:
    If morality was so gosh darn easy to explain, why do we even have a seperate word for it? Why not a simple answer that anyone can grasp, like the way we see a rainbow? Put it in a science book already; Where We Get Morality 101.
    Nobody is saying that morality is easy to explain.
    On the other hand, you don't try to explain it at all.
    You just say, "Godidit", which is the most unsatisfying explanation of all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 49 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:23 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2169 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 60 of 184 (381208)
    01-30-2007 8:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 51 by anastasia
    01-29-2007 10:46 PM


    Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
    quote:
    Sure, any relative 'good' changes from day to day. Moment to moment.
    But you said that our brain function changes willy-nilly from day to day.
    Can you please explain how the function of the brain changes willy-milly from day to day?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 51 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:46 PM anastasia has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024