|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biology is Destiny? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Lacking a moral compass and acting without knowing what he was doing are two separate ideas, and I've already provided examples to illustrate the difference. Lacking a moral compass does not, in and off itself negate mens re. Let's just try to agree the principle of the bloody thing or we'll be arguing for weeks about something that is incidental to the point of the thread. The general point is that an individual can not be liable for a serious offence in law if he did not have 'a guilty mind'. One possible way of not having a guilty mind is by having a damaged brain. As is probably the case with Fred.
I find it difficult to believe that drunk driving is completely a strict liability crime in the UK, although I may be wrong. But if your buddies were to pick up your passed out drunk body off the sofa, dump it into a car, and the push your car down the highway, surely you could not be said to have the mens re to operate a vehicle while drunk if all you did was step on the brake and steer the car to the curb. Having excess alcohol whilst in control of a motor vehicle is a strict liability offence in the UK - and many other jurisdictions. (Please don't let's argue about what 'being in control means' - just take it that being behind the wheel of a moving vehicle is usually enough.) If it came to court, you'd be found guilty of being drunk in charge but you'd probably be given an unconditional discharge and the magistrates would be complaining about having the charge put before them. It's far more likely though that no charges would be brought by the police (against the driver) or failing that the CPS would refuse to prosecute. The 'friends' that put you in the car would probably be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and whatever else the arresting officer/CPS could dream up. In other news, I hear that the Norwegian mass murderer has been declared insane. So he's not going to prison but hospital (subject to the decision standing) Norway massacre: Breivik declared insane - BBC NewsLife, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Let's just try to agree the principle of the bloody thing or we'll be arguing for weeks about something that is incidental to the point of the thread. I'll agree to drop the whole thing without saying another word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I'll agree to drop the whole thing without another word No need to go that far :-)Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
I find it difficult to believe that drunk driving is completely a strict liability crime in the UK, although I may be wrong. Driving offences usually are strict liability in the UK. Others include firearm possessions, leading to such odd cases as someone being convicted of possessing a firearm despite the fact that he could not reasonably have been expected to know it was in his possession (it was in a bag); and a more recent case of someone being prosecuted for bringing into a police station a gun he claimed to have found in a park. ABE: And I thought the consciousness discussion was drifitng off topic! Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Philosophy usually divides morality into two types:
'descriptive' which is the sorts of rules derived by human authority groups (religions, clubs, states) - such as "don't eat meat on friday" "replace your divots" and "don't drive when drunk" and 'normative' which is the universal code of moral actions that humans possess such as those I described earlier (and several objected to). They're mostly of the 'do no harm' sort that google is so fond of - things like, don't murder rape thieve etc. This is from the neurology papers I posted earlier:
Sociopaths lack moral emotions, empathy, conscience, or remorse and guilt for their acts. Although they have difficulty distinguishing between moral (victim-based) transgressions and conventional (social disorder-based), they have normal moral knowledge and reasoning. Sociopaths have instrumental (cold-blooded and goal-directed) aggression with decreased sympathetic arousal. On psychophysiological measures, they show minimal alterations in heart rate, skin conductance, or respirations when they are subjected to fear or stressful or unpleasant pictures, and they have reduced autonomic responses to the distress of others, as well as reduced recognition of sad and fearful expressions.
Which suggests to me that sociopaths know the (descriptive) rules but it doesn't inhibit their actions because the (normative) impulse not to do harm that is present in 'normal' people is missing. Fred's case goes further. Fred was driven to do the immoral deeds - his brain wanted them (while a 'normal brain would rebel against them). The paper goes on to say that
Those who have committed violent offences have a high incidence of neurological changes. In one study, nearly two-thirds of murderers had neurological diagnoses, including brain injuries, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, dementia, and others. Neurological examinations often show marked frontal or temporal deficits or changes on neuroimaging or electroencephalography.
So criminals that commit serious crimes are also likely to have neurological pathology.I'd like to hear what those that believe in absolute morality think of all this. Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Philosophy usually divides morality into two types: 'descriptive' which is the sorts of rules derived by human authority groups (religions, clubs, states) - such as "don't eat meat on friday" "replace your divots" and "don't drive when drunk" and 'normative' which is the universal code of moral actions that humans possess such as those I described earlier (and several objected to). They're mostly of the 'do no harm' sort that google is so fond of - things like, don't murder rape thieve etc. I don't think that's quite right. Descriptive describes what people think is right and wrong (often used to compare different people or groups). Normative is about they way people should behave. Applied is about how to put the normative ideas into practical use. Meta is about understanding what 'right' and 'wrong' actually mean. Descriptive morality, or ethics, would be saying that Catholics view many contraceptives as morally wrong. Normative would be saying we should not use contraceptives, Applied would be to have sex without the use of contraceptives, Meta would be saying that right behaviour is behaviour that is in agreement with God's will. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
I don't think that's quite right. Is it right enough to get by, or do we have to run down the rabbit hole again?Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is it right enough to get by, or do we have to run down the rabbit hole again? Just worth keeping in mind if you want to advance the discussion. Your descriptions of normative and descriptive are in error, which may cause problems if you want to discuss the matter in depth. However, your point that
sociopaths know the (descriptive) rules but it doesn't inhibit their actions because the (normative) impulse not to do harm that is present in 'normal' people is missing. More or less still works out as a fair position to take. Sociopaths may know that x believes y to be wrong (descriptive) whereas they themselves may not feel compelled to feel that it is wrong themselves (lacking the normative).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Modulus writes:
Your descriptions of normative and descriptive are in error Just for info and completeness, my interpretation came from here:
Descriptive morality is a code of conduct held by a particular society or group as authoritative in all matters of right and wrong. It focuses on areas beyond no-harm, such as purity, accepting authority, and emphasizing loyalty to the group.1 Normative morality, on the other hand, is a universal code of moral actions and prohibitions held by all rational people, irregardless of their society or group’s descriptive morality.1,2 Which in turn apparently came from here: 1. Haidt J. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science. 2007;316:998-1002.2. Wilson JQ. The Moral Sense. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 1993. Edited by Tangle, : rubbish grammarLife, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think they got this from an unknown source that actually reads:
quote: Which I do agree with. This is slightly different wording, but it changes the meaning considerably, I feel. (I find the above quote all over the net, but I can't find its origins). Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hmmm - ok, here we go down the rabbit hole again.
I don't like that definition of normative:
In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions It's the word 'ideal' that's broken. It pre-supposes we know what's best and can choose or at least list the best morality and (presumably) aspire to it. My definition says that the normative values are intrinsic to (rational) people. We have them like it or not and those that don't are not normal.
Normative morality, on the other hand, is a universal code of moral actions and prohibitions held by all rational people, irregardless of their society or group’s descriptive morality.1,2 For the purpose of this thread I'm proposing that normative morality is a brain function, an emotion and a sixth sense that has sections of the brain allocated to it. It's not some notional ideal state, it's simply (sic) neurology and like all thing physiological it must vary by individual.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In the law, the definition of criminal is pretty much cut and dried. Criminal acts are those in which constitutionally valid criminal laws (common law or statutory) are violated.
However crimes can be further broken down in to "malum prohibitum" crimes which while criminal are not inherently bad, and malum in se crimes which are for one reason or another acts that are bad regardless of the fact that there are laws against them. It is understandable that people might have different views about whether criminal acts are bad or benign. I can even agree that some criminal acts are admirable. But with regard to which acts are criminal, the answer is fairly objective. If the law is constitutional, and prohibits an act, then the act is criminal. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't like that definition of normative:
In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions It's the word 'ideal' that's broken. It pre-supposes we know what's best and can choose or at least list the best morality and (presumably) aspire to it. Well that is what "normative" means. It may be describing a concept you don't think exists, but then so does "unicorn".
My definition says that the normative values are intrinsic to (rational) people. We have them like it or not and those that don't are not normal. Yeah, but your definition is wrong, so maybe you should find another word to express what you want to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Tangle writes: Hmmm - ok, here we go down the rabbit hole again. This is your fault. You're the one creating the many rabbit holes that ravage this thread. You keep presenting quotes, situations, definitions that are all over the map simply to say free will and absolute morals don't exist (it seems). What did you expect? It's your responsibility to keep things on topic and what it is you want to discuss but as soon as someone points out to you that some of your reasoning is flawed and tries to show you why all of a sudden it's a "rabbit hole". Can you try and simplify this thread and say what you mean instead of sending everyone down the rabbit holes you are creating yourself? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dr Adequate writes: Yeah, but your definition is wrong, so maybe you should find another word to express what you want to say. Like I say, I didn't make up the definition it came from here:
Normative morality, on the other hand, is a universal code of moral actions and prohibitions held by all rational people, irregardless of their society or group’s descriptive morality. The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review andNeuropsychiatric Implications Mario F. Mendez, MD, PhD I accept that philosophy uses the word 'normative' to mean an ideal state and that science should probably use another one rather than bend the original out of shape. I think 'Normal' behaviour is closer to what the paper is talking about. 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. The new bit of information is that neuroscience is beginning to pin down areas of brain activity relating to those moral/behaviours/emotions. This means that there is a moral sense (akin to sight, touch smell etc) with neurology to support it. i.e. Morality has a physical presence in the brain - it's not just a philosophical construct, we can touch it and change it. (And of course, it therefore can not be absolute - except as a philosophical or religious construct) Now it's not at all surprising to find that morality happens in the brain - where else could it be? - but it is QI to begin to see the physical structures that do it. To get back to the headline of is Biology Destiny? If we finally identify the seats of morality to parts of the brain the answer must be 'yes'.To some large extents it must be - whether it's nature or nurture or physical damage that causes those parts of your brain to make you feel and act the way you do, the effect is the same; your brain made you do it. Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024