Thread: If We Weren't Taught What Was Right or Wrong as Children..

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Sentience and a capacity to rationalize are not intrinsically valuable. I guess it's true to say that for the most part humans value each other for these reasons and it is in that sense inevitable. As a matter of survivability it is necessary for humans to think this way. My point is that, hypothetically, if no one valued anything, nothing would have value.

Roger that. So . . . assuming I still believe otherwise, despite understanding this personal nature of value, am I in the wrong?

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Haha, how much easier the world would be for the seed if only it had sentience.

Yeah, just look at us . . . ;D

Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman

Roger that. So . . . assuming I still believe otherwise, despite understanding this personal nature of value, am I in the wrong?

Yes, but only about the one point of its intrinsicness. It may be natural that our system of value follows the way it does but it is ultimately just a human projection.

Originally Posted by Mancon

How we we act? Would society be completely different? Would most people be rude and selfish? Of course this also brings us to the question...What is right or wrong? Discuss.

I don't believe in objective "right" and "wrong," but I do have major positions on morality issues because I push for peaceful and orderly society in the long run. I realize that I am just a human with emotions in that pursuit. The terms "good" and "evil" are easier to define, as are words like "rude" and "selfish." Being good and polite, and meaning it, as opposed to putting on a show just to fit into society, comes from conscience. I think conscience must be developed at an early age, and it comes from parents developing a part of the brain that is made for it. Parents who don't teach their kids to be good usually end up with evil, rude, selfish kids. That seems to be a much bigger trend in the U.S. than it once was.

Originally Posted by sivason

I know if you watch shows about apes, the males can be total jerks, biting and punching anyone they are bigger than.

This is mostly a gross exaggeration. All the cooperation a group a chimps or gorillas carry out doesn't satisfy our urge to see wild and violent nature and feel superior to and separate from it. So it doesn't make good TV.

To the extent that it's not an exaggeration, this fairly accurately describes many males (though not the majority) of the ape homo sapiens that I've encountered in my life. That sort of behavior is still very much a part of us.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Yes

Smells like potential for objective rightness . . .

Rightness in the sense of factual correctness, yes . . .

I guess the real answer to this question depends on how you define "teaching". People have a tendency to act in a way that benefits them, and as such, even if someone doesn't learn through someone sitting down and explaining it to them, they're going to learn "right and wrong" through actions and how people act around them. Their "culture" that they grow up in will shape their definition of right or wrong, just like it does today.

You don't need to sit down and try to explain it to someone for them to learn what they should and shouldn't be doing. They'll learn through just simply growing up what is "acceptable" and what isn't. The idea that without teachings, we wouldn't be able to learn right and wrong is just kind of dumb. That's like that old saying that "without religion, you can't have morality".

You don't need to be taught something to learn it. Experience is a good teacher also.

The word "taught" in the context we are discussing is not limited to explanations. I think those are pretty much worthless for teaching morals/ethics if kids are not rewarded and punished in the attempted learning process. Discipline is necessary, and it must always involve rewards and must involve punishments when they are necessary. Those are very powerful when it is the parents giving them. Parents who neglect to use that method pretty much always end up with bad kids who stay bad for life. Society alone will not do what is necessary to train people to be good. The best it will do is train people to appear acceptable on the surface. Parents have to develop a child's conscience, by acting and not just talking.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The word "taught" in the context we are discussing is not limited to explanations. I think those are pretty much worthless for teaching morals/ethics if kids are not rewarded and punished in the attempted learning process. Discipline is necessary, and it must always involve rewards and must involve punishments when they are necessary. Those are very powerful when it is the parents giving them. Parents who neglect to use that method pretty much always end up with bad kids who stay bad for life. Society alone will not do what is necessary to train people to be good. The best it will do is train people to appear acceptable on the surface. Parents have to develop a child's conscience, by acting and not just talking.

I really don't think we can teach someone to have a conscience. Conscience isn't created through Punishment and Reward systems. In fact, I would wager that nobody really knows how someone's conscience is determined. There are certain things that influence how someone might want to act in public, but I think that's the best we can do in terms of "control". If conscience was a learned thing, we'd see a lot less bad people out there.

Instead, we have people who have learned how to put on a mask and appear socially acceptable. They know what is considered right and wrong by definition and how to act around others, but that's about it. In terms of right and wrong, they are perfectly capable of going into the "wrong" zone.

So in regards to what happens if children aren't taught right or wrong? I think ultimately whatever it is that actually determines their conscience is what would influence what people do.

Interesting thought, Kastro. If conscience is an 'emotional response of some sort', then one who kills with no conscience is one who kills without emotional feedback. Fitting, I guess. And so, being punished by prison or some other tortuous tool won't make this person develop a conscience, but it may deter them from repeating the killing for fear of the punishment. To observers, it may appear then that such a person has 'learned from their mistake', but in actuality he is just wearing a mask to protect himself from punishment.

Yes, I can follow that reasoning. ^_^

I would bet, however, that we've evolved an innate 'compassion' or emotional feedback in regards to killing a conspecific because it's more economical to not commit the act, than it is to commit the act and then receive the punishment - potentially affecting survival. Furthermore, if we humans had no compassion, and simply killed one another, we'd not be the top predator today (individually, we'd be pathetic really).

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Interesting thought, Kastro. If conscience is an 'emotional response of some sort', then one who kills with no conscience is one who kills without emotional feedback. Fitting, I guess. And so, being punished by prison or some other tortuous tool won't make this person develop a conscience, but it may deter them from repeating the killing for fear of the punishment. To observers, it may appear then that such a person has 'learned from their mistake', but in actuality he is just wearing a mask to protect himself from punishment.

Yes, I can follow that reasoning. ^_^

That's pretty much what it amounts to. We can teach someone how to act around others and appear socially acceptable, but we can't teach them to actually feel compassion and that desire to do good. That has to come from somewhere else. Serial Killers are a great example of this kind of question. They know right and wrong, and are often highly intelligent (hence why they can get away with it so well). They can hide their crimes and what they are behind a mask of civility because they know what society expects of them, but they still lack that emotional component that tells them that they shouldn't do it. In their minds, they simply aren't allowed to do it.

There was a quote from a character on this show Criminal Minds which sums up the point quite well (from the PoV of a serial killer, when being interviewed):

"I see a guy walking down the street with a stupid look on his face, and I want to bash him over the head with a bottle. To me that's normal. It's weird to me that no one else feels that way."

We can't teach someone's conscience to operate differently. To them, what they feel is normal. They don't see it as being wrong, so we can't teach them to change it.

I think parents are the only people who can develop a child's conscience. It involves more than rewards and punishments in general. It involves rewards and punishments as they relate to love between child and parent. That has a strong emotional effect. I don't think the law or peer pressure can develop a conscience because strong innate love is not part of the picture. It takes something that powerful.

There is good research on this, but I have not really studied it. I am basing a lot of what I am saying on correlations between bad behavior and lack of parental involvement. I have taught school, and almost 100% of the truly bad kids who were flat out hopelessly evil were kids whose parents never disciplined them and even took the kids's sides against the teachers if teachers tried to do something. Those people are warping their kids and making them problems for society. Also, I remember the major events involved in the development of my own conscience. They all involved the pain I felt when my father showed disappointment over his inability to trust me.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think parents are the only people who can develop a child's conscience. It involves more than rewards and punishments in general. It involves rewards and punishments as they relate to love between child and parent. That has a strong emotional effect. I don't think the law or peer pressure can develop a conscience because strong innate love is not part of the picture. It takes something that powerful.

There is good research on this, but I have not really studied it. I am basing a lot of what I am saying on correlations between bad behavior and lack of parental involvement. I have taught school, and almost 100% of the truly bad kids who were flat out hopelessly evil were kids whose parents never disciplined them and even took the kids's sides against the teachers if teachers tried to do something. Those people are warping their kids and making them problems for society. Also, I remember the major events involved in the development of my own conscience. They all involved the pain I felt when my father showed disappointment over his inability to trust me.

Behavior, I believe, is something that can be learned and molded to fit a socially acceptable standard. Kids who don't have that molding can indeed become troublesome later on in their life. A Lack of a conscience though (or in this thread's context, a "mis-guided one"), is much harder to understand. We hear it all the time with people who grew up in loving households, who had boundaries and rules, who would be described as a great person, and they would later turn out to do terrible things. The influence of how they grew up, was overruled by something else in their life that allowed them to suppress that conscience that tells them they shouldn't be doing something.

There are many kids who grow up however, in the way you've described. Never disciplined, always had their side taken, and yet when they got older, they turned out fine. I know a couple of them myself... people who you would've thought seeing them grow up, that they'd be the biggest assholes you could imagine, who today are actually nice kids and have turned around their behavior.. and it certainly wasn't due to parental involvement (considering I know their parents, and have known them since they were born pretty much).

Somewhere along the line though, something changed. That's the key there, is figuring out what it is that triggers that change. There is evidence to suggest that discipline and boundaries helps, but there's also evidence that shows it doesn't help. I think there's some underlying factor that is the bigger influence.

I am using generalities, but I am just trying to illustrate strong correlations. I know that the exceptions you mentioned are examples of real things, so I agree that there are other factors involved.

We are talking about a part of the brain that has to be developed. It seems that it never reaches maximum development until adulthood. That could explain why some bad kids become good adults. Then again, maybe they have just learned how to put on the right show. I remember when I ran into a major asshole from junior high when I was in my 20's. I indirectly suggested that he seemed to be a good guy although he was a real prick as a kid. He said something like, "Well, you grow up and learn that you can't act like that." His statement was not an expression of conscience. It was an expression of making things work for himself.

If any bad kids turn out to be genuinely good, which involves having a conscience, maybe a father or mother involvement from earlier in life helped enough to make it where the final stages of biological growth would reach some kind of threshold. I am guessing on that, but there clearly are examples of bad kids becoming good adults, and some of that might not be just a show. I would say that usually there is good parenting behind it, but maybe another relative or mentor filled in for some kind of substitute parenting role somewhere along the way. I guess that can happen too.

It would be impossible to not teach children a moral code, because everyone has values, even if they are values seen as evil. Every person has values and a moral code even if it is one formed by themselves and they will teach it to those who will listen in most cases.