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.
Printable View
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 know if you watch shows about apes, the males can be total jerks, biting and punching anyone they are bigger than.
Empathy for those seen as your extended kin is a biological function (i.e. innate, untaught) with an obvious evolutionary edge. Some specific brain regions relevant to this have been identified, and genetic defects can lead to psychopathy. There are plenty of social animals with empathy. So society would not be totally different.
More generally though, for those not seen as your kin, there is no biological reason to be empathetic. In fact it's better if you're hostile.
However most people nowadays see this as being wrong. I think that this is from a very different, second source of morality. It is rational morality; morality which we derive via our cognition (which tries to unify things into general principles) rather than our instinct (and for which our parents' teaching is an important source). Specifically, one can derive from several very common concepts the golden rule; specifically concepts like symmetry, that is to say, one recognises that all humans are pretty much the same as yourself, and it follows logically that you should not hurt others, or else other humans, applying the general principle, could morally hurt you, which is intuitively incorrect. Most concepts of fairness and equality come from this.
An interesting thing to note is that instinctive morality is more powerful; we feel compelled to do it and we feel good when we do it. For example, defending your friends from an aggressor. There is a biological reward system. On the other hand, rational morality can be a struggle. We don't feel very compelled to consume less because of the effect it's having on undeveloped countries, for instance, or give our money to such causes. But we like to put this morality on a higher pedestal.
This is not generally considered to be true, following classic game-theoretic analyses by, e.g., Trivers on reciprocal altruism, Axelrod & Hamilton on the evolution of cooperation, and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Where are you from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancon
Nonetheless, these examples oddly fixate on reciprocity, inaccurately denoting altruism as a means to an end. Neither cooperation nor another's intention correlate in any way to raw altruism. Trivers, Axelrod and Hamilton provide an analysis of evolving survival hedonism as a refute against "intuitive hostility" toward non-kin, rather than an ethical model.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
In regards to the OP's concern over what really is right or wrong, as Xei mentioned, the Golden Rule creates a foundation for most fairness beliefs and moral doctrines. However, it is exactly this prevailing belief in the concept of fairness which establishes the Golden Rule as an objectively weak and faulty motto. Nevertheless, it is not the rule which fails, but the popular and seemingly logical process, as unfortunately explained by Xei, by which individuals utilize it:
Essentially, the objective horror of the idea to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," parallels that of altruism in how it is an end in itself. One does not abide by the Golden Rule through fear of consequence; only subjective intention correlates. The rule secures neither a scale of justice nor another's mutual sensitivity. Ultimately, even atop the wings of such an enlightening principle, we inevitably fall victim to each other's fundamentally arbitrary self-interest. Despite the affluence of courtesy within many millennia-old creeds, our arbitrary nature affirms how, well, whatever you think is right or wrong is just, like, your opinion, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Are most parents really teaching wrong and right or do they usually just punish their kids for being impolite?
I'm thinking even if we weren't taught, we'll start picking signs from observing people. If one gets a good respond from doing certain thing we might categorised that as a good thing, similar for bad things. That gauge itself is pretty vague though but still we'll learn about things by ourselves one way or another. Unless you are saying everyone is rude and selfish.
I believe that even if those things were not taught to them, they can learn from experience by being victims or victimizing others. They can also learn morals through pain, knowing certain things cause pain, they having felt pain would/should immediately feel empathy and the empathy should cause a change in the person's behavior or characteristics.
Many evolutionary biologists believe that "hard" altruism is ingrained in us because of our ancestors. It's a trait that helped your ancestors survive, therefore it is a part of you.
Even though people know what is right and wrong, they still murder, start wars, etc... I don't think we'd be much different. Just because we think we "know" what is right and wrong, doesn't mean we actually DO what is right. Because very often, we do what is wrong and either know but don't care, or attempt to deny it.
Indeed. Which raises the question,
why are there wars?Quote:
Originally Posted by DuB
It could be argued that war arises from the most extreme form of kin selection; physically removing a threat to a group's well-being. Hamilton says that kin selection not only involves assisting those of your "in-group," but also involves refusing to save a member of an "out-group" when in danger. If you take that the next step, you can PRESENT the danger to the out-group, which can economically/territorially benefit the in-group. A common enemy creates unity, which further strengthens in-group ties.
Human rights activists and pacifists, on the other hand, seem to strive towards a global in-group, in which all human beings are a part. Until humanity as a whole becomes the most important in-group, war is a rational tool.
Hmm, would it then be rational today for the group with humanity's best interest to wage war against groups less evolved in moral objectivity, like extreme nationalists or the many custom based groups exclusive according to unimportant reasons in the light of humanity's evolution? I find it quite fortunate that the human ability to reason can create groups that transcend and undermine the more primitively inclined groups.
To meet their OWN ends, it would be rational; but it would ALSO be irrational, because they would be doing exactly what they oppose.
It's a very simple type of paradox, pacifists killing war-mongers to meet their own ends of world peace.
I know people that as children had violent, immoral parents with strong criminal tendencies and they grew up to become good, kind, peaceful productive members of society. I also know people that as children had parents with high moral standards who grew up to be violent adults living lives of crime to pay their way in the world. There are just two many variables to such a broad question. My opinion however, is that we react to life based mostly on our spiritual evolution garnered from previous incarnations.
I think apathy would cause this change, not empathy. In a scenario the op has set forth, our baser instincts would play a greater roll in our equilibrium, the result of this being survival in the most fundamental meaning of the word. Not this equality bullshit we're forced to accept today.Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
It can be argued that survival is not possible without empathy, and on some level of prejudice I too will defend an argument for, but what it boils down to is this: we do not like pain, and we will do anything we can to avoid it. So the empathy we feel towards anything, is an illusion.
We may tell ourselves that we are looking out for our neighbors, but we're not.
Is it wrong for me to disagree with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Of course not. What do you disagree about, specifically?
Sure, disagreeing in itself is a-ok, however, it translates that I'm opposing your statement--that I'm under the impression value is had, not given. So, am I still not wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Well how does something have value? Where does it come from?
Let's assume I'm under the impression humans, as sentient beings, have intrinsic value. Because of our sentience and capacity to rationalize, our actions derive from volition, which derives from intention. I'm under the impression that only because we reason does our will inevitably come coupled with what we call moral law. Am I wrong?
Arguably, groups pose greater rates of survival over individuals due to resource gathering and the delegation of specific tasks/roles, which are conducive to survival and 'evolution of the group'. For instance, humans that act as a group will likely have greater combined intelligence, available resources, and 'military strength' - basically, you're safer in a group than alone. The selfish people would have to act selfless to form a group, a useful level of deception if you will. A group that benefits all those within more so than if such members were alone.
Thus, even if we were to be completely selfish, (some researchers believe we fundamentally are - just look at economic theory), we would require the resources, intelligence etc of particular individuals to form a formidable group. And likewise, others would require your skills as an individual to bolster the group's power. This process is known as social exchange theory, and again, some researchers believe this is what underlies all working human relationships: the idea that the formation of a relationship occurs under the impression of mutual benefit.
Operating on that idea alone, it wouldn't take long for conditioning to make this behaviour seamlessly flow into normal routine, branching from microscopic levels (networks of 'friends'), to macroscopic levels (societies).
And so, I don't think the world would be much different. We need people, and they need us.
Note - though, of course, without some sort of global law or right conduct, each group (as small as they are) would dictate their own laws and conduct conducive to the survival of the group. People would kill other groups, but not those within the group. Again, I'm talking on a microscopic level (could be racial group, religious group), but just look at how countries differ (if visualised as a group), or even states of America, on what is right or wrong. And ultimately, in a general sense, those who share the same group will be less hostile to one another.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman
Value requires one who values.Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Sage: "What has more value, a pile of mud or a stack of gold?"
Student: "Well, that's obvious: the stack of gold"
Sage: "And to a seed....?"
^_^
That seed could buy a lot of mud with that gold. Certainly more than just a pile.
Haha, how much easier the world would be for the seed if only it had sentience.
Roger that. So . . . assuming I still believe otherwise, despite understanding this personal nature of value, am I in the wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Yeah, just look at us . . . ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfwood
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWoman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mancon
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sivason
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.
Smells like potential for objective rightness . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfwood
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
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.