Originally posted by PETRAN
In there a kind of innate morality in man? Or all morality comes from social learning :conf:
Well, I don't know how psychologists and philosophers have examined the development of morality in children but, as far as I've read, social learning exerts a huge influence on the child's view of right and wrong. Small children seem to refrain from doing something out of fear of punishment. As you grow up, however, children have this tendency to let their peers influence them more than those in different hierarchical levels (I wish I could remember the guy who studied this). If there is some kind of innate morality in man, it should be something very rudimentary as the need to retaliate - and make things even - when you feel you've been taken advantage of.
What do you say?
Lilith
I think its time for some Janes Addiction!
Lira
By the way, have you ever read Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong by Marc Hauser, Petran? He seems to have been influenced by Chomsky, and argues for innateness on this issue.
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You don't have to believe in a spiritual/supernatural framework to believe your actions have a positive or negative reflection on yourself.
Agreed.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by PETRAN
The question is:
In there a kind of innate morality in man? Or all morality comes from social learning :conf:
I think the idea that ing over other people isn't a good thing is somewhat inevitable because everyone can put themselves in their shoes of whoever they've just ed over. I think the human capacity to be self-aware and thus be able to consider the other's thoughts give rise to morality. Beyond that, though, I strongly believe that morality is a self-referential system based in learning and teaching. Even religions emphasise this aspect: the phrase "the teachings of" when referring to the ideology of a given holy text or holy figure, for example. It is only through being taught morality that we become moral agents.
Project-K
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I think the idea that ing over other people isn't a good thing is somewhat inevitable because everyone can put themselves in their shoes of whoever they've just ed over. I think the human capacity to be self-aware and thus be able to consider the other's thoughts give rise to morality.
There's a distinction to be made between immoral behavior and anti-social behavior. The former is arbitrary and doesn't really make sense outside of a cultural context.
Sushipunk
I still don't see the big deal about this.
You said yourself that:
a) There was nothing of importance on the drive
b) They are pretty damn cheap now (over here a 2GB pen drive is $15)
I keep a file on my pen drive with my email and phone number in case I lose it. This person did not. You tried, and failed.
Hand it in if you want, but like Treeboo said, it'll probably just sit in a box forever, unclaimed.
Why make it into an enormous moral issue?
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Why make it into an enormous moral issue?
All the things I mentioned in the OP, which added up to make this current nagging feeling of wrong-doing.
Don't get me wrong, it was the "finders keepers" idea that made me swipe it in the first place and half of me agrees with you totally. At the end of the day I did steal the damn thing and chances are I'm going to keep it and fill it to the brim with porn.
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
chances are I'm going to keep it and fill it to the brim with porn.
Ok, that made me lol :stongue:
Look, if you really want to track this guy down, check the lecture notes on the drive, and go to the next lecture (assuming that the classes name is noted, of course). Ask the Professor to call out and see if the guy is there.
woscar99
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
However, I've had a bit of regret. Firstly, I had a run-in with this evangelical Christian who claimed that, as an atheist, the only thing stopping me from being a horrible human being who killed, stole and commmitted other sins was the presence of the law*. Obviously I didn't waste time arguing with him, but I was incredibly pissed off because I knew that all these times I'd had the opportunity to steal without consequences and hadn't were proof that I don't people over constantly simply because that's not who I am. Now I have broken that.
And the only thing stopping him from being a horrible human being who killed, stole and commmitted other sins is not because they are wrong, un-ethical or immoral...it simply is the fear of being struck by a higher being and sentenced to a lifetime of pain, and suffering.
I have to go get faced now...but I like the direction this thread is taking (morality, good/bad, etc.). I'll come back tommorrow morning :p
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
All the things I mentioned in the OP, which added up to make this current nagging feeling of wrong-doing.
Don't get me wrong, it was the "finders keepers" idea that made me swipe it in the first place and half of me agrees with you totally. At the end of the day I did steal the damn thing and chances are I'm going to keep it and fill it to the brim with porn.
Porn in a pen drive!? What for? Is that why you spend so much time in the restroom at the library?!
Now I know why you always take the laptop with you :D
PETRAN
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Well, I don't know how psychologists and philosophers have examined the development of morality in children but, as far as I've read, social learning exerts a huge influence on the child's view of right and wrong. Small children seem to refrain from doing something out of fear of punishment. As you grow up, however, children have this tendency to let their peers influence them more than those in different hierarchical levels (I wish I could remember the guy who studied this). If there is some kind of innate morality in man, it should be something very rudimentary as the need to retaliate - and make things even - when you feel you've been taken advantage of.
What do you say?
Ermmm (takes very serious scientific face) what i think is that we can't simply look at those things in terms of simply being-or-not being there, but we should rather perceive them as multi-factorial dynamic agents which could co-occur in a continuous non-linear fashion as they exert their pressures and influences on the rudimental mental functions of the individual (lol)
In all seriousness, i think that they both occur at the same time and that you can't simply seperate them like that. I mean you have a valid point, you say that peers influence the individual. This is true as a lot of developmental psychology research has shown. Lets also not forget the famous experiments by Albert Bandura on the role of social (observational) learning and modelling on the child's behaviour. A child would watch an adult beating the out of a doll and the child would mimick his behaviour. No strange though why all these teens dress-up in a specific way, listen to a specific kind of music and generally try to formulate a strong and rigid social identity with clear boundaries, all these based on incoming social information (sounds like System-J and Epic-House...just kidding)
If one takes into account this information, he/she would possibly lead him/herself to the conclusion that any innateness (does this word exist or im going all googooly 2 u?)has little or no influence on the individual. My view would be that morality has actually an innate, genetic basis which exists in every single human being, BUT, on a varying degree and always in relation to social indfluences. There are some evolutionary psychological models such as the famous "tit-for-tat" model for the "Two thieves/prisoners dilemma" which propose that morality is genetic and has an evolutionary basis. Its' evolutionary function is to promote the survival of the individual by means of the survival of the tribe. Having every person giving back what doesn't belong to him/her leads to an equal sharing of the resources (and hence direct increased chances of survival) and to a strengthening of the social bonds (and hence indirect increased chances of survival by means of reflective assistance, help and support). "Good" is an altruistic person because he/she simply obeys this innate moral mentality in possible opposition to other competetive isnticts, cotrasting emotions and conflicting motives. "Bad" is the one who breaks this innate social contract in favour of some other dominating though/instinct/emotion. The whole Religion concept could be regarded as a "meme" (the cultural analogue of the "Gene") that simply exploits some important aspects of those genetically innate tendencies, leading to fear and hence social control by some clever few, in the same way that the "meme" "candy" exploits the innate tendency of the pleasurable sweet taste that saccharides create (evolving in a prehistoric age that saccharides were rare and highly important due to their instant energy release in the human body).
So, lets say that an individual is influenced by his/her peers. This is true, the thing is that an individual is not blindly influenced by all (or some random)of his/her peers. The individual chooses to get influenced by those peers/models etc. which seem to cohere with his/her innate behavioural tendencies. Individuals are not passive obects but active agents that select whatever information match their egos. Furthermore, even a contrasting social identity which could phenomenally largelly affect an individual's moral self, could have little or no effect in the end. A west-coast black guy could still choose to be a gangsta and still help another hommie in the end (in extreme situatios which could require fast reactions, that hommie could even be a white guy!). So,
1) Innate morality exists,
2) Is of a varied degree (has a value that is different from person to person) and
3) Tends to have a stronger effect when decision-making needs to be fast. As time passes, higher cognitive effects such as complex thhinking, previous knowledge, attitudes and beliefs come into play and create a more complex and dynamic interplay between all those factors which could make judgement and decision making more difficult to occur, especially when they differ to each other (such as System-J and his situation. perhaps if System-J listened to his "gut" he would immediately return it. In contrast, he let some further thought to come into play leading to the decision of keeping it, but with the drawback of remembering the outcome of his decision, an outcome that comes (possibly) in opposition to his previous (innate and possibly social) morality, hence, having himself in a state of "inner war" (leading to the creation of the current thread possibly for "driving the conflicting demons away".
Wow, now this is simply too long for the CoR so really sorry but i don't care! Well, i actually care now that i realise all this lost time :(
