A caveat to this thread (and this is a big one that requires a time commitment, so bear with me):
I ask that, before replying, anyone who participates watch Dr. Andy Thomson's Talk at AAI 2009 on the origins of morality. It is a 50 minute talk, and well worth the watch. I created this thread because while I know that I agree with everything he says, I want to get the perspective of other forum members.
Some of my thoughts, posed as questions for discussion:
Is "Psycopathy" inheritable? Or, bigger question, is moral fortitude or weakness inheritable?
Are there no hard and fast rules regarding morals?
Are morals based in humanity, by definition (it's OK to kill other animals based on how much we can anthropomorphize them or perhaps usefulness to or effect on humanity- mosquitos OK, cats not so good)? But this gets fuzzy... We agree that it's OK, for example, to kill millions of cows for meat, but we also agree that the cows must not suffer unduly.
How would you respond to the train-track question, or the bridge question? Do you agree with the way those questions are assessed in the discussion?
Basically, I want to hear your thoughts about the ideas presented in the video. I know it's a lot to ask to watch a 50 minute video first, but it's a good watch and a large part of what I want is to get some reactions to the video itself.
"'Psycopathy' is inheritable? Or, bigger question, moral fortitude or weakness is inheritable?"
To the former, sure, but I don't think it's a necessary factor, and I don't think it's ever the sole factor. To the latter, I'd think there's a genetic, heritable factor, but that it's rather minor as compared to socialization.
"There are no hard and fast rules regarding morals?"
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. "Moral" is defined, so there are certain rules regarding it. But I would expect that there are few or no morals that are universal amongst all people.
"Morals are based in humanity, by definition (it's OK to kill other animals based on how much we can anthropomorphize them - mosquitos OK, cats no so good)?"
By definition? No. But I would expect other rules, biases, to be much more rare and take much longer to emerge.
"How would you respond to the train-track question, or the bridge question? Do you agree with the way those questions are assessed in the discussion?"
I'm leaning further toward deontology every time I think about it, and in these cases I would say that there is no moral action to take - except the not-explicitly-forbidden course to talk to the man you're pushing over the edge to see if they'd jump down on their own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Impressions: Great stuff. Dr. Thomson (not "Kaufman") is an evolutionary psychologist, and is addressing questions about the evolution of moral psychology. (In particular, he's refuting a particular defense of theism based on the existence of moral psychology.) This is a fascinating topic, and has much to provide the field of moral philosophy. But it should not be confused for moral philosophy. Indeed, after mentioning his "Pinkner P.S." he basically takes it for granted that objective morality exists.
Now:
If this professional psychologist says that there's no questioning the fact that psychopathy (which, remember, is a clearly defined medical condition) is inheritable, I'm inclined to believe him. I certainly haven't conducted any rigorous studies that indicate otherwise. Your "bigger question" calls for bigger studies; I foresee certain problems in their construction.
The very existence of moral dilemmas evince both (a) that there are no hard and fast rules regarding morals; and (b) that there are. (a), because if there were some hard and fast rule that could resolve the dilemma, we would simply apply it, and thus there would be no dilemma; and (b), because if there weren't some hard and fast rule telling us that both the consequences we're seeking to avoid in the dilemma are wrong, there would also be no dilemma. So much for hard and fast rules; it is a different question entirely whether there is an actual resolution for the dilemma.
A distinctive feature of human morality is the capacity for reasoning and introspection about it. To the best of my knowledge, non-human animals simply run on the positive and negative feelings their moral centers evoke; humans can think long and hard about moral decisions, and eventually may even override their emotional reaction. Recall that Dr. Thompson called these moral emotions primary, but not dictatorial. Note, however, that this feature is not uniquely human; other animals, on this planet or another, could very well have such self-reflective ability.
The trolley problems are presented accurately enough in the lecture, though I would add, in response to the comment of that guy who stood up in the audience, that the polling results are much the same whether the people on the track are workers or hobos.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, sorry, my brain was messing with me when I wrote Kaufman. I went back and looked at it and was just...:facepalm:
Cool responses so far. The questions I threw out there were just some initial thoughts I had or thought that others might have in response to the video. If anybody's got more questions after watching or wants to bring up other points, by all means, go for it.
From what I've red on nature and nurture, it takes a dance between genetics and nurture to create issues. The opportunity for a personality trait to become expressed has to have a catalyst. So we get into the issue of personal history with frequency and intensity for certain stimuli.
My first disagreement with the video stems from Dawkin's thesis that "religion= always bad" philosophy and the talk of maladaptive behaviors with it. On the downside of the video it adds to the stereotype that "religious people=nuts" stereotype and bias.
It was a good presentation and thought provoking, however it's not totally something that I find completely alien either. Although, the explanation that "sexual selection is everything" for such explanations is far too simplistic. Psycho-social interaction and interaction with the environment has to account for something genetically.
I just find it ironic in regards to evolution that the explanation all leads back to sex, whilst the religious argument all roads lead to God. I ascribe to the theory of evolution, but there is something that gnaws at me that it's got to be something more than just sex. The answer to me might just seems more complicated than just sex or God.
Anyway, concerning the moral issue if there's one thing I find about hypothetical reality is that it is just that, hypothetical. Looking at the context of situations and what happens you have to consider multiple points of view. The thing is with current technology we have the ability for people to get out of harms way. So the hospital in my mind becomes more moot since these people had prior warnings, and similarly when they died the people using the triage system failed to service the fallen in the same capacity in which the fallen failed to flee.
We are each given the ability to make decisions, and we must accept the consequences with honor.
The other thought that's coming to mind is that when he was introducing the question of a source for altruism outside God, I was thinking of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. According to Wiki, Robert Axelrod talks in The Evolution of Cooperation of studying automated players of a game of prisoner's dilemma where the players had memory and played several rounds in a row, and came to a conclusion:
Quote from "Wikipedia" »
By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice: The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore a purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent, for purely utilitarian reasons first.
Retaliating: However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such players.
Forgiving: Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious: The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent).
Therefore, Axelrod reached the oxymoronic-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.
So I already had clear evidence that it's at least possible for a system to support altruism. And as the book is twenty-five years old, I kind of felt like Dr. Collins was being a little... unduly strong in his statements.
I just find it ironic in regards to evolution that the explanation all leads back to sex, whilst the religious argument all roads lead to God. I ascribe to the theory of evolution, but there is something that gnaws at me that it's got to be something more than just sex. The answer to me might just seems more complicated than just sex or God.
Really? It makes a lot of sense to me that everything about evolution comes back to the replication process. Reproduction, differentiation, and unequal pressures are the key parts of the whole theory. I'm not saying there aren't any other roads, but reproduction is going to be the main thoroughfare.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Really? It makes a lot of sense to me that everything about evolution comes back to the replication process. Reproduction, differentiation, and unequal pressures are the key parts of the whole theory. I'm not saying there aren't any other roads, but reproduction is going to be the main thoroughfare.
From a macroscopic sense we use reproduction as the sine qua non, I'm certain because we have to use generalities in which to understand that level of intense focus and complexity. My question becomes what if socialization is not built off of reproductive behaviors, but rather that sexual behaviors themselves are built off of communal behaviors.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"Are these moral capacities part of the evolved architecture of your minds; or are these moral capacities a gift from God?"
People who believe in theistic evolution would obviously say, "Both."
Anyways, I don't buy everything that Dr. Thomson, of evo psych generally, is selling. It strikes me that behavioral ecology may be a discipline better suited for explaining many curious human behaviors.
Cap, I think you are missing something here. It's not JUST about sex, by a long shot. It's also about survival. You can't pass on your genes if you're dead. Cooperation and getting along with each other are important for forming groups and protecting the group, which most assuredly would enable larger numbers of humans to survive longer (and thus pass on their cooperative, group-loving DNA) than would being loners.
Cap, I think you are missing something here. It's not JUST about sex, by a long shot. It's also about survival. You can't pass on your genes if you're dead. Cooperation and getting along with each other are important for forming groups and protecting the group, which most assuredly would enable larger numbers of humans to survive longer (and thus pass on their cooperative, group-loving DNA) than would being loners.
It's about origin and mutation, the supposition that social behaviors are a mutation out of sexual behaviors I find reductive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's about origin and mutation, the supposition that social behaviors are a mutation out of sexual behaviors I find reductive.
If cultural commonalities and recent psychological studies are any indication, the human conscience is closely related to our sense of physical cleanliness. To feel guilty is to feel dirty, and vice versa, to the extent that experimenters can induce more conscientious behavior by literally soiling subjects' hands.
If cultural commonalities and recent psychological studies are any indication, the human conscience is closely related to our sense of physical cleanliness. To feel guilty is to feel dirty, and vice versa, to the extent that experimenters can induce more conscientious behavior by literally soiling subjects' hands.
Makes a lot of sense for "washing away sin" and all the symbolism that goes with it in societies. Looking at other psychological studies for how we develop mentally also indicates a social component to development. I definitely agree with an interplay between social behaviors and materials.
The third component, namely the spiritual, is another area of concern for me to how it "came about."
Anyway, thanks for the link.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I ask that, before replying, anyone who participates watch Dr. Andy Thomson's Talk at AAI 2009 on the origins of morality. It is a 50 minute talk, and well worth the watch. I created this thread because while I know that I agree with everything he says, I want to get the perspective of other forum members.
Some of my thoughts, posed as questions for discussion:
Is "Psycopathy" inheritable? Or, bigger question, is moral fortitude or weakness inheritable?
Are there no hard and fast rules regarding morals?
Are morals based in humanity, by definition (it's OK to kill other animals based on how much we can anthropomorphize them or perhaps usefulness to or effect on humanity- mosquitos OK, cats not so good)? But this gets fuzzy... We agree that it's OK, for example, to kill millions of cows for meat, but we also agree that the cows must not suffer unduly.
How would you respond to the train-track question, or the bridge question? Do you agree with the way those questions are assessed in the discussion?
Basically, I want to hear your thoughts about the ideas presented in the video. I know it's a lot to ask to watch a 50 minute video first, but it's a good watch and a large part of what I want is to get some reactions to the video itself.
To the former, sure, but I don't think it's a necessary factor, and I don't think it's ever the sole factor. To the latter, I'd think there's a genetic, heritable factor, but that it's rather minor as compared to socialization.
"There are no hard and fast rules regarding morals?"
I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. "Moral" is defined, so there are certain rules regarding it. But I would expect that there are few or no morals that are universal amongst all people.
"Morals are based in humanity, by definition (it's OK to kill other animals based on how much we can anthropomorphize them - mosquitos OK, cats no so good)?"
By definition? No. But I would expect other rules, biases, to be much more rare and take much longer to emerge.
"How would you respond to the train-track question, or the bridge question? Do you agree with the way those questions are assessed in the discussion?"
I'm leaning further toward deontology every time I think about it, and in these cases I would say that there is no moral action to take - except the not-explicitly-forbidden course to talk to the man you're pushing over the edge to see if they'd jump down on their own.
Impressions: Great stuff. Dr. Thomson (not "Kaufman") is an evolutionary psychologist, and is addressing questions about the evolution of moral psychology. (In particular, he's refuting a particular defense of theism based on the existence of moral psychology.) This is a fascinating topic, and has much to provide the field of moral philosophy. But it should not be confused for moral philosophy. Indeed, after mentioning his "Pinkner P.S." he basically takes it for granted that objective morality exists.
Now:
If this professional psychologist says that there's no questioning the fact that psychopathy (which, remember, is a clearly defined medical condition) is inheritable, I'm inclined to believe him. I certainly haven't conducted any rigorous studies that indicate otherwise. Your "bigger question" calls for bigger studies; I foresee certain problems in their construction.
The very existence of moral dilemmas evince both (a) that there are no hard and fast rules regarding morals; and (b) that there are. (a), because if there were some hard and fast rule that could resolve the dilemma, we would simply apply it, and thus there would be no dilemma; and (b), because if there weren't some hard and fast rule telling us that both the consequences we're seeking to avoid in the dilemma are wrong, there would also be no dilemma. So much for hard and fast rules; it is a different question entirely whether there is an actual resolution for the dilemma.
A distinctive feature of human morality is the capacity for reasoning and introspection about it. To the best of my knowledge, non-human animals simply run on the positive and negative feelings their moral centers evoke; humans can think long and hard about moral decisions, and eventually may even override their emotional reaction. Recall that Dr. Thompson called these moral emotions primary, but not dictatorial. Note, however, that this feature is not uniquely human; other animals, on this planet or another, could very well have such self-reflective ability.
The trolley problems are presented accurately enough in the lecture, though I would add, in response to the comment of that guy who stood up in the audience, that the polling results are much the same whether the people on the track are workers or hobos.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Cool responses so far. The questions I threw out there were just some initial thoughts I had or thought that others might have in response to the video. If anybody's got more questions after watching or wants to bring up other points, by all means, go for it.
My first disagreement with the video stems from Dawkin's thesis that "religion= always bad" philosophy and the talk of maladaptive behaviors with it. On the downside of the video it adds to the stereotype that "religious people=nuts" stereotype and bias.
It was a good presentation and thought provoking, however it's not totally something that I find completely alien either. Although, the explanation that "sexual selection is everything" for such explanations is far too simplistic. Psycho-social interaction and interaction with the environment has to account for something genetically.
I just find it ironic in regards to evolution that the explanation all leads back to sex, whilst the religious argument all roads lead to God. I ascribe to the theory of evolution, but there is something that gnaws at me that it's got to be something more than just sex. The answer to me might just seems more complicated than just sex or God.
Anyway, concerning the moral issue if there's one thing I find about hypothetical reality is that it is just that, hypothetical. Looking at the context of situations and what happens you have to consider multiple points of view. The thing is with current technology we have the ability for people to get out of harms way. So the hospital in my mind becomes more moot since these people had prior warnings, and similarly when they died the people using the triage system failed to service the fallen in the same capacity in which the fallen failed to flee.
We are each given the ability to make decisions, and we must accept the consequences with honor.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
So I already had clear evidence that it's at least possible for a system to support altruism. And as the book is twenty-five years old, I kind of felt like Dr. Collins was being a little... unduly strong in his statements.
Really? It makes a lot of sense to me that everything about evolution comes back to the replication process. Reproduction, differentiation, and unequal pressures are the key parts of the whole theory. I'm not saying there aren't any other roads, but reproduction is going to be the main thoroughfare.
From a macroscopic sense we use reproduction as the sine qua non, I'm certain because we have to use generalities in which to understand that level of intense focus and complexity. My question becomes what if socialization is not built off of reproductive behaviors, but rather that sexual behaviors themselves are built off of communal behaviors.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"Are these moral capacities part of the evolved architecture of your minds; or are these moral capacities a gift from God?"
People who believe in theistic evolution would obviously say, "Both."
Anyways, I don't buy everything that Dr. Thomson, of evo psych generally, is selling. It strikes me that behavioral ecology may be a discipline better suited for explaining many curious human behaviors.
To supplement the lengthy video, a somewhat lengthy article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/202789
It's about origin and mutation, the supposition that social behaviors are a mutation out of sexual behaviors I find reductive.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If cultural commonalities and recent psychological studies are any indication, the human conscience is closely related to our sense of physical cleanliness. To feel guilty is to feel dirty, and vice versa, to the extent that experimenters can induce more conscientious behavior by literally soiling subjects' hands.
Article is premium content now, but here's the link anyway.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Makes a lot of sense for "washing away sin" and all the symbolism that goes with it in societies. Looking at other psychological studies for how we develop mentally also indicates a social component to development. I definitely agree with an interplay between social behaviors and materials.
The third component, namely the spiritual, is another area of concern for me to how it "came about."
Anyway, thanks for the link.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.