NationStates Jolt Archive

Snippets for the lazy:
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.
The research enterprise has been viewed with interest by philosophers and theologians, but already some worry that it raises troubling questions. Reducing morality and immorality to brain chemistry -- rather than free will -- might diminish the importance of personal responsibility. Even more important, some wonder whether the very idea of morality is somehow degraded if it turns out to be just another evolutionary tool that nature uses to help species survive and propagate.
In another experiment published in March, University of Southern California neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that patients with damage to an area of the brain known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex lack the ability to feel their way to moral answers.
When confronted with moral dilemmas, the brain-damaged patients coldly came up with "end-justifies-the-means" answers. Damasio said the point was not that they reached immoral conclusions, but that when confronted by a difficult issue -- such as whether to shoot down a passenger plane hijacked by terrorists before it hits a major city -- these patients appear to reach decisions without the anguish that afflicts those with normally functioning brains.

Does this change how we hold people accountable for their actions?

Full article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html?hpid=topnews)

I agree that there is a basic biological basis for morality, but I would disagree with the sentiment that biological morality = no free will.

I plump for the line taken by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Paul Rozin that morality is produced by a set of “universal mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions”.

I’ve talked about this before on NS:G, and to paraphrase myself:

‘No matter which culture on Earth one decides to view, we can quickly observe within that culture moral values that transcend the society’s boundaries; a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a concept of fairness, a desire to help others in need, the notions of rights and obligations, a belief that justice should be applied to wrongdoing, and a condemnation of rape, murder and other various forms of violence.

Moral relativists often highlight the variations of the above categories between cultures, claiming these variations back up their relativity. However, they fail to recognise that these variations are all differences of belief (whether factual or supernatural) about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances that necessarily affect those beliefs, all centring round a core set of universal, objective, biological moral values.

It is these cultural variations in beliefs (rather than a relativism of moral values), combined with what Steven Pinker calls the “irrelevant passions and prejudices” such as anger, revenge, pride, etc., that cloud our core biological moral values, which reconcile the apparent differences between cultures’ moralities and the objective morality of humankind.’

Both "old news" and "this changes nothing."

Snippets for the lazy:



Does this change how we hold people accountable for their actions?

Full article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html?hpid=topnews)


In conclusion most of NSG's members have suffered brain damage. *nods*

Can we treat a psychopath the same as somebody who feels empathy, but harms others despite this?

When confronted with moral dilemmas, the brain-damaged patients coldly came up with "end-justifies-the-means" answers.

Well, I've always suspected utilitarianism to be a refuge for idiots, but I guess that's close enough.

Does this change how we hold people accountable for their actions?Nah, because that is also largely biologically determined.

Leaving aside questions of moral accountability for the moment, is a biological tendency towards certain acts really a legitimate basis for moral obligation?

If we had a biological tendency towards viewing rape and murder as acceptable, that would hardly justify them.

Leaving aside questions of moral accountability for the moment, is a biological tendency towards certain acts really a legitimate basis for moral obligation?

If we had a biological tendency towards viewing rape and murder as acceptable, that would hardly justify them.

But how does one come to that conclusion?

Leaving aside questions of moral accountability for the moment, is a biological tendency towards certain acts really a legitimate basis for moral obligation?

If we had a biological tendency towards viewing rape and murder as acceptable, that would hardly justify them.
But why do you feel these acts are morally wrong?

I would argue that you’re revealing a tendency, rightly, to think of morality as objective, and as these acts as morally bad. And why? Because of the “universal mental faculties with different evolutionary origins and functions” that have produced morality, and which regard murder and (some forms of) rape as not conducive to the survival of the species.

But how does one come to that conclusion?

How do we reach any moral conclusion?

If I came to you and said "I see no reason that I should care about other people," referring to my natural make-up is hardly going to change my mind... even if I am not a psychopath, I do not have to listen to my compassionate sentiments.

Finding a foundation for morality in human nature hardly seems to suggest objective morality... just a broad similarity in moral views among most people, which is not at all the same thing.

Finding a foundation for morality in human nature hardly seems to suggest objective morality... just a broad similarity in moral views among most people, which is not at all the same thing.
Ahem:

'Moral relativists often highlight the variations of the above categories between cultures, claiming these variations back up their relativity. However, they fail to recognise that these variations are all differences of belief (whether factual or supernatural) about what constitutes ‘fairness’, ‘wrongdoing’, etc., or variations in economic, material and political circumstances that necessarily affect those beliefs, all centring round a core set of universal, objective, biological moral values.'

Morals obviously have some form of biological basis. However morals have rational factors in them, people often make moral judgements through logical thinking rather then through gut instincts alone. I think sometimes it is nescecerry to throw away your gut instinct and look towards a more utilitarian approach, for practicalities sake.

But why do you feel these acts are morally wrong?

My biological make-up might cause me to conclude that rape and murder are wrong... but it also causes me to conclude that rape and murder are wrong regardless of my biological make-up.

And simple reason suggests that we cannot base moral judgments on empirical facts, anyway: the mere fact that our biological make-up is a certain way does not mean that I ought to act in a certain way.

There are only two escapes here. The first is to abstract away from biological moral instincts and try to provide a foundation for morality on reason alone. The second is to conceive of "obligation" as fundamentally an emotional concept rather than a rational one, thus allowing moral sentiments to stand on their own, without having to be justified by referencing their natural roots. But if this path is followed, fundamentally we have no objective morality: to a person without empathy or compassion, or a person who has chosen to ignore them, we cannot provide any reason to pay attention to the interests of others, because the only thing that gives our moral reasoning force is our moral sentiments.

is a biological tendency towards certain acts really a legitimate basis for moral obligation?Strictly speaking no. But it is an indicator there might be a moral obligation there. Under the premise that evolution generally promotes worthwhile traits.

If we had a biological tendency towards viewing rape and murder as acceptable, that would hardly justify them.If we had a biological tendency towards that, we'd have to consider that it might be for the best for our species. It's very unlikely, in any case, that we'd have much of a problem with it.

The short story is, if morality is defined what is best for the survival of our species, then evolution should do a reasonable job keeping us on the moral path. If morality is defined in other terms, results may vary greatly.

Ahem:

Yes, like I said: a broad similarity in moral beliefs.

Objective morality does not follow from that, any more than any variety of moral relativism follows from the fact that people's and societies' views of what is moral are different.

Taste, for instance, is subjective: there is nothing about, say, an apple that makes it intrinsically good or bad tasting. But human beings have biologically-ingrained tastes that give us broadly similar views about what tastes good and what does not.

For another example, consider an extraterrestrial species that is intelligent and rational but lacks our sense of empathy and compassion.

The short story is, if morality is defined what is best for the survival of our species, then evolution should do a reasonable job keeping us on the moral path. If morality is defined in other terms, results may vary greatly.

Yes.

But then, we need a basis beyond our biology for conceiving of morality as "what is best for the survival of our species" - because otherwise, the justification is circular.

And in coming up with that basis, we go back to square one.

My biological make-up might cause me to conclude that rape and murder are wrong... but it also causes me to conclude that rape and murder are wrong regardless of my biological make-up.Yes, biology is quite funny that way; it wants to make such instincts unquestionable. Absolutize as much as possible, lest someone get any other ideas. Something with overcommitting. (I can't quite remember the article/lecture about it, I'm sorry to say.. but it's interesting)

to a person without empathy or compassion, or a person who has chosen to ignore them, we cannot provide any reason to pay attention to the interests of others, because the only thing that gives our moral reasoning force is our moral sentiments.Well, we cannot give a compelling moral reason. However the age old solution nature seems to have provided us with is "We will bash your brain in unless you behave as we deem fit". Which explain a lot of our violent history (next to greed).

But then, we need a basis beyond our biology for conceiving of morality as "what is best for the survival of our species" - because otherwise, the justification is circular.Yes, why survival of our species would be good is anybody's guess; though people are (subconsciously) highly commited to it. Though there are quite a bit of people that argue the planet would be better off without us (but then fail to add deeds to their words and merily continue on living)

though people are (subconsciously) highly commited to it.

Perhaps, but the basis for this subconscious commitment is biological.

So we are left with the circle. The only good justification for our biological make-up being morally relevant is that the survival of the species is a worthy end... but we only think it is a worthy end because of our biological make-up.

Though there are quite a bit of people that argue the planet would be better off without us (but then fail to add deeds to their words and merily continue on living)

Well, if you thought the planet would be better off without you, would you kill yourself and thus silence one of the advocates of that policy option... or seek as many converts as possible and actually accomplish something?

YES! YES! JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST... I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/BluesBrothers.gif

The brain is an amazing thing, and I believe that there are still many secrets to be solved about it.
Thinking patterns change the brain and its chemistry - hence I would say that it also depends on the upbringing and which patterns of thought have been installed. Biology only supplies the possibility - it's up to each and everyone to change their thoughts and thus their brainpatterns and behavior which make up what is called morality.

Perhaps, but the basis for this subconscious commitment is biological.Yup it is. But it does mean that even if we don't rationally ground morality, we'll continue onwards in our (half-assed) moral ways.
Frankly, most people don't really care about justification unless there is reason to question the results of one's actions. That's why it takes so (relatively) long for people to come up with an answer if you ask them "Why did you ... ?"

Why did I write this post? Err.. well, I felt like it. But I'll justify it by pretending my opinion matters and that people should consider it.

Well, if you thought the planet would be better off without you, would you kill yourself and thus silence one of the advocates of that policy option... or seek as many converts as possible and actually accomplish something?Yes, but do they even do that? Are they building up a secret army that, when they reach critical mass, will exterminate the human race, ending with themselves? I somehow doubt it. They just continue life, have children, which they just know will rebel against their beliefs, etc ;)

the problem as i see it is that while there might be a biological pay-off to altruism, the devil is in the details of that altruism

morality is not absolute. what is considered premeditated murder here might well be justifiable homicide somewhere else. what is theft here might not be theft somewhere else.

so while it might give us a good feeling to be nice to someone else it probably doesnt matter to biology whether it was helping a stranger change a tire or helping him burn down the house of a suspected pedophile.

morality is not absolute. what is considered premeditated murder here might well be justifiable homicide somewhere else. what is theft here might not be theft somewhere else.

that doesn't establish the non-absoluteness of morality. people can be wrong about absolutes, after all.

that doesn't establish the non-absoluteness of morality. people can be wrong about absolutes, after all.

if something is morally right in one place and morally wrong in another how does that not establish that there are no moral absolutes?

there are many things that are IN GENERAL moral absolutes. murder is wrong everywhere, so is theft. what it not absolute is the definition of murder and theft.

the slippery notion of right and wrong makes the biological impact on morality ambiguous. all sorts of bad things can be done under the guise of morality.

if something is morally right in one place and morally wrong in another how does that not establish that there are no moral absolutes?

you've shifted from 'considered' to 'is'.

people can be wrong, even about things that are objective. just look at a random student's math homework. since this is the case, merely demonstrating that people disagree isn't enough to establish that nobody is right (or that everyone is, depending on which way your subjectivism goes). you need some other principle to make that step.

you've shifted from 'considered' to 'is'.

people can be wrong, even about things that are objective. just look at a random student's math homework. since this is the case, merely demonstrating that people disagree isn't enough to establish that nobody is right (or that everyone is, depending on which way your subjectivism goes). you need some other principle to make that step.

ok

biology cant provide that principle. all it can do is make it more likely that we will agree to follow it if everyone around us agrees with it.

Snippets for the lazy:



Does this change how we hold people accountable for their actions?

Full article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html?hpid=topnews)

Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, states that nature does not contain moral content: we impose our ideas of morality on nature and then proceed to believe that these ideas are in fact the reality of nature. We essentially conceptualise nature to our own liking. Such is true of virtually all of science. If, as the article states, mankind is naturally philanthropic then we must remember that philanthropism is not naturally moral: rather we have looked on philanthropism and conceptualised to be part of our morality.

Ultimately, these conceptualisations are nothing more than airy abstractions, Laputas flying high in the sky.

Nietzsche, in Beyond Good and Evil, states that nature does not contain moral content: we impose our ideas of morality on nature and then proceed to believe that these ideas are in fact the reality of nature. We essentially conceptualise nature to our own liking. Such is true of virtually all of science. If, as the article states, mankind is naturally philanthropic then we must remember that philanthropism is not naturally moral: rather we have looked on philanthropism and conceptualised to be part of our morality.

Ultimately, these conceptualisations are nothing more than airy abstractions, Laputas flying high in the sky.

whats a laputa?

whats a laputa?

www.google.com

Or, you know, you could read up on your Jonathan Swift.

www.google.com

Or, you know, you could read up on your Jonathan Swift.

did YOU try google? swift was not on the first page when i put laputas in the search box. the first result was a porn site.

and i could read up on swift if i had a clue that thats where the word came from.

did YOU try google? swift was not on the first page when i put laputas in the search box. the first result was a porn site.

First result: (http://www.google.com/search?q=laputa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)

Laputa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laputa is a fictional place from the book Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. Laputa is a flying island or rock with an adamantine base, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laputa - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

and i could read up on swift if i had a clue that thats where the word came from.

You should already have read Swift. Weren't you schooled in an Anglophone country? Not that that should matter, as he was required reading in my Swedish class...

First result: (http://www.google.com/search?q=laputa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a)

Laputa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laputa is a fictional place from the book Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. Laputa is a flying island or rock with an adamantine base, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laputa - 20k - Cached - Similar pages



You should already have read Swift. Weren't you schooled in an Anglophone country? Not that that should matter, as he was required reading in my Swedish class...
We don't read Gulliver's Travels anymore. It's too learny for us American-types.

We don't read Gulliver's Travels anymore. It's too learny for us American-types.

Now, why don't I find that hard to believe...

Now, why don't I find that hard to believe...
I'm sorry, what did you say? My SUV is too full of McDonald's wrappers and Toby Kieth is on the radio bit too loud for me to hear you.

I'm sorry, what did you say? My SUV is too full of McDonald's wrappers and Toby Kieth is on the radio bit too loud for me to hear you.

I would've expected Taylor Hicks.