by leavingwt 73 Replies latest jw friends
Ok, fair enough points, so where did this notion of right and worng or of "fair play" as some call it, come from?
Game theory. Mirror neurons. Evolutionary psychology. Part of our success as a species is that we are extremely social animals. We know how to cooperate and colaborate.
BTS
Game theory. Mirror neurons. Evolutionary psychology. Part of our success as a species is that we are extremely social animals. We know how to cooperate and colaborate.
But why are we that way and does that explain the example of the man that drowns trying to save a person he doesn't know at all?
I mean, doing soemthing like that goes against the basic functioning of a "survival instinct".
It's one thing to save a member of a family or tribe but a compelte stranger perhpas even of a competing tribe?
Ok, fair enough points, so where did this notion of right and worng or of "fair play" as some call it, come from?
The simple answer is ourselves. Here I'm not talking about what we learn from others but what we learn by our own experiences and based on those we make a determination how our actions are going to impact others. Different variants in the early development stages can have a great impact on our sense of morality.
If you are interested a good place to start would be Lawrence Kohlberg stages of moral development. Here is a link to a basic overview of his studies.
I think you guys may not be getting what I am asking, this moral sense, if not born in us, must come from somewhere.
If it natually evolved from being social animals, which is a good option to go with, why has it always been tied to some sort of religion in rgeards to teachings of it?
In other words, if we learned it from our "parents" where did they learn it form?
Everyone -- I'm enjoying all of your comments and the lively discussion. I just wanted to say 'thank you' and 'carry on'.
I mean, doing soemthing like that goes against the basic functioning of a "survival instinct".
It's one thing to save a member of a family or tribe but a compelte stranger perhpas even of a competing tribe?
I'll put it this way. If you were walking through a park and saw a 12 year old being raped by a man brandishing a knife. No one else is around, you don't have your mobile phone on you. For a brief moment, you see this child crying, calling for help, you know that child is scared and in great pain, what do you think you would do. The situation is dangerous as the man has knife, you could very well be killed, but you also know that when the man is finished he could very well kill this child.
What would you do?
If you had a deep sense of empathy for this child, no amount of danger would stop you from doing what was in your power to help this child. If you didn't help this child and people found out about it, you would most likely be lynched as that kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society where we are suppose to try and look out for eachother, especially children who are younger and weaker. You still have surival instinct as you personally do not want to die, but your empathy for this child would recognised that this childs survival is in your hands.
Empathy plays a great part in our moral development. Without empathy we could live without moral restraint as we wouldn't care what effect our actions have on others. These kinds of people are usually referred to psychopaths or antisocial personality disorder.
I'll put it this way. If you were walking through a park and saw a 12 year old being raped by a man brandishing a knife. No one else is around, you don't have your mobile phone on you. For a brief moment, you see this child crying, calling for help, you know that child is scared and in great pain, what do you think you would do. The situation is dangerous as the man has knife, you could very well be killed, but you also know that when the man is finished he could very well kill this child.
What would you do?
The question is what would someone 3000 years ago do or someone 10,000 years ago do.
We/I already have a moral code now, mine is a "judeo-christian" moral code, like most others here, it was a code instilled in me by my Christian parents and christian upbringing and even 30+ years of exposure to different moral codes of different Martial arts I have studied, couldn't change that.
The question is what would someone 3000 years ago do or someone 10,000 years ago do.
No, that is not the question. The question is does our morality come from god, and the answer is no. Your moral code is not the judeo-christian moral code. If it was you would think slavery is acceptable as that is still enforce in the new testament. It would also mean thinking that everything god has done was moral and good as depicted in the bible. You would believe that genocide, killing children for disobedience and enforced marriage of a rape victim is moral. I doubt you would think any of those things are acceptable or would ever be, as that would make any person a monster.
No one, not even your parents can instill your personal moral code. They can explain to you what is right and what is wrong, but that doesn't mean you will follow it to a tee. In the end each of us decides for ourselves how we feel about a certain course of action we will follow.
So you think it is genetic then? we are born with it?
So you think it is genetic then? we are born with it?
We are born amoral. We are neither moral nor immoral when we are born? A newborn baby has no sense whatsoever of personal responsibility. The whole world revolves around them. It's only as the brain develops do experiences start to shape that persons degree of empathy and sense of morality.
It sounds like you are under the assumption that there is absolute morality, which there is no such thing. Morality evolves as societies evolve and therefore the people that are being born into these societies will display different moral standards than say even 100 years ago. A classical example is the slavery of african americans. 100 or so years ago, most people in the southern states had no problem owning another person as property. Today, if anyone thought that that was moral, they would be put in their place quick smart because the moral standards of the majority of people in a particular society reflect what is generally acceptable.
I'll ask a simple question if that's okay. If I was on trial for a crime and the judge found me guilty and ruled that I am to receive the death penalty, but instead of carrying out the sentence on me, the judge picked someone out of the audience to die in my place and I was then free to live out the rest of my life, would that be morally upright thing to be done?
