|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
 Posted - 12/31/2004 : 12:15:23
|
Driving home last night I was listening to NPR. The subject was of religion and faith. (I am trying to find the transcript). They had an author on who said to the effect that man is born ethical and religion is unnecessary.
Since some of the topics I've seen on this site devolves to "Atheist are immoral and Theist are", it put a bee in my bonnet.
Are humans born with a sense of right and wrong? Or are we born amoral having society and experience instill the ethics?
I believe that we are amoral at birth. Our sense of right and wrong is based on reward (pleasure) or punishment (pain) imposed by an external authority.
My example: The reason you don't steal is that you'll be punished. Punishment can bring pain. Pain is to be avoided. The ethics are imposed on you. If you were free from any punishment, you would do what you will. I refer to the Ring of Gyges.
http://www.cis.fordham.edu/~gsas/philosophy/ethics/platoreading1.htm
Sounds a bit like the one ring.
So what do you think? Is ethics - discernment of right and wrong - innate or is it imposed?
Big Broad Topic filled with ratholes.
Happy New Year!
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2004 : 12:36:44 [Permalink]
|
This should go without saying, but the conclusion of this question would be divided to suit circumstances of the situations. Humans are born with natural capabilities to determine what might be considered "right and wrong" if the ethical question was relevant to an instinct developed millions of years ago by our ancestors. For example, it is "wrong" to kill other humans, because that would deter advancement of the human race (although evolution still has yet to catch up with modern-day times-- I know of many people including myself that believe certain people eliminated are for the better). However, social settings set in the past few hundred years have determined entirely different rules on "right and wrong" that have been simply added to our "instinctive ethics." Nowadays, it would be "wrong" to consume a drug that is considered detrimental to society.
This being said, I have concluded myself that there is not an inborn system of rights and wrongs that coincide with all of our evolutionary traits; for example, changing the sense of reality has always been utilized by people throughout history, so eliminating the option to do so would automatically create criminals; however, the fact that our society has placed certain regulations upon us, the members, for it's better doing has in turn resulted itself on the rights and wrongs for society. Rather than people being born with a sense of ethics, it was a civilation that has determined what is necessary for it's survival and what could cause it's destruction. We being the members of society have to abide by certain rules placed upon us, or else we would be aptly removed.
This is evident- Religion is unnecessary in determining the limitations on society. But religion was seemingly necessary at a time to actually keep the society alive, by forming mindstates that would ensure the people of the particular societies would abide by the rules, whatever leaders thought the rules should be. This religious authority is still in practice, however society is evolving and so the methods it utilizes have to evolve as well. Now we have police force that "claim" religious tolerance (but my living in the buckle of the Bible belt, this claim has proven radically false in my region) and a government that utilizes other methods of law-abiding rather than labeling certain people as heretics and having the forces that be eliminate them.
edited for sensibility |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
| Edited by - satans_mom on 12/31/2004 12:56:25 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2004 : 13:33:47 [Permalink]
|
I think that the author is correct. We are a social animal, little different from baboons in that respect, and have been long before our species became what we are now. Religion is no more than a side effect of sapience.
All social animals, be they baboons, chimpanzies, naked mole rats, or ourselves abide by certain codes that are untimatly for the benefit of the group as a whole. Thus, our 'ethics' are hard-wired into out instincts. In this way, support of the group over the individual, has our species evolved into what we are today.
But our case is unique in that we are broken down into a vast number of sub-groups, including the religious ones, and a great many are in contention with others. For instance, gang members might violate every one of society's laws, but never the gang's rules, and they will always submit to their leadership. And they will always fight other gangs impinging on their territory.
As other social species will expel or even kill a rogue member of the group, so do we lock up or kill those of our own.
An over-simplifacation perhaps, but there it is as I see it. Religion has nothing to do with ethics beyond those that the believers bring into it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2004 : 13:59:29 [Permalink]
|
Ethics is learned behavior.
Humans may have socializing instincts, but right/wrong is 100% subjective, and 100% learned behavior.
So I think, anyway.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2004 : 23:05:01 [Permalink]
|
The ability to tell right from wrong is partly based on the ability to put oneself in other people's shoes - to be empathic. The reason most of us don't walk around randomly smacking people in the head with a club is that we believe it would suck if someone did that to us. This empathy, coupled with the ability to predict the consequences of our actions (if we smack enough people, we know someone is going to smack us back), is the basis for the Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them to unto you."
Those who, through birth or accident, cannot empathize with others tend to act as one would expect a person to who doesn't care about right or wrong, and just act to suit themselves. We call these people sociopaths.
Mind you, I'm no moral absolutist. It's just that there exist people without the capability to learn right from wrong, however society defines them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2004 : 23:40:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's just that there exist people without the capability to learn right from wrong, however society defines them.
I disagree. The sociopath can learn right/wrong for the society they live in. They just do not feel obliged to conform. They do not care about following a moral or ethical rules set.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2005 : 00:26:26 [Permalink]
|
They don't care, Dude, because they cannot care. I'm talking about an organic dysfunction here. While there are plenty of people who don't care about others because they feel they're insulated by money or power from ever being in the same situation as "those people" (these folks are typically called "rich assholes"), the people I'm talking about (admittedly a very small number of people) don't care about others because they can't care, no matter what their own "station in life."
The "rich asshole" may conspire to kill an enemy and hide the evidence that he had anything to do with the murder, but the sociopath will simply kill his enemy, and when caught will actually be puzzled that anyone else thinks the murder was somehow "wrong." Do you see the difference? Those who simply "don't care" about others do know that it's wrong to murder them, and they'll work to make sure that they're not caught doing so. The true sociopath not only doesn't care what's right or wrong, but also doesn't understand that he should "cover his tracks" to avoid the law. He doesn't see it as necessary, because whatever wrong he's committed isn't "wrong" to him. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2005 : 03:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Assuming a sociopath of moderate intelligence it seems to me that he would "cover his tracks" to avoid the rather nasty consequences of being caught and imprisoned.
My, addmittedly weak, understanding of sociopaths is that they do care about themselves but are incapable of empathy for others.
|
|
|
|
Shacal
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2005 : 18:33:12 [Permalink]
|
| Actually dv82matt, most biological sociopaths don't cover their tracks, and are easily caught. Oftentimes the same part of the brain affected by a sociopathic-causing disorder also regulates a person's conception and predictions of consequences. Barring a very few (though often very publicized) sociopaths who evade police, most biological sociopaths are quickly detected (and committed to institutions) before they commit a crime. |
"The problem with communication is the illusion that we have accomplished it" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2005 : 18:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Sociopaths.....
Here's a book, fiction but damned good fiction none the less, on the subject: By Reason of Insanity by Shane Stevens.
Coincidently, I am re-reading it at the moment. It has to be one of the best serial-killer novels ever written.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2005 : 19:21:44 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Shacal.
I looked up sociopath at wikipedia and got this.
Gee... if you can't trust the entertainment industry who can you trust.
|
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2005 : 10:39:57 [Permalink]
|
Dave W brings up a good point. There is a recent example of this. The state orphans of Ceacescu's Czechoslovakia. These individuals had no empathic feeling at all. They also had no social skills. They could not relate to others beyond a pain/pleasure response.
In some cases therapy helped. In others the damage done was irrepairable.
But they were not born that way. The situation of there upbringing damaged them both mentally and physically. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2005 : 11:52:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
There is a recent example of this. The state orphans of Ceacescu's Czechoslovakia. These individuals had no empathic feeling at all.
I do not want to in any way diminish your point, Rubicon95 (I agree it is an excellent one) but I believe this occurred in Romania. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 03:09:35 [Permalink]
|
Religious beliefs and punishments have no more nor less influence on ethics than every other kind of socializing experience. At least on the whole. Individuals can of course respond to such experiences in vastly different ways. But I can learn ethics from my parents, my peers, my teachers, and so on. To claim only punishment &/or religion motivates particular behaviors is absurd.
Also, we have different influences at different ages. For example, very young children would not be thinking abstract thoughts such as they better not lie because God will not like it. Young kids are much more concrete. They think in terms of self preservation. Almost all kids will lie if they think they'll get in trouble for admitting something.
There is a biological component to ethical behavior because we see what happens when it isn't functioning properly. Animals that evolved living in groups also had to have evolved with social structure we call ethics or the groups would not function. Clearly helping others meant you would also benefit in kind.
We can look at animal models and see that some group behavior is biological and present at birth. My two dogs have lots of behaviors they certainly had no parent dog teach them. And, they respond to a certain degree with just affection from me as a motivator. Then to get them to override some innate behaviors like wanting to jump on people or chase other dogs instead of coming when I call, I have to use food as a reward to modify their behavior. I don't get nearly as far with negative reinforcement as I do with food rewards.
For people, infants have lots of behaviors that are inborn. They smile when smiled at for, instance. This is true around the world regardless of culture. Infants respond more to familiar voices fairly early in life. These behaviors are good indicators there is a strong biological influence on social interactions.
Research in child development shows how the behavior changes from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation as the child matures. Wanting to please your parents changes to wanting to please your peers to pleasing yourself, or something like that.
Empathy Dave mentions is very much key to certain ethics like not wanting to hurt another person. This is one of our key biological components that allows us to have the ethical behavior most of us have.
quote:
I believe that we are amoral at birth. Our sense of right and wrong is based on reward (pleasure) or punishment (pain) imposed by an external authority.
My example: The reason you don't steal is that you'll be punished. Punishment can bring pain. Pain is to be avoided. The ethics are imposed on you. If you were free from any punishment, you would do what you will.
You are forgetting here that reward includes returned affection from the group starting with Mom. If we only got pleasure from things we could steal you might have a point. But that isn't the case. And it most certainly is biological that we seek affection and approval from others. Which results in moral behavior without it being 'imposed'. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/04/2005 03:17:48 |
|
|
|
Rubicon95
Skeptic Friend
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2005 : 07:35:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
There is a recent example of this. The state orphans of Ceacescu's Czechoslovakia. These individuals had no empathic feeling at all.
I do not want to in any way diminish your point, Rubicon95 (I agree it is an excellent one) but I believe this occurred in Romania.
ARGHH... You are correct  . Romania it is! |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2005 : 11:52:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rubicon95
ARGHH... You are correct . Romania it is!
Sorry! I thought so, but wasn't sure.
I hope it's not too off-topic, but after reading your post I found an explorative study on "Negative and positive childhood experiences across developmental periods in psychiatric patients with different diagnoses" that might (or might not  ) be of interest to you. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
