Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:47 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A Case for Inherent Morality
#51
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 11:59 am)Angrboda Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 11:48 am)brewer Wrote: Never said it couldn't. The difference is that you can question the adult and debate alternative motives. Not so much with infants.

There could also be all kinds of non emotional reasons for the babies choices, but I chose to give John emotional reasons as that seems to be part of his position.

The point I was making was that you seemed to be suggesting that the babies' "moral behavior" wasn't truly moral if it could be explained that way, so you were implying that behavior explained that way wasn't truly moral.  If adult behavior can be similarly explained, then adult behavior is similarly not an example of moral behavior.  You didn't say it explicitly, but unless you're agreeing that there is no moral behavior in adults and children both, it was implied.  I think.  I'm not sure I fully understand what value you're assigning to those feelings.  Self-reporting of behavior doesn't necessarily resolve the ambiguity as those self-reports have plenty of confounding factors, including a history of being told that their feeling concerning the subject are moral feelings, when in fact they may be no different than the self-interested babies' feelings.  Self-reports confirm expectations, but they don't explain the expectations themselves.  Are you, then, suggesting that there is no such thing as moral behavior, in adults or in babies?  Or are you arguing for John's position that morals are simply evolved behaviors?

I'm saying that coming to the conclusion that the babies behavior represents a moral behavior is not necessarily correct, therefore stating that babies have morals is not necessarily correct.

My position on "moral(s)" is that it exists on a sliding scale. Where it lands on the scale depends on the behavior/situation, the actor/participant and the observer/recipient. It's a set and setting thing (without the drugs). Johns "moral" behaviors I would call evolved beneficial group/social/societal behaviors. 

And you're right, babies and adults can act out of self interest that may appear to the observer as "moral". And I agree that self reporting may not reflect the actual motive but the report can be questioned with an adult, not a baby.

I do take issue with the term moral when applied to behaviors, it requires a judgement. As soon as a judgement is made we're back to the sliding scale.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#52
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
Are we taking issue to sliding scales? The difference we call intelligence between plants animals and human animals is no more or less a sliding scale to my mind. Additionally, if we're taking behaviors, situations, actors, participants, observers and recipients into account when we moralize..that seems rather methodical and exhaustive. Is that what a sliding scale looks like, and, if so, what exactly is the issue with sliding scales supposed to be? If we grant that it is one, whatever that's taken to mean...then?

Similarly, is acting out of self interest categorically not moral? Is the issue with acting out of self interest, or some other specific thing being alluded to by it's mention? Leading me to my final q - in discussing issues with self interest or sliding scales...haven't we just made a judgement...about sufficient and insufficient basis for Proper Moralizing™? I think that you'll find that when ethnographers and ethicists refer to moral behaviors, they're significantly un-judgey in the use of the term. Some terrible thing that another person does because they believe it to be the highest virtue would still be, to a meticulous observer, a moral behavior. Saying that people engage in moral behaviors and judgements is a brute fact of mere observation. We know that we're doing it, whatever it turns out to be, whatever it's metaethical status. Every position on morality is a position on that fact of human behavior.

I tend to get the impression that people have particular sets of moral propositions in mind when they have objections like these. Ones that stick the landing with respect to some particular moral claim which they don't believe is well made. The utility of the objection beyond that, imho, limited to nil. For example, if moral behavior were inherent and a sliding scale...then that's what morality is/would be. It would just be a fact of x. That humans beings are born with this sliding scale thing we all do, and can't help but do.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#53
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 7:51 am)brewer Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 1:57 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote: Scientists at the infant cognition center of Yale University conducted an eight year study to determine whether babies are born with a sense of right and wrong or are taught it. They concluded that babies are born with it. They said that parents and society enhance the moral values of babies but do not create them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374623/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786238/

I think that the above posts that brewer made about studies confirming that infants 
prefer to be around others similar to themselves can also be explained by natural selection. That is, it was simply safer to be around others similar to oneself. As such, preferring to be around others similar to oneself became an inborn characteristic of the species.
Reply
#54
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 2:55 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 7:51 am)brewer Wrote: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374623/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6786238/

I think that the above posts that brewer made about studies confirming that infants 
prefer to be around others similar to themselves can also be explained by natural selection. That is, it was simply safer to be around others similar to oneself. As such, preferring to be around others similar to oneself became an inborn characteristic of the species.

Bold: While that may be, it's not morals.

I don't think you read or comprehended the second study. It addressed infant study flaws and manipulation.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#55
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 3:19 am)Belacqua Wrote: @John 6IX Breezy

This is more up your alley. Is there a consensus in the field these days?

It's been a while since I explored the topic of moral psychology. (And if I weren't taking finals this week I could be of more use.)

However, I think I could at least point in a useful direction:

1. I believe the Yale puppet experiment in question is probably the one by Paul Bloom. If so, his book "Just Babies: The origins of good an evil"  offers a good review on the literature. (Its been years since I read it so I don't remember any specifics.)

2. The idea that we are blank slates is often disliked in psychology; and I think your Noam Chomsky analogy is a great example. Our brains are wired for morality in much the same way that it is wired for language. Meaning that the infrastructure is there, even if the contents are not. There are studies which show we are much better at reasoning through moral questions than we are through their non-moral counterparts. If I had more time I could look it up; I believe the researchers are famous evolutionary psychologists Tooby and Cosmides. In other words, our brains do not process all information equally; there is a bias towards normative thinking.

3. Moral reasoning develops throughout the lifespan. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development describe the ways people reason through moral dilemmas. Children tend to follow rules because they are rules, and want to avoid punishment. Whereas an adult understands rules to be road markers, and has no problem breaking them to achieve a better outcome.

p.s. And lastly, I saw something about natural selection in the comments. I just want to add that there is a lot of research and computations done on these sort of questions. As a brief overview, social behavior is usually broken down into four categories: Altruism, Selfishness, Spite, and Mutual Benefit. And evolutionary biologists calculate which behavioral traits are likely to be passed down, outcompete the others, and why they evolved. This starts opening the door to questions about kin selection, and other interesting topics.
Reply
#56
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 3:41 pm)brewer Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 2:55 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I think that the above posts that brewer made about studies confirming that infants 
prefer to be around others similar to themselves can also be explained by natural selection. That is, it was simply safer to be around others similar to oneself. As such, preferring to be around others similar to oneself became an inborn characteristic of the species.

Bold: While that may be, it's not morals.

I don't think you read or comprehended the second study. It addressed infant study flaws and manipulation.

My original post proposes that most morals are the result of natural selection.
Reply
#57
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 3:41 pm)brewer Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 2:55 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I think that the above posts that brewer made about studies confirming that infants 
prefer to be around others similar to themselves can also be explained by natural selection. That is, it was simply safer to be around others similar to oneself. As such, preferring to be around others similar to oneself became an inborn characteristic of the species.

Bold: While that may be, it's not morals.

I don't think you read or comprehended the second study. It addressed infant study flaws and manipulation.

Why not?  I think that's the unspoken variable.  Why isn't whatever that is, morals?

(June 21, 2021 at 3:51 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:  If I had more time I could look it up; I believe the researchers are famous evolutionary psychologists Tooby and Cosmides. In other words, our brains do not process all information equally; there is a bias towards normative thinking.

https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

Their topline summary
Quote:Principle 1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.
Principle 2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.
Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler that it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry
Principle 4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.
Principle 5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#58
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 4:21 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 3:41 pm)brewer Wrote: Bold: While that may be, it's not morals.

I don't think you read or comprehended the second study. It addressed infant study flaws and manipulation.

My original post proposes that most morals are the result of natural selection.

I don't think 'morals' are an inborn characteristic or the result of natural selection. And you've provided no evidence to make me think otherwise.

Preferring to be around others like you as an inborn or evolved I'm willing to accept. We see it all the time in species, it's not unique to humans.

(June 21, 2021 at 2:05 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:


Ten on your scale, two on mine.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.
Reply
#59
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 3:19 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(June 21, 2021 at 1:57 am)JohnJubinsky Wrote: Scientists at the infant cognition center of Yale University conducted an eight year study to determine whether babies are born with a sense of right and wrong or are taught it. They concluded that babies are born with it. They said that parents and society enhance the moral values of babies but do not create them.

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/13/livin...index.html

If this is the study in question, there are a few things to ponder.

They tested with puppets -- one who appeared helpful and one who didn't. Then the babies when given a choice preferred the helpful puppet. But as I said earlier, I'm not sure whether this is a moral choice or a pragmatic one. Anybody would want the puppet who helped, if he thought it would help him. Choosing the method of helping yourself is not moral. It would be more of a morality test if the babies sacrificed the help they might receive and gave the helpful puppet to someone who needed it more.

And later in the article it says that "They prefer puppets who have the same tastes as them and they actually want the puppets with the different tastes -- they like other puppets who punish them." This seems to me to indicate innate immorality. But it's not exactly a decisive result for all humans.

So maybe there are lots more studies that I haven't Googled yet. One thing I've found about psych results published in the popular press -- they are often sensationalized and spun to give exciting results. Like the study showing that people love their smart phones as much as their wives. But on closer inspection they often turn out to be somewhat less exciting. 

If you know of other studies I'd be interested to see them.

@John 6IX Breezy

This is more up your alley. Is there a consensus in the field these days?

If you look at the video you can see that when the six month old hugged the good puppet the hug became a very loving one for a period of time. This confirms that the baby was not simply motivated by the selfish desire for the puppet to help it.

In the case of the three month old it was too young to hug but the researchers knew that babies of that age turned away from things that they didn't like and looked at things that they did like for long periods of time. The baby looked at the bad puppet first and turned away almost immediately. It then looked at the good puppet for a long period of time confirming that it liked it.

The study lasted eight years and was done by highly intelligent and objective people. It is extremely probable that they knew how to interpret the results.

The article mentioned the book "Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil" by Paul Bloom who was one of the researchers. You might get a much more thorough analysis of the study from it.
Reply
#60
RE: A Case for Inherent Morality
(June 21, 2021 at 5:21 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: If you look at the video you can see that when the six month old hugged the good puppet the hug became a very loving one for a period of time. This confirms that the baby was not simply motivated by the selfish desire for the puppet to help it.

Sorry, I don't see yet how a long loving embrace is proof that we're talking about morality, rather than survival value.  

I can see obvious evolutionary advantages for choosing to be with helpful people.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Morality Kingpin 101 5275 May 31, 2023 at 6:48 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Morality without God Superjock 102 8593 June 17, 2021 at 6:10 pm
Last Post: Ranjr
  Cold-Case Christianity LadyForCamus 32 4341 May 24, 2019 at 7:52 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Morality Agnostico 337 34596 January 30, 2019 at 6:00 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  Developing systems of morality, outside of religious influence. Kookaburra 28 4073 March 20, 2018 at 1:27 am
Last Post: haig
  Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith Alexmahone 10 1740 March 4, 2018 at 6:52 am
Last Post: robvalue
  Objective morality as a proper basic belief Little Henry 609 157573 July 29, 2017 at 1:02 am
Last Post: Astonished
  The curious case of Sarah Salviander. Jehanne 24 6138 December 27, 2016 at 4:12 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
Video The Married Atheist vid: Morality from science? robvalue 5 2015 March 19, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Last Post: brewer
  The Case for Atheism Drew_2013 410 205444 March 17, 2016 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Whateverist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)