|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
The whole purpose of this thread was to see if logic would allow us to deduce that morality is not unique to humans,
There have been a lot of animal cooperations observed to support that.
They do come up with varying solutions, though.
It's hard to put together what to say on the Golden Mean.
It seems that news ways of life and their unknowns always
make it a moving target for humans. Change and fear
can be disruptive to a balance. There is history, though,
to look at.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
leonardomenderes wrote:
The whole purpose of this thread was to see if logic would allow us to deduce that morality is not unique to humans,
There have been a lot of animal cooperations observed to support that.
They do come up with varying solutions, though.
It's hard to put together what to say on the Golden Mean.
It seems that news ways of life and their unknowns always
make it a moving target for humans. Change and fear
can be disruptive to a balance. There is history, though,
to look at.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
apparently i dont know how 2 use the "quote" button.
anywayz. there is indeed plenty of studies in animal behavior to suggest that animal cooperation goes hand in hand wit a sense of morality. the "varying solutions" are undoutably a result of the basically "alien" intelligence.
im not sure what u meant by
"It seems that news ways of life and their unknowns always make it a moving target for humans"
but the Golden Mean is, to me, the sythesis of the dialectic in question and so is by definition a dynamic process, inducing both fear and above all change. balance 2 me does not mean stasis. most people equate balance w/ stasis and i believe it to b a serious err. balance is like the yin/yang and encourages change not stasis.
and indeed history provides a rich palette of examples of the dialectic process
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
Yes, I see where you are coming from. However, I would just like to comment on the posts above referring to studies that seem to show cooperation being a result of a sense of morality. One can see how it can appear thus from external observation, but to muddy things up a little, I would like to point out a recent psychological study which was a study of very young babies which appeared to show that they reacted badly to characters who behaved in ways commonly perceived as wrong and well to those who behaved in a righteous manner. This report concluded that these babies had a 'sense of morality,' but this is not necessarily the case, for as we are evolved from more primitive creatures, it might be worth considering that these reactions could simply be down to primal instinct, recognising an aggressor and reacting naturally with fear. Here I just want to show that there are multiple possibilities to an external appearance and therefore, logically, one cannot conclude that morality is the cause of certain apparently anthropogenic behaviour.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
I take it that a single study with two
young babies is supposed to trump
a lot of Anthropological studies of
adults? Seems like strange emphasis
to me, since neither nature nor nurture
would have had time to develop much
in the way of the consideration of others.
Young babies are developmentally concerned
with only themselves, and for very obvious
reasons. I wouldn't expect the slightest
bit of altruism in a pre-walking toddler.
That is what it should be, but hardly
suggestive of older concerns.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:The origin of morality 1 Year, 11 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
leonardomenderes wrote:
I take it that a single study with two
young babies is supposed to trump
a lot of Anthropological studies of
adults? Seems like strange emphasis
to me, since neither nature nor nurture
would have had time to develop much
in the way of the consideration of others.
Young babies are developmentally concerned
with only themselves, and for very obvious
reasons. I wouldn't expect the slightest
bit of altruism in a pre-walking toddler.
That is what it should be, but hardly
suggestive of older concerns.
Well exactly, just try explaining that to some psychologist who thinks they've uncovered some long held secret of the babies psyche. That was not specifically my point, I was simply attempting to show how external behaviour can be easily misinterpreted.
Although, as a footnote on Anthropologists. I have a grave concern for what is being taught to certain Anthropologists after seeing a leading British Anthropologist trying to start a womens' lib movement in a tribe in the African desert.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
