It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by Neo_Serf
wow, very well written, i'm impressed
However could one not argue that everyone has an inner voice of what is right and wrong but some choose to ignore it? Not saying this is my opinion just saying is not a legit argument?
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Ozscot
You argue well, but I believe you are wrong.
At their roots, our concepts of right and wrong are innate./quote
Firstly, I must say that I have a hard time taking seriously a talk on ethics by someone who has the image of Mao in his sig, aka the greatest mass murdered in all of human history. It would be a little like taking diet advice from the single fattest man who ever existed. We all understand what a joke that would be to hear lardy mclard ass speak to us about the virtue of healthy eating. So youll have to understand that everything you say that follows on the topic of good and evil will be taken with not just a grain of salt, but indeed a whole friggin saltlick. Unless Im missing some hilarious inside sarcastic joke, that is.
/quote They are based on our natural instincts as members of a social species. /quote
Would you say then that a man who grew up ferrel with the wolves would have the ability to know right from wrong? Would this wolf boy (ferrel humans is actually well documented) have some innate moral knowlege that he would act on in contradiction to his pack? Would his follow mindlessly and without feedback of any kind, if say, his pack attacked and ate a small child?
/quote We instinctively form social hierarchies in which low-status individuals defer to high-status ones. Respect for authority is natural to us. /quote
Of course, but authority is completely independant of morality. The authority of the christian chuch caused endless and horrific religious wars, the authority of hitler resulted in the slaughter of millions, ect ect. Authority >/ morality.
/quote We instinctively practise reciprocity and exchange of gifts, favours and acts of grooming. Without a sense of fairness this is impossible. A sense of fairness is natural to us. /quote
You use this word 'us' a lot but it certainly does not apply to all. Was Stalin *at all* interested in 'fairness' when he sent millions to horrific deaths? How about your buddy Mao? How did his innate preference to 'fairness' manifest?
/quote We instinctively protect and nurture our young. We also instinctively come to the aid of other humans in trouble or pain. Altruism and kindness are natural to us. /quote
Theres that pesky 'us' word again. CLEARLY every mass murdering dictator in history does not display altruism or kindness in any real terms, infact quite the opposite. *some* of us display this charactersitic, but since it is only some of us, how can we say that morality is innate to all of us?
/quote We instinctively cooperate with one another – for example, in group singing and dancing, in hunting and gathering, and in warfare. Cooperation with others is natural to us. /quote
Your own example of warfare destroys the notion that we all instinctively cooperate. Killing our fellow man can hardly be called cooperating, even if we team up to do so. The man with my knife in his chest can hardly be 'cooperating' with me.
/quote We instinctively bond in mating pairs, reserving our sexual favours for our chosen mates (for some time, but not necessarily for a lifetime). Love and fidelity are natural to us. /quote
for every example you site of what is 'natural' to us, a counter example can also be said to be true. I could just as easily say 'we murder eachother by the billions, thus mass murder is natural to us.' If both are true, we cannot be said to be naturally moral, as every moral action that is called 'natural' has an immoral counterpart which also can be said to be 'natural'.
We all know from personal experience what guilt and shame feel like. Having a conscience is natural to us.
We have selfish needs and desires, also instinctive, that often come into conflict with these social and nurturing instincts. Some training is required to manage such conflicts, and that is what moral instruction is for. But moral codes and moral instruction only build on the natural morality that is already programmed into us by evolution.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Ozscot
You argue well, but I believe you are wrong.
At their roots, our concepts of right and wrong are innate.
They are based on our natural instincts as members of a social species.
We instinctively form social hierarchies in which low-status individuals defer to high-status ones. Respect for authority is natural to us.
We instinctively practise reciprocity and exchange of gifts, favours and acts of grooming. Without a sense of fairness this is impossible. A sense of fairness is natural to us.
We instinctively protect and nurture our young. We also instinctively come to the aid of other humans in trouble or pain. Altruism and kindness are natural to us.
We instinctively cooperate with one another – for example, in group singing and dancing, in hunting and gathering, and in warfare. Cooperation with others is natural to us.
We instinctively bond in mating pairs, reserving our sexual favours for our chosen mates (for some time, but not necessarily for a lifetime). Love and fidelity are natural to us.
We all know from experience what guilt and shame feel like. Having a conscience is natural to us.
We have selfish needs and desires, also instinctive, that often come into conflict with these social and nurturing instincts. Some training is required to manage such conflicts, and that is what moral instruction is for. But moral codes and moral instruction only build on the natural morality that is already programmed into us by evolution. They are also easily warped or perverted to control people, to act against their own best interests and make them do evil for the benefit of others; we call this perversion of natural morality 'religion'.
edit on 5/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)
We instinctively protect and nurture our young? I grant you it seems that we do, but that is to overlook the mass murder of children which was part and parcel of EVERYDAY life in pre-industrial and Industrial revolution English Society for example. It's not something we shout loud about today because influencing or entertaining thoughts of infanticide opens up a can of worms we would rather remained closed. Did you know that in many boroughs throughout England in the 1800's local Councils employed men to check the water-butts everyday and remove dead children from them?
*
Firstly, I must say that I have a hard time taking seriously a talk on ethics by someone who has the image of Mao in his sig, aka the greatest mass murdered in all of human history.
Unless Im missing some hilarious inside sarcastic joke...
Would you say then that a man who grew up ferrel with the wolves would have the ability to know right from wrong? Would this wolf boy (ferrel humans is actually well documented) have some innate moral knowlege that he would act on in contradiction to his pack?
Would his follow mindlessly and without feedback of any kind, if say, his pack attacked and ate a small child?
Of course, but authority is completely independant of morality.
Was Stalin *at all* interested in 'fairness' when he sent millions to horrific deaths? How about your buddy Mao? How did his innate preference to 'fairness' manifest?
For every example you site of what is 'natural' to us, a counter example can also be said to be true.
Originally posted by Astyanax:
We have selfish needs and desires, also instinctive, that often come into conflict with these social and nurturing instincts. Some training is required to manage such conflicts, and that is what moral instruction is for. But moral codes and moral instruction only build on the natural morality that is already programmed into us by evolution.
You said the Ten Commandments were clear and unambiguous and then immediately 'interpreted' the word 'sleep' to imply 'have sex with'.
You also said earlier that our 'Jealous' God could be interpreted as Zealous. Hardly clear and unambiguous when the interpretations have to commence within your opening statement is it?
Then you twist on interpretations of 'Jealousy' to indicate that it can be a good thing - tell that to the MILLIONS of women who are beaten every night by a jealous husband.
Sure there might be a Joe Bloggs or Josephine Bloggs who finds that a tiny wee touch of jealousy strengthens their longing and desire but when weighed against the destruction and human suffering jealousy causes I would hardly be rushing to make it compulsory. So which is it? Jealousy = good or Jealousy = bad?
I'm fairly well versed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and I can assure you the The Torah or the Pentateuch as well as the Old Testament can indeed be translated with a good degree of accuracy
Throw a uniform on a soldier and tell him he's fighting the 'right' fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, and off he'll go to kill as many of the guys in the 'wrong' as he possibly can.
We execute murderers in cold blood - so the idea that there is an innate, universally agreed sense of justice or right and wrong just doesn't stand up to scrutiny as all of the above behaviours are contested by many, many people.
He allowed his soldiers to 'lie' with children (Numbers 31: 17,18)
There was nothing sexual about this - it was their practical way of dealing with a wailing baby - at the time and within the culture it was 'right' - It's not right today
Society moves, it does not stand still, it develops, hell sometimes it even falls back a bit but it is never static - the sense of right and wrong has to move with it - and is defined by what is learned, understood and expected within the boundaries of any given time and culture
It is both learned and natural. Human brain is an amalgamation of genetic factors influenced by our past as a social species, and learned behaviours.