A blog servicing Mr. Ferencz's students.
Email me at MrEricFerencz@gmail.com
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Extra Credit for Juniors
Please comment on the following podcast for extra credit. Try to connect the discussion of human morality to whether or not we are inherently good, evil, or some strange amalgam of both:
I really liked this podcast, but it was longer than I expected. Are podcasts usually that long? Anyway, what I noticed being said around the middle segment of the podcast was that children start developing morality starting from around 2 to 3 to 4. Jack's parents said that it was easier to explain rules to him after he turned three, although he didn't necessarily follow them, and that means that he's starting to develop morality. The first segment, with the brain scans, introduces a theory that humans biologically have a sense of morality. This can be a possible answer to whether people are born inherently good or evil: people who decide not to listen to their morality are inherently evil and people who decide to listen to their morality are inherently good.
I noticed that in the beginning, when they questioned people about these scenarios, most of them were women. Could this result with a different result? However, I like the descriptions of the brain scan and how a certain section of the brain acts when thinking of about a sense morality. He also argues about "Basic primate morality", and argues that the sense of morality is biological, an inheritance from our primate ancestors.
listening to it right now, before I comment on it I want to share this video on morality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFTM1FU4Xd4 it popped up in my subscription box and I just watched it. it's a fascinating 15 minutes
This podcast completely changed my view on human morality. Initially I felt that humans would tend to lean towards inherent evil and that only their society and environment forced them to conform. However, the idea of the "inner primate" completely contradicts this. In the podcast it is suggested that there could be some conflict within our own minds that is repulsed with the idea of directly murdering or committing evil deeds. If this is true that means that, on some level, everyone has some inherent good in them. This transcends anything learned and goes to the biological level.
I understand that I am no a biologist, but I do not understand how a human could possibly be born with morality. It does not make sense because they even discussed how children will do things against what they know to be right. I understand morals to be something that automatically affects, and not something that you understand more as you grow up. People and chimps may appear to have morals at a very young age, but I think that is because they have been shaped from the moment they were born by the things that they see around them. Regarding the penitentiary, I think that the method of rehabilitation that the prisoners are receiving is completely immoral. It is similar to the story of the person in the Peace Corp where he went partially crazy. I think that it would be interesting to know how many of those inmates retained their sanity after their sentence was served.
I find the theory of an inherent perception of right/wrong very interesting. Previously, I believed that people were born with morality which resembled that of unmolded clay, which would be shaped in a variety of manners influenced by their upbringing. However,this podcast has convinced me that human morality is inherently a strange amalgamation of both good and evil. The podcast supports this, as brain scans during responses of the initial questions regarding the track workers show that there is an instinctive influence in the brain, which tends to be the same for 9/10 of individuals surveyed. While young children may know what is wrong, they do not necesarily do what they say/know is the right thing. Thus, human morality is an ambiguous amalgamation of good and evil.
First off, as many people already stated, the brain scanner is really cool and somewhat threatening, with the whole no metal and all other precautions that come along with it. What was discussed in the RadioLab was stuff that I discussed in my group today with Justin, Andrew, and Matt. We also discussed the whole idea of biological traits and Justin brought up the point how we are biologically given certain traits but then it is society that determines how we sense good versus wrong. Also the idea of primate morality and how its all natural was also very captivating. The idea that morality is not only exclusive to humans but extends over species of animals, in this case, primates, was unexpected given the fact the we few primates as lowly and wouldn't expect them to judge morality. The explanation of how the Alpha Male comes out and everyone stops doing everything is very interesting and how they react to the building in a orderly fashion is also amazing. Overall the podcast was very interesting and eye-opening. I still stick with my idea that humans are born inherently good.
Oh my gosh I think the gorilla and the boy story was so adorable! But anyway I do believe that everyone is good (except that lady that said she would kill her baby because it's her baby and "she has the right to terminate the life"…she is definitely evil!!!) or at least everyone has a sense of morality as it was showed in the brain scans. I also don't understand why 9/10 people would pull the lever to kill that 1 person but the same 9/10 people would not push the guy to save the 5 men…to me, they are the same.
To add onto what Mo said, we also connected the idea of innate morality to The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. In the book, the stranded schoolchildren change rapidly and they go against their morals. So, one's environment and one's position in the environment has an effect on one's morality, such as the example of the alpha male. I had also previously agreed with William Golding in his belief that all men are inherently evil, but from this podcast and its evidence from the brain scans and its explanation of "primate morality", I can grasp how people are born with morals. This is the beginning of a marriage between biology and philosophy to arrive at new conclusions.
I thought that the concept of the inner chimp was pretty strange. I agree with the speaker where people aren't really born good or bad, but become good or bad based on how they are raised. Saying that when a baby could be evil when it is born, just makes absolutely no sense to me.
People are born with genetic social behavioral tendencies [some behavioral patterns are more common than others (these tend to be the ones that societies usually perceive to be "good" ,while the less common behavioral tendencies are usually viewed more negatively )] that are affected by a mixture of economic, political, and social factors which determine the "moral" values a person has. A person is not born good or evil because there is no such thing as an universal morality, a constant good or evil force. Moral judgement is an entirely human, social, and psychological concept. On the topic of "primate morality", its nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism [which is not necessarily present in all humans (or in the same manner) due to genetic variation] , which formed for our own self preservation and defense. Animals (such as people) with this self-preserve mechanism while help other members of its species (usually family members and in some cases members of other species such as the case between Jambo and Levan Merritt who fell into a gorilla enclosure in 1986 { http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUGT7MdDB4 } ) in order to improve the probability of passing on its own genetic information (PRO TIP : that is the secret to the meaning of life). In short, morality does not exist so the question of whether or not we are inherently good, evil, or some strange amalgam of both is invalid.
Food for Thought
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
- John F Kennedy
Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10.
- Unknown
For those of you who will celebrate it on Saturday, how an awesome Guy Fawkes Day.
On an unrelated note I believe that the comment permalink times are off by approximately 3 hours since I am posing this an 12:22 on 11/2/2011 not 09:22 on 11/1/2011
also did anyone realize that Immortals will be the least watched movie of all time, sine all social activities in the world will come to a screeching halt on 11/11/11 (Skyrim FTW)
Found an article as evidence for my previous post, "Five Reasons Skyrim is Going to Make You its Bitch Say goodbye to your spare time come November." http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1181905p1.html
People cannot be born good or evil, only their environment can determine their sense of morality. If someone grows up in a war environment, murder does not break that persons moral code only because death is experienced every day. The brain scan disproves the environment theory because it suggests morality is biological and is passed down before we even lay eyes on our environment. After listening to the podcast I'm starting to think that maybe morality is a combination of both biological factors and environmental factors.
From Wikipedia: Daniel Bartels of Columbia University found that individual reactions to trolley problems is context sensitive and that around 90% would refuse the act of deliberately killing one individual to save five lives.[1] Further study by Daniel Bartels and David Pizarro focused on those 10% who made utilitarian choice. The study asked participants to series of value statement. The experiment found that those who had stronger utilitarian leaning had stronger tendency to psychopathy, Machiavellianism or tended to view life as meaningless. The economist magazine who reported this finding stated that "utilitarians, ... may add to the sum of human happiness, but they are not very happy people themselves.
I'd have been part of the 10%, and it is true that I'm rarely happy. I find this remarkable. Observe my remark.
As per the various morality problems: I'd have to come up with a function that calculates the value of human life; this equation would take many, many parameters-among them are closeness of the person in question to you, (stranger vs. child), potential of that person (child vs. old person, bad student vs good student(this field is very involved)), immediate benefit that person can offer you/your community (plane crashes on an lsland: a doctor is more valuable than an English teacher), and so on. This function is, in essence, what was running through those people's brains when they decided whether to smother their child or risk everyone dying. Those who estimated the sum of the values of everyone in the village multiplied by the probability of the child coughing to be more than the value of the child decided to smother it, while those who calculated this quantity to be less than the value of the child decided to risk it. The question was very subjective, as many, many parameters that would have been easily observable were NOT given; for example, the number of villagers (this quantity can have a HUGE effect on the end result: think kill your child to save all of New York City, vs. kill your child to save the people living in your apartment building). Although the function is largely subjective regardless of the completeness of the information it is supplied, the question supplied an improbably small amount of information, resulting in decisions based nearly entirely on subjectivity.
Well, that probably doesn't make sense, but that's how I perceive the thought process here. I'm no pyschologist, and as such am in no position to criticize the speakers' conclusions on the matter of learned morality vs. genetic morality. With my knowledge, I see both as viable; for example, I know for sure that racism is a learned behavior (it has been verified by many studies). Being racist offers no clear evolutionary advantage. However, having a set of morals that society perceives as good is conducive to passing on one's genes, and therefore morality is POSSIBLY inscribed in our genes. But this quickly becomes a pseudoscience, as the experiments required to accurately test this would be extremely unethical. So we will never know whether morality is genetic, learned, or some combination of the two.
I would lean more towards John Locke rather than Hobbes. Call me naive but I'd like to think people are naturally "good." In the podcast, they mention how there are certain sections of the brain that appeal to your senses. It was interesting for them to say, "your sense of morality comes from whichever side of the brain is screaming loudest." Also, the study with the kids and hitting without punishments was interesting because even without consequences, they still realized name calling was bad. This just proves how even at a young age, at around 3, they knew what was right and wrong. Although, I do agree with Lenny, that the influences surrounding us and what society sets as the status quo do play a factor in determining what's right or wrong. For example, in Iraq, there are some who believe Americans are evil and bin Laden was a hero because that's the way their religion and culture taught them is correct.
So, I wrote a whoooooole bunch of stuff here last night and the comment system ate it. One of my more salient points: The argument as to whether morality is inherited or learned quickly becomes a pseudoscience, as experiments to confirm any hypothesis would be extremely unethical. For example, observational studies of racism can prove it to be a learned behavior; morality, on the other hand, offers possible evolutionary advantages. So the answer is unknown, but in nature one would expect to find an amalgam rather than a distinct answer as extremes are uncommon.
Fantastic podcast. I believe people are not born inherently good, and people are not born inherently evil. There is nothing in our coding that determines how we will react. A kid who is born during wartime and a kid born during peace will undoubtedly have different values. "Good" is decided by those who stand on top - if terrorists took over the world, I can assure you that our children and grandchildren will have a different sense of morality. On a side note, if one guy can stop the thing from running over those people, how is it even going to run over 5 people in a row? Wouldn't it logically stop after the first one?
The connection between the brain and our morality was interesting; how it is like two opposing forces trying to fight for control. Even though they say that our morality is inherently biological, I believe that our environment still plays a major role, and is the key factor in deciding which force will win.
I found the actions of the children in the Homestead game strange, but I can understand why they did what they did. At a young age, children do what they can to benefit themselves. If it were not for rules that limit the freedom to act, kids would do whatever they want. In the case of the game, the leader exploited all the other kids just to make herself feel superior. With no rules to stop her she continued to use everyone else to her advantage.
I believe that humans are inherently selfish, but have good morals based rules imposed on them.
I think that poem says it all. What are we but a mix of opposing ideas? We are certainly not any one definitive idea. We are continuously changing our minds and who we are as people. Our perceptions of good and evil continuously change with the times and with our experiences. As Melville wrote in Billy Budd, “Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other? So with sanity and insanity” (353). What’s the line between sanity and insanity, the line between good and evil? However, I do believe that there is a biological component to our morality as shown in the experiment stated in the podcast when a certain part of the brain lit up when people said they would not push the man over. Studies show that there are parts of the brain designated for decision-making and feelings. Our “gut” and intuition have evolved into components of our brain.
I think this podcast was very interesting, especially how they used brain scans to connect to our morality. I also found the experiment with the chimps interesting as well. I found it amazing how quickly the behavior of the chimps changed when the male ape arrived to settle their argument. I noticed that the individuals speaking in the beginning of the podcast believe that humans are born good or evil because they inherit it. Before listening to this podcast, I believed that people's moralities are solely determined by their surroundings and environments in which they grow up in. However, now, I believe that there is some connections between morality and inheritance to some degree. People's morality can be a combination of both inheritance and their surrounding factors. One lady in the beginning said she believes that people's moralities are based on their past generation, not from their parents or their grandparents, or even their great grandparents, but even further back in their family tree. This made no sense to me at all. Also, when the lady said that "she had the right to terminate the baby's life," because she was the mother, I thought that was very obnoxious. Under any circumstance, nobodyyyyy should ever have the right to terminate another person's life.
Dr. Judi Smetana, a professor at the University of Rochester, believes a sense of morality is developed through experiences and how they were taught as children. Similar to Freud's theory of Psychosexual Development, her theory is that one's moral sense is not innate; rather, it is nurtured by the age of two to three years old. Like Jennifer had mentioned, Locke's Tabula Rasa demonstrates that children are not born with this sense of knowing if certain decisions are right or wrong; but what society has taught them throughout their lives.
Are we "born with some rudimentary sense of empathy?" It was fascinating hearing about the female gorilla who saved the young boy's life when he fell into the cage. If animals cannot feel guilt, and human beings are the only ones who feel guilt, then we are inherently good. Otherwise, we would do whatever we desire because the consequences of our actions would not matter to us.
Elton also made a very interesting point about how a different type of environment can influence a child's sense of morality. One's moral code is determined by the society one lives in. In addition, our sense of morality is constantly changing. What once was evil might become ethical in another situation. Thus, we are inherently good; because we all aim to achieve a satisfactory goal that benefits a certain group; even though if others in society might think it would be an evil act.
Also, to anyone looking for a good book to read, The Bad Seed by William March is phenomenal! It is about a child serial killer, and closely deals with the ideas of inherent evil and morality.
The idea of original sin (Christianity) states that we are all born demons, but have the choice to turn from evil. We are taught the basis of what is "right" and "wrong," but our perspective may differ from other cultures. We as Americans eat like there is no tomorrow, but for some people in poorer countries- There is no tomorrow. Is this just?
"How can a corporation be regulated by a government that is funded and controlled by corporations?"
This weekend i took the SATs, and the essay question was whether we should mind other peoples business. I thought that the question was very related to the scenario presented to us in the beginning of the podcast. In my essay, i wrote that its better to not actually engage in something thats not your business because if you happened to switch the tracks, then the five people you saved would thank you, and the person you killed would hate you forever. But however, if you left the situation alone, neither of the groups would hate you. You would just have to not be guilty about it because there technically wasnt a completely morally right choice.
Again with the second scenario, where you were given the choice of eithering smothering the baby or the whole village would get killed, i dont think there is a moral and sane choice given.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this podcast, but it was longer than I expected. Are podcasts usually that long? Anyway, what I noticed being said around the middle segment of the podcast was that children start developing morality starting from around 2 to 3 to 4. Jack's parents said that it was easier to explain rules to him after he turned three, although he didn't necessarily follow them, and that means that he's starting to develop morality. The first segment, with the brain scans, introduces a theory that humans biologically have a sense of morality. This can be a possible answer to whether people are born inherently good or evil: people who decide not to listen to their morality are inherently evil and people who decide to listen to their morality are inherently good.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in the beginning, when they questioned people about these scenarios, most of them were women. Could this result with a different result? However, I like the descriptions of the brain scan and how a certain section of the brain acts when thinking of about a sense morality. He also argues about "Basic primate morality", and argues that the sense of morality is biological, an inheritance from our primate ancestors.
ReplyDeletelistening to it right now, before I comment on it I want to share this video on morality:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFTM1FU4Xd4
it popped up in my subscription box and I just watched it. it's a fascinating 15 minutes
This podcast completely changed my view on human morality. Initially I felt that humans would tend to lean towards inherent evil and that only their society and environment forced them to conform. However, the idea of the "inner primate" completely contradicts this. In the podcast it is suggested that there could be some conflict within our own minds that is repulsed with the idea of directly murdering or committing evil deeds. If this is true that means that, on some level, everyone has some inherent good in them. This transcends anything learned and goes to the biological level.
ReplyDeleteI understand that I am no a biologist, but I do not understand how a human could possibly be born with morality. It does not make sense because they even discussed how children will do things against what they know to be right. I understand morals to be something that automatically affects, and not something that you understand more as you grow up. People and chimps may appear to have morals at a very young age, but I think that is because they have been shaped from the moment they were born by the things that they see around them. Regarding the penitentiary, I think that the method of rehabilitation that the prisoners are receiving is completely immoral. It is similar to the story of the person in the Peace Corp where he went partially crazy. I think that it would be interesting to know how many of those inmates retained their sanity after their sentence was served.
ReplyDeleteI find the theory of an inherent perception of right/wrong very interesting. Previously, I believed that people were born with morality which resembled that of unmolded clay, which would be shaped in a variety of manners influenced by their upbringing. However,this podcast has convinced me that human morality is inherently a strange amalgamation of both good and evil. The podcast supports this, as brain scans during responses of the initial questions regarding the track workers show that there is an instinctive influence in the brain, which tends to be the same for 9/10 of individuals surveyed. While young children may know what is wrong, they do not necesarily do what they say/know is the right thing. Thus, human morality is an ambiguous amalgamation of good and evil.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, as many people already stated, the brain scanner is really cool and somewhat threatening, with the whole no metal and all other precautions that come along with it. What was discussed in the RadioLab was stuff that I discussed in my group today with Justin, Andrew, and Matt. We also discussed the whole idea of biological traits and Justin brought up the point how we are biologically given certain traits but then it is society that determines how we sense good versus wrong. Also the idea of primate morality and how its all natural was also very captivating. The idea that morality is not only exclusive to humans but extends over species of animals, in this case, primates, was unexpected given the fact the we few primates as lowly and wouldn't expect them to judge morality. The explanation of how the Alpha Male comes out and everyone stops doing everything is very interesting and how they react to the building in a orderly fashion is also amazing. Overall the podcast was very interesting and eye-opening. I still stick with my idea that humans are born inherently good.
ReplyDeleteSorry forgot to include my name above,
ReplyDeleteMOHAMMED ISMAIL
PERIOD 10
Oh my gosh I think the gorilla and the boy story was so adorable! But anyway I do believe that everyone is good (except that lady that said she would kill her baby because it's her baby and "she has the right to terminate the life"…she is definitely evil!!!) or at least everyone has a sense of morality as it was showed in the brain scans. I also don't understand why 9/10 people would pull the lever to kill that 1 person but the same 9/10 people would not push the guy to save the 5 men…to me, they are the same.
ReplyDeleteTo add onto what Mo said, we also connected the idea of innate morality to The Lord of the Flies by William Golding. In the book, the stranded schoolchildren change rapidly and they go against their morals. So, one's environment and one's position in the environment has an effect on one's morality, such as the example of the alpha male. I had also previously agreed with William Golding in his belief that all men are inherently evil, but from this podcast and its evidence from the brain scans and its explanation of "primate morality", I can grasp how people are born with morals. This is the beginning of a marriage between biology and philosophy to arrive at new conclusions.
ReplyDeleteOh, Andrew Xie Pd10 ^
ReplyDeleteI thought that the concept of the inner chimp was pretty strange. I agree with the speaker where people aren't really born good or bad, but become good or bad based on how they are raised. Saying that when a baby could be evil when it is born, just makes absolutely no sense to me.
ReplyDeletePeople are born with genetic social behavioral tendencies [some behavioral patterns are more common than others (these tend to be the ones that societies usually perceive to be "good" ,while the less common behavioral tendencies are usually viewed more negatively )] that are affected by a mixture of economic, political, and social factors which determine the "moral" values a person has. A person is not born good or evil because there is no such thing as an universal morality, a constant good or evil force. Moral judgement is an entirely human, social, and psychological concept. On the topic of "primate morality", its nothing more than an evolutionary mechanism [which is not necessarily present in all humans (or in the same manner) due to genetic variation] , which formed for our own self preservation and defense. Animals (such as people) with this self-preserve mechanism while help other members of its species (usually family members and in some cases members of other species such as the case between Jambo and Levan Merritt who fell into a gorilla enclosure in 1986 { http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUGT7MdDB4 } ) in order to improve the probability of passing on its own genetic information (PRO TIP : that is the secret to the meaning of life). In short, morality does not exist so the question of whether or not we are inherently good, evil, or some strange amalgam of both is invalid.
ReplyDeleteFood for Thought
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and
unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the
discomfort of thought."
- John F Kennedy
Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10.
- Unknown
For those of you who will celebrate it on Saturday, how an awesome Guy Fawkes Day.
On an unrelated note I believe that the comment permalink times are off by approximately 3 hours since I am posing this an 12:22 on 11/2/2011 not 09:22 on 11/1/2011
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletealso did anyone realize that Immortals will be the least watched movie of all time, sine all social activities in the world will come to a screeching halt on 11/11/11 (Skyrim FTW)
ReplyDeleteFound an article as evidence for my previous post,
ReplyDelete"Five Reasons Skyrim is Going to Make You its Bitch
Say goodbye to your spare time come November."
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1181905p1.html
People cannot be born good or evil, only their environment can determine their sense of morality. If someone grows up in a war environment, murder does not break that persons moral code only because death is experienced every day. The brain scan disproves the environment theory because it suggests morality is biological and is passed down before we even lay eyes on our environment. After listening to the podcast I'm starting to think that maybe morality is a combination of both biological factors and environmental factors.
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteDaniel Bartels of Columbia University found that individual reactions to trolley problems is context sensitive and that around 90% would refuse the act of deliberately killing one individual to save five lives.[1] Further study by Daniel Bartels and David Pizarro focused on those 10% who made utilitarian choice. The study asked participants to series of value statement. The experiment found that those who had stronger utilitarian leaning had stronger tendency to psychopathy, Machiavellianism or tended to view life as meaningless. The economist magazine who reported this finding stated that "utilitarians, ... may add to the sum of human happiness, but they are not very happy people themselves.
I'd have been part of the 10%, and it is true that I'm rarely happy. I find this remarkable. Observe my remark.
As per the various morality problems:
I'd have to come up with a function that calculates the value of human life; this equation would take many, many parameters-among them are closeness of the person in question to you, (stranger vs. child), potential of that person (child vs. old person, bad student vs good student(this field is very involved)), immediate benefit that person can offer you/your community (plane crashes on an lsland: a doctor is more valuable than an English teacher), and so on. This function is, in essence, what was running through those people's brains when they decided whether to smother their child or risk everyone dying. Those who estimated the sum of the values of everyone in the village multiplied by the probability of the child coughing to be more than the value of the child decided to smother it, while those who calculated this quantity to be less than the value of the child decided to risk it. The question was very subjective, as many, many parameters that would have been easily observable were NOT given; for example, the number of villagers (this quantity can have a HUGE effect on the end result: think kill your child to save all of New York City, vs. kill your child to save the people living in your apartment building). Although the function is largely subjective regardless of the completeness of the information it is supplied, the question supplied an improbably small amount of information, resulting in decisions based nearly entirely on subjectivity.
Well, that probably doesn't make sense, but that's how I perceive the thought process here. I'm no pyschologist, and as such am in no position to criticize the speakers' conclusions on the matter of learned morality vs. genetic morality. With my knowledge, I see both as viable; for example, I know for sure that racism is a learned behavior (it has been verified by many studies). Being racist offers no clear evolutionary advantage. However, having a set of morals that society perceives as good is conducive to passing on one's genes, and therefore morality is POSSIBLY inscribed in our genes. But this quickly becomes a pseudoscience, as the experiments required to accurately test this would be extremely unethical. So we will never know whether morality is genetic, learned, or some combination of the two.
I would lean more towards John Locke rather than Hobbes. Call me naive but I'd like to think people are naturally "good." In the podcast, they mention how there are certain sections of the brain that appeal to your senses. It was interesting for them to say, "your sense of morality comes from whichever side of the brain is screaming loudest." Also, the study with the kids and hitting without punishments was interesting because even without consequences, they still realized name calling was bad. This just proves how even at a young age, at around 3, they knew what was right and wrong. Although, I do agree with Lenny, that the influences surrounding us and what society sets as the status quo do play a factor in determining what's right or wrong. For example, in Iraq, there are some who believe Americans are evil and bin Laden was a hero because that's the way their religion and culture taught them is correct.
ReplyDeleteSo, I wrote a whoooooole bunch of stuff here last night and the comment system ate it.
ReplyDeleteOne of my more salient points:
The argument as to whether morality is inherited or learned quickly becomes a pseudoscience, as experiments to confirm any hypothesis would be extremely unethical. For example, observational studies of racism can prove it to be a learned behavior; morality, on the other hand, offers possible evolutionary advantages.
So the answer is unknown, but in nature one would expect to find an amalgam rather than a distinct answer as extremes are uncommon.
UTILITARIANISM FTW.
Fantastic podcast. I believe people are not born inherently good, and people are not born inherently evil. There is nothing in our coding that determines how we will react. A kid who is born during wartime and a kid born during peace will undoubtedly have different values. "Good" is decided by those who stand on top - if terrorists took over the world, I can assure you that our children and grandchildren will have a different sense of morality.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, if one guy can stop the thing from running over those people, how is it even going to run over 5 people in a row? Wouldn't it logically stop after the first one?
The connection between the brain and our morality was interesting; how it is like two opposing forces trying to fight for control. Even though they say that our morality is inherently biological, I believe that our environment still plays a major role, and is the key factor in deciding which force will win.
ReplyDeleteI found the actions of the children in the Homestead game strange, but I can understand why they did what they did. At a young age, children do what they can to benefit themselves. If it were not for rules that limit the freedom to act, kids would do whatever they want. In the case of the game, the leader exploited all the other kids just to make herself feel superior. With no rules to stop her she continued to use everyone else to her advantage.
I believe that humans are inherently selfish, but have good morals based rules imposed on them.
http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lngxi5ZhJ41ql3hlko1_500.png
ReplyDeleteI think that poem says it all. What are we but a mix of opposing ideas? We are certainly not any one definitive idea. We are continuously changing our minds and who we are as people. Our perceptions of good and evil continuously change with the times and with our experiences. As Melville wrote in Billy Budd, “Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other? So with sanity and insanity” (353). What’s the line between sanity and insanity, the line between good and evil? However, I do believe that there is a biological component to our morality as shown in the experiment stated in the podcast when a certain part of the brain lit up when people said they would not push the man over. Studies show that there are parts of the brain designated for decision-making and feelings. Our “gut” and intuition have evolved into components of our brain.
I think this podcast was very interesting, especially how they used brain scans to connect to our morality. I also found the experiment with the chimps interesting as well. I found it amazing how quickly the behavior of the chimps changed when the male ape arrived to settle their argument. I noticed that the individuals speaking in the beginning of the podcast believe that humans are born good or evil because they inherit it. Before listening to this podcast, I believed that people's moralities are solely determined by their surroundings and environments in which they grow up in. However, now, I believe that there is some connections between morality and inheritance to some degree. People's morality can be a combination of both inheritance and their surrounding factors.
ReplyDeleteOne lady in the beginning said she believes that people's moralities are based on their past generation, not from their parents or their grandparents, or even their great grandparents, but even further back in their family tree. This made no sense to me at all. Also, when the lady said that "she had the right to terminate the baby's life," because she was the mother, I thought that was very obnoxious. Under any circumstance, nobodyyyyy should ever have the right to terminate another person's life.
Dr. Judi Smetana, a professor at the University of Rochester, believes a sense of morality is developed through experiences and how they were taught as children. Similar to Freud's theory of Psychosexual Development, her theory is that one's moral sense is not innate; rather, it is nurtured by the age of two to three years old. Like Jennifer had mentioned, Locke's Tabula Rasa demonstrates that children are not born with this sense of knowing if certain decisions are right or wrong; but what society has taught them throughout their lives.
ReplyDeleteAre we "born with some rudimentary sense of empathy?" It was fascinating hearing about the female gorilla who saved the young boy's life when he fell into the cage. If animals cannot feel guilt, and human beings are the only ones who feel guilt, then we are inherently good. Otherwise, we would do whatever we desire because the consequences of our actions would not matter to us.
Elton also made a very interesting point about how a different type of environment can influence a child's sense of morality. One's moral code is determined by the society one lives in. In addition, our sense of morality is constantly changing. What once was evil might become ethical in another situation. Thus, we are inherently good; because we all aim to achieve a satisfactory goal that benefits a certain group; even though if others in society might think it would be an evil act.
Also, to anyone looking for a good book to read, The Bad Seed by William March is phenomenal! It is about a child serial killer, and closely deals with the ideas of inherent evil and morality.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of original sin (Christianity) states that we are all born demons, but have the choice to turn from evil. We are taught the basis of what is "right" and "wrong," but our perspective may differ from other cultures. We as Americans eat like there is no tomorrow, but for some people in poorer countries- There is no tomorrow. Is this just?
ReplyDelete"How can a corporation be regulated by a government that is funded and controlled by corporations?"
period 2
This weekend i took the SATs, and the essay question was whether we should mind other peoples business. I thought that the question was very related to the scenario presented to us in the beginning of the podcast. In my essay, i wrote that its better to not actually engage in something thats not your business because if you happened to switch the tracks, then the five people you saved would thank you, and the person you killed would hate you forever. But however, if you left the situation alone, neither of the groups would hate you. You would just have to not be guilty about it because there technically wasnt a completely morally right choice.
ReplyDeletedavid jiang
period 7
Again with the second scenario, where you were given the choice of eithering smothering the baby or the whole village would get killed, i dont think there is a moral and sane choice given.
ReplyDelete