Tsk. Tsk. A Common and Appalling Definition of "Objective" Morals, Values, and Duties. Tsk. Tsk.

icehorse said:

I'd bet dollars to donuts that while SOME rudimentary morals have been bred into our DNA (and the DNA of some animals as well), MOST of the advanced ideas of morality are learned. In other words, I don't think it's an either/or.

I think it's hard for you to defend your claim that there is "no learning involved with conscience". The first obvious counter-argument is that your claim flies in the face of normal childhood development. Young children are taught ideas like sharing, they do not come by those ideas naturally.

Click to expand...

I disagree that most of the advance ideas of morality are learned. I think we are born knowing that we should not intentionally harm innocent people, for example.

However, some less important learning is involved: For example, the way that we might insult others varies from culture to culture. Those differences must be learned so that we don't unintentionally insult others. However, intentionally insulting innocent others is wrong in all cultures because it causes harm.

Koldo said:

What do you mean by 'remarkably consistent' ? At the end of the test, I got a graph showing how people ended up with varied results.

Click to expand...

I don't know what that graph showed. I took the test years ago and there was no graph.

My claim of consistency came from reading the Harvard Gazette's article on the test results.

Is doing the right thing hard-wired?

joe1776 said:

I don't know what that graph showed. I took the test years ago and there was no graph.

My claim of consistency came from reading the Harvard Gazette's article on the test results.

Is doing the right thing hard-wired?

Click to expand...

Take the test again. In the end you will see a graph showing how people are all over the place. How do you reconcile that ?

Koldo said:

Take the test again. In the end you will see a graph showing how people are all over the place. How do you reconcile that ?

Click to expand...

I'll take your word on the graph. I can't explain why it seems to conflict with the reported MST results in the Harvard Gazette article. Did you read the article?

joe1776 said:

I adopted it based on logic but my intuitionist position has the support of research over the last 30 years or so.

Click to expand...

Your views are far more extreme than the scientists who propose intuitive aspects of morality as they accept cultural dimensions of morality, the idea that reason may also play a part in certain circumstances, that morality is impacted by in-group biases, and so forth.

No science supports your actual position, and the sources you link to as support for your position actually contradict your overall views (Bloom, Haidt, etc).

Augustus said:

Your views are far more extreme than the scientists who propose intuitive aspects of morality as they accept cultural dimensions of morality, the idea that reason may also play a part in certain circumstances, that morality is impacted by in-group biases, and so forth.

No science supports your actual position, and the sources you link to as support for your position actually contradict your overall views (Bloom, Haidt, etc).

Click to expand...

Yes, we've been over this.

I hope you aren't implying that there is some kind of well-informed consensus of opinion on this topic. In fact the majority view of psychologists is probably still in the rationalist camp.

If you review my early posts in this thread, You'll see that I don't claim support for much of anything except that moral judgments are intuitive which is the key element in this thread. On the other hand, you won't find much support for your views either. In fact, as I recall, you were claiming to favor intuition while supporting rationalist positions -- which makes no sense at all.

joe1776 said:

If you review my early posts in this thread, You'll see that I don't claim support for much of anything except that moral judgments are intuitive.

Click to expand...

Their view of intuition is partial, qualified and differs greatly from yours though. If you take a small part of a study and strip it of all nuance and qualification and then go against its conclusions, you can't claim the science supports your position in any way.

joe1776 said:

On the other hand, you won't find much support for your views either. In fact, as I recall, you were supporting rationalist positions -- which makes no sense at all.

Click to expand...

This is something else you have made up.

I've probably corrected you on this 10 or more times, never seems to have any effect though

Augustus said:

Their view of intuition is partial, qualified and differs greatly from yours though. If you take a small part of a study and strip it of all nuance and qualification and then go against its conclusions, you can't claim the science supports your position in any way.

Click to expand...

You're mistaken. The science is evidence. The scientist's philosophical interpretations of it can be ignored.

If, for example, Bloom's study is evidence to counter the argument that morals are not taught and learned as experience, it doesn't matter what his other hypotheses are because the evidence speaks for itself.

Likewise, Haidt's 2000 study was useful in establishing that moral judgments are intuitive. But, he has nothing to offer beyond that. For example, he has group pride among his key virtues. He hasn't figured out that group pride is disguised arrogance and its ever-present companion is group prejudice, the root cause of war.

joe1776 said:

I disagree that most of the advance ideas of morality are learned. I think we are born knowing that we should not intentionally harm innocent people, for example.

Click to expand...

This hinges on how one's defining "advanced." I've read of research that concluded that many animals seem to have an innate sense of fairness, but is this a moral system? Many animals also have various calls they use to communicate, yet I wouldn't call this a language.

I think we do have an innate sense of fairness, but it naturally extends mostly to our own tribe. Moreover, it's easily warped or overlain by learned cultural values.

We've seen how brutal and unfair people can be toward one another; how easily we can "depersonalize" others and commit the most outrageous atrocities with perfect equanimity. We may have a still, small voice urging fairness or telling us we shouldn't harm other people, but this is largely drowned out by the cultural chorus.

Valjean said:

This hinges on how one's defining "advanced.

Click to expand...

I gave you an example: I think we are born knowing intuitively that we should not intentionally harm innocent people. This simple idea is at the root of most criminal laws.

If the harm isn't intentionally done, it's not a crime. Accidentally caused injuries are not crimes.

If harm isn't the intent: mercy killing, for example, it should not be a crime.

If the harm is done to someone who is not innocent, in self-defense against an aggressive attacker, for example, it's not a crime.

If there's no harm done to an innocent victim, there's no crime. However, there are victim-less crimes on the books which need to be eliminated (prostitution).

joe1776 said:

I gave you an example: I think we are born knowing intuitively that we should not intentionally harm innocent people. This simple idea is at the root of most criminal laws.

Click to expand...

OK, but are the folks in the next valley over really people? Do they merit moral consideration? They're not us, they're The Other.
History and anthropology would seem to indicate that we're "naturally" tribal. Tribalism is neurologically hard-wired -- in-group altruism and co-operation, out-group competition and aggression.
Our veneer of civilization is thin.

If the harm isn't intentionally done, it's not a crime. Accidentally caused injuries are not crimes.

If harm isn't the intent: mercy killing, for example, it should not be a crime.

If the harm is done to someone who is not innocent, in self-defense against an aggressive attacker, for example, it's not a crime.

If there's no harm done to an innocent victim, there's no crime. However, there are victim-less crimes on the books which need to be eliminated (prostitution).

Click to expand...

I see nothing here I'd disagree with.

Valjean said:

OK, but are the folks in the next valley over really people? Do they merit moral consideration? They're not us, they're The Other.
History and anthropology would seem to indicate that we're "naturally" tribal. Tribalism is neurologically hard-wired -- in-group altruism and co-operation, out-group competition and aggression.
Our veneer of civilization is thin.

Click to expand...

I don't think the in-group, out-group hypothesis added anything at all to what we already knew which was that tribalism, nationalism, racism and religious intolerance have been the root causes of most war.

However, I see hopeful signs that, at long last, we humans are recognizing the problem. A few months back I heard Angela Merkel raging against the perils of nationalism. Maybe the Germans have learned their lesson. Maybe the recognition of the problem is happening all over the globe.

joe1776 said:

You're mistaken. The science is evidence. The scientist's philosophical interpretations of it can be ignored.

If, for example, Bloom's study is evidence to counter the argument that morals are not taught and learned as experience, it doesn't matter what his other hypotheses are because the evidence speaks for itself.

Click to expand...

How is what you are saying different to simply stating "I can just ignore any of the science that I don't like and cherry pick the bits which support my preconceived assumptions as they are self-evidently right"?

The science shows differences in 'intuitive' morality based on culture. This seems obvious to anyone who studies history, or spends any length of time in very different cultural environments, and also happens to be what the science supports.

Bloom:

I've made three arguments here. The first is that humans are in a very interesting way, nice. The second is that we have evolved a moral sense, and this moral sense is powerful, and can explain much of our niceness. It is far richer than many empiricists would have believed. But the third argument is that this moral sense is not enough. That accomplishments we see and we admire so much in our species are due to factors other than our evolutionary history. They are due to our culture, our intelligence and our imagination

A New Science of Morality, Part 5 | Edge.org


Why do you think not one single scientist supports your views despite 'the evidence speaking for itself'?

joe1776 said:

Likewise, Haidt's 2000 study was useful in establishing that moral judgments are intuitive. But, he has nothing to offer beyond that. For example, he has group pride among his key virtues. He hasn't figured out that group pride is disguised arrogance and its ever-present companion is group prejudice, the root cause of war.

Click to expand...

Haidt's study that also said a) culture plays a role in intuition and b) in some circumstances, reason can 'override' intuition to reach moral decisions.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that humans, animals who evolved in small groups in a dangerous world, would evolve biases towards those who were part of their in-group?

The science supports this, our personal experience supports this, human history supports this, and common sense supports this. When so many things align and it follows perfect evolutionary logic, why do you think your personal musings should override science and hundreds of thousands of years of human experience?

Augustus said:

How is what you are saying different to simply stating "I can just ignore any of the science that I don't like and cherry pick the bits which support my preconceived assumptions as they are self-evidently right"?

The science shows differences in 'intuitive' morality based on culture. This seems obvious to anyone who studies history, or spends any length of time in very different cultural environments, and also happens to be what the science supports.

Click to expand...

I don't regard the philosophical arguments that scientists make as science. Do you?

Bloom: ...But the third argument is that this moral sense is not enough. That accomplishments we see and we admire so much in our species are due to factors other than our evolutionary history. They are due to our culture, our intelligence and our imagination.

Click to expand...

His argument is vague (what accomplishments is he talking about?) and it isn't science. If I knew what he was talking about, I might agree.

Why do you think not one single scientist supports your views despite 'the evidence speaking for itself'?

Click to expand...

All of the moral research done in the last 20 years or so supports my argument that our morals are intuitive and not the product of reason. Bloom's study supports my argument that conscience is innate. Those are my claims supported by science.

Haidt's study that also said a) culture plays a role in intuition and b) in some circumstances, reason can 'override' intuition to reach moral decisions.

Click to expand...

No. Your wrong. Haidt's study did not show anything except that moral judgments were likely to be intuitive. Once again, you are confusing the philosophical arguments of scientists with the research they do. If I'm wrong, you can link me to a site to prove your point.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that humans, animals who evolved in small groups in a dangerous world, would evolve biases towards those who were part of their in-group?

Click to expand...

I don't find that hard to believe. You're confused. Moral intuition (conscience) is not comprised of biases. Biases cause people to ignore the guidance of their conscience.

The science supports this, our personal experience supports this, human history supports this, and common sense supports this. When so many things align and it follows perfect evolutionary logic, why do you think your personal musings should override science and hundreds of thousands of years of human experience?

Click to expand...

I read nothing but a series of baseless claims in that paragraph. And that your thinking is aligned with "perfect evolutionary logic" sounds like a claim that Donald Trump would make.

Koldo said:

Take the test again. In the end you will see a graph showing how people are all over the place. How do you reconcile that ?

Click to expand...

I can't explain the graph you saw but here's a PDF from second source (Georgetown U) confirming what I wrote to you about the results of the Harvard's MST..

Intuitive moral judgments are robust across
variation in gender, education, politics, and
religion: A large-scale web-based study
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

joe1776 said:

I can't explain the graph you saw but here's a PDF from second source (Georgetown U) confirming what I wrote to you about the results of the Harvard's MST..

Intuitive moral judgments are robust across
variation in gender, education, politics, and
religion: A large-scale web-based study
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/lbh24/BanerjeeEtAl.pdf

Click to expand...

Your link is missing the graphics. I don't have access to the raw data, can you provide it ?

Koldo said:

Your link is missing the graphics. I don't have access to the raw data, can you provide it ?

Click to expand...

Nope. That's all there was.

joe1776 said:

Nope. That's all there was.

Click to expand...

Not enough to go by for me.

Koldo said:

Not enough to go by for me.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm not shocked.