Is Lying Unethical/Immoral?

[joe1776]

Simple question, have you read The Moral Mind?

I have not. Like you, I have read reviews.

Hauser unequivocally states culture impacts what is acceptable to conscience.

So do I. But that doesn't mean what you argue it means.

Honour killings, in some societies, are acceptable to intuitive judgements of conscience.

Why do you think that evolution, concerned with our survival, would be sending us mixed messages on killing people?

Hauser does a good job of explaining why honour killings come to be considered as morally permissible, or even morally obligatory, in some cultures, but highly immoral in others.

And you are assuming that, because Hauser explains why the culture thinks it's OK, that it's their intuitive judgment and not a cultural bias affecting their judgment?

 

[Augustus]

I have not. Like you, I have read reviews.

I have the book. That's why I am able to quote it.

Just before we continue, can you link to the reviews you've read that support your view?

So far you have shown evidence of reading (and misunderstanding) one article on Edge and the blurb on the MST while being massively confident you have a great understanding of his arguments that he explains at length in a book you haven't read.

You surely must have read more to be so confident...

Even a couple of links would give you more credibility...

 

[joe1776]

...Just before we continue, can you link to the reviews you've read that support your view? Even a couple of links would give you more credibility...

I'm not concerned with your opinion of my credibility. This is a debate. My concern is that unbiased, intelligent readers find my arguments more credible than yours.

I think such a reader will note that if honor killings are allowed by intuitive judgments as you posit, you can't provide a reason to explain why evolution, concerned with our survival, would send mixed messages on killing.

I think such a reader will also note that Marc Hauser, et al , at Harvard created the Moral Sense Test expecting to show that our moral sense is universal. And, if that's true, your argument that culture strongly impacts our moral sense would contradict their hypothesis. So, the notion that Hauser would support you is illogical.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not concerned with your opinion of my credibility. This is a debate. My concern is that unbiased, intelligent readers find my arguments more credible than yours.

In the off chance were any intelligent, unbiased readers left, I'm pretty sure don't find your unsupported assertions about what Hauser says in a book you haven't read and thus have no way of knowing anything about to be more credible than the clear and explicit words of Hauser saying what he himself believes and taken directly from the book you haven't read and thus have no way of knowing anything about.

I think such a reader will note that if honor killings are allowed by intuitive judgments as you posit, you can't provide a reason to explain why evolution, concerned with our survival, would send mixed messages on killing.

You mean as Hauser posits in his book?

The answer is perfectly obvious though, I'm surprised you find it so mysterious. What it takes to survive differs from place to place.

Let's see what Hauser has to say on the subject, shall we?

Here’s how Nisbett and Cohen explain the cultural differences. Cultures of honor, such as the American South, are characterized by a com- mon point of origin. They develop in situations where individuals have to take the law into their own hands because there is no formal law in place to guard against competitors who can steal valuable resources. A psychology of violence emerges. You can steal domestic herding animals (cattle, goats, horses, sheep), but you can’t steal farming crops—you, of course, could steal some potatoes or carrots, but not enough to make a serious dent in the owner’s resources. Cultures of honor therefore tend to develop among herding peoples, not farmers with crops. Many of these cultures have emerged over history and across the continents, including such herd- ing peoples as the Zuni Indians of North America, the Andalusians of southern Spain, Kabyle of Algeria, Sarakatsani of Greece, and Bedouins of the Middle East.

The settlement of the South and North of the United States highlights the relationship between resources, violence, and social norms. Scottish and Irish herders developed the South, whereas Dutch and German farmers developed the North. During the period of settlement, there were either no laws or poorly enforced ones. Consequently, as a means of protecting their property and their livelihood, the herders of the South developed their own means of protection: the rule of retaliation, or lex talonis. What started out as a macho response to animal property subsequently spread to other parts of life, including marital infidelities. If a man caught someone sleeping with his wife—caught in flagrante delicto—it was not only appropriate but expected of him to defend his honor by killing the offenders. The Southerners absorbed this attitude—this culture of honor— and carried it through to many facets of life. (p133-4)

I think such a reader will also note that Marc Hauser, et al , at Harvard created the Moral Sense Test expecting to show that our moral sense is universal. And, if that's true, your argument that culture strongly impacts our moral sense would contradict their hypothesis. So, the notion that Hauser would support you is illogical.

Why not directly address his words and arguments, instead of pretending they don't exist then?

Start here seeing as it continues from the honour culture example you, hopefully, now understand (you dodged it last time):

To use your example, insults are bad in all cultures, but whether you should ignore it or respond violently is cultural (Hauser uses this specific example when discussing honour cultures).

In some cultures ignoring it is virtuous, and in others it marks you out as a weak and dishonourable so you have to respond with violence to regain your honour.

Again from the moral mind discussing the difference between Southern US honour cultures and Northern US, and emphasising these are instinctive not 'rational':

When the stooge bumped and insulted the Southerners, they reported greater anger, showed a massive stress response as indicated by an increase in the hormone cortisol, as well as an increase in testosterone, one indicator of aggressive intent. Northerners found the bump and verbal insult more amusing and showed no noticeable change in cortisol or testosterone. In a second experiment, one stooge bumped and insulted the subject, and soon thereafter, a second stooge—a six-foot- three-inch, 250-pound male—approached. Not only did Southerners experience greater anger than Northerners, but they were unwilling to move when the hulk approached. Having been insulted once, they had no intention of being insulted again. They were fighting for the status of king of the hallway.

When Northerners are insulted, they can ignore it, inhibiting the impulse to strike back either verbally (“Yeah, well, you’re an ******* too!”) or physically. Southerners have a different physiological set point. The Southern system of control [i.e the extent to which it is rejects violence as legitimate] is weaker than the Northern, at least at this point in history. These results show that culture can push around our aggressive tendencies, specifically the threshold for triggering our impulses to fight. All humans have the capacity for aggression. Each human has a different boiling point. Humans in some cultures have more similar boiling points than humans in other cultures. In the South, not only are people more likely to respond aggressively to insult, but they expect others to respond violently to insult. If a Northerner sees someone walk away from an insult, that is the proper thing to do. If a Southerner sees someone walk away from an insult, he’s a wimp.

This is from the chapter 'grammars of violence' where he explains how honour killings are intuitively justifiable in certain cultures.

Are you still going to pretend he agrees with you?

 

[joe1776]

I

Are you still going to pretend he agrees with you?

You are cherry-picking passages from Hauser's book and then interpreting that passage to fit your argument

However, if we understand that the Moral Sense Test, which Hauser, Cushman, and others created, was done intending to show a universal moral sense, you can't logically argue that any of those Harvard psychologists support your completely opposite hypothesis that human moral intuition will differ widely from culture to culture.

I'll give you my thoughts on the following paragraph merely to demonstrate the problem with interpretation:

Here’s how Nisbett and Cohen explain the cultural differences. Cultures of honor, such as the American South, are characterized by a common point of origin. They develop in situations where individuals have to take the law into their own hands because there is no formal law in place to guard against competitors who can steal valuable resources.

First, let's assume the paragraph is true. If so, it describes an act of self-defense. Conscience allows killing in self-defense. Such an act is well-aligned with the survival of our species. All cultures allow killing in self-defense.

However, the paragraph is probably nonsense. To me, it reads like a derivative of the notion that, long ago, tribes went to war because of the scarcity of resources which traces back to the myth of the Noble Savage. It's more likely that men attacked their neighbors long ago for the same reason that the forces of Hitler, Mussolini and Putin did it. They were led by arrogant lowlife corrupted by the need to prove they were superior to ordinary humans.

You haven't answered the question I posed earlier. If evolution is concerned with our survival, why would our moral intuition vary significantly from culture to culture as you propose? It seems to me that when it is and isn't OK to kill would be the same in all cultures, for example.

 

[Augustus]

You are cherry-picking passages from Hauser's book and then interpreting that passage to fit your argument

Try explaining what they actually do mean then

Don't simply assert they are out of context, or misleading, actually explain what it is that he is saying.

That is a rational argument, not simply pretending they don't say what they say.

Is this one simple enough:

I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive. The notion of a universal moral grammar with parametric variation provides one way to think about pluralism. It requires us to understand how, in development, particular parameters are fixed by experience. It also requires us to appreciate that, once fixed, we may be as perplexed by another commu- nity’s moral system as we are by their language. Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world’s moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other.

Perhaps this one too:

If there is a universal moral grammar, the principles are fixed, but the potential range of moral systems is not. The potential range is only constrained by the logical possibilities of the brain and some degree of historical inertia...

To say that we are endowed with a universal moral grammar is to say that we have evolved general but abstract principles for deciding which actions are forbidden, permissible, or obligatory. These principles lack specific content. There are no principles dictating which particular sexual, altruistic, or violent acts are permissible. Nothing in our genome codes for whether infanticide, incest, euthanasia, or cooperation are permissible, and, if permissible, with which individuals. And the simplest way to see that this must be so is to recognize that each child, depending upon his or her cultural origins, will acquire a distinctive moral system. The universal moral grammar is a theory about the principles that enable children to build a large but finite range of distinctive moral systems.


Or this:

This response both falsely assumes that the moral-instinct perspective denies all learning, and also fails to explain the growth of moral knowledge. Like language, the specifically expressed and culturally variable moral systems are learned in the sense that the detailed contents of particular social norms are acquired by exposure to the local culture; the abstract principles and parameters are innate. The role of experience is to instruct the innate system, pruning the range of possible moral systems down to one distinctive moral signature. This type of instructive learning is characteristic of countless biological processes, ranging from the immune system to language. When the genome has constructed a mechanism for generating a virtually limitless range of meaningful variation, the role of experience is to set a series of options so that the outcome is constrained.

The notion that, long ago, tribes went to war because scarcity of resources traces back to the myth of the Noble Savage. It's more likely that men attacked their neighbors long ago for the same reason that the forces of Hitler and Putin did it. They were led by arrogant lowlife corrupted by the need to prove the were superior to ordinary humans.

Nonsense, it's basic evolutionary theory.

I guess when chimps fight over resources, this is because they are led by lowlife leaders who think they are better than ordinary chimps...

 

[Rival]

I guess when chimps fight over resources, this is because they are led by lowlife leaders who think they are better than ordinary chimps...

They apparently show some signs of religious behaviour too, so that must be because an elite group want to control the monkey masses

 

[joe1776]

Try explaining what they actually do mean then

I don't need to do that. I've already pointed out that your entire argument logically is opposed to Hauser's conclusion. It doesn't matter how artfully you interpret quotes from his book.

Nonsense, it's basic evolutionary theory.

I guess when chimps fight over resources, this is because they are led by lowlife leaders who think they are better than ordinary chimps...

I was discussing human traits. I thought you were too.

I can't think of a war in modern history that was fought over resources. Can you? You have to go back to eras before historians began recording the motivations of the aggressors to make those allegations.

 

[Augustus]

I don't need to do that. I've already pointed out that your entire argument logically is opposed to Hauser's conclusion. It doesn't matter how artfully you interpret quotes from his book.

You won't do it, because you can't and are trying to save face. Basically, you have invested so much time and emotional energy into presenting your grand theory that you can't face the fact you have fundamentally misunderstood the basic premise of Hauser's argument and what he means by a universal moral grammar.

That is why you have to pretend multiple direct quotes presented without comment are somehow my arguments rather than his, are 'artfully interpreted', and that they are not absolutely explicit in their rejection of your thesis:

What is the "artful interpretation" of this?

There are no principles dictating which particular sexual, altruistic, or violent acts are permissible. Nothing in our genome codes for whether infanticide, incest, euthanasia, or cooperation are permissible, and, if permissible, with which individuals. And the simplest way to see that this must be so is to recognize that each child, depending upon his or her cultural origins, will acquire a distinctive moral system. The universal moral grammar is a theory about the principles that enable children to build a large but finite range of distinctive moral systems...

I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive.

I was discussing human traits. I thought you were too.

I take it you are unfamiliar with Hauser's background and the fact that humans are primates:

Marc D. Hauser (born October 25, 1959) is an American evolutionary biologist and a researcher in primate behavior, animal cognition and human behavior and neuroscience.

 

[joe1776]

You won't do it, because you can't and are trying to save face.

Hauser's conclusion is that we humans have a universal moral sense. Why do I need to save face when I have logic on my side?

What is the "artful interpretation" of this?

There are no principles dictating which particular sexual, altruistic, or violent acts are permissible. Nothing in our genome codes for whether infanticide, incest, euthanasia, or cooperation are permissible, and, if permissible, with which individuals.

I agree with him. Conscience does not make moral rules about specific acts.

And the simplest way to see that this must be so is to recognize that each child, depending upon his or her cultural origins, will acquire a distinctive moral system. The universal moral grammar is a theory about the principles that enable children to build a large but finite range of distinctive moral systems...

I would have to question him further on this point. This might be an area where he and I would disagree. He might be including in his "distinctive system" what I would label "cultural biases."

I take it you are unfamiliar with Hauser's background and the fact that humans are primates:

I'm aware of Hauser's background. What's your point?

Is that your argument that we can learn more about humans by studying chimps than from studying humans?

 

[Augustus]

Hauser's conclusion is that we humans have a universal moral sense. Why do I need to save face when I have logic on my side?

You don't have anything on your side as you haven't grasped what a universal moral grammar actually is yet. You haven't even got the self-awareness to realise you might have made a mistake

If you need it simplified, a review of another person who, unlike you, has read the book you claim to be an expert on:

Hauser argues that a moral instinct has evolved that is similar to the language instinct. It is hard wired in neural circuits that evolved to make moral decisions. In the same way that all languages are structured in terms of universal principles of generative grammar that produce substantively different sentences in different linguistic environments, all people’s moral sense is based on universal principles of generative morality that may produce different kinds of moral judgments in different cultures.

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/krebs/publications/Deciphering the Structure of the Moral Sense. A Review of Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds.pdf

Hauser is very clear it doesn't mean we all should reach the same moral judgements (what do you even think moral pluralism means???):

I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive...

Like language, the specifically expressed and culturally variable moral systems are learned in the sense that the detailed contents of particular social norms are acquired by exposure to the local culture;

I agree with him. Conscience does not make moral rules about specific acts.

He is discussing cultural variations, which you can see if you don't quote mine by cutting off the next sentence

And the simplest way to see that this must be so is to recognize that each child, depending upon his or her cultural origins, will acquire a distinctive moral system.

I would have to question him further on this point. This might be an area where he and I would disagree.

Why not just read the book then so you can see for yourself that he rejects your thesis? You claim he supports you so often, it's odd you refuse to actually try to develop an informed understanding of his arguments.

 

[joe1776]

You don't have anything on your side as you haven't grasped what a universal moral grammar actually is yet. You haven't even got the self-awareness to realise you might have made a mistake

It amuses me that, in Internet forums, posters think their opinions on the debate ought to be considered as arguments in debate.

Hauser is very clear it doesn't mean we all should reach the same moral judgements...

That's true, but logically, he can't mean that the differences are significant enough to deny that our moral sense is universal. Your position on the impact of culture is much stronger and would deny its universal nature.

I think I can now can explain where Hauser and I differ. Let's start with slavery as an example. I view slavery as a practice that was always immoral --- a cultural bias that, at one time, everyone thought was OK. As of the year 2000, every culture in the world abolished the legal practice. I credit conscience, the basic moral structure we were born with, as the cause of that moral upgrade.

Roughly, the abolishment of legal slavery happened between the years 1700 and 2000, and the year 1850 was about the halfway point. So, in 1850 was conscience leading half the world to think that slavery was OK and the other half that it was wrong? I don't think so.

I think slavery was always a cultural bias, misleading humanity, and it was empathy along with examinations of conscience, that changed minds. IMO, we have many cultural biases that are in the process of changing. The theme is equality. Equality for slaves, equality for homosexuals, equality for women, equality for the children of the poor, equality for the insane, equality for the blind and so on.

I think Hauser is mistakenly including cultural biases in his inventory of moral intuition.

 

[Augustus]

It amuses me that, in Internet forums, posters think their opinions ought to be considered as arguments in debate.

Yes, it's amusing you think your fantastical assertions about Hauser's views are more authoritative than Hauser's own words about his views

That's true, but logically, he can't mean that the differences are significant enough to deny that our moral sense is universal. Your position on the impact of culture is much stronger and would deny its universal nature.

He very much can, and says so explicitly:

There are no principles dictating which particular sexual, altruistic, or violent acts are permissible. Nothing in our genome codes for whether infanticide, incest, euthanasia, or cooperation are permissible, and, if permissible, with which individuals. And the simplest way to see that this must be so is to recognize that each child, depending upon his or her cultural origins, will acquire a distinctive moral system. The universal moral grammar is a theory about the principles that enable children to build a large but finite range of distinctive moral systems...

Again, you are too conceited to even consider you massively missed the point from the get go...

I think Hauser is mistakenly including cultural biases in his inventory of moral intuition.

Good that you admit he argues against your thesis.

That makes zero scientists who support your views

 

[joe1776]

...
That makes zero scientists who support your views

I said at the outset that I doubted that any one scientist supported all my opinions because they don't agree with each other on much of anything. But Hauser and Bloom agree with me that we are born with the basic structure of conscience. An opinion you objected to repeatedly. And Hauser and the MST boys are demonstrating that conscience is universal -- even if there's some debate on exactly what that means.

I'm pleased with that support since most psychologists still support the opposite theory. They still teach Kohlberg in Psych 101 which does not support intuition at all. They think that we are born with a blank slate and have to be taught to discern right from wrong. Most psychologists think that we reason our way to moral judgments.

 

[Augustus]

But Hauser and Bloom agree with me that we are born with the basic structure of conscience.

And they both disagree with you in that culture, experience, environment and reason collectively have a very significant impact on moral intuition so that people of different cultures will make very different intuitive moral judgements.

You agree children have social instinct which we've known since Darwin at least.

You fundamentally disagree on what this means for adult morality.

It's like using the fact a Muslim believes in God, to support the idea that Christianity is true. While your beleifs share one commonality, the things you disagree on are the ones that matter.

And Hauser and the MST boys are demonstrating that conscience is universal -- even if there's some debate on exactly what that means.

While they may disagree on what it means, they are absolutely unequivocal that it doesn't mean what you seem to think.

We've seen Hauser's explicit rejection of your view, shall we look at a very explicit rejection of it by Cushman too?

But while punishment in cultures of honor is remarkable for its effect in prompting punitive behavior, it appears to build upon many of the ordinary psychological foundations that we considered at the beginning of this essay in terms of punitive judgments. Punishment is triggered by causal responsibility, and although it need not be targeted at the responsible individual, at least it must be targeted at the responsible individual’s clan...

Many of the features that make punishment a daunting object of psychological study also make it an exemplar of the moral domain. If the psychology of punishment can only be understood as an interaction between biology, culture, and institutions, then surely the same is true of the psychology of cooperation, forgiveness, generosity, fairness, character, trust, and so forth.
Punishment in Humans: From Intuitions to Institutions - Fiery Cushman

I know you are not religious, but your views are simply a post-Christian salvation myth based on human exceptionalism and a teleological view of history. Many irreligious people can't quite escape the culturally conditioned religious influences on their worldviews, even while thinking they are being neutral and rational. This is why you think humans, completely unlike any other animal, evolved to think of the good of the species at a global level as if created as part of a common Humanity by a benevolent deity.

Humans were born to be good and live in the garden of Eden global harmony, but then satan 'arrogant leaders' led them astray. But, through the power of Jesus Christ and Divine Providence our universal and perfect moral intuition will deliver us unto a paradise where we will live together in peace.

The purpose of human history is to regain what was lost at the Fall.

You think you have seen the light, and as an evangelist want others to share your faith. Like the evangelical, your faith is unshakeable in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence and you simply "know" your view is correct (you call it a logical deduction, but only you see the logic).

An opinion you objected to repeatedly.

Back to the same old strawman I see

As you well know by now, my view is that humans, as social primates, obviously have social instincts. Some of these social instincts may relate to areas we would term 'morality', although I think it is naive to see these as acting independently of all other evolved cognitive functions that deal with socialisation, survival and reproduction.

 

[joe1776]

And they both disagree with you in that culture, experience, environment and reason collectively have a very significant impact on moral intuition so that people of different cultures will make very different intuitive moral judgements.

That's an obviously unsupported claim since you can't possibly know that they both disagree since the only thing we know for sure is that they both agree with each other that our moral sense is universal, a feature that your position logically denies.

It's like using the fact a Muslim believes in God, to support the idea that Christianity is true. While your beleifs share one commonality, the things you disagree on are the ones that matter.

Like most arguments from analogy, that one's false. Harvard's MST psychologists and I agree that our moral sense is intuitive, we're born with a basic structure of morality, and this basic structure is universal. That's three very basic premises.

While they may disagree on what it means, they are absolutely unequivocal that it doesn't mean what you seem to think.

I doubt that two intelligent men, with a good grasp of this very complex topic, would be "absolutely unequivocal" about any challenge to what they think they know. You can be absolutely unequivocal because it seems you haven't given the topic much thought.

We've seen Hauser's explicit rejection of your view, shall we look at a very explicit rejection of it by Cushman too?

I read the quote. I don't understand why you think that quote is an "explicit rejection" of my view. Frankly, I doubt that you fully understand my view.

You think you have seen the light, and as an evangelist want others to share your faith. Like the evangelical, your faith is unshakeable in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence and you simply "know" your view is correct (you call it a logical deduction, but only you see the logic).

You try to trash me personally because you can't trash my arguments.

Back to the same old strawman I see

You objected to my posting of this quote by Bloom repeatedly because it clashes with your argument that moral judgments derive from cultural causes. If I'm wrong you should be able to explain why it doesn't clash. How can we be born with the basic structure for discerning right from wrong yet make learning from culture so important?

Why don't you create a single act of killing. Give me the facts and tell me what part culture plays and what part intuition plays in the judgment of that act?

Humans are born with a hard-wired morality: a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone/ i know this claim might sound outlandish, but it's supported now by research in several laboratories --- Paul Bloom, Yale psychologist

As you well know by now, my view is that humans, as social primates, obviously have social instincts. Some of these social instincts may relate to areas we would term 'morality', although I think it is naive to see these as acting independently of all other evolved cognitive functions that deal with socialisation, survival and reproduction.

You don't have a coherent position on the topic of morality. The judgments of conscience are either the product of reason or of intuition. You have claimed that you support intuition, but your arguments, so strong on the impact of culture, favor learning and reason.

 

[Augustus]

That's an obviously unsupported claim since you can't possibly know that they both disagree since the only thing we know for sure is that they both agree with each other that our moral sense is universal, a feature that your position logically denies.

I've provided at least a dozen quotes from primary and secondary sources. You've dodged the vast majority

Some of these explain your error regarding the concept of a universal moral grammar.

I read the quote. I don't understand why you think that quote is an "explicit rejection" of my view. Frankly, I doubt that you fully understand my view.

Frankly I don't think you understand anything much of these ideas which is why you don't understand why it's incompatible with what you have argued.

If you had engaged with the material from Hauser's book rather than trying to pretend it was "manipulated" so you didn't have to accept you were wrong you could have learned something.

So:

But while punishment in cultures of honor is remarkable for its effect in prompting punitive behavior.. . If the psychology of punishment can only be understood as an interaction between biology, culture, and institutions, then surely the same is true of the psychology of cooperation, forgiveness, generosity, fairness, character, trust, and so forth.
Punishment in Humans: From Intuitions to Institutions - Fiery Cushman

He is explaining how culture and environment (in this case governmental institutions capable of enforcing law) influence intuitive moral judgements (and vice versa)

This is the same point as made by Hauser here:

When Northerners are insulted, they can ignore it, inhibiting the impulse to strike back either verbally (“Yeah, well, you’re an ******* too!”) or physically. Southerners have a different physiological set point. The Southern system of control [i.e the extent to which it is rejects violence as legitimate] is weaker than the Northern, at least at this point in history. These results show that culture can push around our aggressive tendencies, specifically the threshold for triggering our impulses to fight. All humans have the capacity for aggression. Each human has a different boiling point. Humans in some cultures have more similar boiling points than humans in other cultures. In the South, not only are people more likely to respond aggressively to insult, but they expect others to respond violently to insult. If a Northerner sees someone walk away from an insult, that is the proper thing to do. If a Southerner sees someone walk away from an insult, he’s a wimp

And

Here’s how Nisbett and Cohen explain the cultural differences. Cultures of honor, such as the American South, are characterized by a com- mon point of origin. They develop in situations where individuals have to take the law into their own hands because there is no formal law in place to guard against competitors who can steal valuable resources. A psychology of violence emerges. You can steal domestic herding animals (cattle, goats, horses, sheep), but you can’t steal farming crops—you, of course, could steal some potatoes or carrots, but not enough to make a serious dent in the owner’s resources. Cultures of honor therefore tend to develop among herding peoples, not farmers with crops. Many of these cultures have emerged over history and across the continents, including such herd- ing peoples as the Zuni Indians of North America, the Andalusians of southern Spain, Kabyle of Algeria, Sarakatsani of Greece, and Bedouins of the Middle East.

The settlement of the South and North of the United States highlights the relationship between resources, violence, and social norms. Scottish and Irish herders developed the South, whereas Dutch and German farmers developed the North. During the period of settlement, there were either no laws or poorly enforced ones. Consequently, as a means of protecting their property and their livelihood, the herders of the South developed their own means of protection: the rule of retaliation, or lex talonis. What started out as a macho response to animal property subsequently spread to other parts of life, including marital infidelities. If a man caught someone sleeping with his wife—caught in flagrante delicto—it was not only appropriate but expected of him to defend his honor by killing the offenders. The Southerners absorbed this attitude—this culture of honor— and carried it through to many facets of life. (p133-4)

You don't believe culture and environment matter to intuitive moral judgement, they do.

You don't have a coherent position on the topic of morality. The judgments of conscience are either the product or reason or of intuition. You have claimed that you support intuition, but your arguments, so strong on the impact of culture, favor reason.

This seems to be the crux of your misunderstanding. If you think anything involving culture must be a judgement of reason, no wonder you keep making the same error.

Hauser:

Once we have acquired our culture’s specific moral norms—a process that is more like growing a limb than sitting in Sunday school and learning about vices and virtues—we judge whether actions are permissible, obligatory, or forbidden, without conscious reasoning and without explicit access to the underlying principles.

If you read the quotes provided, my posts, the reviews provided or, even better, Hauser's book itself with an open mind, you might understand how internalised cultural values influence intuitive moral judgements:

Hauser argues that a moral instinct has evolved that is similar to the language instinct. It is hard wired in neural circuits that evolved to make moral decisions. In the same way that all languages are structured in terms of universal principles of generative grammar that produce substantively different sentences in different linguistic environments, all people’s moral sense is based on universal principles of generative morality that may produce different kinds of moral judgments in different cultures.

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/krebs/publications/Deciphering the Structure of the Moral Sense. A Review of Marc Hauser’s Moral Minds.pdf

Or Hauser himself:

I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive...

Like language, the specifically expressed and culturally variable moral systems are learned in the sense that the detailed contents of particular social norms are acquired by exposure to the local culture..

 

[joe1776]

I've provided at least a dozen quotes from primary and secondary sources. You've dodged the vast majority

Harvard's MST psychologists and I agree that our moral sense is intuitive, we're born with a basic structure of morality, and this basic structure is universal. That's three very basic premises
.
You want me to accept that your interpretation of cherry-picked quotations, some from Hauser's book and some from reviewers of his book are accurate and represent contradictions to my arguments. To me, some of those quotes read like they're off-topic. But even if you're right, I don't care if Hauser disagrees with me on some things. It would shock me, as it probably would Hauser, to find myself in complete agreement with anyone on this difficult topic.

I can't debate Hauser in this forum. If you can't express your own positions well enough to debate the topic, I'm wasting my time. I've asked you why you repeatedly object to Bloom's quote alleging that we are born with a "hard-wired" morality. You repeatedly claim that I've created a strawman on an argument you've never made. 'What's wrong with Bloom's quote?

Retraction and apology: A strawman is a deliberate act. I did not deliberately distort your argument on the Bloom quote, but I did misunderstand it.

Still, it needs further clarification:

I also suggested a way for you to clarify your position: Why don't you create a single act of killing. Give me the facts and tell me what part culture plays and what part intuition plays in the judgment of that act?

No response from you on that.

 

[Augustus]

Why don't you create a single act of killing. Give me the facts and tell me what part culture plays and what part intuition plays in the judgment of that act?

No response from you on that.

I've given you this about 3 times regarding honour killings, supported by quotes from both Hauser and Cushman.

I don't think honour killings are justified, many people in South Asia do.

As per basic evolutionary theory, I believe humans adapt to their environments.

This explains it, as Hauser and Cushman both argue too (see previous posts).

I can't debate Hauser in this forum.

You seem to be unaware that people write books and articles to express their views and that reading these books and articles means you can understand their perspective.

Quotation is a standard academic convention to demonstrate you are familiar with another's work and are presenting it fairly.

All you seem to be doing is finding a reason not to engage with the ideas of someone you repeatedly claim supports your views based on a single 2 sentence quote you've misunderstood yet repeat ad nauseum.

What's wrong with Bloom's quote?

Strange that you are allowed to quote but when others do it it's somehow mendacious or evidence of ignorance..

What's wrong is you misunderstood it as has been explained with evidence.

You want me to accept that your interpretation of cherry-picked quotations, some from Hauser's book and some from reviewers of his book are accurate and represent contradictions to my arguments. To me, some of those quotes read like they're off-topic. But even if you're right, I don't care if Hauser disagrees with me on some things. It would shock me, as it probably would Hauser, to find myself in complete agreement with anyone on this difficult topic.

Given your obsession with this topic, why don't you actually bother to read his book so you can actually understand?

 

[joe1776]

I've given you this about 3 times regarding honour killings, supported by quotes from both Hauser and Cushman.

I don't think honour killings are justified, many people in South Asia do.

As per basic evolutionary theory, I believe humans adapt to their environments.

This explains it, as Hauser and Cushman both argue too (see previous posts).

It's fine that you want to quote Hauser and Cushman for support but I can't debate them.

As per basic evolutionary theory, I believe humans adapt to their environments.

That statement explains nothing. Why would honor killings support survival in one environment but not in others? Isn't it more likely that honor killing are like slavery, a cultural bias that the moral intuition we were all born with will someday wipe out?

I'll give you a quick example of how cultural influences can easily create biases. Christianity has the greatest influence in our culture. If Christians interpret their Bible's commandment on killing as an absolute rule as some do; that killing is always a sin, that interpretation forms a cultural bias. Give them the facts in a clear case of a killing in self-defense, they will ignore their moral intuition and reason that the killer sinned.

So, are you simply assuming that cultural differences are caused by the environment or do you have some way showing that they aren't simply cultural biases?