The Best Evidence of a Creator is Also a Blow to Traditional Religion

[Ponder This]

Here's an article from the NY Times on your point...The Moral Life of Babies

It would seem that researchers have failed to discern the difference between morality and empathy.

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. All these baby experiments are very clearly empathy experiments and have nothing to do with right or wrong behavior.

Most people are born with some degree of empathy for others - not surprising. Perhaps the conscience you describe is merely the capacity of people to understand and share the feelings of others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
A reasonable judgment can be explained. Intuitive moral judgments usually can't be explained. Researchers (Haidt 2000) determined that the judgments of conscience were intuitive because the judgments came immediately and the attempts to explain, which followed, were rarely good explanations..

Yeah, I like that. It doesn't hold though, because some of us have learned to change our moral behavior based on meta-cognition. There are not that many of us, a maximum based on other studies of the ability to do meta-cognition and related self-reflection thinking and adjustment of feelings and emotion, we are at best 10% of the adult population.
I mean ,we are there, because your quote admits it itself: "...were rarely good explanations."

So doing science as one factor explanation never works when it comes to humans. Moral intuition is a part of it, but it is not all of it. I mean, I don't just intuitive moral judgments any more. Even what I do morality on the "fly" is "colored" by that I spend a lot of time reflecting on my morality and adjusting it. Yes, I do it some times, but not always.

Here is some science of that:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
Now stages 1 to 4 are generally intuitive in some sense, but stage 5 is not. You can only do that using meta-cognition and that is no intuitive.

Now I am not nice, but when it comes to human behavior never rely on only one model/theory and what not. And yes, even Kohlberg's model has limits. So do Haidt's.

Now if you want to debate morality, you can't just use Haidt. Nor can you just use Kohlberg.

 

[joe1776]

It would seem that researchers have failed to discern the difference between morality and empathy.

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. All these baby experiments are very clearly empathy experiments and have nothing to do with right or wrong behavior.

Most people are born with some degree of empathy for others - not surprising. Perhaps the conscience you describe is merely the capacity of people to understand and share the feelings of others.

The babies were able to discern good behavior from bad. They wanted to reward the good and punish the bad. There's more than empathy demonstrated in this research.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It might help you to remember that conscience operates with only the pain and pleasure functions of our brains. The pain function sends an unpleasant signal when the act we have in mind is morally wrong or unfair. The pleasure function rewards us when we are especially kind to others. We feel good about it.
...

The problem is that there are humans. which gain pleasure from the pain of others. Now they are still humans, so your "we" is not universal and it is not even that simple. They are other ways to get around inflicting pain on others than how a psychopath do it.
So you are overdoing your "we".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The babies were able to discern good behavior from bad. They wanted to reward the good and punish the bad. There's more than empathy demonstrated in this research.

Another problem is that good behavior can lead to bad results. Yeah, it is not always so that what is good behavior to you results in good outcomes.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who lives morally I would ask you what you are talking about science and babies and human behaviour for...when science was invented for invention, not humans.

 

[Left Coast]

You are confusing moral opinions with the judgments of conscience. People who think gay sex is immoral hold a moral opinion. That's not their conscience guiding them.

This is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Conscience is concerned with their actions.

"Moral opinions" are also concerned with their actions.

If they consider causing intentional harm to gay people, their conscience will trouble them. If they disregard the warning and cause harm, they will be nagged with guilt for the rest of their lives when they remember their transgression.

But their conscience informs them that gay sex also does some sort of harm (or otherwise violates their moral compass). The fact that there is a conflict in their opinion (because their belief involves grappling with conflicting values) doesn't change the fact that they intuitively believe gay sex to be somehow morally wrong.

It might help you to remember that conscience operates with only the pain and pleasure functions of our brains.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This is a complex topic. I'd be glad to explain anything you don't understand.

I appreciate that, but based on your answers I'm not convinced that the issue is my not understanding. It seems to be more that your idea has some glaring flaws.

All my comment requires is the reasonable deduction that people are more likely to cooperate in a worthy cause than in an unworthy cause.

Given the vast number of unworthy causes people have cooperated with through our species' history, I'm curious how you did that math.

Nope. I don't think that. Are you taking my general statement as an absolute in order to find fault?

Your statement wasn't general though, it was specific. You said the reason the Nazis lost WW2 was because they had a morally inferior cause.

I made a logical deduction. Since conscience works case by case and since there is no act that is always wrong, conscience can't guide on the prohibition of any action as national policy.

You assume that national abortion policies are universally prohibitive. You live in the US, don't you? Are you aware of the legal status of abortion, nationally? Hint: it's not absolute in either direction.

And, when it is an individual act, conscience will offer guidance.

It's always an individual act. So by that reasoning, conscience always offers guidance on the morality of abortion.

The abortion issue wasn't created by the people who favored abortions. The issue was created by people who wanted to stop them. Their reasoning minds first created the moral rule that "Only God can take a life" or some similar creation that will conflict with the judgments of conscience.

You're vastly oversimplifying the issue. You seem to have a preconceived notion in your head of how conscience works, and then you're taking that idea and trying to squeeze it to fit the data of the real world.

If you take at their word anyone who ever morally opposes any abortion, the issue is usually that abortion invokes conflicting moral values which must be somehow reconciled to arrive at an opinion.

The job of reason is to answer the questions of fact. Therefore, this is a rational exercise.

It's the job of conscience to determine whether the action is moral or immoral. This is an intuitive exercise.

But one must know the facts of a situation to determine if it's moral or immoral. Thus determining the morality of an action requires the use of reason.

 

[joe1776]

Yeah, I like that. It doesn't hold though, because some of us have learned to change our moral behavior based on meta-cognition. There are not that many of us, a maximum based on other studies of the ability to do meta-cognition and related self-reflection thinking and adjustment of feelings and emotion, we are at best 10% of the adult population.
I mean ,we are there, because your quote admits it itself: "...were rarely good explanations."

So doing science as one factor explanation never works when it comes to humans. Moral intuition is a part of it, but it is not all of it. I mean, I don't just intuitive moral judgments any more. Even what I do morality on the "fly" is "colored" by that I spend a lot of time reflecting on my morality and adjusting it. Yes, I do it some times, but not always.

Here is some science of that:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
Now stages 1 to 4 are generally intuitive in some sense, but stage 5 is not. You can only do that using meta-cognition and that is no intuitive.

Now I am not nice, but when it comes to human behavior never rely on only one model/theory and what not. And yes, even Kohlberg's model has limits. So do Haidt's.

Now if you want to debate morality, you can't just use Haidt. Nor can you just use Kohlberg.

My position on conscience was formed before John Haidt was born. As I wrote, it began with the axiom that all knowledge begins with the senses. Haidt and others have been confirming my position on intuition. However, I don't agree with Haidt on much of anything else.

I think Kohlberg is nonsense. It amazes me that his theory is still taught in Psych 101.

As for meta-cognition, my initial reaction is skepticism, of course. If I'm right that the judgments of conscience apply case-by-case and are intuitive, I can't imagine why thinking about morality would be necessary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My position on conscience was formed before John Haidt was born. As I wrote, it began with the axiom that all knowledge begins with the senses. Haidt and others have been confirming my position on intuition. However, I don't agree with Haidt on much of anything else.

I think Kohlberg is nonsense. It amazes me that his theory is still taught in Psych 101.

As for meta-cognition, my initial reaction is skepticism, of course. If I'm right that the judgments of conscience apply case-by-case and are intuitive, I can't imagine why thinking about morality would be necessary.

No, it doesn't. That is a half-truth. And it is not science. It is philosophy. I can do that, I am a strong philosophical skeptic, so bring it on.

The rest of your post is not science, but your subjectivity speaking.

 

[joe1776]

This is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

If you can't discern the difference between an opinion and an action, I can't help you.

"Moral opinions" are also concerned with their actions.

OK, but opinions are NOT actions.

But their conscience informs them that gay sex also does some sort of harm (or otherwise violates their moral compass).

No, their conscience does no misinform them. Gay sex acts disgust some people and they confuse the feeling of disgust with the feeling of wrongness produced by conscience. Social scientists have studied disgust and its impact on moral judgments.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I observed my own reactions to moral situations. You can do it too.

I appreciate that, but based on your answers I'm not convinced you've actually thought through and researched your ideas enough to be helpful.

So far, you seem to have trouble understanding the ideas so it isn't surprising that you're not convinced.

Given the vast number of unworthy causes people have cooperated with through our species' history, I'm curious how you did that math.

What math? All my comment requires is the reasonable deduction that people are more likely to cooperate in a worthy cause than in an unworthy cause because, as I wrote earlier, the good side in human nature is stronger than the bad.

Your statement wasn't general though, it was specific. You said the reason the Nazis lost WW2 was because they had a morally inferior cause.

Yes, the statement I made was specific to the Nazi question. You took a cheap shot in converting that to an absolute position.

You assume that national abortion policies are universally prohibitive. You live in the US, don't you? Are you aware of the legal status of abortion, nationally? Hint: it's not absolute in either direction.

You are really straining to find fault with what I write. Laws are almost always prohibitive. The only reason the USA doesn't have a national law banning abortion is that its proponents couldn't get it passed. So, they have to settle for laws in some states.

It's always an individual act. So by that reasoning, conscience always offers guidance on the morality of abortion.

Laws on abortion aren't individual acts of abortion.

You're vastly oversimplifying the issue. You seem to have a preconceived notion in your head of how conscience works, and then you're taking that idea and trying to squeeze it to fit the data of the real world.

I see abortion and every other kind of act as a very simple moral issue. Take all the facts of an actual case and let conscience be your ONLY guide. Everything else is nonsense.

But one must know the facts of a situation to determine if it's moral or immoral. Thus determining the morality of an action requires the use of reason.

That's fine as far as you've taken it. Now, is your position that the final judgment in a typical, specific moral situation is a task done by the rational mind (reason) or by unconscious intuition (conscience)?

 

[joe1776]

No, it doesn't. That is a half-truth. And it is not science. It is philosophy. I can do that, I am a strong philosophical skeptic, so bring it on.

A half-truth? OK, give me an example of scientific research that did NOT begin with an effect observed by the senses, something seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A half-truth? OK, give me an example of scientific research that did NOT begin with an effect observed by the senses, something seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt.

Morality is not science. So you can't use science to do morality in the end. And you can't just use one study of morality and takes for granted.
There is a lot more to morality than just in the narrow sense experiencing as you whether you feel you do them good or bad.

Now if you agree and accept that you can't do morality using science, then we can look at what science informs us about morality works. That is not the same. Science is not perspective when it comes to morality, it is descriptive. You can uses to understand what is going on.

 

[joe1776]

Morality is not science. So you can't use science to do morality in the end. And you can't just use one study of morality and takes for granted.
There is a lot more to morality than just in the narrow sense experiencing as you whether you feel you do them good or bad.

Now if you agree and accept that you can't do morality using science, then we can look at what science informs us about morality works. That is not the same. Science is not perspective when it comes to morality, it is descriptive. You can uses to understand what is going on.

You ducked the question I asked you, so I'm still in the dark as to why you labeled the axiom I used as half-truth.

Nevertheless, I have no problem accepting the wisdom you dispensed in your post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You ducked the question I asked you, so I'm still in the dark as to why you labeled the axiom I used as half-truth.

Nevertheless, I have no problem accepting the wisdom you dispensed in your post.

All knowledge is not from external sensation as per the 5 senses. It is in part and that is how it is a half-truth. Some knowledge comes from the sense, but not all.

 

[joe1776]

All knowledge is not from external sensation as per the 5 senses. It is in part and that is how it is a half-truth. Some knowledge comes from the sense, but not all.

If not from the senses, what is the other source? Maybe you can give me one example of knowledge that did not derive from the senses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If not from the senses, what is the other source? Maybe you can give me one example of knowledge that did not derive from the senses.

Yes, you know that we can disagree as we do right now, but you can't observe it as per see, hear, touch, smell and taste. It is the more than the 5 senses.

 

[joe1776]

Yes, you know that we can disagree as we do right now, but you can't observe it as per see, hear, touch, smell and taste. It is the more than the 5 senses.

Yet our disagreement would not be known to me if I couldn't see your words. But, I won't belabor the point.

Do you want to continue on debating morality? I'll agree to your post 52.

 

[metis]

Bear in mind that conscience is a moral guide only. People don't always do the right thing for any number of reasons.

Of course.

Being told that it is God's Will by someone in authority is just one of thousands of reasons to ignore one's conscience.

Depends on the authority, and also with what the authority says, which the Apostles recognized was important as they too "taught with authority".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yet our disagreement would not be known to me if I couldn't see your words. But, I won't belabor the point.

Do you want to continue on debating morality? I'll agree to your post 52.

Okay, a part of it is John Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness". There is more, but that one is necessary but not sufficient. So what do you say?

 

[joe1776]

As a human who lives morally I would ask you what you are talking about science and babies and human behaviour for...when science was invented for invention, not humans.

We disagree on the purpose of science. I see its purpose to explain things in our world. That includes human nature.