Conquer Club

This is a rather complex topic, so I apologize in advance if I'm not eloquent enough to handle it.

I was reading an article concerning moral relativity and how society conditions our personal values.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Mora ... d_Response

It basically says that the reason we react the way we do to the things around us, is because we have been trained to do so. For example, wild animals don't generally feel sad when someone dies, and one might argue humans only do because we are taught at a young age that death is sad.

So, by instilling our offspring with these reactions, are we causing unnecessary harm?

Lets take bullying for example, physical harm is one thing, I think most of us can agree that it is a natural instinct to be adverse to bodily harm, but what about mental abuse? Being taunted, belittled, and insulted causes a lot of harm, peoples live are ruined, some kill themselves or others.

I don't believe this is a necessary natural response; the reason we feel bad when these thing happen is because society tells us we need to have an inherent pride that needs to be protected. What if we didn't? What if we lived in a culture where all insults were just taken as jokes no matter how harsh they were?

Would it be better if we made a culture that programmed ambivalence to things that can cause negative emotions?(No sadness about death, no anger over insults, no desire to have more things, no inherent possessiveness towards objects or people, etc.) Or are those things necessary to make us what we are?

/ wrote:This is a rather complex topic, so I apologize in advance if I'm not eloquent enough to handle it.

I was reading an article concerning moral relativity and how society conditions our personal values.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Mora ... d_Response

It basically says that the reason we react the way we do to the things around us, is because we have been trained to do so. For example, wild animals don't generally feel sad when someone dies, and one might argue humans only do because we are taught at a young age that death is sad.

So, by instilling our offspring with these reactions, are we causing unnecessary harm?

Lets take bullying for example, physical harm is one thing, I think most of us can agree that it is a natural instinct to be adverse to bodily harm, but what about mental abuse? Being taunted, belittled, and insulted causes a lot of harm, peoples live are ruined, some kill themselves or others.

I don't believe this is a necessary natural response; the reason we feel bad when these thing happen is because society tells us we need to have an inherent pride that needs to be protected. What if we didn't? What if we lived in a culture where all insults were just taken as jokes no matter how harsh they were?

Would it be better if we made a culture that programmed ambivalence to things that can cause negative emotions?(No sadness about death, no anger over insults, no desire to want more things, no inherent possessiveness towards objects or people, etc.) Or are those things necessary to make us what we are?

actually there have been tons of cases of wild animals being sad about the death of another animal.

http://beijingcream.com/2012/07/sad-adult-dolphin-carries-dead-baby-dolphin-on-its-back-as-it-swims-home/

A good point, perhaps social animals are also conditioned by their pack mentality?
It is a necessary survival trait to value members of one's own species.
Despite the provided article I am not a complete moral relativist myself, and I am not arguing that these traits aren't naturally evolved for specific reasons, merely that as a self aware species we may be able to deliberately change these values to a degree, and I am curious to people's thoughts about doing so.

well concerning one of your points, people do feel insulted for certain things because they were taught to feel insulted. A good example is being called 'fat'. In the western world people think of it as an insult when they're called 'fat'. In asia on the other hand people don't make much of a deal out of it. However I think this may just be partially. People who are insecure or who overthink things might naturally feel insulted because of this.

==> I think it's a mix of both genes and societal influence

/ wrote:A good point, perhaps social animals are also conditioned by their pack mentality?
It is a necessary survival trait to value members of one's own species.
Despite the provided article I am not a complete moral relativist myself, and I am not arguing that these traits aren't naturally evolved for specific reasons, merely that as a self aware species we may be able to deliberately change these values to a degree, and I am curious to people's thoughts about doing so.

Yeah it is a necessary instinct for pack animals to care about each other in one way or another. It helps their survival chances.

We are sad when death happens because we are conscious and because of the power of memories and history.

Phatscotty wrote:We are sad when death happens because we are conscious and because of the power of memories and history.

No. I've known individuals who I truly believe did not feel sadness at the death of someone they ostensibly cared about. Granted, they weren't very good people, and they're on the fringe, but I think that means that more is needed than what you've provided.

/ wrote:This is a rather complex topic, so I apologize in advance if I'm not eloquent enough to handle it.

I feel like all Off Topics posts should have this as auto-generated text (like the Sugs and Bugs forum, or C&A) when creating a new post.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:We are sad when death happens because we are conscious and because of the power of memories and history.

No. I've known individuals who I truly believe did not feel sadness at the death of someone they ostensibly cared about. Granted, they weren't very good people, and they're on the fringe, but I think that means that more is needed than what you've provided.

Almost any death sort of makes me feel a little sad. Probably not Hitler's death. There are a few exceptions. But generally, things that die make me feel a touch of sadness. Not necessarily because they remind me that I'll eventually die (though it is probably part), termination just seems so final (even though I know it really isn't, a la decomposition fostering new growth). I'm all mixed up in my headbrain.

Also, Woodruff, I just rewatched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, since I am reworking my way through all the Star Trek episodes (726 episodes) and all the movies, in air date order. I shed a tear at the end.

I am not sure this was entirely on topic at all.


--Andy

waauw wrote:actually there have been tons of cases of wild animals being sad about the death of another animal.

http://beijingcream.com/2012/07/sad-adult-dolphin-carries-dead-baby-dolphin-on-its-back-as-it-swims-home/

dolphins have high levels of empathy, like humans and other intelligent animals do. this shouldn't come as a big surprise.

/ wrote:This is a rather complex topic, so I apologize in advance if I'm not eloquent enough to handle it.

I was reading an article concerning moral relativity and how society conditions our personal values.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Mora ... d_Response

It basically says that the reason we react the way we do to the things around us, is because we have been trained to do so. For example, wild animals don't generally feel sad when someone dies, and one might argue humans only do because we are taught at a young age that death is sad.

So, by instilling our offspring with these reactions, are we causing unnecessary harm?

Lets take bullying for example, physical harm is one thing, I think most of us can agree that it is a natural instinct to be adverse to bodily harm, but what about mental abuse? Being taunted, belittled, and insulted causes a lot of harm, peoples live are ruined, some kill themselves or others.

I don't believe this is a necessary natural response; the reason we feel bad when these thing happen is because society tells us we need to have an inherent pride that needs to be protected. What if we didn't? What if we lived in a culture where all insults were just taken as jokes no matter how harsh they were?

Would it be better if we made a culture that programmed ambivalence to things that can cause negative emotions?(No sadness about death, no anger over insults, no desire to have more things, no inherent possessiveness towards objects or people, etc.) Or are those things necessary to make us what we are?

Well, "society" doesn't condition anything because it's not a decision-making entity. To get beyond that aggregate of a word, you'd want to examine various types of social relationships and how those relationships over time reinforce informal rules (of various kinds) which tend to regulate individual behavior.

And to say "morality is a culturally conditioned response" can be misleading, and hopefully this was clarified in that link. Interpersonal influence is a two-way street. The claim "society conditions us into doing X" presents itself as a one-way street which is incorrect.

What if we lived in a culture where all insults were just taken as jokes no matter how harsh they were?

We do--e.g. troll culture on the internet, but it's to a degree because "culture" is not homogenous. People live within many different cultures throughout their day.


Regarding your last two questions about centrally planning the perfect human: SURE, if they're your children, go ahead and see what happens.

/ wrote:A good point, perhaps social animals are also conditioned by their pack mentality?
It is a necessary survival trait to value members of one's own species.
Despite the provided article I am not a complete moral relativist myself, and I am not arguing that these traits aren't naturally evolved for specific reasons, merely that as a self aware species we may be able to deliberately change these values to a degree, and I am curious to people's thoughts about doing so.

Sadness for the death of someone is a learned trait. You see it in film, talk to people about it, etc. Changes in attitudes for humans do evolve. Look at the etiquette of medieval Europeans compared to today.

As a self-aware species, we can change these values on various margins, but let's get beyond that collectivist thinking. This phenomenon in my opinion is largely due to spontaneous order, where people aren't explicitly trying to plan X for everyone else. Instead, some drops a good idea, and a few pick it up, and then some more--if that idea is perceived as beneficial, and so on and so forth. It's on the individual level through many exchanges over much time.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Well, "society" doesn't condition anything because it's not a decision-making entity. To get beyond that aggregate of a word, you'd want to examine various types of social relationships and how those relationships over time reinforce informal rules (of various kinds) which tend to regulate individual behavior.

And to say "morality is a culturally conditioned response" can be misleading, and hopefully this was clarified in that link. Interpersonal influence is a two-way street. The claim "society conditions us into doing X" presents itself as a one-way street which is incorrect.

You are absolutely right, as I've said; it’s difficult for me to properly express the topic I’m trying to get at in this case, perhaps I don't even have my head wrapped around it fully. Thank you for the clarification.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

What if we lived in a culture where all insults were just taken as jokes no matter how harsh they were?

We do--e.g. troll culture on the internet, but it's to a degree because "culture" is not homogenous. People live within many different cultures throughout their day.

That’s a good example of a culture clash. Perhaps trolls aren't inherently bad (as hard as they may try to be), but it is the difference in understanding that causes the pain. If everyone was a troll, no one would be offended, as horrible as that may sound to a “normal” decent person. (Of course that's the kind of argument often made by trolls, so take it with a grain of salt.)

BigBallinStalin wrote:As a self-aware species, we can change these values on various margins, but let's get beyond that collectivist thinking. This phenomenon in my opinion is largely due to spontaneous order, where people aren't explicitly trying to plan X for everyone else. Instead, some drops a good idea, and a few pick it up, and then some more--if that idea is perceived as beneficial, and so on and so forth. It's on the individual level through many exchanges over much time.

Indeed, such a hypothetical drastic attempt would likely be implausible barring some very questionable brainwashing techniques. I like your perspective on the matter; it’s sort of a philosophical natural selection. I feel a bit better accepting our current standard for morality knowing that it has been tested and altered to adapt to the needs of our current civilization.

Still, I am rather fascinated by exotic morality; one example I’m reminded of is that of the natives on the Trobriand Islands. Their societal values are extremely free, and by most of the world’s standards, extremely distasteful. There is little taboo there towards sexuality or violent outbursts, regardless of age or gender. They place no value in authoritarian child rearing, and while to some that may sound like a recipe for a complete disaster, apparently it’s an extremely peaceful society. So to stay true to the topic of moral objectivity, there is no sexual crime there precisely because the concept of sexual crime doesn't exist there.

Of course such results are not an exact science, what might work for one society might not work for others, and I am not advocating the adoption of such practices in the first place. I am just a bit bothered that certain aspects of “morality” are so deeply ingrained into societal norms that people are often unwilling to discuss why we hold these ideas as ideals, and if they are even beneficial to anyone at this point.

I think you're overstating the cultural impact on morals a bit. I think there are evolutionary reasons why we should be sad when a relative dies and why we should be angry when someone disrespects us (i.e. challenges our social status).
However many of the current ethics and morals (eg: relating sex and violence) are definitely an outcome of the societal development in the past millennia.

So, the kind of radical shift you describe would probably not be just a matter on imprinting different moral values on the blank slates of children, but would have to involve actively re-writing evolutionary instincts. (and this would probably be quite difficult)

Secondly, @ the purpose of this exercise. You say:

/ wrote:So, by instilling our offspring with these reactions, are we causing unnecessary harm?

What is the definition of "unnecessary harm"? Seems like that phrase could have many different interpretations. For instance, if comparing us to that peaceful tribe, is their extra peacefulness enough to make up for all the benefits of the modern world that they lack? If some of our idiosyncratic morals may be necessary for this modern world to function are they still causing unnecessary harm? or would that be necessary harm?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:So, the kind of radical shift you describe would probably not be just a matter on imprinting different moral values on the blank slates of children, but would have to involve actively re-writing evolutionary instincts. (and this would probably be quite difficult)

Haggis_McMutton wrote:What is the definition of "unnecessary harm"?

I'l answer both of these things with the same examples; I believe it is possible to A: train people to go against their natural evolutionary instinct, and B: train people to come to harm voluntarily and unnecessarily.

The only things I can come up off the top of my head right now will make me sound like some panicky “think of the children” scaremonger, bear with me, I’m not advocating censorship, just giving examples.

-Many forms of media romanticize excitement, they overwrite natural human evolutionary caution with “big explosions and drag racing are freaking awesome”, and as a result many impressionable idiots break their bones.

-I don’t think humans are naturally all that picky about what they eat; most toddlers will naturally eat just about anything from what I’ve heard from anecdotal evidence. Once they start socializing with their peers however, there’s often that “veggies are yucky” thing that sometimes lasts a person’s entire lifetime. A programmed visceral response to an entire food group in mankind’s natural diet. How can that not be harmful?

Haggis_McMutton wrote: Seems like that phrase could have many different interpretations. For instance, if comparing us to that peaceful tribe, is their extra peacefulness enough to make up for all the benefits of the modern world that they lack? If some of our idiosyncratic morals may be necessary for this modern world to function are they still causing unnecessary harm? or would that be necessary harm?

I suppose it is true enough that many emotions are interconnected in a way that necessitates a sacrifice for order; perhaps a balanced way to judge would be two compare subjects; with and without the individual points of morality, to determine the pros and cons it offers.

For example we have people like Donnie Darko in the video above who wouldn’t bat an eye at an animal’s death, and people like Andy who feel saddened when a bunny dies.

At its basest one might argue it is preferable not to feel sad, so a parent who doesn’t want their children to be sad when their pet bunny dies might teach their child not to care about animals. It is probably impossible to know all of the variables this could theoretically have, after all correlation does not imply causation, but let’s do our best to make up a theory for the sake of an argument.

Perhaps compassion is a good thing; the sadness we feel is a deterrent to cause harm, and to be mindful of those around us. If crying over a dead spider means fewer murders, the slight suffering of the many can ensure that more intense suffering is averted.

Perhaps being callous is good too; if a few thousand lab rats die and it cures the plague, who’s to say it was wrong?

So while we could always compare quality of life, happiness, life expectancy, etc. to determine if it’s better to be an islander or a westerner, I would argue that neither lifestyle is inherently bad or good, but we can probably learn the lesson that there are other options to morality, also it might be healthier to let go of a lot of our kneejerk reactions.

I recommend R. Scott Bakker's fantasy series... name escapes me... (fiction, but tackles this stuff in an awesome and entertaining manner).