No body has yet claimed themselves a Vaneer Theorist because no one really is! I highly doubt that you could convince many half educated people to admit a belief that man is inherently selfish or bad as a result of genetic relationship to animals.
Genetic fallacy has a mass in this discussion, its gravity altering debate, pulling dissimilar ideals and ideas into an unnatural, non-realistic alliance. A naturalistic perversion.
Morality has become too sacred, it blinds and binds as if it were beyond, as if it was ideal, as if in practical sense it were not a thing of man. A quantity or quality rather then a value. I am not moral I am a man who moralizes.
The ape a metaphor, a device, the tool, the base of other men's towers. The child forgotten, at birth incomparable except in ways that cannot be observed. Difference, forgotten as well in a view that takes the sum of parts as an understanding for the entire system.
Metaphoric verbs pandered about in bites too bitter to swallow whole, and so I ruminate, becoming increasingly skeptical - or so convince myself that I should - unfortunatly few are able to do much better.
-
In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Part I: Morally Evolved (Pages 1 - 58)
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
This interesting perspective is an example of the many this topic can generate. I haven't seen any disputes about facts in de Waal's book or in the discussions we've had, I think. We are firmly in the territory of perspective, which is also firmly the territory of philosophy. I would hope we could agree that there isn't a correct perspective to be sought, just more conversation to be engaged in. This may smack of relativism to you, Robert, but it is a proper relativism. When you think about it, how self-explanatory that de Waal, observing primates most of his life, would so value the emotional similarities between us and them, and ground our morality in these similarities. His debate partners, all philosophers, unsurprisingly see rational thought as a far more crucial element of our morality.Robert Tulip wrote: I’ve been meaning to comment on this post from DWill, and now Grim has reminded me with his post just now, so thank you Grim. My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources. Of course, emotion can be manipulated by reason, but raw emotions such as anger or sympathy seem to arise from instinctive reactions rather than from thought-out responses. This emotion/reason divide could well match the 98%/2% ratio of how many of our genes are common with the apes to how many are uniquely human. If our emotions are largely in common with the primates, and if emotion is a primary source of morality, then we can see how much of our morals are from monkeys. However, I do think it is possible to see reason as a veneer, a surface code that seeks to control irrational emotional instincts. The memetic and logical content of reason is seen most clearly in law codes, which evolve by precedent as a form of social control. As DWill noted, adhering to rational morality requires strenuous effort. This observation seems to me to contradict the “Russian Doll” model of human identity that de Waal proposes. Our ethics are not at the core of our genetic identity, but are a learned adaptive response to our environment.
In my own perspective, the element of conflict has the highest profile. We can know that situations present conflicts between what we want and what we should do. Other animals have only momentary conflicts between two desires--the chimp who holds out his food to share without even looking at the receiver, or the dog who comes to his master though she would really like to sample that delicious smell. Our, more significant, moral conflict is what often goes on on our surface, contrary to what Veneer Theory supposedly says. The surface in VT is morality, actually moral hypocrisy, since we just use morality to give a good name to our selfish goals. But that is rubbish. We obviously do resolve our conflict sometimes in favor of what we think we should do rather than what would feel best. The surface in my view is the interplay between morality and our desire to get advantage for ourselves. This is not always a conflict, though, since getting advantage for ourselves is also demonstrably a good thing. In other words, sometimes I should be selfish instead of thinking about others.
The other problem I have with moral reasoning as a veneer over our irrational emotional instincts is that I feel, as de Waal does, that it must be "down there" in some way as well as on top. I could agree with the metaphor of a flowering plant with extensive roots, or maybe a spring with its origin deep underground, to express this.[/quote]
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Grim wrote:I not sure what this is supposed to mean, when it comes to psychology I would agree that knowing is not enough. But morality...ethics, these are both very knowledge filled forms of value.DWill wrote:when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough.
I thought that in its context the statement was clear enough, though maybe not true. Perhaps "acting morally" instead of "morality" would have been better. As far as your own statement, if you imply that knowledge or information is essential to moral action, I'd need clarification on that. Being well versed in the field of ethics or morality is not necessary for, and may not even have anything to do with, moral behavior.
- Grim
-
- Brilliant
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
- 15
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Yes, but I would still argue that "moral behavior" is beyond the scope of the debate. It's such a human notion. There is moral and there is behavior. A view that does not adequately acknowledge this is in my opinion intrinsically misguided as to the nature of the topic.DWill wrote:Being well versed in the field of ethics or morality is not necessary for, and may not even have anything to do with, moral behavior.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
- Saffron
-
- I can has reading?
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
- 16
- Location: Randolph, VT
- Has thanked: 474 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
I'm sorry, you've lost me with calling tipping a waitress moral. A tip is a reward for good service. Leaving a tip for poor service when you know that the waitress is under great stress is moral.Interbane wrote:I don't see there being any debate over the use of the phrase "moral behavior". It's simple enough to be almost analytic. If I tip a waitress, that is a moral behavior.
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times