• In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Part I: Morally Evolved (Pages 1 - 58)

#67: June - Aug. 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
Krysondra

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Intern
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:56 am
14
Location: Austin, Texas
Been thanked: 1 time

Unread post

Interbane wrote:What do you mean by in-group protection philosophy?
By in-group protection philosophy, I mean the tendency to protect those inside one's group (friends, family, self) over those outside one's group. It's as if a completely different moral code arises.

I think part of that is culturally motivated - at least in some cultures. For example, I was raised in a family first environment. So, for me, protecting my family can put me in a moral dilema rather quickly. In-group and culture are combined for me.
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never say a common place thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars..." ~ Jack Kerouac
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Unread post

Ahh, the use of the word protection threw me off. Conduct towards people who share your genes includes more than protection. I also think it's more of a science than a philosophy, although the ground-breaking has only just begun. People have a vested interest in relatives, since it increases the likelihood their genes(or relative genes) will be passed on.

If your culture influences you to pay attention to family first, that coincides with in-group predispositions, doesn't it? In the military, service before self was stressed, yet so was family first. Even the military gave equal weight to both family ties and discipline.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Unread post

DH: "the whole of a culture's beliefs and practices geared and patterned to give birth to a single human being...all manner of weeding, thinning, pruning and chopping off of unneccessary, unhealthy, undesirable portions of the population is practiced..."

So it would be immoral of me to say you're bonkers for wanting to kill a lot of people to weed their behavior from the gene pool so that a fictional baby superman can be born? Lay off the drugs DH.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

I don't take a side in a debate about whether emotion or reason is primary in us, but one thought that came to me from de Waal's essay is that, when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough. There must also be some emotional attachment, some wanting to do the right thing. We say that we don't need religion to tell us what is moral or ethical, that religion just underlines what humans have a natural sense of, and this is probably true, but is wanting to do the moral thing entirely natural, needing no intensive boost from the culture? I would say no, that some strenuous effort needs to exist on a continuing basis. Religion could serve this function, and probably does for many, but its tactics have often been not appropriate at all (fear of punishment, lure of reward). To command people to have this emotional attachment to the good might sound odd, as in the bible's Great Commandment, but perhaps it works.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

Interesting, but supposing that Vaneer Theory (VT) was really just a metaphor...like naturalistic morality...just another perspective that cannot be observed tightly wrapped up in image. It would seem then that it is actually the notion refering to the ability for some type of relevant observation that is the problem. The tight grip of an "image redefinition across time" rather than the meaning that is the focus. Behaviorism is unfavored after all...too...inaccurate...too...open for...redefinition, in a word a sloppy method of analysis. Isn't it? Or does that not matter? The philosopher...he has yet to define the difference between the moral and the psychological - maybe because there really isn't one - splits the difference when it suits, yet everywhere else loves to pander about abstract relationship.

For me the beast in man is the feral cat, the stray who no longer returns for supper but rummages through the trash for scraps of meat and rotted milk.

:book:
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

DWill wrote:I don't take a side in a debate about whether emotion or reason is primary in us, but one thought that came to me from de Waal's essay is that, when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough. There must also be some emotional attachment, some wanting to do the right thing. We say that we don't need religion to tell us what is moral or ethical, that religion just underlines what humans have a natural sense of, and this is probably true, but is wanting to do the moral thing entirely natural, needing no intensive boost from the culture? I would say no, that some strenuous effort needs to exist on a continuing basis. Religion could serve this function, and probably does for many, but its tactics have often been not appropriate at all (fear of punishment, lure of reward). To command people to have this emotional attachment to the good might sound odd, as in the bible's Great Commandment, but perhaps it works.
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.
User avatar
Grim

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Brilliant
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
15
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Unread post

DWill wrote:when it comes to morality, knowing is not enough.
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. At an extremely basic level morality is no longer morality, it is something much less "knowing" it becomes the effect. Neitzsche wrote that there is no such thing as causes only effects, suggesting that you would do wrong to separate thunder and lightning as they are the same thing.
Robert Tulip wrote:My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources.
Genetic fallacy.
Robert Tulip wrote:Of course, emotion can be manipulated by reason
And reason can be manipulated by emotion. Which dynamic is more important to the monkey? or man for that matter?
Robert Tulip wrote:but raw emotions such as anger or sympathy seem to arise from instinctive reactions rather than from thought-out responses.
Would you care to start on the notion instinct? Or is it supposed to be self-evident?
Robert Tulip wrote: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.
More metaphor, little observation.

:book:
Last edited by Grim on Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
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
United States of America

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
"My feeling is that emotion is primarily genetic while reason is a mix between genetic, memetic and logical sources."

Grim: 'Genetic fallacy."

Actually, what Robert said does not commit a genetic fallacy.

Grim: "But morality...ethics, these are both very knowledge filled forms of value."

Even still, knowing is not enough.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

Grim wrote:Interesting, but supposing that Vaneer Theory (VT) was really just a metaphor...like naturalistic morality...just another perspective that cannot be observed tightly wrapped up in image. It would seem then that it is actually the notion refering to the ability for some type of relevant observation that is the problem.

I'm afaid that in your post you're talking around me, above me, everywhere but to me, but I will agree that Veneer Theory is really just a metaphor. It's too strong a metaphor, in fact, a prejudicial statement on de Waal's part. Veneer equals the surface appearance of something fine or expensive covering inferior material. I'm therefore not surprised that nobody has declared herself a veneer theorist and would see it as an accusation to deny.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

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.
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 terrirory 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.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved - by Frans de Waal”