Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where is the Objective Morality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="stevevw" data-source="post: 76478319" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>This is an assumption that humans are born as blank slates. It limits causes of human behaviour to whatever they are exposed to which limits causes to external ones.</p><p></p><p>So everything we do in society is the cause of wrong behaviour. So male violence is due to watching violent movies, women’s weight problems are because we stereotype women’s shapes etc.</p><p></p><p>There is no innate cause like biological ones that may contribute to male aggression or women’s propensity to be overweight. Great athletes can only learn to be great and there’s no natural born talent. It’s even used to discredit biological sex and we are all blank slates to be whatever sex we choose as determined by social and cultural views.</p><p></p><p>Yet the science seems to show this limited view is wrong.</p><p><span style="color: #00b3b3"><em>These arguments are pure fiction otherwise rooted in a perfectly erroneous view of human nature.</em> <em>Each of these faulty attributions is hopeful because it provides people with the illusion of control. Alter the supposed culprit environmental cause and the issue will apparently be resolved. Regrettably, as hopeful as this worldview might be, it is erroneous.</em> <em>Ignoring our biological heritage yields a litany of false and incomplete theories of human behaviour, the grandest of which might be the Tabula Rasa view of the human mind.</em></span></p><p><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/homo-consumericus/201210/the-mind-blank-slate-hopeful-wrong" target="_blank">https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/homo-consumericus/201210/the-mind-blank-slate-hopeful-wrong</a></p><p></p><p> AS mentioned this is based on a false assumption. The researchers show there are certain baby responses that are more sophisticated and deeper that go beyond them being taught and copying adults.</p><p></p><p><strong><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">Indeed, some of these studies suggest that children’s positive social inclinations are so deeply ingrained that it doesn’t matter what parents say or do</span></em></strong></p><p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/" target="_blank">Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine</a></p><p></p><p>The same basic idea has also been supported with a baby’s intuition about the physical world.</p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">The 1980s and ’90s brought a series of revelations about very young babies’ sophisticated perceptions of the physical world, suggesting that we come to life equipped with quite an extensive tool kit.</span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/" target="_blank">Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine</a></p><p></p><p> As mentioned they found babies had a more sophisticated and deeper sense of the difference between helpful and unhelpful behaviour. They also didn’t link it to morality in the study itself but rather reasoned the helpful behaviour being associated with values like empathy, justice and equality. One of the researchers (Bloom) then reasoned that this could relate to morality which is a reasonable conclusion.</p><p></p><p> Like I said the study was not about finding morality but basic reactions about helpful and unhelpful behaviour. This could be related to pro-social behaviour as opposed to anti-social behaviour. It doesn’t matter. It was later reasoned to being something that is related to moral norms which is a reasonable conclusion.</p><p></p><p> I think you will find the author says the findings show that there is an inclination for helping rather than hindering. So it’s not necessarily about morality. But then rationalizations can be made from the findings to relate this helpful behaviour to empathy and justice which are moral values.</p><p></p><p>But nonetheless further research is needed. All I know that other studies show the similar findings.</p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">But tiny children are also some of psychology’s most powerful muses. Because they have barely been exposed to the world, with its convoluted cultures and social norms, they represent the raw materials of humanity: who we are when we’re born, rather than who we become. “There’s another point that needs to be made to parents: Your baby knows more than you think she knows. That’s what’s coming out of this kind of research.”</span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/" target="_blank">Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine</a></p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">The last few years produced a spate of related studies hinting that, far from being born a “perfect idiot,” as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, or a selfish brute, as Thomas Hobbes feared; a child arrives in the world provisioned with rich, broadly pro-social tendencies and seems predisposed to care about other people. <strong>Children can tell, to an extent, what is good and bad, and often act in an altruistic fashion. “</strong></span></em></p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: #00b3b3">They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice.</span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/" target="_blank">Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine</a></p><p></p><p>Other studies have shown 3 month olds have similar responses which are more sophisticated than just responding how adults act. These babies showed a deeper inclination about justice and empathy that is beyond just copying what they have seen like it has been "bred to the bone" as the article states..</p><p></p><p> And the study addressed personal bias and assumption with a variety of tests (including blind tests) and props. Plus other studies show similar findings so they all cannot be author bias.</p><p></p><p>As independent studies have reached similar findings that meets scientific verification of repetition of test results.</p><p></p><p> He uses the term "good guy" to represent the helpful behaviours of the puppet. Call it nice guy if you want as you don’t have to moralize the findings. The point is this inclination towards the nice guy and not the nasty guy seems complex and innate and beyond something mimicked.</p><p></p><p> Yes and this was accounted for by neutralizing the tests such as with blind tests and involving a variety of different props and experiment type so that any bias that influence results was neutralized.</p><p></p><p> It’s not the only study which has similar findings. Isn’t that a requirement for scientific consistent findings?</p><p></p><p>But even if we say that babies have learnt these morals at such an early age and these moral basics are universal in that similar results have been found regardless of family context and culture this is still something humans seem to relate to and take on like it’s natural to them.</p><p></p><p>So these studies are highlighting a similar set of core morals in babies which are reflected across a wide range of domains which converge on these same core morals of empathy, justice and equality. I don’t think it’s a coincident. It goes against the idea of subjective/relative morality where different individuals and cultures having different moral views acording to their conditioning.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 76478319, member: 342064"] This is an assumption that humans are born as blank slates. It limits causes of human behaviour to whatever they are exposed to which limits causes to external ones. So everything we do in society is the cause of wrong behaviour. So male violence is due to watching violent movies, women’s weight problems are because we stereotype women’s shapes etc. There is no innate cause like biological ones that may contribute to male aggression or women’s propensity to be overweight. Great athletes can only learn to be great and there’s no natural born talent. It’s even used to discredit biological sex and we are all blank slates to be whatever sex we choose as determined by social and cultural views. Yet the science seems to show this limited view is wrong. [COLOR=#00b3b3][I]These arguments are pure fiction otherwise rooted in a perfectly erroneous view of human nature.[/I] [I]Each of these faulty attributions is hopeful because it provides people with the illusion of control. Alter the supposed culprit environmental cause and the issue will apparently be resolved. Regrettably, as hopeful as this worldview might be, it is erroneous.[/I] [I]Ignoring our biological heritage yields a litany of false and incomplete theories of human behaviour, the grandest of which might be the Tabula Rasa view of the human mind.[/I][/COLOR] [URL]https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/homo-consumericus/201210/the-mind-blank-slate-hopeful-wrong[/URL] AS mentioned this is based on a false assumption. The researchers show there are certain baby responses that are more sophisticated and deeper that go beyond them being taught and copying adults. [B][I][COLOR=#00b3b3]Indeed, some of these studies suggest that children’s positive social inclinations are so deeply ingrained that it doesn’t matter what parents say or do[/COLOR][/I][/B] [URL='https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/']Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine[/URL] The same basic idea has also been supported with a baby’s intuition about the physical world. [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]The 1980s and ’90s brought a series of revelations about very young babies’ sophisticated perceptions of the physical world, suggesting that we come to life equipped with quite an extensive tool kit.[/COLOR][/I] [URL='https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/']Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine[/URL] As mentioned they found babies had a more sophisticated and deeper sense of the difference between helpful and unhelpful behaviour. They also didn’t link it to morality in the study itself but rather reasoned the helpful behaviour being associated with values like empathy, justice and equality. One of the researchers (Bloom) then reasoned that this could relate to morality which is a reasonable conclusion. Like I said the study was not about finding morality but basic reactions about helpful and unhelpful behaviour. This could be related to pro-social behaviour as opposed to anti-social behaviour. It doesn’t matter. It was later reasoned to being something that is related to moral norms which is a reasonable conclusion. I think you will find the author says the findings show that there is an inclination for helping rather than hindering. So it’s not necessarily about morality. But then rationalizations can be made from the findings to relate this helpful behaviour to empathy and justice which are moral values. But nonetheless further research is needed. All I know that other studies show the similar findings. [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]But tiny children are also some of psychology’s most powerful muses. Because they have barely been exposed to the world, with its convoluted cultures and social norms, they represent the raw materials of humanity: who we are when we’re born, rather than who we become. “There’s another point that needs to be made to parents: Your baby knows more than you think she knows. That’s what’s coming out of this kind of research.”[/COLOR][/I] [URL='https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/']Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine[/URL] [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]The last few years produced a spate of related studies hinting that, far from being born a “perfect idiot,” as Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued, or a selfish brute, as Thomas Hobbes feared; a child arrives in the world provisioned with rich, broadly pro-social tendencies and seems predisposed to care about other people. [B]Children can tell, to an extent, what is good and bad, and often act in an altruistic fashion. “[/B][/COLOR][/I] [I][COLOR=#00b3b3]They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice.[/COLOR][/I] [URL='https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/']Are Babies Born Good? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine[/URL] Other studies have shown 3 month olds have similar responses which are more sophisticated than just responding how adults act. These babies showed a deeper inclination about justice and empathy that is beyond just copying what they have seen like it has been "bred to the bone" as the article states.. And the study addressed personal bias and assumption with a variety of tests (including blind tests) and props. Plus other studies show similar findings so they all cannot be author bias. As independent studies have reached similar findings that meets scientific verification of repetition of test results. He uses the term "good guy" to represent the helpful behaviours of the puppet. Call it nice guy if you want as you don’t have to moralize the findings. The point is this inclination towards the nice guy and not the nasty guy seems complex and innate and beyond something mimicked. Yes and this was accounted for by neutralizing the tests such as with blind tests and involving a variety of different props and experiment type so that any bias that influence results was neutralized. It’s not the only study which has similar findings. Isn’t that a requirement for scientific consistent findings? But even if we say that babies have learnt these morals at such an early age and these moral basics are universal in that similar results have been found regardless of family context and culture this is still something humans seem to relate to and take on like it’s natural to them. So these studies are highlighting a similar set of core morals in babies which are reflected across a wide range of domains which converge on these same core morals of empathy, justice and equality. I don’t think it’s a coincident. It goes against the idea of subjective/relative morality where different individuals and cultures having different moral views acording to their conditioning. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where is the Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom