|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 13, 2008 06:08
In the Sunday NY Times magazine, Steven Pinker describes 5 moral themes at
basis of our innate moral sense: harm, fairness, community, authority, and
purity. Our morality is built on these hardwired categories, but the order
of importance and emphasis may vary from culture to culture. The sculptor
of our innate moral sense is, of course, biological evolution. So there is
a universality to morality and it doesn't result from god, gods, or
particular religions, but from our biology!
Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en...
If you can't read that you might enjoy this interesting opening:
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother
Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least
admirable? For most people, it's an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for
ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican,
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most
admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the
Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been
decapitated in effigy in "I Hate Gates" Web sites and hit with a pie in the
face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?
Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of
the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world
hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives...
|
| Show full article (2.66Kb) |
|
| | 35 Comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 13, 2008 06:47
"thinker" notreal.com> wrote in message
news:G7qdndlJysxuhhfanZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com...> In the Sunday NY Times magazine, Steven Pinker describes 5 moral themes at
> basis of our innate moral sense: harm, fairness, community, authority,
> and purity. Our morality is built on these hardwired categories, but the
> order of importance and emphasis may vary from culture to culture. The
> sculptor of our innate moral sense is, of course, biological evolution.
> So there is a universality to morality and it doesn't result from god,
> gods, or particular religions, but from our biology!
Which spontainiously appeard ? Or when nothing went "bang", and hard wired
its self, to become sentient meat that can write and appreciate Beethoven.
I must have missed something!
BOfL
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jan 13, 2008 08:13
As there is no real way to distinguish from nurture or nature, then
the whole argument of the source of morality is mute.
But even if your argument is true, as it might be, that morality is
inate, the Christians could well argue that it is provided by god. (if
they were bright enough to think of it).
If it is wholly or partly a factor of nurture, they can also argue
that universal moral codes emerge from religion, and that atheists
have them second hand.
I think there is much evidence to suggest that Pinkers categories are
culturally determined and that other cultures would divide such
behaviours into a different range of categories and also have a
different number of categories, they might not even be considered as
"moral" as such.
Harm is only a recognition of pain that your own self might feel. The
recogntion of pain in another may not invoke the slightest sense of
morality - why should it? Where another is considered to be part of
the "group" such sympathy might invoke a parallel emotional response
where you might ignore it in an animal or memeber of another group
that you are going to kill or eat. Is this morality - I think not!
Fairness is not universal . Can't imagine where he gets his ideas ...
|
| Show full article (4.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 13, 2008 10:13
>As there is no real way to distinguish from nurture or nature, then
>the whole argument of the source of morality is mute.
>But even if your argument is true, as it might be, that morality is
>inate, the Christians could well argue that it is provided by god. (if
>they were bright enough to think of it).
>If it is wholly or partly a factor of nurture, they can also argue
>that universal moral codes emerge from religion, and that atheists
>have them second hand.
>I think there is much evidence to suggest that Pinkers categories are
>culturally determined and that other cultures would divide such
>behaviours into a different range of categories and also have a
>different number of categories, they might not even be considered as
>"moral" as such.
>Harm is only a recognition of pain that your own self might feel. The
>recogntion of pain in another may not invoke the slightest sense of
>morality - why should it? Where another is considered to be part of
>the "group" such sympathy might invoke a parallel emotional response
>where you might ignore it in an animal or memeber of another group ...
|
| Show full article (2.25Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 13, 2008 10:09
>
> "thinker" notreal.com> wrote in message
> news:G7qdndlJysxuhhfanZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@comcast.com...>> In the Sunday NY Times magazine, Steven Pinker describes 5 moral themes
>> at basis of our innate moral sense: harm, fairness, community,
>> authority, and purity. Our morality is built on these hardwired
>> categories, but the order of importance and emphasis may vary from
>> culture to culture. The sculptor of our innate moral sense is, of
>> course, biological evolution. So there is a universality to morality and
>> it doesn't result from god, gods, or particular religions, but from our
>> biology!
>
> Which spontainiously appeard ? Or when nothing...
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Jan 13, 2008 11:27
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:13:26 -0500, "thinker"
notreal.com> wrote:
> Check out the article so that you understand what the categories
>are and how they were determined.
What I'd like to know is how "hardwired" was determined. With
apologies to 'ol Bill S. for totally screwing up one of his lines,
methinks there are far more things in creation than your poor
materialistic reductionist philosophy ever dreamed of. That term
"hardwired" strikes me as modern pseudo science babble ... part of the
pop culture of promissory materialism ... a modern faith-based
religion, actually.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 13, 2008 11:48
"Art" zilch.com> wrote in message
news:nqnko3tcvcrgt4lsi3fhq7q3v2jhiqa1ts@4ax.com...> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:13:26 -0500, "thinker"
> notreal.com> wrote:
>>> Check out the article so that you understand what the categories
>>are and how they were determined.
>
> What I'd like to know is how "hardwired" was determined. With
> apologies to 'ol Bill S. for totally screwing up one of his lines,
> methinks there are far more things in creation than your poor
> materialistic reductionist philosophy ever dreamed of. That term
> "hardwired" strikes me as modern pseudo science babble ... part of the
> pop culture of promissory materialism ... a modern faith-based
> religion, actually.
>
> Art
> http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 13, 2008 12:46
"Art" zilch.com> wrote in message
news:dasko3haq4ba7h8e1ki4hscke6oltdb0qa@4ax.com...> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:48:31 -0500, "thinker"
> notreal.com> wrote:
>>>
>>"Art" zilch.com> wrote in message
>>news:nqnko3tcvcrgt4lsi3fhq7q3v2jhiqa1ts@4ax.com...>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:13:26 -0500, "thinker"
>>> notreal.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Check out the article so that you understand what the categories
>>>>are and how they were determined.
>>>
>>> What I'd like to know is how "hardwired" was determined. With
>>> apologies to 'ol Bill S. for totally screwing up one of his lines,
>>> methinks there are far more things in creation than your poor
>>> materialistic reductionist philosophy ever dreamed of. That term
>>> "hardwired" strikes me as modern pseudo science babble ... part of the
>>> pop culture of promissory materialism ... a modern faith-based ...
|
| Show full article (2.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Jan 13, 2008 13:58
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:46:16 -0500, "thinker"
notreal.com> wrote:
>> The term "hard wired" is borrowed from the field of computer science
>> where it has a particular meaning ... basically it refers to hardware
>> control circuitry that's neither firmware nor software. The term
>> doesn't even apply to complex functions such as walking and speech
>> which require learning ... much less to functions like "universal
>> moral sense". It's even quite a stretch to apply such a term to
>> the autotomic nervous system which, at the very least, is a complex
>> control system.
>>
>> Art
I didn't mean to single you out, BTW. I just think the term is
distortive and demeaning when applied to humans ... and to biological
systems (living entities) in general.
>We
>are, metaphorically speaking, programmed by genes to take a certain form and
>behave certain ways. Our behavior is modifiable by "nurture", but not all
>of it. For example, we are gregarious animals...
|
| Show full article (2.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
