Posted on 10/30/2006 10:07:24 PM PST by neverdem
Who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin.
Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals’ feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.
Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, “Moral Minds” (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.
People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously.
Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others’ work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying “that the system that unconsciously generates...”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
One would have to be completely blind of not only current events, but history in general to make such a foolish statement...and if the premise is foolish, then so too is the hypothesis.
Garbage in...garbage out.
ROTFL!!!
So what's this about evolution and evolutionists being neutral on morals? Creationists keep saying that there are moral consequences to evolution and they keep denying it, now here they are trying to say that morals are a result of evolution. I wonder what they'll come up with next; their own standards to measure right and wrong against? And who would decide that?
But if goodness is inherent, where did badness even come from? And certainly you'd think that after all this time, someone, somewhere would have done it right, and then since everyone is inherently good, they'd all realise how wonderful it was and follow along and then everybody would be good. Something's wrong with this picture.
Complete and utter nonsense.
If any given instinct, which manifests itself in observable behavior, is so ambigious as to need an outside agent to define it, then you're theroy, let alone hypothesis, is incoherent.
If you can't even define, let alone observe, a distinct consequence of a causal mechanism, then you have no basis for calling said mechanism casual.
You're statment verges on the contradictory: it's there, yet, it's not...
Farts=Funny
...or something like that...
I'd be interested to know what observation the study made of itself. Now there's a dilemna...
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Yeah, right....
|
Humans also practice cannibalism and murder, therefore, those actions must must be moral. I think I will wait until we discover that other primates bury their dead with care before I would begin to consider them to have moral minds.
Thanks for the ping.
It's never been hard to figure out what's right and what's wrong. That's easy. The hard part comes when doing what's right comes at great cost - and doing what's wrong is easy...
That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the NYT article. As a Catholic, I have been taught since childhood that God reveals His law both through the "Book of Nature" (His creation) and the Book of Scripture, and that his Law is actually built into the structure of reality, and is knowable via our human nature ("Natural Law" has been a major theme in Catholic philosophy for centuries.)
I was also taught that human beings are flawed (not "totally depraved," but flawed), because of a catastrophic error committed very near the beginning of the human race, the consequences of which are transmitted to every succeeding generation.
I am not clear whether that means the consequences are "genetic," (yes? no?) but among the the practical consequences are that our intellects are darkened and our instincts somewhat deranged and hard for us to consciously control.
That defect in our nature explains why we have to receive ongoing supernatural assistance in order to get back on track morally. We do need to learn from God. And we do need to teach our children.
St. Paul says in Romans 12:2---
"Be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may know what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God."
Instincts shaped? I thought that instinct was all about doing things by nature, because they were programmed into the creature, a way of guaranteeing that the behavior would be there without the need of teaching it or learning it or thinking about it.
Examples of 20th Century innate morality.
bookmarking for later...
As I noted on another post, this is a rehash of a theory that has been around for decades, as put forth by people like Abe Maslow and Lawrence Kohlberg. Kohlberg argued that instead of teaching children rules and manners they should be allowed to reason out their own ideas about justice. His suggestions have been tried out in numerous school systems with disastrous results.
Yes. This corresponds with common experience. I like Fr. Groeschel's quip: "If you know someone who doesn't believe in original sin, tell him to come and visit me in New York."
I am not clear whether that means the consequences are "genetic," (yes? no?)
Analogously but mysteriously. It could be called a spiritual "genetic" defect. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Original Sin:
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam....but among the the practical consequences are that our intellects are darkened and our instincts somewhat deranged and hard for us to consciously control.
We all experience this inner turmoil and struggle, at least to some degree. But if you're not struggling, you're in pretty serious trouble.
The matter is simple. The universe either reduces to matter in motion, or it does not. If it does, everything in this world is up for grabs. By its own premises, this article represents little more than hand-waving.
Examples of 20th Century innate morality.
These regimes either represent evil, or they do not. If they represent evil, evil must be accounted for in a universe that consists of nothing but matter in motion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
