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 ...
I noticed two things about this article and stopped reading it:
-First, it was an article on morality.
-Second, it was published by the New York Times.
Moving along, nothing to see here.....
I used to be a filthy leftist but I didn't kill myself. Why didn't he just find out the truth and be happy?
The NYT's editorial decisions pretty much shoots that theory to holes.
I have to hand it to Dr. Hauser...At least he's more humble than the average Darwinist.
RE: "Part of Kohlberg's depression was that he came to see that his 'work' was wrong."
Yes, as I'm sure you know, Kohlberg's attempt to set up a school as a model "just community" ended in anarchy.
As a young man Kohlberg helped smuggle Jews into Palestine, in defiance of a British ban in force at the time. He wanted to justify disobeying authorities in the name of a higher morality. (Interestingly, on his scale of moral judgment, Ronald Reagan only made it to stage four of six stages.) Kohlberg might have done better to devote some time to the study of the theory of natural law. However, in the absence of a belief in God, or much respect for ethical thought throughout history, it becomes necessary for every fourth and fifth grader to "reinvent the wheel" by reasoning out a moral code from scratch -- an unlikely prospect.
I'll take Torah, thanks.
Matthew 7:21-29
21. "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22. Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
23. Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
24. "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
26. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.
27. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28. When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching,
29. because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.
How can you be sure?
Well, I was a clean leftist...;-)
"What 'good' do you derive from letting someone over into your lane so they don't miss their turn?"
1) They don't in desperation try to get over and cause an accident, possibly involving you.
2) They feel some gratitude and perhaps do something considerate for someone else so the world is a happier place.
3) They don't become angry and engage in some stupid act of road rage.
4) The above when multiplied by a number of considerate acts probably reduces accident rates, and perhaps causes savings on your car insurance.
I am quite sure, but not absolutely sure. I think there was a description of the methodology in the paper. If the methodology had been as bad as you suggest I would have noticed it at the time. Usually what I remember is correct, as failure to be correct was severely ridiculed in my home.
We have two important nervous pathways involved in emotion, the sympathetic nervous system that deals with pain, fear, and anger, and the parasympathetic nervous system dealing with pleasure and love.
Either system can be triggered by the perceived behavior of others. When one perceives a considerate act that affects one favorably, this normally triggers a parasympathetic response, which in our culture could include a friendly acknowledgement. If you were a Randian, you might say we do best when we practice enlightened self-interest. In the primative world, fight, flight and freeze responses are triggered very quickly in the face of emergency situations, thus it makes sense that genetically influenced responses that tended toward survival would spread through the population. "Goodness" is a value judgement. Behavior is just behavior--pro-survival, anti-survival, or neutral.
As for the jerks that don't let you over, they are probably in a sympathetic nervous system anger state, where they will stay until something helps lift them out of it. As for what put them in that angry state, the causes could be many, just use your imagination.
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.