Gurdur

With thanks to Michael Turton; several references in my post above were ruthlessly copied from him.

JL

Christians seem to be getting along quite well without it.

Theophage

Kind of like this:

(If the image doesn't show, click <a href="http://www.geocities.com/drdammit/intel.html" target="_blank">*HERE*</a>)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Peter P.

According to the Kohlberg theory, Obedience and Punishment (you are going to hell...) is the lowest moral development. I cringe when people suggest that America, the ruling nation in the world, is at the lowest stage of moral development.

Peter P.

E_muse

But of course, the type of Obedience and Punishment you mention do not apply simply to threats of hellfire.

As mentioned before, they exist within the law with finite rather than infinite consequences.

E_muse

We are certainly born with the potential to value things but I would suggest that we are a product of our environment as well as our genes, otherwise, what would be the benefit of education or ensuring that children are raised within the context of loving parenting?

On top of this, we do not settle to be what our 'nature' dictates. People are aware of desires within themselves which conflict with their own moral ideals.

To test your statement - what values does a new born baby possess?

I think there's some confusion here over what is legally permissable and human desire.

Certainly within my culture, cases of sexual abuse (which are tragically not that uncommon), are more likely to occur within families. Children who suffer sexual abuse are more likely to do so at the hands of family members.

Breaking paedophilia on the web is one of the biggest challenges facing our legal systems. It is known that a significant number of people from my country go on holiday each year in order to have sex with children or young teenagers.

I'm sure that not too much surfing and it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with links to sites which cater for these kinds of cravings.

People are shocked by the sheer volume of reported cases which are coming to light, which demonstrate that sexual abuse is more common than anyone imagined, as people (some of whom were abused 20 - 30 years ago) find the courage to stand up and report their experiences.

It is also know that, in the majority of cases, those who abuse have in the past been the victims of abuse themselves and that such behaviour is learned.

Of course this does not include other forms of abuse such as neglect, physical injury and so on.

Such behaviour gets hidden away by families who 'close the net' and watch out for each other.

To be able to answer this, one would have to be able to look 'under the surface'.

I'm afraid that your arguement does very little to convince me.

But of course this says very little about whether such behaviour is 'in built' or learned.

There are other cultures where the men ornament themselves as extravagantly as the women.

Many of which we simply wouldn't accept! That's if the statement is true.

This seems to be moving towards genetic determinism. It would be interesting to hear the role which education has to play in this process.

It also facilitates religious belief IMO.

Also, what role can education play in transforming a society morally if certain behaviours exist on the genetic level?

The law may make a society 'appear' more moral but can merely serve to push certain behaviours under the surface.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

copernicus

I agree with you very much on this point. The basis of morality is the family experience. God is the "father", who dictates morality and enforces it with punishment. The family can be a nurturing environment or one full of punishment. Similarly, Christians have two different Gods--the one that is punishing and vengeful and the one that is nurturing and loving. Our models for gods have always been anthropomorphic. The child first experiences the family. Moral principles tend to be those that keep the family unit strong--honesty, loyalty, monogamy (for most Christians, at least), respect for others, and so on. Humans understand reality by analogy to their earlier experience. Hence, religions invent parental deities to guide our behavior. Morality is not innate or god-given. Our sense of what is good and bad grows out of our experiences.

Vorkosigan

turtonm: Do you know of any culture where it is common for men to have their first sexual experience with their mother? How about for brothers and sisters raised together to marry and sire offspring?

E-muse: I think there's some confusion here over what is legally permissable and human desire.

Certainly within my culture, cases of sexual abuse (which are tragically not that uncommon), are more likely to occur within families. Children who suffer sexual abuse are more likely to do so at the hands of family members.

Actually, E-muse, the confusion is yours. Note the emphasis on "common." Certainly, from time to time in every culture, men have sex with their mothers. But there is no culture where that is the common mode of early sexual expression. Again, certainly incest occurs between brothers and sisters. But marriage, a social act, almost never occurs between two people raised together since birth. In those few cultures where people raised together are compelled to marry by parents, they are much less fertile on average (ironically the Taiwanese shimpua marriage is one of these).


turtonm: Do you know of any culture where females do not ornament themselves? Where involuntary solitary confinement is not considered a punishment? Where people do not gossip? Where children are routinely given to total strangers for rearing, with no sense of loss on the birth-mother's part? I could go on and on.

E-muse: But of course this says very little about whether such behaviour is 'in built' or learned.

The misunderstanding here is the false dichotomy you've erected between "learned" and "innate." In evolutionary psychology instincts facilitate learning. See, for example, Pinker's The Language Instinct. The nature-nuture debate doesn't exist.

So there is no robotic "ornament oneself" behavior, but rather, a set of scores of instincts and processing mechanisms that cause behavior.

I agree with you that religious instincts are based on innate processing biases. It's a good example of how instinct facilitates learned behaviors.

Michael

Automaton

I see a moral decline in Western society, however it is coming from the religious Reich more than anything else. Anything more than a superficial look at the numbers will demonstrate that it is the religious who want to instill a "Brave New World"-esque theocracy with such marvellous comparisons as the Dark Ages and the Taliban. And the most shocking (or perhaps sickening) thing is that their massive propaganda engine actually tries to blame it on free thought rather than their own doing! The pathetic thing is, people actually believe this garbage, but the only "evidence" they can give is mindless religious rhetoric and the fallacy of confusing cause with correlation.

BTW, religion is certainly deleterious to society, just look at fromtheReich.

Captain Pedantic

The world has apparently, been in decline since fuck knows when. Any research will tell you that people thousands of years ago thought the world was in decline and we were near to the end times.

Fact is, things just carry on much as they always have. People just get on with stuff, same as ever.