Morality

[NeverIsForever]

An adult can be stuck at any of the following stages:

At the first level of morality, someone is motivated to obey the morality out of fear of punishment and also actually thinks that not behaving according to the moral is only "wrong" becausethere is a penalty for going against it.

At the next stage of morality, people are still motivated by fear of punishment but appreciate more that morality can be flexible with different views on how right or wrong something is.

At the third stage people see morality as being important for good community relations and as being important in order to fit in with society.

The fourth stage adds to this the importance of keeping order in society - and make things run smoothly.

At the fifth stage people realise that a smoothly running society isn't always a just society and that dissent may be ethically required at times.

At the sixth stage - which is something speculative since few people are supposed to ever be able to understand it at all,
people realise that there can be a more holistic morality that goes beyond looking at things from either one's own point of view or through the eyes of other people.

This is based on Kohlberg's morality stages.

most interesting post i've read here in a long time. thanks for sharing this

 

[Demiurge]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that a child must pass through these moral stages to achieve their final position, and their development can pretty much stop at any one of them.

Who demonstrated and how?

 

[Blowtus]

My lecturer and the associated textbook both argue that 'morality' is not taken up simply because of self interest, but that anything done for 'self interested' reasons cannot be done for 'moral' reasons - just as anything done for 'God' cannot be done for 'moral' reasons.

I struggle to see the use / validity of the created dichotomy between morality and self interest, can anyone argue in it's defence or attempt to elucidate the matter?

 

[Pyro_Fish]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that a child must pass through these moral stages to achieve their final position, and their development can pretty much stop at any one of them. I always like to point out that the way the Bible argues that God is right and must be obeyed BECAUSE if you don't you are damned and if you do obey you get Heaven is just like the most infantile level of morality. You must have faith and not figure out why anything is right or wrong, just obey the religion.

this is why i don't like religion, some of the rules don't make sense, and the rules, by definition, go against human nature because "you wouldn't have to make a rule against something if nobody had the inclination to break that rule to begin with" (can't remember who i'm quoting here)

in Leviticus, when "God" lists out the Kosher and non-Kosher animals, the non-Kosher animals are each refered to by name, and God has to tell the people "don't eat these animals" because those non-Kosher animals were already being eaten, you wouldn't have to tell the people "don't eat lobster" if nobody had the inclination to eat lobster to begin with, apparently "non-Kosher food is delicious" (can't remember who this quote is either)

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Is it totally uncool to talk about evolutionary psychology here?

The "morality stages" don't take into account the idea that some people really do care about others and desire the best for them, and that this isn't even really subject to reasoning. Goodness is as banal as evil. We've all heard rescuers and other perpetrators of heroic acts say that they were just doing what anyone would do in that situation.

Studies being done at yale are showing that a 6-month-old child will have a positive response to helping and a negative response to hindering.

"Morality" as it is entailed by reciprocal altruism is an obvious evolutionarily stable strategy. Why does the bird that first sees the predator let out a warning cry? It's drawing attention to itself at the cost of alerting other birds, after all.

An astonishingly large proportion of human moral impulse has to do with disgust. I'd recommend the psychologist Jonathan Haidt for info on that.You can't derive an ought from an is of course, that's where ethics comes in.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

Is it totally uncool to talk about evolutionary psychology here?

The "morality stages" don't take into account the idea that some people really do care about others and desire the best for them, and that this isn't even really subject to reasoning. Goodness is as banal as evil. We've all heard rescuers and other perpetrators of heroic acts say that they were just doing what anyone would do in that situation.

Studies being done at yale are showing that a 6-month-old child will have a positive response to helping and a negative response to hindering.

"Morality" as it is entailed by reciprocal altruism is an obvious evolutionarily stable strategy. Why does the bird that first sees the predator let out a warning cry? It's drawing attention to itself at the cost of alerting other birds, after all.

An astonishingly large proportion of human moral impulse has to do with disgust. I'd recommend the psychologist Jonathan Haidt for info on that.You can't derive an ought from an is of course, that's where ethics comes in.

most therapists (American ones anyway) would consider selfless altruism to be a form of psychosis. it has something to do with "survival of the fittest"

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Have you read an evolutionary biology book written after 1960?

 

[Pyro_Fish]

Have you read an evolutionary biology book written after 1960?

yes
i think all of the biology ones i read were written after 1960
but psychology books are different, contradictory to biology books in many instances

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

"Survival of the fittest" is a psychological concept then?

 

[LinuxNerd]

There is reciprocal altrurism which benefits both parties involved, like "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" which seems to perpetuate through our society. I think selfless alturism doesn't exist in a normally functioning human (I'm not at all an expert, more into physics, engineering and computers), but there are mental conditions that can cause it to occur. There is always a reason for doing it, Superman was often called a hero, inflating his ego to the point where he became a Super Dick, the guy who gave his life to save some kid was probably out to be remembered, as in most cultures it's considered noble to sacrifice yourself for another.
Alternatively, we are conditioned from a young age to help our siblings, and maybe this extends to our clan as a result of ancestoral 'safety in numbers' mentality, and our clan happens to be a damn lot of people in this day and age

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

You've got the right idea, but it's important to remember that our genes are a recipe, not a blueprint. If your child is in danger, you aren't rationally assessing the risk to your genetic legacy, not even subconsciously. People in emergency situations don't think this way either. Do you think that anyone would give their life to save a stranger after rational consideration? The genetic recipe made us into the sorts of people who do care purely for our offspring, because that is to the benefit of our genes. You make a good point bringing up the ancestral environment, as in ancient Africa, the only other humans one would likely see would be kinsmen, and in the modern environment that kernel of tribal co-operation can be co-opted into altruistic behaviour.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

"Survival of the fittest" is a psychological concept then?

yes, it can be
"survival of the psychologically fittest" is a concept that appears in psychology books

 

[Pyro_Fish]

There is reciprocal altrurism which benefits both parties involved, like "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" which seems to perpetuate through our society. I think selfless alturism doesn't exist in a normally functioning human (I'm not at all an expert, more into physics, engineering and computers), but there are mental conditions that can cause it to occur. There is always a reason for doing it, Superman was often called a hero, inflating his ego to the point where he became a Super Dick, the guy who gave his life to save some kid was probably out to be remembered, as in most cultures it's considered noble to sacrifice yourself for another.
Alternatively, we are conditioned from a young age to help our siblings, and maybe this extends to our clan as a result of ancestoral 'safety in numbers' mentality, and our clan happens to be a damn lot of people in this day and age

yes, exactly
"i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" is totally normal, and actually neccassary for society to function, but, a completely selfless altruistic is experiencing a psychosis

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

What would be a completely selfless altruistic? I'm referring to the person who runs into the burning building to rescue a child. I seriously doubt that anyone in that situation who took the time to rationally consider the consequences would not go in. I think that even a subconscious urge to gain prestige is unlikely in most such cases. Would you not feel a twinge of panic seeing the child of a stranger wandering into the path of a car? If not, I would say that you're in the minority of humans.

 

[Pyro_Fish]

What would be a completely selfless altruistic? I'm referring to the person who runs into the burning building to rescue a child. I seriously doubt that anyone in that situation who took the time to rationally consider the consequences would not go in. I think that even a subconscious urge to gain prestige is unlikely in most such cases. Would you not feel a twinge of panic seeing the child of a stranger wandering into the path of a car? If not, I would say that you're in the minority of humans.

no
this is not what i'm talking about
saving a person from a burning building is instinctual because you're rescuing someone of the same species as yourself
if you had to chose between rescuing a human (from the fire) of rescuing an animal (from the same fire) a sane person would rescue the human, instinctually with out even thinking about the animal, but this kind of thing wasn't what i was talking about anyway

what i was talking about was things like a guy and a girl being in a sexual relationship and the girl being comfortable having sex 3 nights a week despite the fact that she never reaches orgasm durring sex, just simply because "she loves him" that's being altruisticly selffless to an unhealthy extent, and could easily slip into a downward spiral into "battered wife syndrome"

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

no
this is not what i'm talking about
saving a person from a burning building is instinctual because you're rescuing someone of the same species as yourself

Well, that certainly explains war.

what i was talking about was things like a guy and a girl being in a sexual relationship and the girl being comfortable having sex 3 nights a week despite the fact that she never reaches orgasm durring sex, just simply because "she loves him" that's being altruisticly selffless to an unhealthy extent[/QUOTE]

sexual pleasure > love? Hmmm... I have a problem with that.