Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[Beyondo]

No, it's psychology and sociology. It makes it easier to evaluate and compare by classifing the type of systems we are dealing with.

LOL...but I hope you get the point, without the biology to validate the hypothesis of a behavior all you have is a hypothesis. Why cognitive science deals with neural processes and biology and not psychology, in fact cognitive scientist and neurologist test the claims of psychology at the biological level.

 

[Beyondo]

I think you're missing the other layer - you know, reality. Once you say it's all physics, you're saying something about as meaningless as saying "it all is".

Ahh...No I'm not, but you can continue your lack of understanding of reality...

 

[Commoner]

Ahh...No I'm not, but you can continue your lack of understanding of reality...

My, my, aren't we frisky...

 

[painted wolf]

So my original point... Biology explains why we engage in specific behaviors seems pretty solid.
Biology also shows that behavior is plastic...its not all genetically pre-determined. Otherwise immigrants would never integrate.

My second point... that biology can't tell us if a behavior is "moral" (ie desirable) or not. That is a cultural decision.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

So my original point... Biology explains why we engage in specific behaviors seems pretty solid.
Biology also shows that behavior is plastic...its not all genetically pre-determined. Otherwise immigrants would never integrate.

My second point... that biology can't tell us if a behavior is "moral" (ie desirable) or not. That is a cultural decision.

wa:do

Good point, but "moral" behavior is still an adaptation, so whether a culture deems it desirable or not does not prove from an biological evolutionary perspective if it is indeed a desirable behavior that supports or improves survival. We again end up with biological mechanisms that promote social behaviors. In the case of homo sapiens this happens through symbolic language that allows for "suggestion" to mediate agreement or cooperative effort. But this process is so much like insect societies that use pheromones to communicate and implement social behavior that one could argue that humanity is not better at social organization than animals.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not arguing humans are better... I would never argue such a point.

However the pheromone analogy is deeply flawed. Eusociality in insects is radically different.

Culture is an expression of behavioral plasticity and animals that engage in cultural transmission are inventing behaviors and assessing them beyond simple genetically predetermined patterns. It is not passed on genetically.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

I'm not arguing humans are better... I would never argue such a point.

However the pheromone analogy is deeply flawed. Eusociality in insects is radically different.

Culture is an expression of behavioral plasticity and animals that engage in cultural transmission are inventing behaviors and assessing them beyond simple genetically predetermined patterns. It is not passed on genetically.

wa:do

Agreed but the pheromone analogy is about soliciting members at a neurological level. This is passed on in human beings at the genetic level. The soliciting mechanism involves coercion from brain chemical processes where the transmission mechanism is language! Insects and humans are doing the same thing but through a different means of communication and neurological systems. The point being that it doesn't matter how sophisticated the soliciting approach is so long as it is effective. So simple rules are just as effective as complex abstract thinking when it comes to social organization!

 

[painted wolf]

Except in insects it's triggering hardwired behavior patterns. There is no plasticity. A particular pharamone will always elicit a specific behavior regardless of any other factors.

In humans (and many other animals) we have to judge novel behaviors.... some people find risk-taking activities like skydiving enjoyable while some find it terrifying... others enjoy it but choose to opt out of it for the benefit of others who don't like it. Most people can't know for certain what group they belong to until they try it.
There are physical reasons to make the activity enjoyable or not... but the activity must be assessed prior to engaging in it.

Another example... a pigeon in a Skinner box has no idea that pecking at a light is a beneficial activity until it tries it and learns that food arrives each time. Yes, there is a biological basis for liking the activity... but something more is going on when connecting value to the behavior.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Except in insects it's triggering hardwired behavior patterns. There is no plasticity. A particular pharamone will always elicit a specific behavior regardless of any other factors.

In humans (and many other animals) we have to judge novel behaviors.... some people find risk-taking activities like skydiving enjoyable while some find it terrifying... others enjoy it but choose to opt out of it for the benefit of others who don't like it. Most people can't know for certain what group they belong to until they try it.
There are physical reasons to make the activity enjoyable or not... but the activity must be assessed prior to engaging in it.

Another example... a pigeon in a Skinner box has no idea that pecking at a light is a beneficial activity until it tries it and learns that food arrives each time. Yes, there is a biological basis for liking the activity... but something more is going on when connecting value to the behavior.

wa:do

Perhaps its my training but all I can see is logical equivalence, its irrelevant if you are aware of what you're doing as long as what you are doing serves the purpose of persisting life. Because if you are not then you die...

 

[dust1n]

I won't challenge anyone on their opinion, I simply would like to get an idea of what people think. When I say "science" in this case, I'm thinking about neurology, cognitive sciences, social psychology and biology, but really any scientific study is game for the purpose of this poll.

I voted,

"Yes it can contribute, but it must be accompanied by religion or philosophy."


But I really don't think religion is necessary if not counter productive.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps its my training but all I can see is logical equivalence, its irrelevant if you are aware of what you're doing as long as what you are doing serves the purpose of persisting life. Because if you are not then you die...

Skydiving? The statistical increase in spousal abuse during pregnancy... starving a child to death for not saying "amen" after mealtime prayers?

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Skydiving? The statistical increase in spousal abuse during pregnancy... starving a child to death for not saying "amen" after mealtime prayers?

wa:do

Once again; nature tests the adaptations, whether the adaptation is to over come an environmental issue, a disease, a mutation or competitor, if the animal does not succeed the consequences can be swift but not necessarily. In the end who is the better survivor is filtered. If spousal abuse can not be addressed by society and it causes a survival crises then that society will die. If the consequences are indifferent, which means the animal lives long enough to reproduce and care for offspring to maturity, then the behavior does not interfere with survival. E.g. Male chimpanzees are very abusive to female chips but the behavior does not interfere with survival of the species...

In the end, despite humanities intellectual prowess, the process of chaotic systems converging on social order is no different than any other animal and no different than any other chaotic system that converges to an ordered system. So long as the behavior of the elements (individuals) in a system exchange information where they affect one another the system will order itself. Such chaotic phenomena is rooted in mathematics and is not a product of intellectual awareness or invention. This is a consistency thought out nature, from sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, DNA, neurons, animals, solar systems, galaxies and the universe.

 

[Beyondo]

Skydiving? wa:do

How about driving on the freeway? Risk taking proves to be a behavior that benefits a species. Risk taking becomes counter productive when it is not likely that the individual will survive the act.

 

[painted wolf]

Are you suggesting that spousal abuse is genetic? Are there any studies to back this up?

For things to work the way you suggest there must be a genetic component to the behavior in question.
But on the other hand you suggest that society can address maladaptive behaviors and change them... meaning that societies can judge the behaviors morality and work to prevent ones socieity doesn't like... which goes against what you stated previously.

So which one is it? Behaviors are genetic (and abusers will produce future abusers) or behaviors are determined by societies that judge them as beneficial or not?

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

How about driving on the freeway? Risk taking proves to be a behavior that benefits a species. Risk taking becomes counter productive when it is not likely that the individual will survive the act.

I don't drive.... but it has become a cultural norm, now that the debate on its morality has been essentially won. (interesting that the debate on its morality has resurfaced as an issue of climate protection.)

But if you think science alone can tell us if driving on the freeway is moral or not, I'd love to hear about it.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Are you suggesting that spousal abuse is genetic? Are there any studies to back this up?

Aggressive behavior can be genetic, specifically rooted or mainly caused by limbic structures of the brain and in some specific cases overly senstive Amygdala can be a contributor.

For things to work the way you suggest there must be a genetic component to the behavior in question.

No it can be a novel invention, but the ability to invent is genetic.

But on the other hand you suggest that society can address maladaptive behaviors and change them... meaning that societies can judge the behaviors morality and work to prevent ones society doesn't like... which goes against what you stated previously.

No it does not. I will repeat; chaotic systems work on the basis that the elements (individuals) exchange information and affect one another.

So which one is it? Behaviors are genetic (and abusers will produce future abusers) or behaviors are determined by societies that judge them as beneficial or not?
WA:do

It is both; genetics produce tendencies such as Type A, B, C, etc individuals. Such personality types have patterns of types of predictable behavior. Social organization by virtue of chaotic processes will converge to a system where what is acceptable or not is determined, but the net effect is social order.

 

[Beyondo]

I don't drive.... but it has become a cultural norm, now that the debate on its morality has been essentially won. (interesting that the debate on its morality has resurfaced as an issue of climate protection.)

But if you think science alone can tell us if driving on the freeway is moral or not, I'd love to hear about it.

wa:do

I've been pretty consistent in my posts on this thread and I will repeat; morality is a symbolic language communication mechanism that solicits social cooperation, no different in its effect as pheromones used by insects.

 

[painted wolf]

Aggressive behavior can be genetic, specifically rooted or mainly caused by limbic structures of the brain and in some specific cases overly senstive Amygdala can be a contributor.

Can you provide some sources?

No it can be a novel invention, but the ability to invent is genetic.

Again a source would be nice.

No it does not. I will repeat; chaotic systems work on the basis that the elements (individuals) exchange information and affect one another. How does that mandate that it be genetic?

"If the consequences are indifferent, which means the animal lives long enough to reproduce and care for offspring to maturity, then the behavior does not interfere with survival." Implies a genetic component to behavior.

It is both; genetics produce tendencies such as Type A, B, C, etc individuals. Such personality types have patterns of types of predictable behavior.

What genetic studies have been done to support this?

Social organization by virtue of chaotic processes will converge to a system where what is acceptable or not is determined.

And that is controlled by scientific knowledge?

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

"If the consequences are indifferent, which means the animal lives long enough to reproduce and care for offspring to maturity, then the behavior does not interfere with survival." Implies a genetic component to behavior.

No it does not, a behavior can be an invention and still not interfere with survival.

And that is controlled by scientific knowledge?wa:do

Ah...painted wolf, chaotic systems are not controlled by scientific knowledge, so my impression is that you're not familiar with chaos theory and what it implies. Chaotic systems are such that initial states are unpredictable and even the means to predict the exchange of information between elements when the system does converge to order is not possible

 

[Beyondo]

Can you provide some sources?
wa:do

Behavioral Genetics