The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The source of our morals > Comments

The source of our morals : Comments

By John Ness, published 15/7/2008

Morals are intrinsic to humans and represent one of our most outstanding genetic endowments.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I am in complete agreement CJ

And quite frankly, given that his arguments are precisely the same as they have always been, I am disinclined to engage with him until and unless he reverts to his former identity.

I presume that the reason he has taken on his new mantle is that he had managed to lose every single argument on Islam, Mohammed, Ein Volk, Ein Reich, NAMBLA, child-beating etc. until eventually he had nowhere to hide.

Add to this his propensity to first of all get his facts wrong, then bluff and bluster with a couple of red herrings before finally changing the subject entirely, and I simply refuse to start the whole process again as if Boaz had never existed.

This Polycrap stuff has gone on long enough, Boaz. 'Fess up, abandon the pretence and get back to where you belong.

Right now, you are in a position where you have bent the rules a tiny touch, given us all a chuckle as we quickly unmasked you in your new guise, and have done little damage to your reputation.

But deep down, you know that is is wrong. At one end of the spectrum we can call it harmless deception, but at the other it is borderline fraudulent.

Fraudulent, because it allows you to disavow any, all or just a chosen selection of your previous posts here. It indicates that you lack the courage of your convictions, and refuse to take responsibility for your past actions.

Forget fraud. That's actually cowardice.

Let's keep it at the harmless fun level shall we, and see you again in your proper spot, Boaz.

History and all.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 9:56:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*They just want to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow they die*

Yes some in society do that. Conversely some of the religious spend
a good part of their lives doing little but praying, or chanting
their religious mantras.

A point can be made that both are simply wasting their time,
when they could be doing more useful things.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 10:10:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Hess has the genuine revelation - that there are in fact genes that code for instincts for care and concern, for emotions that help sociality!

Mr Hess knows we all know there are genes that code for instincts for self preservation, and procreation that may will be anti social in certain circumstances.

Mr Hess knows another instinct will adjudicate between these competing emotions.

Mr Hess knows another instinct will help adjudicate between this adjudicating instinct and a competing contender for the adjudicating instinct and so on infinitely.

Mr Hess has more to tell us; religious commitment is declining.

Mr Hess concludes traditional morality has had its day.

Mr Hess is clearly for progress, fairness, democracy, rationality, goodness for all humans. (Mr Hess is clearly very noble).

Mr Hess in his great Innovating wisdom has no need to reveal by what authority he keeps those various values drawn from the stock of traditional values while at the same time rejects traditional values.

Mr Hess the great Innovator can appeal to the standard and debunk the standard at the same time by magically locating the standard in a DNA sequence!

Mr Hess ought, oops, can I use the word ‘ought’ anymore Mr Hess? Perhaps Mr Hess should, oops, there I go again. Sorry Mr Hess.

Please Mr Hess show us how this sleight of hand works? How is it you can keep your own values in the background away from the debunking process?

Very clever Mr Hess
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 11:35:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay, I erred in previous postings on related topics I had the wrong meaning of ethics. Dumb, sorry.
I seem to be an outsider because I don’t seem to be on the same page as many others. This article seems to be trying to give humans some special superior qualities over other animals. He also seems to be confusing genetic motivated behaviour with learned.

In past topics I offered the thought that animals share many base behavioural patterns with man. The two most pronounced are:
• Self preservation (fight or flee instinct).
• Preservation of the individuals’ genes.
It can be reasoned that these two primeval instincts amongst the Animal Kingdom are simply various expressions of evolution appropriate to the species. One only needs to read of wild studies of Bonobos to realize the similarities. Unlike the other species of Chimps the Bonobo has developed a collection of ‘learned’ social skills that make them more ‘peaceful’. Sex is a big part of this. Most of their social behaviours have resonance in humans. Yet they don’t have religion.

Much as Polycarp has some extremist inclinations he does make a valid point (sort of). That is any consistent behaviour (certainly Values) beyond those that can be explained by the above instincts) are indeed cultural (learned).

My experience in PNG confirm this. With every mountain top having a separate language/clans (800 separate languages) cultural (moral) similarities seem to have been based on location i.e. proximity to each other.
I say “have been” because the mixing of cultures and the culturecide of zealotic Christians have confused the situation.

Their taboos have evolved to meet practical needs over 20k years give or take. They address two basic needs:
• local food conservation/ medicine;
• and a need to explain the above and their environments often combing the two.
Certain areas of the jungle were inhabited by bad spirits who forbid hunting there during certain times of the year. Over the eons the animals/ bird have learned to breed there during those times.
The trick for us is to set/teach reasoned Values/morals. Comments?
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 1:12:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator, my guess is that John Ness would heartily agree with everything you have said. At least I hope so. His argument is more to do with attributing morals to their proper source. If you believe that morals are derived from absolute authority, you aren't likely to very enthusiastic about changing them. On other other hand, if you believe, as you say, they are a rule book adapted to the current environment, then when faced with changes in the environment you are far more likely to change your morals to suit. Given our societies are probably changing faster than at any other time in history, the latter is probably the better way to go.

Our friend runner made this point rather well a little while ago, when he bemoaned not finding answers on how to respond to global warming in the bible. Someone else of the same bent was saying they wished the bible was more direct in declaring abortion abhorrent.

Ness is also saying we will move away from absolute morals to relative ones, because of this advantage. I think that is a far more dubious proposition. Perhaps that is what you are referring to.

GP: "I’m not sure what you are trying to say with your comments about logic."

It's a view so distant from yours Graham that I doubt I will be able to express it clearly for you. Try this. I often see you saying something along the lines of "If you believe X, then logically you must do Y." Often when you say that, X does indeed follow from Y. But the brain is demonstrably not logical. Often when we believe X and know that Y is the best course of action, we then do something else entirely. Thus your argument "X logically follows from Y" simply does not apply to human behaviour.

For example, I strongly suspect you are not going to understand or agree with a word I am saying here. Yet still, I type them. Why? If its any consolation, I don't know the answer either.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 7:01:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Genetic modules in the mind are intrinsic to being human, we would never fall in love and have children,"

[1] Genetic-based

but if this were all there is then we would remain children, reacting to stimulus, acting automatically."

[2] These are called sensory tableaux[Piaget]and are present in humans and many other animals too. Higher mammals move-on from this stage. We learn.

[3] [2] is subject to the Nativist vs. Constructionist debate

rstuart,

I am guilty as charged, sorry. The quotes in my post are from Sells and my response mainly, but, of course, not exclusively, directed to him.

In the first instance, I was simply saying that at the "modules" are not genetic at the macro-level, rather than simply, "genetic" based. At the level of neurons, perhaps, rather than amino acids.

Piaget was a development psychologist, who held that we are born with sensory tableaux; e.g., a child's response to a mother's breast. The sight-suck response is in innate. Super-added to this state, we, as higher mammals learn as acquire higher cognitions.

Bio., as requested. In my first career, I was a national product manager & a systems manager with a bank. I have worked with IBM on artifical intelligence. For the past fifteen years, I have been in an academic teaching at five unis across the world and the Academic Director at two. Many research interests. Currently, the effects of cross-cultural dimensions on knowledge discovery. Apart from the aforesaid, I shall remain annonymous.

And you?
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 8:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy