Morality

[Sir Taffsalot]

Torture also requires a well developed sense of empathy. Or so I heard.

 

I once read somewhere that the worst torturers are heroes and the best torturers are cowards. Cowards have a superior knowledge of fear.

 

I agree.

[Sir Taffsalot]

What I find interesting about morality is that at a young age it is very black and white. Dont do this, do that eg don't hurt people, don't steal, dont lie, always tell the truth. Once you get older I find that morality is less black and white and can become more of a grey area.

 

I know that it is wrong to kill someone but what if someone attacks me on the street for whatever reason. I put him on the ground but they keep getting back up to attack me. What if I have no choice but to kill that person in self defence? What if I'm a soldier at war and it is expected of me to kill the enemy to serve my country?

 

I know that it's wrong to steal but what if for whatever reason I'm homeless on the streets and I steal a loaf of bread from a shop just to survive?

 

I've been told that lying is wrong but can anyone honestly tell me they get through a whole day without lying? Everytime I bump into Bob at work he asks me "How's it going?" I always say "Good thanks. How are you?" Even if I'm not having a good day I don't think Bob has the time or really wants to listen to me go on about my problems for ten minutes. He is just been polite. My boss says "Phil is on holiday this week. Would you like to cover him?" I can't say "I've got too much work. Ask somebody else." Even though I've been given a choice, if I want to stay in good favour with my boss and potentially advance in my career I have to lie and say "No problem." even if it's far from the truth.

 

At the grand old age of 32 morality has taken a back seat for me. It is something that is still very important to me but what takes priority is getting through the day as quickly and effortlessly as possible without stepping on too many toes.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Sir Taffsalot

[lowenz]

At the grand old age of 32 morality has taken a back seat for me. It is something that is still very important to me but what takes priority is getting through the day as quickly and effortlessly as possible without stepping on too many toes.

This is an example of a rotated value space

You can still empathyze, with someone having the same rational needs (in bold) and because there's a lot of people with them there's still a "community" sense.

Edited October 3, 2013 by lowenz

[PranQster]

I think it's about time for a 'murderous rampage'/assassin mission. The player needs to find x number AI and kill them by various means.

Kind of like an 'Kill Jimmy "The Snitch" and his entire gang' themed mission.

• broadhead
  
• shortsword
  
• fire arrow
  
• blackjack beating
  
• pitfall/explosive/electric trap
  
• cause an AI to turncoat and murder another AI via relationship change
  
• discover/provide evidence note/scroll/etc which triggers an AI to target a path where they commit suicide
  
• giant spider "pets" attack AI
  
• drop heavy object on AI from above
  
• cause an AI to have an hazardous job-site "accident"
  
• etc...
  

Edited October 4, 2013 by PranQster

[elwing]

seems like a great idea for TDM achievments, no?

 

Ok, now I leave.. lol

[demagogue]

What do you mean by this? Higher primates and even elephants have been shown to have a sense of self.

 

Yes, sorry, I was talking about what you could call a "narrative of self" that people develop through language & then apply to themselves (like a semi-conscious "I'm an X kind of person", like I'm a decent upstanding citizen, so I won't do Y; or I want to come across like hero to my kids or peers, so I'll do Z... Because that's who I am); that's why I mentioned the language connection. In the background is my thinking that that's relevant for our sense of what we ought to do.

 

I'd go with a distinction sometimes made in some books I've read between the realization of selfhood that we share with some higher mammals that you're talking about, e.g., that macaques (arguably) show when you put red gel on their forehead, they look in a mirror, and they touch their own forehead (maybe you know even more telling experiments), versus a narrative of self that (arguably) drives some of our behavior that I'd say we have that animals don't, since it's expressed through language and they don't develop narrative threads like humans do.

 

It's the difference between feeling that this body around me is actually my own versus I understand myself as an American citizen, lawyer by profession, bound by certain rules, with certain ambitions I have to accomplish certain goals, etc. Two different ways you could apply the concept of "self", and I meant only the 2nd.

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

edit: I'm open minded though. E.g., I am genuinely curious if the sign-language learning primates could manage to express a worldview or narrative of self, and if it had any influence on them being able to express a personalty or view of how they ought to act. I haven't read about it. I have my own ideas about how human behavior separates from our primate cousins, and language is a big part of it, but I'm not so dogmatic about it that I won't give a fair hearing to counterexamples. If there's one punchline of science, especially biology, it's never say never.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

Edit2: I spent more time on this post than I needed just to answer the question, but also going on is my belief that comparing our decisionmaking behavior to that of our primate cousins, what's similar and what's different, is incredibly useful. In the last couple of neuroeconomic articles I've been reading, apparently primates are very accomplished at intuitive game theory... They know how to maximize their payoff in lots of game theory type games, as well or better than humans. And you mentioned the intuitive social roles they play out in groups. It's just when predicative concepts come into play, where one needs to follow a complex predication, i.e., language, that they won't follow the punchline of a norm to bring them to a line of behavior they ought to act out, as I understood it.

 

Understanding the line between those intuitive norms we feel or instinctively act out versus norms we understand through narratives of the world or self (i.e., "acting on reasons"), that to me is very important to teasing out what morality and behavior are really about. That's part of the answer to the famous Kant vs Hume debate I think I mentioned before! (I.e., which comes first, the emotion or the reason to be good?) So comparison studies are really interesting to me.

[jay pettitt]

This stuff is vaguely interesting - a neuroscientist poking at the edges of our sense of self. It's possible that our sense of self is transient and only seems constant because it's continuously reinforced. That person you see in the mirror - if it was someone else, you'd notice right? Edited October 4, 2013 by jay pettitt

[lowenz]

Up for all those new members! Challenge the TDM masterminds in philosophical and psychological fields about the Homo Sapiens morality

Edited October 14, 2013 by lowenz

[Jinix]

Morality, manners and good behaviour are patterns that living within a society (anykind) produces by way of survival.

It's obeying the rules.

It is the 'human' way of ensuring we don't kill each other by following the groups/tribes/religions/etc., rules, as laid down by the elders. It permits us to live in large groups without conflict - unless someone breaks the rules.

It has nothing to do with human kindness or love or god and it's not 'born' into you it's merely commonsense.

 

Your upbringing and the environment you are born into determine your character and how you follow the 'rules' thru'out your life.

[Jinix]

I find it interesting that a game like TDM where the player plays the part of someone who's main objective is to commit a sin, stealing, is made to feel like it's morally OK. Eg the person you are stealing from is an evil rich git. The only exceptions that spring to mind are where you rob an abandoned tomb eg grave robbing. How would people feel about playing a thief that was a completely evil git?

 

Lord Goodheart was awarded a golden medallion for all the money he has donated to help improve the poor houses in Bridgeport. Tonight I'm going to steal his medallion. Why? Because I can. Also I need to sell it to my fence so I can get money to feed my mandrisolla addiction. If anyone gets in my way I'll just knock them out with my blackjack and risk giving them brain damage.

When I play a thief game. I like to think of my thief as a low life loser and a wimp trying to make his way in a mean old world. I fully expect every other NPC in the game to look at my character for who he really is... a sneaky, thieving scumbag and potential mass murderer that should, by rights, be locked up or hung.

Trying to believe I am some sort of heroic robin hood or even a nice guy, just doesn't cut it.

I'm a good guy in real life so naturally, my fantasy is to do all the things I'm not allowed to do for real, when I'm playing games.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Jinix

[lowenz]

Morality, manners and good behaviour are patterns that living within a society (anykind) produces by way of survival.

It's obeying the rules.

It is the 'human' way of ensuring we don't kill each other by following the groups/tribes/religions/etc., rules, as laid down by the elders. It permits us to live in large groups without conflict - unless someone breaks the rules.

It has nothing to do with human kindness or love or god and it's not 'born' into you it's merely commonsense.

 

Your upbringing and the environment you are born into determine your character and how you follow the 'rules' thru'out your life.

OK for the society, nobody can deny it: it's simple.

 

But taking in account a small group of people such as a small cult or - taking to extreme the problem - a couple? How is the "internal" morality of a couple? Don't tell me it's a simple corollary of the society morality.....it's way too convoluted.

Or - and this is the ultimate problem - the moral sense of an individual dealing with his own toughts (it's why I made the "rape fantasy" example for women, it's such a dramatic contrast between surfacing primordial instinct fantasies and the rationalization of self-preservation/individual inviolability need).

Edited October 29, 2013 by lowenz

[Bridge]

Categorizing acts we do not understand as evil and acts we do as good is a typical way to make sense of this confusing world we live in. I think it's best described by saying: "There are no evil people, only evil acts." Even this I take exception to since it defines acts from the skewed lens of moral absolutism, but it raises an important point. The very idea of an absolutely evil person is contradictory. Do any of you consider yourselves evil? I'm going to take a wild guess and say none of you do. It may be hard to swallow, but neither do any of the "evil people". However, there may be people with severe mental defects who identify with the concept of evil, any clear-minded individual who is able to comprehend the consequences of his actions and how they affect others, in other words most people, is guaranteed not to consider themselves an evil person. Either they truly believe what they are doing is good, or they recognize their acts as evil but justify them as being carried out for a good reason. Literally nobody wakes up in the morning and says "Hmm... I'm going to be as evil as I possibly can today. Man, being evil is awesome." The reality of most real life situations is much more ambiguous than this false dichotomy of good vs. evil that permeates every aspect of society.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Bridge

[lowenz]

You're right but *some* psychopaths are pure (absolute?) evil, it's a matter of fact, when they reach the fullness of the mental desease.

The motivation behind their action is simply fiction, they don't "believe" and act: they act and COVER: don't trust their words about their "higher/different" morality, it's only a funny display.

Edited October 29, 2013 by lowenz

[lowenz]

Hmm... I'm going to be as evil as I possibly can today. Man, being evil is awesome."

An awesome vengeance maybe yes: I remember some cases of voluntary HIV infection guided by pure vengeance/rage.....here in Italy too.

And no, they are enraged people and not psychopaths.....so think about what a *real* psychopath can do.

Edited October 29, 2013 by lowenz

[Bridge]

You're right but *some* psychopaths are pure (absolute?) evil, it's a matter of fact, when they reach the fullness of the mental desease.

The motivation behind their action is simply fiction, they don't "believe" and act: they act and COVER: don't trust their words about their "higher/different" morality, it's only a funny display.

 

No doubt. But in my opinion we cannot use that as evidence of the concept of evil or absolutely evil acts. Psychopaths cannot be judged by the same criteria sane people are for the obvious reason that the mechanisms that dictate social conduct in normal people are literally non-existent or severely underdeveloped. Therefore I think it is precarious to say that psychopaths are evil because that concept makes just as little sense to them as the concept of good. And I believe that in order for a person to be absolutely evil they must firmly believe that themselves. Seeing as they are ignorant of the nuances of morality, I do not think it is possible for them to firmly believe that at all. Psychopaths are notorious manipulators and they could have numerous reasons for wanting people to either think they are good or evil. I think you put it rather well: the motivation behind their action is nothing but fiction.

 

EDIT: I'm not a psychoanalyst so I couldn't say for certain what could possess people to do a thing like that (spread HIV). Freud would tell you it's projection, repressed memories, obsessive impulses or any number of things. What really motivates these actions or any actions is highly debatable. I tend to adhere to Freud's theories because they make sense but I do know that I believe the concept of moral absolutism to be inaccurate at best and completely infantile at worst. The world may make more sense to some if it is a clear-cut struggle between good and evil but any logical person must conclude that it is a distortion of reality.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Bridge

[Springheel]

It has nothing to do with human kindness or love or god and it's not 'born' into you it's merely commonsense.

 

Studies with very young children would suggest that it is indeed "born" into you. A sense of empathy, fairness and cooperation is also present in social primates and most other social mammals to varying degrees.

[lowenz]

A sense of empathy, fairness and cooperation is also present in social primates and most other social mammals to varying degrees.

Problem 1: it can be overcome

Problem 2 (in Homo Sapiens ): it can be manipulated (see "I tell you a big nasty lie to be fair and supportive")

Edited October 30, 2013 by lowenz

[demagogue]

From what I've read, human behavior is a pretty complex pipeline that brings in both innate and socially-constructed pressures, and of course there's still a place for agency... I don't trust theories that reduce it to a single factor, like biological or social determinism, or OTOH think that we're a totally "free" tabula rasa with no influences at all. I think all the factors have a role and very complex & nonlinear relationship.

 

I mean, I bet if someone wanted to translate the human mind to code it would be trillions of lines of code, and people talk about human behavior like it's 10 lines of stim-response video game AI.

[Springheel]

Problem 1: it can be overcome

 

Of course.

[Springheel]

Thought this was topical:

 

In a newly-published study in the journal Social Neuroscience, researchers found that a single variation in a genotype seems to affect whether or not a person engages in prosocial acts. Individuals who have one variation of the genotype have a tendency toward social anxiety -- that is, unease around other people, and are less inclined to help others in ways that involve personal interaction. Those who have another variation, in contrast, not only were less anxious, but also were more likely to be helpful. The genetic region involved is 5-HTTLPR, which regulates transport of serotonin, a neurotransmitter chemical in the brain. Read more: http://ow.ly/pZJIU

 

Imagine when we get to the point where we could create vaccines against anxiety? Would you support modifying children to ensure they grew up more helpful and socially conscious?

[Jinix]

Studies with very young children would suggest that it is indeed "born" into you. A sense of empathy, fairness and cooperation is also present in social primates and most other social mammals to varying degrees.

I would "suggest' that rather than born into you it is the result of being nurtured by a mother that 'teaches' that it's the way to be by loving and giving food to the baby.

I believe that if you took away mother help you would have a baby that would do everything it can to survive and that would include fighting to be the one on the nipple while pushing away weaker siblings. Agressive behaviour is natural and it's mother's job to tone it down in their babies.

So I strongly disagree that 'niceness' of any kind is 'born' into a baby. It has to be taught thru' conditioning within the first few hours, days and weeks.

By the time those babies in the test were tested they were already 'shaped'. All those qualities you mentioned are necessary to survive in a group but it is the group that shapes the newborn's behaviour to assure it 'fits' in with the group.

Studying children of any age tells you nothing except how they have been shaped since birth by people, events and the environment around them.

Of course physical differences and DNA traits will affect how the baby responds to early events so there will be noticable characteristics that will show up in any observations. Example being that a baby may be too weak mentally or physically to resist a sibling in fighting for a nipple - does that mean he is prone to sharing thru fairness or weakness.

[Jinix]

Thought this was topical: Imagine when we get to the point where we could create vaccines against anxiety? Would you support modifying children to ensure they grew up more helpful and socially conscious?

 

What parent wouldn't want perfect children that always behave?

That's exactly where we are heading - genetically modified children that will be obedient and do exactly what is expected of them without questioning.

A world where we can all be patriotic GI joes and Barbies that smile all the time and are always polite... a nice world full of nicely designed people.

Our owners have been trying to get us that way since day one now it's possible to control via chemicals, genetic engineering or behaviour modifying tweaks to the brain. The future does look bright huh?

[Springheel]

believe that if you took away mother help you would have a baby that would do everything it can to survive and that would include fighting to be the one on the nipple while pushing away weaker siblings. Agressive behaviour is natural and it's mother's job to tone it down in their babies.

 

 

Fighting to survive is not mutually exclusive with compassion and a sense of fairness. Although it would be hard to do studies that completely eliminate the influence of the mother, the quote I made above about a genetic mutation that increases "helpful" behaviour is pretty strong evidence of a genetic component to human morality. Obviously genetic predisposition is not a guarantee.

 

 

 

Our owners have been trying to get us that way since day one

 

"Our owners"? You're not going to go all New World Order, are you?

[lowenz]

Thought this was topical:

 

 

 

Imagine when we get to the point where we could create vaccines against anxiety? Would you support modifying children to ensure they grew up more helpful and socially conscious?

Anxiety (social or not) can be created by extended coercive experiences too (and it remains after them), so this kind of vaccine is.....worthless IMHO.

Teach a person to deal with stress and anxiety (yes, they can actually be valueable) is the best way.

Edited November 1, 2013 by lowenz

[lowenz]

that mean he is prone to sharing thru fairness or weakness.

This is a really interesting thing, the use of weakness to be accepted and integrated in a relationship, to the point to be "handled".

Really interesting for me because i really *HATE* that modality (read: I really *HATE* submissive persons, they totally disgust me, it's kind of mental crunch for me to know a person actually LOVES to be submissive).

Edited November 1, 2013 by lowenz