open Democracy News Analysis - The basis of morality, - Comments

Eduardo Ferreira on "The basis of morality"

Eduardo Ferreira — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:26:54 +0000

A reflex can be overide by reason or interest. The question here is if "morality" is just instictive, a social tool, or social condictioning or just rational thinking...

sharpjwe on "The basis of morality"

sharpjwe — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:45:10 +0000

well you shoud always act if you can that is human basic reflex.

henry_hart_1 on "The basis of morality"

henry_hart_1 — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:51:22 +0000

I think Brendan has shown why Matt's example is flawed -- you have to start with a "normal" person. A normal person, given the conditions Matt has laid out, would help the drownee. All agreed? The problem is Matt's question: Are you trying to get to the bottom of where "morality" comes from? If so, there's no easy answer. It comes from multiple sources, and there are as many different brands of morality as there are individual people on the planet. Interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect Studies have apparently shown that people are more likely to intervene to help someone in trouble when they are alone as opposed to when they are in a group. So maybe you should put CX in a crowd of other CXs, Matt, and then see what happens. HH

Brendan 2 on "The basis of morality"

Brendan 2 — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:36:22 +0000

This discussion is skirting important definitions in human psychology: A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial behavior or attitudes and lack of conscience is a sociopath. To deny the impulse to help is sociopathic. To not have the impulse at all is a psychopathic tendancy.

Eduardo Ferreira on "The basis of morality"

Eduardo Ferreira — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 23:41:06 +0000

Matt, We might think about basic biology. Animals tend to "help" other animals, sometimes even from other species. Dogs are a good example of such animals, and we have several instances where they help people without being trained to do it. We have a basic programming that enables us to acknowledge pleas for help, and this is an evolutionary trait. I will grant you that you can override it, it is just the kind of thing a suicidal specie would do.

englishman on "The basis of morality"

englishman — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:58:38 +0000

The heading was the basis of morality. I have tried to suggest that morality has developed naturally and as a consequence of evolution. I expect that this results in most people doing the right thing i.e. saving the drowning person is what most of us would do. It is also true that there are some people, maybe abnormal, who don't care in the least and others that fill in the spectrum between the extremes. I don't think there is any other moral imperative outside of this. I think that if someone "cheats" and lets the person drown, and nobody knows, there is no retribution apart from his own conscience (a function of the brain's development via genetics); this may be missing in the case of psycopaths. The universe owes nobody any favours. People may like to think that Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin suffered (or are still suffering) because of their atrocities but this is wishful thinking. We rely on who we are as human beings. It is this conditioning that defines for us what we think of as right or wrong. Message was edited by: englishman

chris9234 on "The basis of morality"

chris9234 — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:33:52 +0000

Matt, You can look at it that way, but I prefer to look at it from the point of view that doing the right thing, such as being honest, entails both negitive and positive consequences. Who's struggling?

Matt Murrell on "The basis of morality"

Matt Murrell — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:48:09 +0000

Aren't there any positive arguments for moral behaviour? So far all we've got for convincing X that not letting someone drown is the wrong thing to do is that it might entail negative consequences for him. If no-one would ever find out that he'd been there when the person drowned, is their any reason he shouldn't just let the person drown if he felt like it? And if we're struggling to demonstrate that letting someone drown when you can easily help them is wrong, what hope of making moral arguments do we have when it comes to complex phenomenon such as war?

Tom Freeman on "The basis of morality"

Tom Freeman — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:01:34 +0000

What you should do depends (among other things) on what you can do - if you were tied to the bench and unable to move, nobody could fault your inaction. But this is a situation in which you (and you alone) have complete power over whether someone lives or dies. If they were physically weak and you pushed them in yourself and then held them under, that aspect of the situation would be the same. Of course, the latter is more brutally direct and involves you having the original idea of kill them yourself, but in both cases you and you alone have decided that they should die, for no reason other than whim. So assuming there's no dispute that the 'murder' case is wrong - what would be the morally significant difference with your 'spectator' case? I think that generally, the distinction between sins of commission and sins of omission evaporates as your power over the situation becomes greater and easier to wield.

Matt Murrell on "The basis of morality"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:58:36 +0000

I think I saw it a few years back... didn't he get away with it all in the end?

chris9234 on "The basis of morality"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:16:27 +0000

Then CX is a fraud and a phony, maybe even a psychopath, at any rate there are consequences to amoral behavior that need not come from god or the law. Did you ever see American Psyco?

Matt Murrell on "The basis of morality"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:01:15 +0000

'kay... Let's say that CX is an extremely intelligent person - able to ingratiate himself with others and turn on the charm and faux-sympathy when necessary, but completely amoral when there's no-one around to see it...

chris9234 on "The basis of morality"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:58:08 +0000

Sorry Matt, but you don't get off that easy. If CX is an extremely selfish person, (note the failure to assist a person who was drowning), then he must be a very selfish person in general. The impact this has on his family relationships, the types of friendships he has, or lack thereof, his business relationships, etc., etc., will all be impacted negatively. And, even if he were to hide his selfishness so well that most people did not know, the stress on CX to maintain this awful secret itself will have emotional and psychological consequences for him. Thus, there are plenty of reasons for CX to not be selfish, and help those in need. Your serve...

Matt Murrell on "The basis of morality"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:36:29 +0000

Chris, That's a great argument against Citizen X (as we'll call the person on the bench) advocating selfishness - but simply being a selfish bastard probably doesn't affect your chances of being rescued while drowning. Most people wouldn't know how he'd acted in the past, and even if they did I doubt many people try to identify a victim before trying to rescue them... So that's still no reason why Citizen X should have rescued the drowning person.

chris9234 on "The basis of morality"

chris9234 — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:11:53 +0000

'How would you convince the person on the bench that they should have saved the person drowning?' Matt, How about simply because next time it might be that person drowning, and if we all become selfish pricks then he'd better just say his prayers rather than bother calling for any help.

The basis of morality,

Matt Murrell — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 17:38:51 +0000

A hypothetical situation: I'm enjoying the sunshine on bench beside a river when I notice someone drowning. There's no-one else around. I'm an extremely good swimmer and there's even a lifebuoy beside the bench - I could easily save them. Instead I sit there and watch them drown. Should I have done differently and why...