Morals.

[ughaibu]

Steve, what would you predict would happen if you separated identical twins at birth. One went with a non-religious family, loving and ambitious for their children, the other went with a religious, non caring, uneducated family?

[questor]

Ugh, since you have shown interest in the subject, why don't you answer both questions?

[ughaibu]

It's not a matter of interest, just that your experiment needs a control.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor and Ubgaibu:

Steve, what would you predict would happen if you separated identical twins at birth. One went with a religious/non-religious family, loving and ambitious for their children, the other went with a religious/nonreligious, non caring, uneducated family?

I would predict that the two would become different people. :cup:

 

You want to take a hypothetical situation, well, let's take one that I give. Let's strip it down to essentials.

 

You're totally alone in the wilderness of a new world. There are many living things around you and you discover that some might actually be dangerous. It appears that there are no other intelligent species. The days at times become very hot, the nights sometimes become very cold, and there is water to drink.

 

Do you have need of a moral code?

[TheBigDog]

Questor and Ubgaibu: I would predict that the two would become different people. :cup:

 

You want to take a hypothetical situation, well, let's take one that I give. Let's strip it down to essentials.

 

You're totally alone in the wilderness of a new world. There are many living things around you and you discover that some might actually be dangerous. It appears that there are no other intelligent species. The days at times become very hot, the nights sometimes become very cold, and there is water to drink.

 

Do you have need of a moral code?

If it were me, then yes, I would need a moral code. It would mandate that I survive by what means I can. Study my surroundings to take best advantage of my natural resources. Protect myself from harm. Document my experiences so my new knowledge is not lost forever. And prepare or make arrangements for any possible rescue from my seclusion. You cannot enter a situation where you need to abandon your moral code. You can enter difficult situations where you are forced to reprioritize for your own survival, or martyr yourself on principle.

 

Bill

[questor]

if you were alone as you describe, and had never been exposed to other people, you would undoubtedly follow the code of the wild beast. this would not include morality as we know it. if you did happen to find other people at some point, you would be killed as a wild animal or manage to fit into whatever code was used in that society.

[questor]

by the way, in your example, if you already had a moral code when you were cast adrift, it would do you no good unless others you met had a similar code. this is our exact situation in Iraq, these people have no code that prevents them from murdering or torturing without remorse while this goes counter to our morality.

[Pyrotex]

...You're totally alone in the wilderness of a new world....Do you have need of a moral code?

May I step in?

I think I see where you're going with this, and it's a good question.

I think it can be answered by observing that morality, or a "moral code" is a set of "rules" bound upon relationships. If there are no other people in your test case, then I am tempted to say, of course not.

 

Bit there is still ONE relationship left. The relationship that one has with oneself. One still would use a moral code to decide how to treat oneself: what about suicide? personal hygiene? meditation or other means of "caring" for one's identity. Would you be "good" to yourself, or demanding -- to the point of cruelty?

[Boerseun]

I think as far as morality is concerned, PJ O'Rourke hit the hammer on the head:

 

Morality boils down to the One Basic Human Right: To do as you damn well please. And this, of course, is tempered by the One Basic Human Duty: To take the consequences.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think, to some extent you're all right.

 

What is the first goodness that we all exhibit as children?

 

We are responsible for the consequences of our actions as Beorseun has said. That is probably the single most important truth about how we stand in our own eyes.

 

Morality does play a part in the way we see ourselves, as Pyrotex has observed.

 

But morality is more than just dealing with people, isn't it? In this sense, I agree with BigDog.

 

When we behave as pure scientists, as children in totally innocent, focused observation on some aspect of existence, aren't we exhibiting the essence of morality? Aren't we interacting with existence in a purely human fashion?

 

Aren't we being 'good' at the very thing that makes us human?

 

We do have the capacity to behave in any manner whatsoever. But the consequences of actions taken that don't maintain respect for the way things are, will lead to failure and if there's nobody around to cover your butt, you'll die. You'll only survive from the morality exhibited by someone else.

 

One very interesting aspect of this is that in a society, survival is compartmentalized. And that's a good thing. Personally, if I had to hunt for my food, I'd die pretty quickly because my eyesight is very poor. Nevertheless, I'd rely on the goodness of another to perform that function for me. In return, I'd do my part by using my strengths (none of which come to mind at the moment) to make the hunters life easier and possible. I'd trade my skill for the products of the skills of others.

 

We do not include being 'good' in a skill with morality. And in my mind, that is where the disconnect first rears its head between reality and morality. Skills, life skills, survival skills, are fundamentally moral activities.

 

Reason and logic and observation are fundamentally moral skills and happen to be our most profound strength.

 

If you're alone and on your own, you'd need your morality more than ever. People who are fundamentally immoral, survive only through the morality of others.

[InfiniteNow]

One very interesting aspect of this is that in a society, survival is compartmentalized. And that's a good thing. Personally, if I had to hunt for my food, I'd die pretty quickly because my eyesight is very poor. Nevertheless, I'd rely on the goodness of another to perform that function for me. In return, I'd do my part by using my strengths (none of which come to mind at the moment) to make the hunters life easier and possible. I'd trade my skill for the products of the skills of others.

Maybe you could build the hunter a better weapon, or help them debrief after the trauma of the hunt, or help them get the most efficient use of the meat from the kill, or... just be a friend to them.

[Southtown]

When we behave as pure scientists, as children in totally innocent, focused observation on some aspect of existence, aren't we exhibiting the essence of morality? Aren't we interacting with existence in a purely human fashion?

 

Aren't we being 'good' at the very thing that makes us human?

Depends on who you're experimenting on, and how. HAHA

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

Depends on who you're experimenting on, and how. HAHA

There is an element of great sadness in your response Southtown. when I wrote

When we behave as pure scientists, as children in totally innocent, focused observation on some aspect of existence, aren't we exhibiting the essence of morality? Aren't we interacting with existence in a purely human fashion?

it initially didn't have the word 'innocent' in there. I put it in there to guide thought away from such nightmares as you imply.

 

One of the effects of pure evil is that it warps perspective and shatters rational thought. In a rational moral code, the necessity of a profound love of and respect for life must be sustained. Life is, after all, the purpose behind a moral code.

 

The key word here is rational. Discussing elements of insanity only obfuscates the focus. I trust that was not your intent.

[Pyrotex]

I think, to some extent you're all right....We do not include being 'good' in a skill with morality. And in my mind, that is where the disconnect first rears its head between reality and morality. Skills, life skills, survival skills, are fundamentally moral activities. ...

By Jove, I think you're right.

There are more relationships here than I saw at first.

Even in a scenario where there are no other people, there is still the relationship with oneself in the here and now, with the past, with the future, with the ecosystem and world around you, and all the "things" in that world.

Are you going to be "good"? That also involves your use of your skills even if your survival is assured. Will you use your time wisely? Will you create something worth while? Will you manifest a "good" life, even in the heart of isolation? For its own sake, even if no one else will ever know?

Pursuing the "good" for its own sake, in whatever context, is an excellent view of "morality". Thanks.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Pyrotex:

Will you manifest a "good" life, even in the heart of isolation? For its own sake, even if no one else will ever know?

I would hope so. :Waldo: From the clarity of the things you say and from your posts, I've concluded that you are one of the most moral people I know.

 

The interesting thing is that in isolation the need for morality is highest. Immoral behavior can only survive when there are victims who are not immoral. Since immorality can only sustain in context with other people, it has led to some confusion about when morality is required.

 

An indicator of this confusion is shown in the terms, 'career criminal' and 'a life of crime'. The term, "victimless crime" is an indication that 'morality' has lost its way.

[Southtown]

There is an element of great sadness in your response Southtown. when I wrote it initially didn't have the word 'innocent' in there. I put it in there to guide thought away from such nightmares as you imply.

 

One of the effects of pure evil is that it warps perspective and shatters rational thought. In a rational moral code, the necessity of a profound love of and respect for life must be sustained. Life is, after all, the purpose behind a moral code.

 

The key word here is rational. Discussing elements of insanity only obfuscates the focus. I trust that was not your intent.

My point was just that our desires to know, eat, love, etc. are tempered only by our concern for the effects that our pursuits may have on others. Sorry if you were trying to avoid the scenario of unethical science. The places that the human essense leads us are why we need a fence of morality so-to-speak, IMO, and I was just trying to contrast our points.

[Pyrotex]

...Sorry if you were trying to avoid the scenario of unethical science...

Hmmm... I don't think a truly "rational" moral code CAN ignore this scenario. But there are often more than just two options that the scientist must consider. If the scientist knows that others are also working the same problem, or that some day soon, it is likely that others will work the same problem, then NOT working the problem doesn't necessarily avoid ethical (or unethical) consequences.

 

Consider this. Was the first human to invent a really good axe an immoral person? Was axe research an example of unethical science? An axe can cut trees just swell, saving time and effort, and perhaps saving lives. It can also cut heads. Let's say it WAS unethical science. How could you have prevented it? What would have been the ethical alternative? (You may have to assume that early Human would have understood what 'ethics' or 'morals' were. That's okay.)

 

Consider this. Charles Babbage realizes in 1870 or so, that it is just possible to build a machine to do calculations, at a speed and to an accuracy that boggles the mind. He tries to build his "integration engine" but fails only because he could not make frictionless bearings. A little over a century later, the offspring of Babbage's research, the computer chip, makes it possible to launch thermonukes over the North Pole with 10 meter accuracy. Was Babbage unethical? Was there any way in hell that he could have foreseen the use of his research? If so, how could you have prevented it? What would have been the ethical alternative?

 

Just to be complete, and not be accused of overlooking the obvious, let's consider modern research to build a fast-spreading malignant super-virus that cannot be stopped. The only tacit purpose of this research would be to enable someone to eradicate huge swaths of human life. Is that unethical science? I would say 'yes'. But now you are told that the Evil Empire of Zardoz is doing the very same research, and we desparately need to know if there is some way to counter such a bug. Is it unethical now? Then you think, the Zardozians aren't really that smart, and their economy sucks. The chances of them doing this kind of research is pretty small. How small, you don't know. And there is always the chance that your bosses have lied about the Zardozians. Or maybe they didn't. Is it unethical now? What are your ethical alternatives?