Are people inherently amoral?
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Are people inherently amoral? |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 10:35
Profile
No serious discussions in a while, so here goes. We've touched on this topic a few times, but I don't think we've addressed it directly. Many of us in school have read books like "Heart of Darkness" or "Lord of the Flies," where people put into situations outside of human authority revert to a primitave state where strength, in whatever form it takes, rules. I've certainly with some degree of regularity/broken-record-ness brought Hobbes to the fore in debates here, in asserting that men outside of a greater authority are inherently amoral; that no right or wrong applies without a greater authority or power to inforce it. What do y'all think? For those of you who will come with a Christian answer, is this morality you will likely posit necessarily inherent in people, or rather externally applied to us by God, much as our governments' laws are applied to us? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5822
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 10:58
Profile
lord of the flies was a good book. but most of my other reading books don't realy seem like they will happen like Stephen King or Eric Garcia -------------------- who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men? the shadow knows ninjas are so better than pirates homerun Posts: 85 | Registered: Tuesday, May 17 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:10
Profile
To ask about morality without any form of leader you must be referring to atheists. Any form of God, or spirituality makes certain behaviors taboo. I don't think it's instinctual for humans to harm each other. We have as much if not more of a capacity to love than hate. Look at babies and very young children as an example of what humans really are. They give back what they receive. Do humans behave badly due to who they are, or is it due to how they were treated throughout their lives? Even animals fight for a dominant. I assume leaderless humans would do the same. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:16
Profile
Homepage
Perhaps this is evolutionary behavior. Like biological mutations, these "social/psychological" mutations may be crucial in evolving our society's morals: If whatever behavior the individual displays ensures better survival, perhaps it will eventually spread. Which would also ensure havoc whenever individuals are separated from the rest of society. In a normal society, these "mutations" are either supressed by the individual, or discovered and treated. In an isolated community, eg. an island full of stranded schoolboys from a plane crash, such mutations may be inherently encouraged. That would mean this isolated society in Lord of the Flies doesn't spin out of control as it appears to, but rather adapts to its primitive environment very rapidly. It just seems to degenerate in the eyes of our more "stable" society. Of course, this idea implies a kind of moral relativism, which I normally disagree with. So maybe I should look into it a bit more. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "Really, Spiderweb is just a big, steaming pool of estrogen." --- Robin Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 11:45
Profile
I'm not necessarily implying or positing atheism - it's entirely possible that there is a creator in the deist sense - a God that for whatever reason chooses not to intervene. But even within Christianity, some sects or understandings posit almost atheist-like external incentives for behaving a certain way, e.g. "Don't touch yourself or you'll burn in hell!" or "Don't use birth control or you'll go to hell!" As for children, absent authority, don't they tend to run amok? Bullying is certainly a problem, and I have my own not-so-fond memories of riding a school bus in which the driver didn't give a hoot what was going on. Children outside of an authority can be merciless. Doesn't this reflect a lack of any inner moral fiber? Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:00
Profile
Children fighting is natural development. My rat's babies fight a lot when they are young. They rarely cause serious injury, but are constantly biting and hitting, and wrestling with each other. It's just the way the young practice for being adults. Humans still need these instincts to some extent in our society. Bullying is not natural behavior. Children who excessively pick on other children probably have environmental problems. Perhaps their parents were lacking in some way. Edit: To elaborate on spirituality: Avoiding Christianity entirely, and focusing specifically on a belief system with a “creator” or “higher power”. Belief in a higher power imposes concepts of right and wrong. Such as, it is wrong to kill beings the creator made, or it is wrong to take things that aren't yours. Some things are unwritten rules for such people. Many faiths such as Buddhism focus more on personal and world development rather than fearing the creator or hell. They don't harm others because they don't desire to do so, and they want to be better people. Unlike animals humans have the potential to desire to be more than they are, we also have the capacity for compassion for others. These aspects of being human allows for us to be inherently good creatures. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:24: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 12:26
Profile
In short, yes. While we may have the capacity for compassion, humans are primarily self-interested. Few, if any, have ever truly worked for the benefit of someone else without somehow benefiting themselves. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:28: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ] -------------------- Lt. Sullust Cogito Ergo Sum Polaris Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2238
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:06
Profile
Homepage
It's not about inherently being amoral. Think about this: Why do we do the things we do? We bully people. We pressure others. We fight. Why? I'll tell you... to get something. To win, to achieve. Things considered amoral by our culture are simply ways to get ahead. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, either. But it is indeniable to have feelings to harm others when your possessions (or similar) are threatened. Just today at school, some jerk was harassing a good friend of mine. She clearly stated to stop, while he did not. Seeing as I, for some reason or another, take pleasure in helping people in such situations, I stepped up to deter this *******. While I did push him into the lockers (an act considered 'wrong' by most), my intentions were, as I feel, pure. Useless anecdote aside... definitions of "morality" aside... humans are capable of horrific things. Holocaust, anyone? -------------------- The critics agree! Demonslayer is "a five star hit!" raves TIMES Weekly! "I've never heard such thoughtful comments. This man is a genious!" says two-time Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Rasputin! Posts: 1582 | Registered: Wednesday, November 13 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 247
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:10
Profile
Homepage
The Holocaust speaks more to Milgram's experiments and obedience. Go here for a summary of his experiment Milgram -------------------- I stop rubber at 160km/h, five times a week. CANUCKS RESPEK! My Style The Knight Between Posts. Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5450
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think it is how they are brought up. A kid brought up believing that stealing is right, may steal when they grow up. That would be due to the fact that their father/mother whatever may have to steal to survive. Or if a parent swears a lot in front of their kids, its likely that that kid will swear a lot as he gets older. -------------------- Mugglenet--The ULTIMATE Harry Potter Site. Polaris-- New location. Posts: 2396 | Registered: Saturday, January 29 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 13:46
Profile
Homepage
People are never inherently anything... we are shaped by our experiences into strange combinations of good and evil, though some people are definitely off-balance. Following the evolutionary thread of the conversation, we definitely do things to better our chances of survival. Granted, these things may not even be necessary given th society we live in, but we do them anyway. Sometimes these behaviors are self-centered and amoral, but they can also be altruistic and giving... it all depends on the situation. There's also a social element to this, in that we will see other people act good/evil, and occasionally be rewarded for imitating them (reinforcing the behavior). Usually, this happens without us consciously noticing. Sadly, this goes on to the whole "be a good role model" lecture, which hinders more than helps. Fortunately, regardless of whether or not anyone thinks we are inherently moral/amoral, we have the ability to think about our own behaviors and to change them. Thus, we should spend less time on the morality we start out with, and more time on how to improve what we've got. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 14:01
Profile
quote:This implies that children can't grow beyond their environment. An example would be a family is very religious and the child decides to be an atheist. Though children are more likely fallow their parent's influence than not, plenty of them choose not to. I think the way they are brought up has a great influence on who they are. If a child was abused or neglected they will be a very different person than a child who is loved a praised. Of course that's not to say that abused children can't grow beyond that environment as well. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 14:38
Profile
Just judging from the amount of immoral urges I suppress, yes. Testosterone (and a whole bunch of other stuff, probably) tells me every day to kill those of my gender and rape those of the opposite. I don't, obviously, or even entertain the thoughts, but, then again, I've been brought up not to. If I wasn't inherently amoral (darnit, let's just say evil!), I don't think I'd even have those very weak urges, repulsive as I find them. Just because I can fairly easily overcome inherent evil doesn't mean it isn't there. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4590
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 15:05
Profile
It doesn't mean a lot to make sweeping generalizations like that. Like most things else in nature, these things are described by a bell curve. Some people are asses, most people are okay, and some people are really nice. But the bad people tend to do more harm, and make themselves more noticed, because it's easier to do very bad things than very good ones. Case & point, someone holds a door open for you, you don't go off and talk about it to your friends later; someone slams it in your face, and you do! -------------------- I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. - George Bernard Shaw Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 15:07
Profile
Amoral is not necessarily evil. Evil is learned from experience-- truly deviant and nasty individuals come from complex societies-- it takes a fairly complex ideology to create a Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or Idi Amin. I would think of amoral as purely self interested to the point of not bothering with societal reinforcers. It would be impossible to survive with this attitude in a desert island situation. All would have to work together to survive or die. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4590
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 17:25
Profile
amoral immoral evil There's a difference! -------------------- I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation. - George Bernard Shaw Posts: 103 | Registered: Sunday, June 20 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5576
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 17:50
Profile
Homepage
I think that since people have developed a system of morals (excluding the possiblity that these are suggested or impressed on them by a diety, which I do not find to be the case), they clearly must in general contain some element which could be labelled inherently moral. Though this element could be dervied purely from complications of the goal of protecting and propogating one's genes, it has lead us to arrive at the idea of morality. Furthermore, the broad aspects of this tend to be well agreed upon, such as 'killing and hurting other people is not moral' and 'taking other peoples' stuff is not moral,' so these seem to be reflections of basic human thought, not society and religion. -------------------- Überraschung des Dosenöffners! Posts: 627 | Registered: Monday, March 7 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 17:57
Profile
I'm perfectly aware of the differences between the terms. Amoral is just so much less fun than evil! Said basic thought, as you said, can be considered amoral. Non-agression pacts are much more effective when not broken, hence our extreme reluctance to do so (Morals!). I'd argue that the fact that we even have to consider killing one another and such things as possibilities certainly puts the kibosh on being inherently moral to any great degree. If morality were entirely reflective of our nature the idea of immorality simply wouldn't occur to us. Since the ideas of morality and immorality crop up and do battle in our minds with great regularity, I'd say that we are most certainly inherently amoral. [ Thursday, May 19, 2005 18:02: Message edited by: PoD person ] Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5576
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 18:02
Profile
Homepage
I'm not suggesting that we are totally moral, or even to a very large degree, only that for the reasons I gave, I think it must be there. There is plety of room for immoral thoughs and behavior. Indeed, though we have made what might be called 'inovations' in morality over history, many people still act quite immorally. -------------------- Überraschung des Dosenöffners! Posts: 627 | Registered: Monday, March 7 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 18:07
Profile
Homepage
I'd say "inherently social" is a better way to put it than "inherently moral". Adding an abstract dimension to what is essentially a self-regulating system of interpersonal interaction seems redundant and confusing. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 18:07
Profile
Yeah, it's there, but if there's an equally strong urge to immorality (and let's face it, how many immoral urges do you suppress?), then they just cancel out. Right now, it's advantageous to be, or at least appear, moral. Thus, I wouldn't say the urge to morality is necessarily more powerful than that to immorality. People seem to be immoral when the advantage lies there much more often than remaining moral when it hits the fan. Thus, I'd say that the amoral urge to look out for Number One trumps either of the others. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 18:33
Profile
Are people born amoral? Yes, they don't know what is right and wrong, nor do babies care. As we get older or behavior becomes a choice rather than instinct. I don't think we are inherently immoral, that is to say it's not part of our nature to harm one another. If a person is angry with another person it's a choice to fight or let it go. That has nothing to do with what we are as a species. Children do start consciously harming one another at a fairly young age, but one could argue that is more who they are, and not a due to them being human. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 20:08
Profile
Homepage
I don't think humans are inherently moral beings, but I don't believe every baby is a tabula rasa waiting to be filled with good or evil. We are social animals, arguably even herd animals. We're born with the morals of monkeys, more or less (although of course there are individual deviations). That means we have certain instincts beyond true amorality: we aren't predisposed to kill people out of boredom, for instance. Beyond these most basic principles of interaction, I'd call all morality social constructs. —Alorael, who just isn't sure where the line between basic herd instinct and social construct should be drawn. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 21:45
Profile
Homepage
Human beings on the whole are not inherently moral; as has been said, they are born without a conscience and don't develop one for years. However, the capacity to develop a morality defeats the assertion humans are inherently amoral, also. I know some people, for whatever reason, never develop an assertive superego; sociopaths etc. But that's a physical-chemical dysfunction. Just because people can be born without functioning vocal cords doesn't mean they're inherently mute, either. I'd say inherent morality boils down to the realization that one is not divorced from the rest of the human experience. I doubt if any successful society has been individualist to the point of most people honestly doubting if their neighbors are equally human. In short: humans are neither inherently moral nor inherently amoral; there exists a universal root of morality, which defeats the amoral argument, but there exists no universal morality, on the flip side. Then again, I tend to view claims that people are inherently anything as specious. Unless there's a disorder of some kind involved, people DO have agency in their inner workings and CAN change. I don't feel as if there are subconscious bounds that the conscious cannot overstep given enough effort. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5806
|
written Thursday, May 19 2005 23:01
Profile
Homepage
According to my own life-long experience we develop our conciousness at the age we start trying to talk or walk. We want to be as our enviroment. If the people in our enviroment are more bad/immoral than good/moral we will potentialy take after it. I am very concious of how I have developed through all these ten years I can remember of my life and I can explain how by following example. This will give a concreate example of how I and other people have developed personality and moral aspect. Influence one - My older brother: He wanted to learn me matters and rights when I was young, under ten. His "teachings" influenced me to be sparing and 'lax. When a bowl with chips is in front of me, I only take one at the time. But my brother did not grow to live as he teached me to do so today I tend to be the behaving boy while he is the one disobeying and stealing, - yes, he steals. From my mother mostly, when he do not have the money to go on all those *cool* conserts. Influence two - My oldest brother: My oldest brother has always been spiteful and pressuring on me. He is a self-improver that is happy whenever other is not. His influence have been the strongest. Today I am a studying, self-improving geek that also, <em>sadly</em>, is very spiteful. Although today, he is not a jerk anymore, more charming and strongwilled. Influence three - school and church: At school I did not grow any special behaviour before a year ago. That is when I was "reading" studying for the confirmation of the christening. I grew proudful and strong, I studied well and gained good grades. I also trained and got a nice stomach (Oh baby, look at these muscles! :D ). This all made me grow to a good man. A half year later, I started thinking, "are things really worth doing?" I got philosophic and smart, but things seemed worthless to me. I studied less, thought sad thoughts. For approximately two months ago I suddenly realized that sadness and negative thoughts actualy affected one's health. I started thinking positive about everything and suddenly, I was more healthy, energetic and happy. I started sleeping more and that added even more to my healths positive sides. I started studying more again and today I am so experienced about things that I complain on the topics today or bring advanced facts about the topic. This does not give me better grades but it certainly proves that I am self-growing. In summarize, the above statements show that people grow by not only their enviroment, but also by their own thoughs and experience. Thank you for reading, I have said what I need. Eagle, the author soul -------------------- So, as the great Groxy, I have come back to be served by goblins. In the "main hall" of the goblin cave was a large totem which resembled very much of... me. Posts: 437 | Registered: Friday, May 13 2005 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2