Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Philosophy


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-19-2007, 10:15 AM   #41 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
You don't know primate ethology.
... says the dentist to the businessman. We both went to school. We both watch animal planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Food is given yes, but as currency, it buys sex and it buys allies to work in the power structures at hand.
Monkeys don't have a capitalist economy. Their sexual drive is partially based on the ability to provide, just like humans, but it's not like 4 bananas gets a Dirty Sanchez. That's prostitution, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
There is no individual ownership (outside of females of course) because what exactly is an ape going to own? The dominant ones control the best food supply so you can say they 'own' that, and they control the matings, so you can say they own that to.
Apes use tools, right? There's your possession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Lessor males support dominant ones in chimps so they may overcome other groups of males and that 'group' reaps the rewards.
Socialism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Rival troops are chased out of territory or killed.
So one more successful socialist troop beats another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Working together for the common good as it applies to your own direct wellbeing isn't socialism its capitalism. You scratch my back and pick the lice, and I'll do the same for you. There is no hypothetical 'greater good', no needs of the many, just the needs of each individual being met based on what they bring to the table.
OMG, you're a socialist! You think that working together for a common good and thus an individual's well being is capitalism, and you're a self described capitalist. Awesome.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:33 AM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
sapiens's Avatar
 
Location: Some place windy
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. how exactly is the attempt to ground ethics in one or another version of "the genetic record" not an expression of the same impulse that would cause a religious person to try to ground them in a god?
Presumably, one could use evolutionary theory to generate testable hypotheses about patterns of morality that we should expect to see universally or patterns influenced by the ability to accumulate resources, sex, sex ratio, age, etc. The existence of such patterns would lend support to particular evolutionary accounts of morality. A lack of support would suggest that such accounts are incorrect. From my perspective, the goal of such research is to understand the complexities of human morality. The goal is not to say "Yay! It's natural!" and leave it at that. Evolutionary theory (for me) is a tool, not something to be proven.

Some "natural" accounts, maybe some of those outlined on TFP, especially those that don't generate any testable predictions, might qualify as "just so" stories a la Rudyard Kipling.

A separate, but related issue that you allude to is this idea that "if it is natural, it must be right" (The Naturalistic Fallacy). So, if socialism isn't found in non-human animals, then it is not natural and is not "right". There are all sorts of things that are natural and "bad" and all sorts of things that are "unnatural" that are good. I'm not convinced that is what ustwo is trying to do.

I usually avoid discussions of nature and evolution on TFP because I think many of the questions raised are too complicated for this discussion format, the terms of the debate are constantly changing, and I may bore people.

Last edited by sapiens; 09-19-2007 at 10:36 AM..
sapiens is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:45 AM   #43 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
... did anyone actually read that article I cited from the NY Times?... just looking for feedback on their theory here, since it's directly applicable.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 10:58 AM   #44 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapiens
I usually avoid discussions of nature and evolution on TFP because I think many of the questions raised are too complicated for this discussion format, the terms of the debate are constantly changing, and I may bore people.
Please do, I've been out of the accademic loops on this for 10 years with only minor dabbling and teaching as it pertained to my later masters. I've been getting back 'into' the debate lately but no longer have access to the players as I did in my college days. I miss classes like my Tuesday night, 'Seminars in Evolution' 'class' but I also miss being 22 (kinda), I got to present the creationism section, good fun.

Any fresh perspective is welcome.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 11:08 AM   #45 (permalink)
Junkie
 
sapiens's Avatar
 
Location: Some place windy
abaya:

I think that Haidt's research is interesting on the surface, but from the article, I think that his evolutionary account seems a bit vague. So, morality was good for early humans? So now we have five moral systems that are innate psychololgical mechanisms? Why five? Why are they distinct? How does he distinguish between them? Any testable predictions?

In principle, I don't disagree with the possibility of innate psychological mechanisms that predispose children to absorb certain virtues. However, the five mechanisms, their input, decision rules, and output are unclear. This may be due to the science journalist, not Haidt. Perhaps Haidt is more clear in his empirical articles.

One aside: From an evolutionary perspective, selfishness is what produces altruism. The article author talks both about evolution being selfish and curbing selfishness. He's conflating levels of analysis.

Another aside: The author mentions natural selection and "survival of the fittest" together. Few biologists use "Survival of the fittest" as a descriptor of evolution by natural selection anymore. Colloquially, it's often misused to suggest survival of the "physically strongest". As it is misused, it also mischaracterizes evolution. Reproduction is the engine of E by NS, not survival. Finally, it's been used in arguments for an against eugenics.

Last edited by sapiens; 09-19-2007 at 11:21 AM.. Reason: Specified the post I was responding to
sapiens is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 11:16 AM   #46 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
No one bores people more than Ustwo and I. Please, join our fun.
You're obviously well learned on the subject, so the discussion will be better for having you.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 11:56 AM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
I amend my previous answer. All ethics come from my penis.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 12:30 PM   #48 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya
... did anyone actually read that article I cited from the NY Times?... just looking for feedback on their theory here, since it's directly applicable.
Ok a read it, but unfortunately being a piece written for the masses so to speak, it lacks the detail to see if how he came to his conclusions are valid, though its not the first time I read such ideas about an evolved morality.

On a side note I did get a kick out of one of his detractors....

Quote:
He said that he also disagreed with Dr. Haidt’s alignment of liberals with individual rights and conservatives with social cohesiveness.

“It is obvious that liberals emphasize the common good — safety laws for coal mines, health care for all, support for the poor — that are not nearly as well recognized by conservatives,” Dr. de Waal said.
This is why I take any story that makes the popular press, even in a science section with a large grain of salt. The fact that this guy was willing to go public with such a statement as a scienist is rather astounding to me. What he said was 'His tests showed this but of course I know thats obviously wrong because I feel they are based on my own personal biases' The problem of course isn't that he questioned the ideas, thats good, but that he wrote them off with no evidednce beyond how he feels it is, thats not being a scientist.

Lately, amusingly, the trend in the liberal academia circles are to 'prove' that liberals are smarter, nicer, better, than conservatives, and predictably such studies are in LA times and the like, which when analyzed are all very flawed.

As a rule with scientific research, if its in a publication where you can find celebrity gossip, sports scores, or fashion, is going to be only a ghost of the real research at best, and nothing but fluff, often biased fluff at worst.

Recently I had two friends of mine, all well educated, tell me how they read some theory that humans developed independently and that we are all not linked by a common ancestor. This idea isn't new, and its been shot down many times, but here was my college educated (obviously not biology) friend telling me how this was fact. It must have been on slash dot, as for some reason the nerd elite seems to believe everything that makes it to slash dot.

Its frustrating, but really the only way to judge the validity of a paper (and I"ve seen a lot of bad ones over the years, in my field and others that got published) is to read the actual paper, see their methods, sample size etc. To do so you need to have access (its a pain to find some of the publications) and understand the language behind it as well as the methods.

So cutting this semi-thread jack short. Its an interesting concept, thats not new, though I haven't heard of the '5 types of morality' before, so that part was new to me. I just can't say how valid it is. The NYT science section is a bit better than most, but it still amounts to a nice summary.

I do think hes right in concept though, even if perhaps off in detail.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 12:52 PM   #49 (permalink)
 
abaya's Avatar
 
Location: Iceland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Its frustrating, but really the only way to judge the validity of a paper (and I"ve seen a lot of bad ones over the years, in my field and others that got published) is to read the actual paper, see their methods, sample size etc. To do so you need to have access (its a pain to find some of the publications) and understand the language behind it as well as the methods.
I need more time to reply properly here, but I agree with you whole-heartedly on this point, Ustwo. Clearly, the NY Times is not a peer-reviewed journal of any kind, which in some ways is good (because hardly anyone from the general public has access to, let alone has any inkling to read peer-reviewed journals)... general exposure to this kind of information has to happen somewhere. But yes, the average Joe or Jane is not going to know jack about the existing literature, statistical significance, methods, sample size, validity, reliability... so the work could be all wrong. Sapiens is right; there are no apparent hypotheses to be tested (again, could be due to the mass-media format).

But since I agree with most of what the article is saying, I suppose that's why I found it interesting. Studying anthropology, one doesn't get far by assuming that morality and ethics developed from religion only... so I'm always glad to see someone questioning that often "basic" assumption (by the masses) and making people think harder about evolution and where things *really* came from. But I suppose that's my own bias.
__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

--Khalil Gibran
abaya is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 01:52 PM   #50 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by abaya

But since I agree with most of what the article is saying, I suppose that's why I found it interesting. Studying anthropology, one doesn't get far by assuming that morality and ethics developed from religion only... so I'm always glad to see someone questioning that often "basic" assumption (by the masses) and making people think harder about evolution and where things *really* came from. But I suppose that's my own bias.
I agree with the gist of it too, which is why we both need to be careful in accepting it. Its very easy to accept something you agree with. That detracting doctor quoted is most likely a liberal, saw something he didn't like about 'liberals' and then decided to reject the study based on that. Its not much different in our case if we accept it because we agree with his concept of religion and evolved morality.

And a side note, this whole 'common good' concept is flawed to start with. Liberals and conservatives care about the common good, what differs I think is what is perceived as the common good. For example, security or loyalty is common good and I'd guess that conservatives would rate those higher priorities than liberals. Feeding everyone, regardless of the circumstance that lead them to need the food could also be called common good and conservatives would score lower than liberals there.

But even in that you can tweak the question to sway it, with intent or otherwise, one way or the other. If you phrase the question like 'Should society feed people without food after a natural disaster' you will see different priorities then if you ask 'Should the government feed those who can not afford food on their own'. These are just quick and dirty ones, I'm sure with time I could come up with better but I'm off work and would like to go home.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Last edited by Ustwo; 09-19-2007 at 04:22 PM..
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 05:31 PM   #51 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
1. how exactly is the attempt to ground ethics in one or another version of "the genetic record" not an expression of the same impulse that would cause a religious person to try to ground them in a god?
Here... let me be silly:

We know all about genetics being real. We touched 'em and stuff.

Anybody touch god recently?

Hmm... My philosophy? I trust the GCAT more than god.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 09-20-2007, 04:37 AM   #52 (permalink)
still, wondering.
 
Ourcrazymodern?'s Avatar
 
Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge
I think ethics come out of our souls and a willingness to recognize our fellow human beings as...well...fellow human beings.

Know what I mean?
__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT
Ourcrazymodern? is offline  
Old 09-20-2007, 06:07 AM   #53 (permalink)
Psycho
 
RenaissanceII's Avatar
 
Location: Grand Rapids
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern?
I think ethics come out of our souls and a willingness to recognize our fellow human beings as...well...fellow human beings.

Know what I mean?

Quoted for Truth.
__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
Anais Nin


I Wish You Well.
RenaissanceII is offline  
 

Tags
derived, ethics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:41 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360