Post by Liberdon on Aug 10, 2021 23:19:09 GMT -5
Dok, let's break this statement into parts, shall we?
False. I direct you to Kohnberg's Theory of Moral Development. According to this theory, until about the age of nine "don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules". They do not experience guilt for their actions, instead experiencing remorse simply because they were punished for an action (by an adult or figure of authority who is aware of society), and they believe "If a person is punished, they must have done wrong." Rather than having an internal sense of right and wrong, children perceive what is right and what is wrong by the consequences of their actions. Crucially, these consequences are delivered by adults, who do possess an understanding of society and accept and participate in it's construction of good and evil. As they grow, they are taught about society's rights and wrongs, eventually participating in these constructions themselves, to the point where they develop a sense of guilt for doing wrong. This guilt is a psychological self-punishment that only exists to stand in for the punishments previously handed down by authorities for wrong-doing, rather than as any innate sense of guilt. I now direct you to various theories of basic emotions, which are generally seen as universal, automatic, and cannot be deconstructed. According to your argument, guilt for wrongdoing is innate within humans, and should therefore be one of these basic emotions. And yet, if we take a look through the theories from the provided link, we will see that guilt appears in none of them.
Yes, thank you. Indeed, it does seem to indicate that infants are aware of our constructions of good and evil, but it fails to prove innateness, which is what you're arguing. Regardless of whether or not an infant is aware of it, they are part of society and immersed in its ideologies from the moment they are born. They witness the actions of their parents and are influenced by them. The study fails to prove any genetic inclination towards morality and thereby fails to prove innateness. Furthermore, the experiment has a significant number of variables, and may not even be demonstrating an infant's sense of morality, and instead be demonstrating a sense of greed (they want what is in the box and thereby prefer the doll that helps open it). Finally, I ask you this: Why is helping others "good" and hindering others "evil"? Simply because we say so. There is no greater law in the universe making this true, you will not find morals in quantum physics or theories of relativity. What is good or evil is purely decided by us, as human beings. We say helping others is good, because it is a crucial feature of our society. We have labelled it as the right thing to do because it helps society continue. Good and evil is not innate, it is not universal, and it is not objective. It is simply a subjective feature we have developed and become incorporated into as members of society. Even if we suppose there is some kind of genetic inclination towards morality, it is we as humans that label it as morality and not simply as an evolutionary trait that helps us form tribes, like language development. Morality is a concept we have come up with, we have differentiated, and we have defined over and over again as society changes.
Emphasis mine. So you admit that morality is not constant. You admit it is not objective and can change, as the only one true constant is your death. I do hope you can see the contradiction in your arguments here. This is exactly what I mean when I say something like morality is a construct. If you simply keep digging, keep looking further into it, you realize it is not a constant rock, but simply a mirage you choose to believe in.
And the best part is that there is nothing "wrong" with that. Our belief that something must be true to have value is nothing more than another mirage. We are submerged in ideology and societal constructs, but because we all agree to believe in them, society is able to function, and we are able to be happy and live fulfilling lives. And honestly, in the face of the great nothingness that is the vast expanse of time and space and the complete lack of any consequence from any of our lives, I find that to be quite comforting.
This emotion is so powerful it has driven some to suicide, and it is formed in all humans (bar socio/psycopaths) by the brain well before they could ever comprehend society.
Have you researched the mean toy psycolodgical experiment?
Finally, I am at peace with my impending death for it's inevitablity is the one constant in my life.
And the best part is that there is nothing "wrong" with that. Our belief that something must be true to have value is nothing more than another mirage. We are submerged in ideology and societal constructs, but because we all agree to believe in them, society is able to function, and we are able to be happy and live fulfilling lives. And honestly, in the face of the great nothingness that is the vast expanse of time and space and the complete lack of any consequence from any of our lives, I find that to be quite comforting.
But really, you're welcome to put in your own two cents on this, or just say something to completely derail the conversation. It's all good here!
