Getting back to the thread subject: “Are we living now in a Post-Moral age?”, I have some remarks.
It seems to me that everyone acquires a set of morals for better or for worse. Everyone uses a set of moral rules to to streamline decision making. These rules evolve and are acquired during childhood and stay with us for life. The nature of morals is in the form of an emotional bias that is difficult or impossible for adults to change. To me every society is a moral society, although we may wish that some of its morals were different.
We can detect a tendency toward the evolution of “one world” society, but we are not there yet. As it slowly evolves it is not clear what its moral characteristics might become.
I am concerned about the detrimental effects that a world population explosion, poverty, and global warming may impose on the formation of a one world society’s morals. They may even prevent its formation.
—Yes, we all have values, social mores, principles, although i’m not so sure that they don’t undergo some change in a few of us, otherwise how will we evolve towards a “one World” society. Society, after all, is comprised of individuals. Hopefully any “emotional bias” will be balanced with understanding.
— Every changing society will engender outcomes which will be unpredictable from the original configuration. Even successful attempts at one problem will leave a future generation with originally unforeseen problems (witness pollution, for example, spawned by the industrial age’s “answers”), all we can do is try to fix the worst problems in a manner that we believe will bring about the most favourable outcome. As far as the problems of the current generation preventing the formation of future caring people, i doubt it, our problems are not insurmountable, just difficult.
You mentioned: “… we all have values, social mores, principles, although i’m not so sure that they don’t undergo some change in a few of us …” Yes, we all can learn to adapt to environments different that those in which we were raised. My theory is that the process of learning to adapt as an adult is different than adapting as children. The difference is that adapting as adults is more rational without inducing the emotional component experienced by children as they adapt.
The effect of environmental adaptation as children underlies moral character. As adults we may learn more socially acceptable behaviors, but the stress of circumstances may induce an emotional reaction layed down in childhood that interupts rational thought and overides socially acceptable behaviors learned as adults. As a result we may be appalled at what we have done, said, or thought because it was not what we rationally intended. People living in circumstances akin to their adult environments may not experience such conflicts. When environments differ radically adults may have to pay close attention to circumstances and avoid those in which they have difficulty remaining socially acceptable.
What you are describing seems very close to maturity. Even though we have the capacity to change we still retain a lot from childhood, our brain has been formed, and as humans we are taught a great deal, rather than given instinct; it shapes us emotionally, mentally, socially, but rarely is it inescapable, man is the creature that must form himself, “pull himself up from his own bootstraps” as Ortega Gasset and other existentialists have noted, but alas, some people never question their roots…
Yes, what I’m describing is maturity, but with a new twist that in my mind explains things often observed in moral behavior. Why under stress (temptation) some take the money and run while others merely suggest that money be put away. The new twist emphasizes the emotional quality of morals, and recognizes that emotional responses evolve during childhood and don’t change much thereafter. This explains why some otherwise nice people cannot be trusted to handle money, and why lecturing them or punishing them will not correct the situation. Such people must not be allowed to handle money – ever.
— I think the emotional element is frequently rejected in a lot of ethical theories. The dying religions have left their legacy of love, reverance, gratefulness, etc.; emotions which will need a new vehicle. so many observances, ceremonies, and rights of passage have been tossed aside in our civilizations older, more cerebral age. Consequently, individuals have a hard time relating to the group, the universe, and most importantly, to themselves.
— I think emotions can change. but perhaps we need to change our thoughts and experiences first, What do you think?
You say and ask: “I think emotions can change. but perhaps we need to change our thoughts and experiences first, What do you think?”
I’m not so sure that our initial emotional reactions to environmental circumstances change after childhood – at least they don’t change all that much. What I mean by “motional reaction” is usually a short duration response that interrupts rational thought and places us in a heightened alert mode. When rational thought resumes we then decide to either run, fight, or answer politely. Usually what we do is a learned response because we have been in circumstances like that before – in childhood we hope. What we do depends both upon the nature of the environmental circumstances, and our learned (rational) responses to those circumstances. When encountering a set of circumstances for the first time we may sit frozen in indecision while the rest of the congregation merely picks up a hymnal, stands and opens it to the proper page. Kleptomaniacs have learned that when they see an attractive item they should furtively grab it. When that behavior was learned in childhood it is hard to change. Behavior modification may enable them to learn a new behavior, but in my opinion the sighting of an attractive item will continue to illicit in them an emotional attraction for the rest of their lives. They have merely learned to look away, not grab it and go somewhere else. Such learned socially acceptable behaviors are subject to remission depending on circumstances. Most of us learned something quite different in childhood and will never have a problem shopping for jewelry and trinkets.
— You speak as if emotions could not work in consort with, or could override, intelligence. In a lot of people i’m sure that this is exactly what happens, but not in all at all times. We learn a lot in childhood, our brain later becomes more fixed, more hardwired, but i consider all of this little evidence for a deterministic universe. If Wo/men are incapable of change, then all morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have all been to no avail, but perhaps i have misunderstood your thesis.
You responded: “You speak as if emotions could not work in consort with, or could override, intelligence.” I wonder what I said that gave you that impression.
You say: “We learn a lot in childhood, our brain later becomes more fixed, more hardwired, but i consider all of this little evidence for a deterministic universe.” What does a deterministic universe have to do with a discussion on morals?
You say: “If Wo/men are incapable of change, then all morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have all been to no avail, but perhaps i have misunderstood your thesis.” That’s correct. Morality, psychology, ethics, politics, and religion have had little influence on what people do when no one is watching – sometimes even when they are.
Yes, that’s right. An “emotional reaction” is usually a short duration response that interrupts rational thought and places us in a heightened alert mode. When rational thought resumes we then decide to either run, fight, or answer politely. As you say, it can override rational thought that you call “intelligence”. I would say it works in concert with rational thought (your “intelligence”) by interupting momemtarily to force consideration of the environmental circumstances that triggered the emotion.
I still don’t see what a deterministic universe have to do with a discussion on morals.
I too think emotions should work in concert with thought, that is why i particularly like the word “understanding” for it’s empathy and thought. If our emotions don’t change much after we get older, that is a bit deterministic isn’t it? I’m merely trying to understand your ideas, you’ve had some good ones and i’m trying to draw conclusions based on them. When i introspect i can see that your idea of emotional reaction hits very close to the mark, i didn’t see that before.
Going from “deterministic universe” to “a bit deterministic” is quite a shift. Yes, my theory is that our emotional make up is pretty much determined in childhood which seems to match my observations. But, that theory has to accommodate the observed fact that adults can learn new behaviors in responding to emotional circumstances.
In my own personal case I have identified a fear that I have of meeting new people. I would rather not do it. However, I have learned to rise to the occasion and get the job done, even though I have continuing trouble with names and faces. I also know that other people have no such fear. They actually want to meet new people. I have been this way all my life, and no amount of training and lecturing seems to make a difference. My conclusion is that this condition evolved during childhood, and can’t be changed. Although I have learned to cope with it, my initial gut reaction is still that I’d rather not meet another new person.
— I’m afraid i take a much more optimistic stance. I don’t believe that our makeup is set in stone. “May our differences unite to become greater than the sum of our parts.” I used to have problems meeting new people too, but i do much better now. I work a variety of different jobs which has brought me into contact with many diverse peoples, races, cultures, etc., You have to realize that they have fears and share common ground along with you.
I have no trouble with an optimistic stance and believe in giving people a chance to prove themselves. On the other hand, when repeated observations of a person’s makeup are consistant, I no longer hope for or expect a change. I just accept them as they are and behave toward them accordingly. When I get to know someone well, I can detect anamolies and inconsistancies in their behavior particularly under stress. I accept these as expressions of who they are and allow for them. I am very cautious about calling attention to anyone’s foibles, because I know it would take a monumental effort for them to change their behavior.
As far as public policy is concerned we do what we can with punishment to either remove people from society, or forcibly make them aware of their anti-social behaviors. We hope they will change, but the evidence is that few do. Those that do change just learn to avoid circumstances that trigger or tempt anti-social behavior rather than experiencing any fundamental change in personality.
Your micro-stance is fairly accurate. I agree with it. The second paragraph which describes your macro-stance may be right in some cases, but behaviors can be sublimated, etc. (see the sublimation thread in psychology).
I have this tendency. ive enjoyed the comments both you and Marshall McDaniel have made here. i see this more as a problem of interest: if as a child i grew up in a big family, with many individuals in a household then perhaps meeting new people (or been around people) isnt as much of a issue. I for instance wasnt, i dont tend to pay much interest to a new persons name (as im usually concentrating on finish the conversation as quick as possible) i usually get a strange problem of people knowing me, but i havent a clue what there name is; this is very embarassing and annoying for both me and them. I to have been from job2job as a student and although ive always had a good laugh, i still feel slightly unright working with a bunch of strangers for many weeks, to the point were i have no work ethic (at all).
f7u2p wrote:
Something ive noticed in a micro-environment were you share time with people all the time, is some working to some sort of ideal similaritys. i notice very much so, that people use the same words to describe a emotion as a other more influencal characater would; in terminology, style
even attitude in all fields of interest; A dominating person or alpha male type. When having a joke around and picking out particular traits they do unconsciously, this more then most things drives people crazy; some subliminal trait that one notices is soon changed to in a way mirror others. I have this habit that i didnt realize until pointed out of chewing things!- which i see as sublimation from some sexual urge. When someones points something out like this it code lauguage for “stop it” so eventually most of the annoying traits that the groups personality once had are taken out.
Marshell McDaniel:
Id say its the taking out of differences that leads to a united sum of parts.
Doing this is working towards some ideal unity or ideal relation of peoples interests; in a society peoples interests may varie drastically, to the point were there cant be a unity; people are driven to a different moral interpretation of different extremes, so theyll always be a lower jail class.
— You can not take out all of the differences! If you do, we will be relegated to asexual reproduction or we’ll be reproducing in test tubes like in Brave New World. Equal does not imply same.
Equal implys equal to the equal, unequal to the unequal. the taken away of strong differences and replacing them with the differences of the strong more orgiastic consciousness always prevails. In society today i dont know about your test-tube babys analogy, certainly i see a more sexual state after religions anti-sexual stance nolonger exists; a liberal society today is anti-agressive, anti-instinctive, protect property orientated were many people turn to been judged for immoral behaviour and locked away, out of society for simply been non-altruisic; more instinctive.
Its a problem that will never go until attitudes change, i look at a film from today and it has the morality of a “old women”; looking at a film from just 30 years ago, theres less altruisic behaviour and alot more realist attitudes and charaters that can be respected; its almost like each generation is getting more effeminate! court systems SERIOUSLY need to change, particularly in the US and France as ive voiced before: they need take in reasoning more than resting on morals that differ from situation to situation.
— The problem is how to maintain diversity while at the same time promoting equality and not letting this slip into the ethical relativism and situational ethics which you referred to earlier.
— I’m not so sure that altruism is anti-instinctual. As i’ve pointed out before, there are numerous examples in nature to the contrary, perhaps i have misunderstood you.
— I totally agree with your movie insight. It is as if today’s culture exists in a superficial, artificial vacuum without feeling; but perhaps past peoples have felt this too. There have always been those who are deep and insightful and those who are broad and superficial, perhaps the nature of reality is such that both are required, i don’t think it would be wise for everyone to be deep and introspective like myself. What do you think?