Monday, October 20, 2014
Are we instinctively moral?
Morality is something that we are all born with, but it is shaped to fit what our subordinates believe. When we are born, we are not all born believing and feeling what we feel now. Over the course of our lives, many different people have helped form morality and what we feel is right and wrong. In "why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Uncertain Biological Basis of Morality"it says "Many Muslims believe that no one—Muslim or otherwise—should be allowed to produce visual images of the Prophet Muhammad. Some Jews believe that Jews are God’s “chosen people” and that the Jews have a divine right to the land of Israel. Many American Christians believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public buildings and that all Americans should pledge allegiance to “one nation under God.” this proves that we are not all born thinking one way, it is in the way we are raised that we discover our true morality. Instinct is of first nature while morality is second. we as humans have the unique ability to choose between instinct and morals. And that is why we are constantly battling the war of good and evil. As long as there is evil in the world, there will always be the need to over power it with good, and that is a moral decision. Another great point brought to attention is whether or not gay relations are moral or not, and this goes to show how morality is actually taught rather than instinctive. Christianity strictly believes that gay sex is wrong and will lead you to hell, while buddhists have a wider range of acceptance. Now this is where it gets sticky, because not all christians believe that gay sex is morally wrong. This is compassion shining through in the world. Morality is a fickle thing. While it is believed to be the one thing that sets humans apart from animals, we are actually a race that is unnecessarily cruel to one another. Morality is supposed to be what unites us as one, yet more often than not it is what sets us apart. Morality may be something that we are all born with, and it may be shaped and contorted to follow the beliefs of those around us, but we may always form our opinions based off of what we believe is right and wrong. Regardless of how it is obtained, morality is taught. Instinct may be what's keeping us alive, but morality is more or less what's keeping us alive, together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteWhen I initially saw your post title, I came to your blog post with the preconceived notion that we are, in fact, instinctively moral. Though after reading your post, you have shaped my ideas into a slightly different notion. I agree with you that morality is something that is both instinctual and learned. It does seem (in psychological terms) that morality is both one part nature and one part nurture. If one were to suppose that morality is entirely instinctual, wouldn’t it then follow that there should not be disagreement amongst different tribes of people? With regards to the texts, Steven Pinker implies though his Moral Instinct, just from the title, that morality is something that is instinctual. He exemplifies this when talking about the moralization switch which has been identified in the brain as a “state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking.” This switch would have to be something that is innate within us. Throughout the entire text, Pinker uses logos to persuade the reader that morality can be ultimately understand via a developing neuroscience especially considering how the text is heavily science based. Robert Wright in his Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? also feeds on this instinctive morality via logos when referencing Karen Wynn’s experiments which demonstrate that “an array of morally relevant inclinations show up in infants and toddlers.” This would seem to imply that morality, at least partly, instinctual. These two texts seems to differ in persuasive methods from our previous two readings. These two rely heavily on logos using the scientific method, while our previous readings persuade via pathos and a pinch of ethos by playing on the readers emotions.
I agree that our morality has changed over the course of our lives. Morality is based off of what people taught us as we grew up. Everyone has different morals because of their parents, childhood or culture. On the other hand, everyone has natural morals that pretty much everyone lives by. In the reading “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?” in Paul Bloom’s book says, “His list of natural moral endowments includes “Some capacity to distinguish between kind and cruel actions,” as well as “empathy and compassion-suffering at the pain of those around us and the wish to make this pain go away.” Yes everyone has different morals, but the natural morals like having compassion for people are the same regardless how you grew up. So I do agree with you that morality is what is keeping us alive together.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your example about the different religions and how morality is actually taught rather than instinctive. In the different groups your morals might be good to the group but evil to all the others. In the reading “Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?’’ Joshua Greene says, “So are brains are good at reconciling us to groups we’re part of, but they’re less good at getting groups to make compromises with one another. “Morality did not evolve to promote universal cooperation.” This quote proves your point about how the Christians are against gays and that is good for their group, but that might be evil to other groups that do not believe that and have those morals. So the desire to be good for who taught you your morals does affect the goodness and evilness of our actions.
I thoroughly enjoy the distinction between instinct and morality that you explained through logos. When asked if we are instinctively moral, I, at least, consider how we are raised and that morality that is taught to us, or that we absorb it from experiences. If we are taught, then it is not necessarily instinct; this is the logical side talking. I believe that instinct is gut feeling, one that we as humans all have, and morality is situational ethics- we decide if the instinct was "good" or not. However, if our morality comes from teachings, that is someone teaches us along the way for one moral action at a time, then the "switch" of morality can definitely be turned off, like Pinker says. In “why can’t we all just get along,” morality is found out to be instinct because the infants act in morally relevant ways. These two ideas don’t really work together, but when you ask yourself how you feel about good or bad decisions, moral choices show through gut instinct- hopefully most of the time. The two can be separated but they coincide for many things. Although we as humans have the unique ability to choose between instinct and morals as you explained, instinct has a moral side to it, and depending on your background, those instincts can be “good” or “bad”. The evil in the world comes from conflicting ideas on morals. If it were human instinct to cause harm to another person, and everyone’s morals were fine with that, then the result wouldn’t be evil to those people, but morally justified and “good”. If there was never a christian that claimed that “god doesn’t like gays,” or however that terrible “rule” got started, then for thousands of years, the natural instinct to be gay that is prevalent in humans wouldn’t even be questioned as morally wrong, and in fact the roles would be reversed; those that say gays are bad would be evil because that would go against natural instinct and morals. The moral/instinct thing is very tricky and they coincide very often.
ReplyDelete