Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2012, 02:34 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
about empathy:
I had cats, and when I felt sad they would always come to cuddle and purr.
Also I saw a documentary on elephants once and they showed that when one of the herd dies the partner will try to wake them up or wait there.
I saw the same behaviour on stray dogs in Romania.
And also what I saw near where I live, there is a canal and a few swans and ducks are living there.
The swan was reaching for some bread or so, and the partner reached there too, so the first swan let the partner have it.
There was a female duck, and a male duck picked on it and another male duck came along and kinda shood it away by picking on it, too.

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 03:24 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
(21-03-2012 02:01 AM)Stevil Wrote:  In the society that I live in the killers get to rot in prison.

What society is that? In places like America the killers wear suits and have high priced lawyers, in Mexico they're called colonel and have fatigue-clad minions, in China they're called comrade... besides, I've been to prison. It ain't full of killers, it's full of idiots. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
21-03-2012, 02:19 PM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
Wolf packs grieve when one of their members dies (or at least give off the appearance of grief).

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 11:36 PM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
(20-03-2012 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't go around killing people, because I know this will result in people retaliating against me, and hence will endanger my own life....I understand also that if I act in a way that I want others to act towards me then I am influencing some of society to do so.
As a member of society I do have that ability to influence and thus I do have that responsibility, which ultimately and selfishly improves my own lot in life....

...I can understand the implications of my own actions and how they might put myself at risk.

But that right there is morality. You've weighed the pros and cons of your actions and have chosen the answer that yields a positive (to yourself and other people) result, the right one. So you do care about your actions being moral rather than immoral, because you want to live in a stable society. You know that if you, and everyone else, always chose the immoral option then you wouldn't get the stable society that we all desire.

(20-03-2012 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If we take an approach of amoral survival, then we won't allow our government to impose oppressive rules against us such as against gay marriage, polygamy, euthanasia, incest, pornography, prostitution etc. We will be less likely to judge other's behaviours. We will be more tolerant and will learn to appreciate and encourage diversity.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this, but do you mean that people should essentially be isolationists when it comes to right and wrong? Because I think we need a more moral society, one that strives to understand right and wrong through discussion, rather than shouting matches between political parties. If we are willing to talk about right and wrong, and come to a consensus, then we can actually ensure that laws aren't made against gay marriage, polygamy, euthanasia, etc. But until we can talk about it, until people stop sticking to their guns and their bibles, that society is out of reach. We don't need people to become apathetic between right and wrong, we need people to be willing to discuss it.

Two final notes:
1) I didn't mean to suggest that you were a sociopath, or anything like that, it's just what I've heard amoral in relation to. I've heard it compared to sociopaths, lower species, and some neurological disorders, but I've never come across anything suggesting a reason-based choice of amorality. It seems like a contradiction.

2) Sorry about hijacking your thread, Kingschosen.

Of all the ideas put forth by science, it is the principle of Superposition that can undo any power of the gods. For the accumulation of smaller actions has the ability to create, destroy, and move the world.

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." -W. E. Henley
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 12:18 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
I rarely look to lab tests as far as animal behavior. You have dogs, that should tell you plenty as they are highly emotive.

The best elephant example was where the young males were destroying villages since they didn't have fathers to stop them. An example that many animals outside of humans are not purely autonomous. In a strict sense both the development of a community (pack) and the teaching of young are moralistic actions. Simply having a defined group reason behind an action is to be considered moral, otherwise we wouldn't have such diverse morals within the human animal.

Stevil, it's tough to think differently. I agree with many of your points but call myself a moral relativist. I do not find someone who does something I dislike wrong, but I also expect them to be punished if this thing they do is not condoned within my society. I'm an interestingly strong relativist because there is little that truly disgusts me (though I was raised by cats so people aren't really my number 1 =p). Moral relativism is an unpopular stance for philosophers, because there is no philosophy to "that's how they do things", but that does not make the stance weak. It just means there's not much to argue about. I would say for the case of your own sanity that it's best you simply find a different title if you need a title. Amoral has long stood for those who are opposed to moral systems not in the ideological way, but in the rape and pillage way. Just take a tip from Ghost, no one should be defined by what they oppose.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 01:52 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
(21-03-2012 11:36 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  But that right there is morality. You've weighed the pros and cons of your actions and have chosen the answer that yields a positive (to yourself and other people) result, the right one. So you do care about your actions being moral rather than immoral, because you want to live in a stable society. You know that if you, and everyone else, always chose the immoral option then you wouldn't get the stable society that we all desire.
Problem with morality is that there is no clear definition, this sounds familiar to the god concept - no clear definition.
Someone said that acting selfishly was immoral. Well, I selfishly want to live, therefore I selfishly want a stable and functional society for completely selfish reasons.
The belief in the Christian god is that of an entity that is overly concerned with moral behaviour. People judged as moral go to heaven, people judged as immoral go to hell.
It seems quite a few humans want to take up this mantle, want to judge people as to whether they are moral or immoral, as if this judging task gives them some sort of purpose.
I don't concern myself with judging others based on my own personal values, they are my values, not something I am to expect others to adhere to. I would never judge someone as being immoral, what does that even mean? It is so unclear.
If I see someone doing something that in someway is dangerous to me, then that is a different story, I will act to protect myself, motivated by selfish self preservation.
Is that really something you would consider to be a morality?
(21-03-2012 11:36 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this, but do you mean that people should essentially be isolationists when it comes to right and wrong? Because I think we need a more moral society, one that strives to understand right and wrong.
But lets get clear about our intentions, right and wrong with regards to what?
With regards to our own selfish desire to survive?
Or with regards to our own personal definition of right and wrong?
If the latter, then it is moral from a Christian perspective to persecute and oppress homosexuals, it is moral from a rapist's perspective to rape.
Morality, simply is too vague to make any sense. We need to set a clear and specific goal for our society and justify rules towards that goal. If the goal is safe and functional society, then how can we justify outlawing homosexual sex or abortion, or stem cell research?
If the goal is to be consistent with Christian morals then the voters can decide not to vote for that party.

(21-03-2012 11:36 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  ...through discussion, rather than shouting matches between political parties.
I'm not sure how people can align personal beliefs in morality via discussion unless they all belong to the same religious outfit and decide to give up thinking and simply believe what they are told.
I am happy for people to believe in their own brand of morality. Religious outfits can be happy knowing that their god will deliver perfect justice in the afterlife based on the individuals adherence to moral law, but on earth, in our societies, lets just simply create a society to be stable and functional and leave morality issues to god and the afterlife. If we seperate these things out then we can coexist peacefully and refrain from oppressing each other based on personal beliefs.

(21-03-2012 11:36 PM)Glaucus Wrote:  1) I didn't mean to suggest that you were a sociopath, or anything like that, it's just what I've heard amoral in relation to. I've heard it compared to sociopaths, lower species, and some neurological disorders, but I've never come across anything suggesting a reason-based choice of amorality. It seems like a contradiction.
That's fine, it was a good question, I was glad to be given the opportunity to clarify the difference, at least from my perspective.
With regards to contradiction, morality is nothing but contradiction.
People by and large don't agree on anything therefore there isn't an objective morality that everyone simply adheres to.
Subjective morality simply boils down to the perception that everyone has created their own standard. Everyone's morality is equally as valid as everyone else's. They all cancel each other out, it is pointless trying to define rules based on morality and the danger is that the majority can oppress the minority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 02:00 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
Problem with clear definitions is that they only last till they leave your head. Understand that every label ever invented is spun in all sorts of ways. The point of labels in groups is to attempt to give people a basic understanding of what you mean. It's understood that in almost any circumstance if your viewpoint is at all important you do more than label it. If you don't actually discuss what you feel no one will know.

I was once of the opinion that there was clear language, then I started talking to others.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 02:17 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
(22-03-2012 01:52 AM)Stevil Wrote:  People by and large don't agree on anything therefore there isn't an objective morality that everyone simply adheres to.

...other than love. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 02:21 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
(22-03-2012 02:00 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Problem with clear definitions is that they only last till they leave your head. Understand that every label ever invented is spun in all sorts of ways. The point of labels in groups is to attempt to give people a basic understanding of what you mean. It's understood that in almost any circumstance if your viewpoint is at all important you do more than label it. If you don't actually discuss what you feel no one will know.

I was once of the opinion that there was clear language, then I started talking to others.
I've only recently (matter of months) come to the realisation that I am an amoralist.
I'm exploring this idea, and I like these discussions of others challenging it, it helps me to think it through.
I am actually amazed at people's reluctance to the idea though, theists and atheists alike, really strongly believe in morality. I guess people just want to be good, want to be right.

I totally agree with you that language is vauge, it is also limiting with regards to expressing one's self and even thinking something things through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2012, 02:42 AM
RE: Yes, I'm lazy, but can someone show me that morality link about mice and empathy?
I'm just saying that I really agree with what you're trying to say, you're just using a term that people don't see that way. Even if you have no personal morals if you have any system of checks and balances you can't be amoral =p Mental disconnects are aplenty even though we might have discovered something completely contrary to the popular version we'll still be held to it's standards. So therefore since there are actions you actively choose not to partake in, they'll consider you to have your own morals. It's just a part of group psychology you eventually give up on trying to fix =p

Perhaps the best way to describe this is that you truly do not prescribe to this word in any meaningful way. Being atheist confuses many into thinking you have a theistic issue because the word is attached. If you are without something then there must be something to not have. While a very convenient and simple tool unfortunately the a before a word has gained the group acceptance of being without which suggests deficient. I believe that when religion becomes less of a centerpoint in the world that atheists will cease to exist. So just remember that an amoralist is not someone against the idea and label, but someone who lacks what is prescribed to all.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: