hug

I'm just in here in this big room, on some sort of bed, in soft sheets, apparently with lots of other babies like me. I'm doin' OK, I guess. Everything seems so new to me. Wait, I hear something . . . . WAaaahhhhhhh! WAAAAaaaaahhhhhh!! WAahhAaahhAAaahhh! Why do I hear all those cries? They make ME wanna cry . . . . WAAAaaaaahhhhhhhh! (see, I did it) That's funny. I thought I was doing OK just a couple minutes ago. Now everyone's crying. Now I'M crying. What happened? Someday, when I'm in middle school or high school or college, hopefully, someone will explain my "mirror neurons" and the roots of human empathy to me. In the meantime, I'll just have fun letting them continue to develop. Hey, we need some more babies in here! It'll be fun. Give it a try. Gotta go, and I think I'll be pretty busy tomorrow too. It's Mother's Day! Gotta do some shopping today, and maybe a hair cut, but probably not a hair cut come to think of it. I'm a quick learner, and it usually pays to make Mom happy. And I want to anyway. She deserves it! WWaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! Talking Circle Order following this message: coberst hug newcomers?

Ouch! Ooooh. Wow! What? Gee, it's bright out here! (although I don't know any of those words, of course) AAaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! OK, calm down. Things might be OK. I still hear a more clear version of that muffled sound I've been hearing since before I can remember. And I still smell a familiar smell. I am still here, I think, wherever "here" is? AAaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!! (That one was just for attention. And it worked. I'm getting warm liquid, and everything feels soft.) Ouch again. Hey, what did ya do that for? That's my private part (though I don't know that or feel that way yet). But, anyway, it DID hurt! I don't like you and your knife so much; I like that lady over there, the one who gives me that warm milk. I associate her with good feelings. In fact, when I'm not distracted because I need to poop or pee or sleep, or when something else isn't distracting me, I feel drawn to cast my attention at that fuzzy shape, the first one I saw after feeling "ouch!", the one that I saw up close at the same time I was getting that warm liquid, the one that I see when I smell those familiar smells and hear that familar voice. Yeh, I like her. She seems familiar and (often) makes me feel good. I can't really recall, but I dimly remember feeling certain things even before the "ouch" and the brightness. Warmth. A synchronized pulsing, sometimes. The muffled sounds and voice. All of these things have a familiarity to them that makes this new existence bearable, usually, and sometimes even downright pleasurable. AAAAaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! (I want more attention.) Again, I have the feeling that there's something natural and automatic that seems to draw my attention to that fuzzy shape with two eyes and a nose. Especially those two glistening things, those things that move around, now THEY attract my attention. And that other thing that opens whenever I hear the familiar sound, that grabs attention to. I don't know why I'm so interested in those simple things. Shouldn't I be starting to study for my SATs? Well, maybe not. Maybe I have to learn how to survive, grab attention, and gain some comfort and pleasure first. Well, enough for now. I'm getting tired. That was a busy nine months and one day, my tummy's full, my bladder is empty, and it's time for rest. My mom needs rest too. I'm sure (or at least I will learn about 25 years from now) that it was perhaps even more work and pain for her than it was for me. And it seems like that other thing over there, with that other face, not as pretty as mom's, but still, well, he seems to be helping alot too. I'll bet the last nine months have been fairly busy for him too, especially if he's the kind of guy that I hope God, or chance, or both, has blessed me with. I already know that mom's great. I'm curious about all this new stuff, but I'm mainly tired, so . . . . . off to sleep. P.S. -- coberst, great idea of yours, and congrats on your insight and creativity. P.S.2 -- Is there any made-up adult rule that says that moderators can't play this game?

InfiniteNow: I understand your comments. But, in the future, when your intention is to give gentle nudges (which is a good and understandable intention, and can be very helpful), please consider whether they are best given, even gently, via private communication. A substantial part of my experience of this situation is the fact that a person with over 5,800 posts, and a rep power of 817, and a screen i.d. that also includes a reference to peace, chose to write the post that you wrote, in the way you wrote it, in the public forum. I would be providing this feedback privately if your recent posts, especially the last one, did not seem to call for a response here, so that I don't just disappear without explanation. Although I don't know how to use them yet to reach specific members other than moderators (I'm a newcomer here), I think there is a such thing as a private message. I would have much appreciated your initial gentle nudge in a PM. If you don't know how to use PMs, or if my i.d. is not on the list for some reason, then Buffy knows how to send PMs. In the future, when newcomers come and make a few mistakes, please let Buffy know, and she can provide guidance to them gently and privately. Thanks. In any case, I will hopefully end this dialogue with two comments. One is that I do like Sushi and I sincerely apologize for disrupting the Sushi thread. The other is that, mainly for reasons of time and energy and other priorities, I will focus my posts on this site going forward on one thread, Talking Circles, which is a great idea of coberst's and should provide some learning. If anyone wants to learn more about my views on morality from a scientific and philosophical standpoint, I'll make sure that one of the moderators (probably Buffy) has my website address, and anyone interested can reach me there. I hope this helps, and sorry again for the distraction. Bye. "hug"

Thank you for participating Eclogite. Wise choice. Thanks again. "hug"

InfiniteNow, thanks for your comments. Given that the "morality" poll is not gathering much interest, and given that there are enough results to show the wide diversity of views existing even in a science-interested and science-informed group, I guess it's OK for me to provide a response to your comment that gives a hint as to what I was trying to understand in posting the poll question the way I did. Your mention of survival and selection and so forth, with respect to food, is of course correct. We do need to eat. We don't necessarily need to talk so much about Sushi (though I love Sushi and I am not trying to be critical of the poll itself). I'm trying to understand and seek wisdom, and some truth that corresponds to the latest scientific understandings of human nature. That said, what you mention or suggest about morality, I believe, is not quite as correct. For example, here are a couple of Charles Darwin's quotes, from The Descent of Man (1871): "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable -- namely, that any animal whatsoever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." "The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals; but I need not say anything on this head, as I have so lately endeavoured to shew that the social instincts,-- the prime principle of man's moral constitution -- with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the Golden Rule, 'As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise;' and this lies at the foundations of morality." Indeed, Darwin wrote that "the first foundation or origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection." Darwin felt that "our moral sense" is "ultimately a highly complex sentiment" that was "aboriginally derived from the social instincts." He asserted that "the several mental and moral faculties of man have been gradually evolved" according to natural selection and are intimately interrelated. Darwin saw, correctly of course, our moral capacities, sentiments, faculties, and most foundational social-moral tendencies as products of evolution, i.e., natural selection acting upon genetic variation, although Darwin didn't know about the existence of genes or the genetic mechanisms at that point, of course. This view has been supported, explained, and polished by other scientists, including W.D. Hamilton, Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson, Robert Trivers, Robert Axelrod, and others. Thus, "morality", at its most foundational level, is just as much a product of natural selection as our need for good food, our sexual drives, our hands, our hearts, and so forth. Indeed, in one sense, it is the social expression and aspect of the products of natural selection. The ultimate foundational "effective" role and function of morality is . . . . survival. (I use the term "survival" here in a gene-and-then-species sense to mean the successful passing of genes into healthy future generations, and through genes, of people, and families and groups and ultimately the human species.) Ideally, given our ability to understand time (somewhat), and our recent knowledge that we are all, indeed, members of the same family (descended from the same small group of early humans that lived in Africa between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago, roughly), we should -- we really should -- strive for the sustainable survival of the human species, the sustainable survival of biological diversity (which, in any case, is relatively necessary for our own survival and health), and the sustainable protection of a healthy planet. In other words, morality is, most foundationally and ultimately, "about" survival. In fact, the statement "morality is 'about' survival" is the modern species-wide equivalent to Heraclitus's wise statement, made over 2,400 years ago, that "Character is destiny." (One fun way to begin to think about this is to watch the movies "Children of Men" and "Babel") Now, in that context, look at the morality poll results so far. They are all over the map. That reflects, imprecisely of course, the fragmentation and misunderstanding of "morality" that exists in the broad public today. I worded the poll question as I did for a very specific reason (much of my background is market research), because I wanted to learn something without making the question so clear as to force too much thinking, thinking which generally does not occur much (about the ultimate "reason for being" of "morality" from a scientific standpoint, that is) in the general population. So, to be honest, given your comment, I'm not really sure where that leaves me in terms of the social aspects here? There was a song I think, with the lyric, "do I stay or do I leave?" (I wish I could remember the writer to provide appropriate credit, but I can't remember right now.) I guess that depends on whether enough people want to have an interesting, science-informed, state-of-the-art (pretty much) discussion of morality from a scientific standpoint. If so, great. If not, then I'll limit my participation to the Talking Circle thread that coberst so insightfully started. I'll end this post with several quotes from some scientists, philosophers, and others, and then a few last comments . . . "It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement." -- The Dalai Lama "Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem, in my opinion, to characterize our age." -- Albert Einstein "The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." -- Omar Bradley "The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." -- Martin Luther King Jr. "The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life" -- Albert Einstein In sum, morality and our need for food are both products of natural selection acting upon genetic variation (as well as of other natural dynamics). Of course, "morality" in the fullest sense also reflects gene-environment interaction (genes can't do much of anything without environments), and in many of its particulars reflects recent and current cultural influences as well. But, although (again) I love Sushi, and I think the Sushi poll is fun, and I'm not trying to be negative in any way about it, nevertheless, from the standpoint of learning, the following can be said: A science-based understanding of morality will ultimately help us address things like global climate change, Darfur, health care, growing income disparity, and so forth. Sushi habits will not do those things. I'm hoping that this post is OK and doesn't ruffle: I'm merely trying to advance the understanding of morality, learn in the process, and, I guess, I am also reacting to some comments in the recent post. Anyhow, I hope this is interesting? Cheers. "hug"

Sushi 24. Morality 15.

join

Regarding InfiniteNow's thought or hypothesis or fun comment, that "perhaps people find sushi more interesting than morality", there could be some truth to that, and that's partly why we could possibly risk, some day, eating all the Sushi out of the oceans or, more possibly (but for similar reasons) overheating the planet. The reason that the press doesn't cover important issues as much as they might or should, and often doesn't cover them intelligently, is that the press-media can't make as much money by doing a great job covering those issues as they can by covering other stuff. I'm not suggesting, of course, that the fun stuff shouldn't be covered. I like my share of fun stuff. But, as a species, we are a bit too distracted with either misc. stuff, or with matters that we think are vitally important but really aren't quite that important, or with just the daily tasks and pressures, that we get distracted from smartly addressing the bigger problems. Oh well, our kids will have to figure them out??! :)

It seems like we are ready to go then, right? Starting in a couple or few days, as mentioned in an earlier message? coberst, have you selected a good topic, or a list of a few options? I'm ready when everyone else is, even if we start with a small number of folks. Looking forward to it. Cheers. "hug"

Sorry, a correction to my just-previous post: The Sushi poll had 23, not 33, replies before my post, I think.

I love Sushi and I think this poll is fun. I've had Sushi on both coasts, and in-between, and in Japan. I applaud anyone who tries Sushi. It shows a curious and experimentative approach. Although I love or like most Sushi, there is some that I didn't like much, to put it mildly. And, if you like Tubes-style music, and if you don't draw any conclusions or concerns from the lyrics (I can't remember them and I'm not sure if I ever knew them), the Tubes do have a song with the word Sushi in the title and having something to do with Sushi. That said, on a more scientific note, although these polls of course are not scientific, I wonder what it means, or could mean, if anything, that the Sushi poll (started May 5, I think?) has 18 votes, 33 replies, and 226 views, while the "morality" poll, started in this area on May 2, has only 15 votes, 13 replies (many of them regarding the mechanics and administrative things associated with the poll itself), and 307 views? Are we scientists afraid of the topic of morality (I don't think so?), or is it just too complex to think about, (it is complex, but we don't shy away from other very complex things), or is it too difficult to pick from the 10 options given, or what else is it? And can we offer a small prize for participation? (Only joking, Buffy.) Cheers to all. Now I'm tempted to go get me some Sushi! "hug"

coberst, I agree with you, and great observations. I would add two points for now. The first is a quote . . . "The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." -- Omar Bradley, American WW II general Many other wise thinkers have made similar comments, including Einstein, Gandhi, MLK Jr., and the Dalai Lama, among others. Secondly, there are three different parts of the issue you describe: One is scientific understanding itself, within each scientific discipline. The second involves the cross-discipline insights that result from a sharing among the disciplines, a sharing which can improve the overall understanding of morality. The third is putting that understanding into accessible form and sharing the understanding in ways that help people ... well ... to understand. Regarding the first (i.e., scientific understanding within the disciplines), that is far ahead of the rest, and moving forward relatively fast. Relatively speaking, that part of the equation gets an "A" or, if you want to be conservative about grades, perhaps an "A-" or at least a "B". The cross-discipline sharing is a bit behind. And, alas, the sharing of what is already known about "morality", with the public, is way behind, getting a "D" at best and perhaps even an "F". For example, if you compare what scientists already understand about cooperation, and "forgiveness", and related matters, with the amount of that understanding which has entered the public mind, the comparison is both sad and consequential. Ask yourself this question: Do we (presumably an intelligent modern scientifically-leading democratic society) elect our President based on his/her level of understanding, -- scientifically informed that is --, of such things as human nature, human psychology, the science of cooperation, "morality" (from a scientific standpoint), global environmental dynamics, etc. etc.? As just one example, over two decades ago (1984), Robert Axelrod wrote a great, short, easy-to-read, paradigm-shifting book on the science of cooperation, titled The Evolution of Cooperation, yet relatively few professionals in public fields having to do with cooperation (for example, counselors of parents after a divorce) have read it, or even heard of it, in my experience. Many people trying to support or prompt cooperation have a less-than-informed understanding of cooperation and the dynamics that create it or undermine it. Why? The book was written 23 years ago. Part of the answer, of course, is that it's easier not to read the book. You can still charge $150 an hour, or more, and have plenty of clients these days without having a complete and sound understanding of cooperation, even in the profession that tries to catalyze cooperation. To your point, if an engineer tried to build a bridge without an informed and effective understanding of how to build bridges, alas, we would be falling into bays and rivers. That's it for now. I hope some of this is interesting. Must wash the clothes now. Cheers. "hug"

I haven't read some of the above material, but I do have a few thoughts. First, and perhaps most foundationally, according to my understanding of "morality" (which is what I study), from a scientific and philosophical standpoint, I do believe that it can be shown, with a high degree of confidence, (avoiding the word "proven") that letting global inequality continue to increase, unabated, or actually fueling it, would be immoral. Thus, I don't believe that we are talking, here, about something that would be "nice" to do, or something inconsequential. I think the topic is vitally important. For example, (just as one example of what could happen), even though these issues (to follow) alone may not bring complete catastrophe (although a couple of them could), the combination of them could do so. The issues: Global warming, instability caused by global inequality, nuclear proliferation, and terrorism. There was a great article written recently, I think by Robert Wright, (but I could be wrong on that), in The New York Times, discussing that combination of factors or something like it (it might have included three of these four, I can't remember). In any case, the destabilizing changes and pressures caused by global warming and/or substantial global inequalities, combined with the availability of weapons and people ready to harm others, is a bad combination. Very bad. That said, I question single solutions or solutions that some countries impose on others, in this area, i.e., poverty and income disparity. I think that we (wealthier countries) should create and offer a multiplicity of wise and helpful choices. One solution won't fit for everyone. And, people like choices. And, we can't be sure of the best choice in any given situation. And, some of these choices could be contingent on some sort of action on the part of the receiving party, as long as the link makes sense and is fair and is well-intentioned. For example, . . . You could offer lots of choices, . . . i.e., "We want to help but aren't sure of the best solution for you. So, here are some things that we could do, if you like . . . * We'll loan you (individual, group, or country) up to this amount, at zero or low interest rate, if you use it for A, B, C, D, or E type things. * We'll give you $XXXX, yours, if you use it for F, G, H, or I type things. * We will have our companies in these industries (X, Y, Z, etc.) NOT enter your markets for 20 years, as long as you develop your own industries in those areas and not merely buy the stuff from other countries, and especially not country 1, 2, 3, or 4. * We will not do many of these things if you build certain types of plants that will spew carbon dioxide for years to come. Instead, we will help you finance and build other types of plants for your energy needs that are much more clean. And so forth. My point is, if we think smartly and responsibly, and if we give other humans help and choices, and if our intentions are honorable, then I think we can help make some progress on this issue. But, for that to happen, it seems that some attitudes must change. I hope this helps. If someone is interested in the moral argument that indicates that we really should (!!!!!) be smart and help mitigate global inequality, and that it would be downright immoral for us to ignore the issue or fuel it and make it worse, please let me know. Here, I'm not speaking of "morality" as a relatively arbitrary set of rules or norms. I'm talking about "morality" from the standpoint of a rooted science-based understanding of morality's origins, roots, universal dynamics, and etc. If you haven't read the recent Robert Wright article, I suggest it, and you can find it on the Times's website, using a search. Cheers. "hug"

eric l -- Thank you very much. The Online Etymology Dictionary was very helpful. I would include some of the material here, except that it is fairly detailed and a bit complex to write (for the various words, including moral, morale, morality, as well as ethics), and it's so easy to get to on that site, that I would just suggest, as you did, that anyone interested go there. Thanks again for the link!

brianneil and others: Great post. I have a fair amount of experience with a few people in the profession, but I can't speak for the profession itself, nor have I done a huge search specifically for writings on the topic you mention, the "human-to-nature relationship." That said . . . . The practice of psychology (i.e., psychologist-therapists, counselors, etc.) is, it seems to me, widely varying. Some therapists probably do an excellent or at least reasonably great job of counseling their clients to "go outdoors", "get closer to nature", take a vacation to a beautiful beach, get more exercise, and so forth. So, implicitly, some, or many, or perhaps most, psychologist-therapists apply some degree of understanding the human-nature relationship to their clients' problems. From a more scientific standpoint, I'd suggest reading some evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and related stuff. Some or many of these books might not say anything quite as explicit as, "Thus, the relationship between human psychology and nature is . . . . ". But, in a very real sense, the human-nature relationship IS what many of those books are about. If you have not done so already, you might be interested in reading Darwin's books about his voyage on the Beagle, and On The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man. Even better, listen to them on tape. Or, read (or listen to) primatologist Frans de Waal's book, Our Inner Ape. I've read and written a bit about related subjects, touching periodically on various aspects of the human-nature relationship in the sense (I think) that you're asking about, including and especially regarding the nature of morality, the relationship between happiness and morality, the relationship between happiness and survival, meaning, and our culture's tendency sometimes to "take advantage" of some of our otherwise healthy and productive natural tendencies that we got from living in natural surroundings. If that type of thing is what you're looking for, let me know, and I'll suggest a couple books and mention my own website. Although humans are fairly flexible (within limits) and adaptable (also within limits) beings, yes, most of us tend to begin to lose our bearings and become less happy (to varying degrees), or less well, when we remove ourselves from nature in substantial ways for long periods, I believe. I would think that there would be many studies to explore that very dynamic, specifically, but I don't have any to list right now. There are many writings that touch on the issue, or that relate somewhat to the issue. I agree with you that it is a vitally important subject. I hope this is helpful.

coberst, I'm not so sure about Freud. Sometimes, someone's theories, although they may be very helpful in some "senses" and to many people, are pretty far from scientific soundness in terms of how they describe who we are, or why we are the way we are. I think Freud is very interesting, and certainly humans are very sexual beings (to differing degrees and in differing ways), but Freud's understanding of why and how and so forth is not, I think, considered very scientifically accurate these days. The perspective that Freud offers is a perspective, and something to think about, but is not a very good scientific foundation upon which to build, I think. I found the lecture on Becker very helpful, and I seem to agree with him on many things (to the extent that I understand them based on one lecture), but even there, his views and comments are "mid-macro" and "macro" in a sense. That is, at least as far as I can tell, they don't explain root causes and root dynamics. Consider: He (unfortunately) died before many of the most important discoveries and theories associated with evolved human dynamics happened, because many of them have happened in the last three decades . . . "kin selection", "reciprocal altruism", an improved understanding of gene-environment interaction, game theory and Axelrod's "Evolution of Cooperation", Dawkins's work, and so forth. My experience is that understanding things at that level (I don't mean every microscopic detail or latest finding, but at least the basic principles) sheds immense light on the bigger picture and even better informs the "macro" observations that people like Becker made. I mention this because, in hindsight, Freud didn't get very close to those underlying foundations. I may be wrong, however, because I'm not an expert on Freud. (And I like Jung alot more than Freud.) I hope this is helpful. Cheers. "hug"

As this is a science-oriented site, but also including questions of religion and philosophy and so forth, and we are all humans of course, should we not keep in mind how science works and what it can prove or disprove, and what it perhaps can't? I am a newcomer, so I have probably missed some important dialogue on that subject. (I haven't even visited, I don't think, the philosophy of science area yet.) But, if science is about having knowledge and confidence in something to varying degrees of confidence, until something else disproves the earlier knowledge or improves upon it, and if these confidence levels are never, or at least very rarely, said to be 100% (unless about something that is self-evident, like "I have a rock in my hand"), then science so far can't really prove or disprove God, especially in the various forms that "God" could have, some of which could, at least possibly, be well beyond our ability to sense or imagine or visualize. I think. I'm not stating my view one way or t'other, but simply exploring science itself. As we know, many leading scientists think there are more than three dimensions (in physical space) or more than four in space-time. Many scientists are trying to figure out whether the universe is best described by little stringy-like things, and many of those think there are extra dimensions. And (I understand) many highly-scientifically-oriented people still find it very hard to visualize and imagine what Einstein said and what gravity seems to be or might be. Do we have a warped universe? (Well, the answer to that in some senses is clear.) And I'm sure that even in saying this I've probably made a mistake in how I worded it of some sort. So, my own view is, although I haven't read his latest book in its entirety yet (but I've read of it, including some quotes), I think that Dawkins, for example (who I respect alot for his great work on "selfish genes"), may have gone too far, stretching and losing some credibility in the process, in arguing that any smart person should come to the same conclusion that he does, which is that God, or a god, simply does not exist. Some of his logic on that particular front is not impressive nor credibility-building, at least not to me. I wonder whether the subject, the way he has taken it on, is not more divisive than helpful? Thus, while people can agree or disagree on what happened in the very very beginning, and why, or even if "why?" makes sense to ask at that time, or even what happened before the beginning, and in what may or may not happen in dimensions currently beyond our understanding, I think it's more productive to focus (and quick) on what we do have in common across all peoples, and use that understanding to cooperate better and address the rather large problems we face, at least in discussions in society at large. Here, of course, it is good and valid to ask the questions, but I don't think they have 100% answers, at least not yet. Keep doin' good Buffy. Cheers. "hug"

Can anyone help me, or point me in the right direction, regarding understanding the origins, roots, and history of the word "moral" and thus its variations . . . morality, the "moral" of a story, morale, and others? What was the original root word? Where did it come from? What did it mean at that time, initially? And, perhaps an even more difficult question, one of both linguistics and history, does anyone know the first time a word was used that meant anything similar to "moral" or "should" or "shouldn't", i.e., the first time (in writing) that such a word-concept was used indicating that humans, after writing emerged (more likely, well before and as it emerged), right away had a word that somehow was about the idea that there were laws or rules about what people should and shouldn't do to each other? Thanks. "hug"

coberst, thanks for the response and the very interesting and helpful info. That said, if I understand you correctly, then you (and Rawls) seem to be saying or suggesting that one can determine an "ought" in many cases by applying the veil of ignorance thinking and the resulting idea that fairness is justice or vice versa. That said, this assumes that fairness and justice are "good", i.e., that they themselves are "oughts" from which other oughts can be derived. My question (and Hume's point) go even deeper: Hume might ask, How do we know that fairness and justice are themselves good "oughts"? What in science (which is, at least as many would say, the study of what is) can tell us that fairness/justice are "oughts"? How? Why? Looking forward to your thoughts. And, if you know a philosopher around here (in the more narrow academic sense of the title, that is), please refer her/him this way so she/he can participate with the both of us and, hopefully, others. Thanks again. "hug"

Philosophers, moral philosophers, and even immoral ones, please lend me your ears: I think it was philosopher David Hume who wrote awhile back about the very large gap between "is" and "ought", and many philosophers feel that this gap is insurmountable, i.e., that it is impossible to derive oughts from what "is". In late March, there was a great article in The New York Times titled "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior" (by NYTimes science reporter Nicholas Wade, March 20, 2007). In the article, Mr. Wade writes: "Philosophers have another reason biologists cannot, in their view, reach to the heart of morality, and that is that biological analyses cannot cross the gap between 'is' and 'ought,' between the description of some behavior and the issue of why it is right or wrong." In his article, Mr. Wade continues with this point, quoting a moral philosopher from NYU to give an example of many philosophers' view of the is-ought issue. I have done some thinking and writing on this subject, all in the context of a science-based view of morality, and would like to enter into an exploration of the subject here, on this site, with a philosopher (or philosophers) who has/have some expertise or substantial familiarity with the "is-ought problem", or "fact-value distinction", and with relatively recent thinking on the subject, and/or regarding David Hume himself. I'd like to learn from a dialogue, get pointed in productive directions, gain commentary and critique of my own thoughts, and generally help figure out why, when, and how one can derive oughts from is. Of course, if it is truly impossible to derive any oughts from what is, then, as many philosophers seem to suggest, science can't really have much to say about morality from a strictly scientific standpoint. But, I question whether that is the case. Any interest?

coberst, I saw your post about approval and the response. Although I'm very new here of course, it sounds like the approval you're looking for (consistent with the other person's advice to seek it) mainly has to do with the question or helpfulness of the extras of management/policing associated with the specific aspects of a TCT. So, if an administrator is willing to do that -- if it fits within their interest, site rules, and their limited resource of time -- that would be great. If it works well as a dialogue tool, to help groups of people get to the bottom of questions/topics, then perhaps the site would even offer an option, which could be somewhat automated in a way (like they do with polls) to allow small groups of people to do Talking Circles without requiring much administrative time. So, it could be viewed as research. As with almost any research, the first time ya do it, it often involves extra care and attention, and manual labor, because the automated processes and frameworks aren't set up yet. But if it works well, they can then set up some automated frameworks or back-end programming to make the Talking Circle approach a regular option for certain purposes. Just a thought. So, if an administrator is willing to help "manage" this particular thread of yours as a Talking Circle, on a research basis, that would be a good idea if resources allow. If not, a group of us can still treat the thread as a Talking Circle, adhere to the approach ourselves (as well as we can), get along without any specific/unique policing, and politely let any midstream newcomers to the thread know that they are entering a Talking Circle with thread-specific norms of dialogue, although they would be welcome if they'll follow those norms. Good luck. Let me know if/when I can help.

I'm looking for psychologists, psychiatrists, evolutionary psychologists, sociologists, and others in related fields (or who are studying those fields) to participate in a poll and (then) discussion (on this site) regarding the nature, origins, dynamics, and universals of morality. Check out the quotes below. Then, if you are interested of course, please join in by first participating in the initial kick-off poll. The poll question is, "What is 'morality' ultimately about?" and is located in the relatively easy-to-find (especially for people who think about thinking itself!) community poll area. Don't forget to tell your friends. See you there. "hug" :naughty: "I am convinced that we must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible, and that we ought to seek to understand it and define it. It is a staggering idea, and one that on casual thought seems preposterous. Yet there is no way out." -- Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga, former President of the American Psychological Association, from his book The Ethical Brain "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable -- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." -- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man "Good science, good psychology, cannot be narrow-minded. All avenues should be explored, all stones turned." -- M. Scott Peck, M.D. "Each one has its own personality. ... Some are shy, while others seem to enjoy ... company. ... Can distinguish one person from the next. ... Can also express their emotions ... to match their mood. ... One of the smartest creatures we know of." -- Regarding the octopus, from an exhibit at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, California "It is all too evident that our moral thinking simply has not been able to keep pace with the speed of scientific advancement." -- The Dalai Lama "Human nature is not the genes, which prescribe it, or the universals of culture, which are its products. It is rather the epigenetic rules of cognition, the inherited regularities of cognitive development that predispose individuals to perceive reality in certain ways and to create and learn some cultural variants in preference to competing variants." -- E.O. Wilson "Man 'possesses' many things which he has never acquired but has inherited from his ancestors. He is not born as a tabula rasa, he is merely born unconscious. ... (I, "hug", will provide the middle of this quote later) .... 'You were in bygone times my wife or sister,' says Goethe, clothing in words the dim feelings of many." -- Carl Jung, from Vol. 4 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Princeton University Press "Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering." -- Epicurus

I am requesting the attention and participation of biologists, evolutionary biologists, evolutionary psychologists, neuroscientists, and anyone else here in a poll and (then) discussion about the nature, origins, and universals of morality. Check out the quotes below, and please participate (if you are interested, of course) in the poll to get started. The initial kick-off poll question is, "What is 'morality' ultimately about?" and is located in the relatively easy-to-find (for us fairly sophisticated but still far from perfect biological beings) community poll area. If we get good participation, it should be a great discussion afterward. Thanks for your attention. "hug" :naughty: "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable -- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." -- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man "To understand the physical basis of human nature, down to its evolutionary roots and genetic biases, is to provide needed tools for the diagnosis and management of some of the worst crises afflicting humanity." -- E.O. Wilson, from his article "Integrated Science and the Coming Century of the Environment"

coberst, As before, this is a great idea. One thing might help. If you are going to come up with a subject or question or interesting hypothesis to discuss using this approach (Talking Circles), then it probably would help to come up with that and let people know? There may be some people out there who would love to participate in this type of approach but who aren't sure yet because they don't know if they'll be interested in the topic itself. With a good, juicy, reasonably important topic, more people will be willing to try the approach. Just a thought. "hug"

Buffy: Thanks for the message and continuing participation and warning. I'll be sure not to attack first. :naughty: Yes, the subject of morality has been my focus for quite some time, from the scientific, philosophical, and cultural standpoints, so I'm hoping that we can re-energize the topic and take it farther and deeper than it sounds like it's gone on the site before. That's a main reason why I'm trying to first understand what folks currently think, off-the-cuff and raw fashion. As you probably know, the actual science focused on human morality has come a long way in recent years and even in recent months. Although the word "morality" does carry with it much baggage and even more confusion, the science of "how people treat other people, and where all that came from, and why, and how we ought to treat other people, and what 'morality' is all about" has come a long way. From a scientific standpoint, scientists and others such as Darwin, W.D. Hamilton (theory of inclusive fitness, aka "kin selection"), Robert Trivers (reciprocal altruism), E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins ("selfish gene", although that can be a misleading phrase unless one understands what he means), Robert Axelrod ("The Evolution of Cooperation"), Jared Diamond, Robert Wright ("The Moral Animal"), Matt Ridley ("The Origins of Virtue"), Leda Cosmides, Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer ("The Science of Good & Evil"), primatologist Frans de Waal ("Our Inner Ape", and "Primates and Philosophers"), and more recently, Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser ("Moral Minds") have all written on the subject and added to the understanding. Given that base of material and understanding, plus some additional thoughts, I actually think the forum can help all of us learn (including me!) and even, perhaps, move the subject forward!? But, as you suggest or imply, we do have to separate and extricate ourselves from the semantic and definitional matters to get to the science and logic/philosophy of things. Yes, there is alot of excess baggage associated with the word "morality" in our broad culture and probably throughout the world, but we can (and should) shine some light on that, because it is important to move through the confusion, and scientists who work most on the matter do use the term alot, from a scientific standpoint. Darwin himself used the word "morality" or variations of the base word "moral" over 100 times in The Descent Of Man, and, as you can see from recent books ("Moral Minds", "The Moral Animal"), scientists and science writers use it commonly. Indeed, science can shed alot of light on the wide range of answers that the poll will probably yield. And, although the discussion should be interesting and fun, in my view anyhow, some of the options in the poll are much more on target than others. If you'd like to know more about my work on the subject of morality (from a scientific and philosophical standpoint), visit my website -- (I guess I don't know how to post a url here, but you can find it under the name ObligationsOfReason.) (Sorry, I don't know how to do links here yet.) But, as with everyone and all of us, there is alot I don't know!, and alot left to learn. So, I'm eager to learn alot from the site and its participants about this subject and others, and I can contribute a good amount of understanding about the science and philosophy of morality along the way. Indeed, having studied the science (and still studying, of course), and the philosophy, I'm actually very curious about the state of understanding and views (of morality) in the culture and even in groups of scientists and philosophers. That's why I started with a question to gauge views and reactions. I'd very much like scientists and philosophers to become part of this thread, if they are interested. We are all humans -- so everyone's invited. That said, I'm especially interested in having some biologists, geneticists, neuroscientists, philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists, who are interested in the subject, involved. (MBA's too; I'm an MBA also.) And anyone interested in talking about what "Children of Men", "Babel", and yes, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" can tell us about morality that coincides very well with the science of the matter. All that said, I do feel a bit bad and scolded, because I did in a way ask for special treatment in asking you folks if you would post the poll in the community-wide section. Given your comments, I have demonstrated at least one of the symptoms of vampirism. Today, I'll make sure to check that my skin is OK in sunlight, and tonight, I'll make sure that I sleep in a bed, not a coffin. If I do ask for special treatment again, please point it out. :) Thanks. "The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." -- Albert Einstein "The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable -- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man." -- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man "I am convinced that we must commit ourselves to the view that a universal ethics is possible, and that we ought to seek to understand it and define it. It is a staggering idea, and one that on casual thought seems preposterous. Yet there is no way out." -- Dr. Michael S. Gazzaniga, recent former President of the American Psychological Society, member of the President's Council on Bioethics, former distinguished professor and director of the Center of Cognitive Neuroscience at Dartmouth, and now a professor at the SAGE Center for the Study of Mind, at U.C. Santa Barbara, from his book, The Ethical Brain "Empty is the argument of the philosopher which does not relieve any human suffering." -- Epicurus