Conscience or superego?

If you are addressing me, i've not stated that there is no inherent ability to have a conscience. However, whether or not an available trait will appear in an evolving population is determined by evolutionary selection pressures. I suspect the same can be said of "human nature" characteristics. If "selflessness" confers no advantage, then there would be no reason for it to appear in a culture, even if the individual members had a capacity to develop "selflessness."

IFF, Not true; that's the reason why some humans practiced cannibalism. The Donner Party also practiced cannibalism.

IFeelFree wrote:

I see your distinction between morality and the capacity for morality, but I'm still not sure I completely agree. It appears as if there are certain moral values that are common to all human cultures, and so are innate -- responsibility, respect, honesty, selflessness, sacrifice, etc. -- even though codes of behavior vary culturally.

Those common moral values are not really all that common. For instance, one culture might show respect for its elders by worshipping them after they die, while another migh show respect for its elders by eating them after they die. The fact that we call both acts "respect" has more to do with the way we think in terms of analogies than with the innateness of "respect."

IFeelFree wrote:

Also, there is the notion of a conscience, or the impulse toward the morally that right appears to be innate, even though specific moral actions vary culturally. I suppose that is what you mean as "the capacity for morality". Perhaps we're saying the same thing in different ways?

The "impulse to do right" is a pretty barren concept if no one is actually acting on that impulse.

And if the actions that are impelled by various consciences differ across cultures, then I'm not sure how we can say that those consciences have the same idea of what is right or wrong.

Some societies have turned their elderly out in the winter to die, and therefore to assure the food supply for the younger, healthier members of the band.

"Selflessness" is not necessarily at all evident across cultures, and in many cultures, such a notion would be laughed to scorn.

Setanta wrote:

Some societies have turned their elderly out in the winter to die, and therefore to assure the food supply for the younger, healthier members of the band.

Under those circumstances, it is probably the most sensible thing to do. Since the elderly of those societies understand their customs, they probably don't feel betrayed when it is their time to be left behind. By comparison, some people consider abortion to be cruel also.

Quote:

"Selflessness" is not necessarily at all evident across cultures, and in many cultures, such a notion would be laughed to scorn.

Are there societies where parents don't love their children? Parents who love their children exhibit selflessness.

Are there societies where parents don't love their children? Parents who love their children exhibit selflessness.

Are there societies where parents don't love their children? Parents who love their children exhibit selflessness.

If you completely deny any inherent ability to have a conscience, than you fail to explain how it first came to be.

I think it reasonable to say that Joe is pretty much saying the same thing--that the capacity for a trait may be innate, but that that does not mean the expression of the trait is innate.

IFeelFree wrote:

Are there societies where parents don't love their children? Parents who love their children exhibit selflessness.

Rather an extended form of self preservation. The genes must be passed on. Most animals posess this ability.

I don't think that I would characterize morality as "the expression of a human trait." I would imagine that the expression of the capacity for morality is a moral action. Morality, however, isn't the sum of all moral actions. It is the "rulebook" by which we judge whether some action is moral or not. To use my previous analogy, it is like the difference between the capacity for language, language, and grammar. Language is the expression of the capacity for language, grammar is the set of rules by which we determine whether the language is correct or incorrect. And, I would also add, humans are no more imbued with an innate sense of grammar than they are imbued with an innate sense of morality.

IFeelFree wrote:

Are there societies where parents don't love their children? Parents who love their children exhibit selflessness.

That is a statement from authority for which i have no reason to assume you possess the authority.

I suspect that in every society there are parents who don't love their children. How do you account for crack babies?

Quite apart from that, it is not necessarily a selfless act to give birth to and raise a child. Especially in primitive agrarian societies, children represent a labor force, and security in one's old age.

You're just throwing out broad generalizations. There are many situations in which generalizations are appropriate, but this ain't one of them. If you cannot demonstrate that absolutely every member of every culture practices any particular human "virtue," then you will have failed to demonstrate that said "virtue" is innate. The capacity for the "virtue" may be innate, but not the "virtue" itself.

Nevertheless, the idea of paying respect is common to those cultures. Are there any cultures that value disrespecting your elders? I doubt it.

Respect is an attitude of deference that one pays towards one's elders by following the culturally accepted behaviors. I don't think its a mistake to call both actions respect.

No-one is acting from their conscience? What makes you think that?

They don't have the same idea of what is right or wrong. Their idea of what behavior is right or wrong is conditioned by their culture, at least to some extent. However, the impulse to do what is right is common, as well as specific abstract notions of right and wrong -- honesty vs. dishonesty, respect vs. disrespect, etc. (Obviously, this is violated by criminals, psychopaths, etc.)

IFeelFree wrote:

Nevertheless, the idea of paying respect is common to those cultures. Are there any cultures that value disrespecting your elders? I doubt it.

I imagine there are, at least from our understanding of what it means to "respect" someone. After all, I'm not planning on eating my dead ancestors anytime soon.

IFeelFree wrote:

Respect is an attitude of deference that one pays towards one's elders by following the culturally accepted behaviors. I don't think its a mistake to call both actions respect.

We run the risk here of turning this into a discussion of moral relativism, so I'll just simply ask: do you think that "respect" is an innate human trait?

IFeelFree wrote:

No-one is acting from their conscience? What makes you think that?

I don't think that. I was merely responding to your statement regarding "the notion of conscience." I have a hard time grasping the concept of this amorphous "notion of conscience" that is twice-removed from moral action. If everyone is in agreement regarding what is right and what is wrong, but they act completely differently, I fail to see how we can say that everyone is in agreement regarding morality. I suppose it's possible, but how do we establish that everyone is, in fact, on the same ethical page?

IFeelFree wrote:

They don't have the same idea of what is right or wrong. Their idea of what behavior is right or wrong is conditioned by their culture, at least to some extent. However, the impulse to do what is right is common, as well as specific abstract notions of right and wrong -- honesty vs. dishonesty, respect vs. disrespect, etc. (Obviously, this is violated by criminals, psychopaths, etc.)

If Person A has the impulse to do right and, acting on that impulse, does Action A, while Person B, acting on the same impulse, does Action ~A, which one is acting morally?

I think a lot of this is quibbling, in that you have just introduced a further refinement of your categorization.

If you prefer not to use the word "trait," than stipulate another term.

I still consider it reasonable to characterize what you said as distinguishing between a capacity for "X" and the expression of "X." If you assert otherwise, then i'd have to say that you didn't express yourself well at some point.

You are not because it would be considered an immoral act in our culture (as well as being illegal, disgusting, etc.) I suspect that if you asked others their motive for their actions toward their elders, in most cases it would be "respect" or deference to authority, as they understand it.

Yes, with respect to our elders, because we all have parents, grandparents, etc. that we owe our existence to, and it is natural to feel a certain gratitude and respect to those who raised us and often have more knowledge and experience than we do.

We observe that every culture has its codes of behavior that reflect certain fundamental notions of morality -- you respect your elders, you tell the truth, etc. The moral codes vary among different cultures, but it is possible to see a common thread that we can call abstract moral principles.

The purpose of morality is to give people a way to act that will further their own and others survival, prosperity, health, and well-being.

As human beings we mostly have the same basic needs -- food, water, shelter, companionship, an occupation, etc. -- so that the same needs arise is every culture. Morality is not some random behavioral prescription. It is the distilled wisdom of that culture, reflecting our true needs.

Both (assuming that both are acting in accord with their culture's accepted moral behavior).

Setanta wrote:

I think a lot of this is quibbling, in that you have just introduced a further refinement of your categorization.

I can do that.

Quote:

If you prefer not to use the word "trait," than stipulate another term.

I have no problem with "trait." In fact, I think I was the first one to introduce that term in this thread. But the capacity to act morally is not morality, and acting morally is not morality, just as the capacity for language is not language and speaking is not language. If that analogy is too obscure, then I guess I'll just have to live with that.

Quote:

I still consider it reasonable to characterize what you said as distinguishing between a capacity for "X" and the expression of "X." If you assert otherwise, then i'd have to say that you didn't express yourself well at some point.

That's always a possibility.

Do you want me to quote supporting references for everything I say? That would complicate things quite a bit. My "authority" is the same authority anyone else has -- the inherent persuasiveness, or lack thereof, of my arguments.

Of course. To say that parents love their children doesn't mean that some don't. That's obvious.

Most parents make numerous sacrifices for their children, never knowing for sure whether they'll benefit from the arrangement. Most parents would willingly give their own lives to save the lives of their children. What more selflessness could we ask for?

No-one is claiming that every member of a society is virtuous. That would be silly. For all I know, perhaps psychopaths even lack the capacity for virtue. However, there is a commonality to humans across all cultures. Most people appear to have a conscience, and they can generally agree that certain abstract moral principles are true, even if they disagree on specifics due to cultural differences.