Pinker's Blank Slate

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

what is being stated is that if indeed free will is an illusion, then “morality,� inevitably, is an illusion, ergo “immorality� would also be an illusion, ergo no one’s behavior would be ever be “moral,� or “immoral��“morality†� would essentially be an oxymoron in such a case.

Your logic is flawed, but probably just from my perspective and not from yours.

I'll agree that free will is an illusion. We make deterministic choices based on the states of our minds and environments. But one of those states of mind is the concept of 'social instinct', which includes such things as doing what's best for the group and not being destructive and helping those in need, etc. Most people have an instinct to help their friends. A lot of people have an instinct to steal from those who are not their friends (and the IRS) as long as they don't get caught. So, social instincts are not free will but they result in the concept of morality. Right, right, right, Fred . And I understand how you can't understand this, so I'm not amazed.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: So, social instincts are not free will but they result in the concept of morality.

Damn Tom, I’d bet that even (using your buddy Margaret’s characterization) a JB “fawning,� “undergrad psych student - self-important and largely ignorant of the real world,� can see the distinction here�why the hell can’t you? Perhaps this will help:

Social Instincts and Morality For Dummies�

While “social instincts" seem to include such pleasantries as sympathy, they also include such unpleasantness as rape, infanticide, and genocide.

“Morality,� OTH, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong�it is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, secular and philosophical communities who share concepts and beliefs, by which people determine whether given actions are right or wrong.

So think of it this way: Social instincts is to morality as genocide is to loving your neighbor, or rape is to love.

[Margaret McGhee]

Fred, Interesting that you woud think of rape, infanticide, and genocide as social instincts. I haven't read any formal definition as I write this but I would say a social instinct would broadly fall under those behaviors that we enact because of our concern about what others (our society) think about us.

You can vividly see this instinct come alive in children at around 2 years old. I suspect that what mothers call the terrible-twos are caused by children struggling with this new force in their lives that limits what they can do. They go from being totally unaffected by what others think of their behavior - to being almost obsessively concerned in their teens.

I could imagine that members of a criminal gang could get into rape or assault or even murder motivated by wanting other gang members to see them as worthy but that's like a sick society inside the larger one that would make opposite social judgements. It's also interesting how it only seems to work when we see some common connection to others. Like, kids are not so concerned about what adults think of them (other than their family perhaps) but enact a lot of behaviors to be popular among their own.

I would place rape, infanticide, and genocide at the instinct end of my behavior motivation scale - probably a remnant of an old sexual power kind of instinct that may have served early males in some crude way to eliminate competing DNA. It's potentially a very strong and incontrollable instinct in highly emotional or threatening situations - like war - but usually well under the control of the motivations at the more human end of the emotion scale - intellect, belief in standards of right and wrong, and wanting to be seen as a good person by others.

Margaret

PS - I wonder what you guys in the free-will debate think about the concept of evil. How would you define it and what does it have to do with notions of free will?

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

While “social instincts" seem to include such pleasantries as sympathy, they also include such unpleasantness as rape, infanticide, and genocide.

As I said, I understand that you didn't understand my pov.

The reason I knew that was the fact that everyone's philosophies must first explain ones own behavior. The only thing we 'know' for sure is our own reactions to philosophical questions, we try to extrapolate those reactions to others and usually fail miserably. So, I'm stuck in my head with a quandry: I'm atheist yet I do not rape only because I know of the pain that would inflict on the victim and that's something I just don't want to do. How is that possible in your philosophy? You say I'm immoral so I must be like an alley cat or wolf or something.

What ones philosophy says most is about what's happening in ones own head. You must feel that without that bible you like so much you would be completely uncontrolled doing hideous things like all atheists. Of course, that would be ridiculous; but that's the obvious outcome of your stated philosophy.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Margaret McGhee

PS - I wonder what you guys in the free-will debate think about the concept of evil. How would you define it and what does it have to do with notions of free will?

To me, evil is anti-social behavior with the connotation of being in the extreme. I don't think of it in terms of the perpetrator, since there can be many causes/rationales to the behavior. So I consider it a behavior like all others: a choice made after weighing the plusses and minuses. And all those plusses and minuses are directly dependent on the state of the brain and its perception of the environment.

So, the evil of 'genocide' can be revenge or justice or fear (it's either you or me) or a brain tumor or merely a pathologically over-estimation of ones own importance. At any rate, all of us are capable, given the ability and the right frame of mind/circumstances. So, we must limit everyone's ability since we can not even know everyone's frame of mind, much less control it.

Reminds me of the whole Catholic pedophile problem; if people would realize that religious people are actually people, they might not want to trust their teens to them. Some probably thought that god would protect their child in the church or if priests are so extremely religious you'd have to trust them.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: I'm atheist yet I do not rape only because I know of the pain that would inflict on the victim and that's something I just don't want to do.

Great point�I see now that my own morality, wherein rape is just “wrong,� is way too simplistic, not to mention restrictive; whereas your not raping “only because [you] know of the pain that would inflict on the victim,� still leaves you with the option of raping whenever you would not “know� of the pain that would be inflicted�e.g., you could still rape those in a coma, those that are sufficiently retarded, whores, sluts, and those that just “want� it (even though they pretend not to), or just have it coming (not to mention girly-men in prison, and even sheep, horses, and cows that probably don’t mind one way or the other). And let’s face it, there’s nothing like a good ole fashion gangbang to enhance a girl’s self-esteem and getting her to feel like an integral part of the group.

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

Great point

Thanks!!!!

Then maybe you can explain why I don't do those other things, either. Certainly I should not be able to control myself without whatever you have so much of.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: Then maybe you can explain why I don't do those other things, either.

Hell Tom, anyone can more or less follow whatever the group “morality� happens to be. The real test is when nobody is watching and/or the shit hits the fan�and since it seems that you’re no Bonhoffer, I’m guessing that under the appropriate circumstance with the requisite group morality/characteristics, you’d undoubtedly follow those baser social instincts�what “choice� would you have?

[TomJrzk]

Originally Posted by Fred H.

what “choice� would you have?

I would have a choice. And it would be to do a nice thing, rather than suggest someone be Judas. If you're the result of your philosophy then 'no thanks'.

[Fred H.]

TomJ: I would have a choice.

Indeed Tom, you would have a choice, and you would indeed be morally responsible. Amen and amen.

It’s been a long difficult journey, but it seems we’ve reached our destination�try not to screw it up by denying what you’ve just acknowledged . . . and if you’re not really too keen on that Judas role, maybe Margaret would be interested.