Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I recently had a long and drawn out conversation with a friend about human nature. She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing. Programmed basic morality if you will. Obviously I was on the other side of the argument, which to my mind is that we are born with little no inherent programming beyond "survive" anything beyond that, ranging from the basic "Don't hit the other toddler in the play pen" to more complex moral quandaries like the line between killing and murder, is taught to you by society.

How does Dakka feel about this line of questioning?

I do believe there is an inherent knowledge of life and death. When you look back at history, you can see that one of the biggest motivators in human behavior across all time periods and cultures is the instinctual need to believe in "something greater than yourself," whether it be a god, a group (from family unit to nation), or simply an ideal. But the need to believe is there, as it is a coping mechanism to deal with death. You may die, but gods, nations, etc., will go on, and if you were a part of it, then you, too, will go on in some way.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I recently had a long and drawn out conversation with a friend about human nature. She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing. Programmed basic morality if you will. Obviously I was on the other side of the argument, which to my mind is that we are born with little no inherent programming beyond "survive" anything beyond that, ranging from the basic "Don't hit the other toddler in the play pen" to more complex moral quandaries like the line between killing and murder, is taught to you by society.

How does Dakka feel about this line of questioning?

Morality is taught...

Animals (as we all are!) have instinct survival instincts.

I think that morality is taught but community is instinctual, at least with us and some other species. So I'll have no problem killing a deer, but I might not kill a human because he can help kill the deer; thus, he is my "friend".

And it's also why a human stranded on an island will draw face an a volleyball and call him Wilson.

I agree but I don't think we can credit that to an inherent knowledge of life and death, starting religion and looking to the stars for answers is a lot of credit to give a new born baby, and once you're past birth, you're learning constantly.

Young children don't really know what is and isn't alive. Having seen this described, my wife when working in a primary school sat down with many children one at a time with three areas on the table labelled 'alive', 'not alive' and 'not sure', and a lot of pictures to sort out into them. A lot of cars were 'alive' because they move, while plants were often 'not alive' because they don't. So given this common observation of children, it's a bit of a question as to whether any regard for other life is hardwired from birth as understanding what 'being alive' actually is takes a while to develop.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I think that morality is taught but community is instinctual, at least with us and some other species. So I'll have no problem killing a deer, but I might not kill a human because he can help kill the deer; thus, he is my "friend".

This. As far as we're social animals, we tend towards things that will keep the group strong. A lot of this lines up decently with most morality, and the rest is social or societal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Young children don't really know what is and isn't alive. Having seen this described, my wife when working in a primary school sat down with many children one at a time with three areas on the table labelled 'alive', 'not alive' and 'not sure', and a lot of pictures to sort out into them. A lot of cars were 'alive' because they move, while plants were often 'not alive' because they don't. So given this common observation of children, it's a bit of a question as to whether any regard for other life is hardwired from birth as understanding what 'being alive' actually is takes a while to develop.

The problem with this line of thought is that human brains continue to develop (in predictable ways) well after elementary school.

For instance, there are some mathematical concepts which kids below a certain development are 100% incapable of understanding, regardless of how hard you try to teach them.

"Not from birth" is not synonymous with "{culturally, socially, etc.} learned": there are plenty of things that are a matter of brains maturing.

But we are influenced and learning constantly FROM birth, so we'd have to have an infant develop without human contact to learn from to prove that it's just a brain maturing that produces certain behaviors.

Basic morality is inbuilt, we are after all a communal species, but its more of a suggestion than a law as history vividly demonstrates. Societal pressures and upbringing strengthen these basic traits (don't steal, look after your children etc) which ultimately gives rise to the highly complex and interdependent society that we have today. Of course if it all collapsed tommorow the fundamental driver behind human behaviour is survival of yourself and your family and I will shoot you for your tin of beans.

As for an inherent aversion to killing I wonder how many vegan hunter gatherers there are?

Wouldn't they just be "Gatherers" then?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing.

She's never seen newborn spiders go after prey. And that cute 'chase the string' behavior of a kitten? That's hunting behavior. Stalking, chasing... and killing.

Killing is the instinct of a predator species. Simple as that. Her whole line of reasoning falls apart because that foundation of her argument is not sound.

Vulcan wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing.

She's never seen newborn spiders go after prey. And that cute 'chase the string' behavior of a kitten? That's hunting behavior. Stalking, chasing... and killing.

Killing is the instinct of a predator species. Simple as that. Her whole line of reasoning falls apart because that foundation of her argument is not sound.

This.

This is exactly correct, and backed up by scientifically observable behaviour throughout the entire field of zoology. I believe Stephen hawking said it best: “Philosophy is dead ... Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science.”

EDIT: Morality is socially constructed. Only instinct is innate.

I wonder how much contemporary philosophy Steven Hawking is familiar with.

 Vulcan wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing.

She's never seen newborn spiders go after prey. And that cute 'chase the string' behavior of a kitten? That's hunting behavior. Stalking, chasing... and killing.

Killing is the instinct of a predator species. Simple as that. Her whole line of reasoning falls apart because that foundation of her argument is not sound.

One can argue that this doesn't have anything to do with life and death though. The kitten might have a hard wired instinct to play/train as a response to certain triggers, and know that "if I do X I get to eat" with X = killing a mouse.

But that doesn't mean that a cat has a deeper knowledge of life and death and that it knows that it is taking a life when it eats. Kitten didnt kill mom when it ate, and house cats might not go around thinking about stuff that got killed when they eat canned food.

Just because things kill doesn't mean they have a knowledge of life and death.

 dogma wrote:
I wonder how much contemporary philosophy Steven Hawking is familiar with.

This. Sorry Azazel, but Hawking made himself a fool with this one. Scientists themselves don't even keep up with the innovations of science, so I think it's rather forgivable for speculative thinkers not to do so. It speaks of a rather poor understanding of the process by which a science distinguish itself from a more general field of inquiry.

How often have I been told by graduate students that intentionnality doesn't apply to physical events... When it's been over 20 years since we've discovered mirror neurons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I recently had a long and drawn out conversation with a friend about human nature. She posits that we as human beings (and all species for that matter) have an inherent knowledge of life and death, and an inherent aversion to killing. Programmed basic morality if you will. Obviously I was on the other side of the argument, which to my mind is that we are born with little no inherent programming beyond "survive" anything beyond that, ranging from the basic "Don't hit the other toddler in the play pen" to more complex moral quandaries like the line between killing and murder, is taught to you by society.

How does Dakka feel about this line of questioning?

We do have some level of 'inherent programming', which doesn't mean that we have moral behaviours coded into us, but that we are 'bent' toward adopting behaviours which (more or less) make us relate to others and their situation. The mirror neurons I mentionned before have shown us that language, conceptuality and agency are inherently intersubjective ; your brain physically reacts in similar fashion to both your own actions and the actions that others do that you perceive.

Your friend's wording is also a bit deficient. Humans do not have an inherent knowledge, that doesn't exist. But about all complex beings have drives which cannot be reduced to simple reflexes, and yet cannot be called knowledges either.