Answer for: Where does the sense of Right and Wrong come from?
#4 Biology
Even the animals have certain codes of conduct, including things that they're not supposed to do. These behaviors have evolved as the species have evolved. There's no reason why humans should be any different.
Related products from Amazon (See more...)
The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles
$24.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Biology with MasteringBiology™ (8th Edition) (MasteringBiology Series)
$178.20 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles
$24.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Biology with MasteringBiology™ (8th Edition) (MasteringBiology Series)
$178.20 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Comments |
Leave a comment
While I understand your sentiment, I think your thesis is rather too simplistic. Your sense of "right" and "wrong" is probably different to mine. In absolute terms, we may agree that it is wrong to kill someone (although maybe not even that, given one or two of the topics here). Even supposedly sophisticated societies differ on their interpretation of ethical values. For example, some states of the USA are convinced that it is okay to execute a wrongdoer. Elsewhere in the same country (to say nothing of other English-speaking nations) others say that this is anathama. Who is "right"? You have your opinion, and I have mine. We may agree, we may not. But to say that this behaviour has simply "evolved"? I don't think so, Timmy.
Sam's idea seems to me to be that the conscience is genetic in origin.
What Sam is stating is more or less that the generic concept of a sense of "Right and Wrong" comes from the same process that created species. IE, treating other members of your immediate area well would lead to better treatment from them in return which leads to more reproductive opportunities which leads to more beings who are nice to others etc. This is actually demonstrated in many other types of animals, especially in primates.
To reiterate - I understand what Sam is saying re genetic origin of conscience. I just don't agree with it. Perhaps it would be better to start with a definition of "right and wrong"?
I realise that you might see this as pure semantics and perhaps pedantic, but when you ask complex questions like this, it is important to define your terms first.
So let's start with that - what do you mean by "right and wrong"? What the heck, I'll even post a topic on it, and we can debate it there. And once we've got that sorted out to everyone's satisfaction (ho, ho ;-), we can discuss "sense", and then come back to this question when we all understand the terms.
Damn, I need to not start ideas in the middle of the night. When i get back, half the conversation has blown by. I agree that about getting terms agreed upon.
I'm working on the social terminology of "right" and "wrong". (The topic description refers to "all societies", so I'm following from that.) This is different from "good and evil," which are generally discussed in absolute terms (and often in a religious context). "Right" would be socially acceptable behaviours, while "Wrong" would be things that society looks down upon (taboos, for example).
Regarding executions, we might disagree on that particular topic, but we probably agree on a more basic idea about the importance of life. One might say that all life, even that of murders, is sacred. Another might say that killing murders protects other people's lives. Two different arguements, but the same underlying principle that life.
Now, where do we get those more basic notions? (This is a general question - Where does the sense of Right and Wrong come from? - It is NOT a specific question - "Where did YOUR sense of Right and Wrong come from?")
Well, they've evolved over millions of years, gaining complexity. While our reactions to specific questions might differ greatly, our ability to live in society (and to judge between right and wrong) is something that's innate. Why? Because it's beneficial to the individual and the species. Following the social rules (generally) means better food, a better mate, and more offspring.
All but the most basic animals have some sense of social conduct. *Chickens* have a social code of conduct when dealing with each other. It has to be genetic.
I suspect that social hierarchy was invented about 10 minutes after sex. (And 5 minutes before "I have a headache.")
Sam, I still (sorry) disagree. "Right" and "wrong" have a context, a time and a place, and even a society/cultural locus. While you and I may agree about the sanctity of life, because we live in societies that place a high value individual freedoms , it does not follow that all societies will agree with that apparently simple tenet. In societies which put the good of the state above that of the individual, the value of life is diminished. When the pyramids were being built, it seems clear that the preservation of life was not very high on the agenda of the builders. Sure, that was a few thousand years ago. But how about more recent societies? Free trade zones, for example, in China, the Philippines and elsewhere. The american dollar drives production for thousands of poor people. The factory owners have no interest in their lives, except as pure resources.
In other cultures, there is an expectation that martyrdom leads to a significant enriching of one's afterlife. Does this devalue life itself? Maybe not. The sense of right and wrong is defined by the society one lives in. My perception of a different society's values is necessarily that - a perception.
Each society defines right and wrong in its own terms, based on the values it holds dear at the time. These values change over time, and hence the definitions of the words drift too. It could be argued that this is a form of evolution, and if that's what you meant, then fine.
But your argument that it has evolved over millions of years? Sorry, I just don't agree with that one.
Clarification: I didn't say that "all societies will agree on a simple tenet" - I said that you and I would probably agree on the basic tenets, since we're both from the same general society, even though we might disagree on specific topics.
"The sense of right and wrong is defined by the society one lives in."
I agree. But that society had to get it from somewhere. Human civilization doesn't exist to the beginning of time.
"But your argument that it has evolved over millions of years? Sorry, I just don't agree with that one."
It's not something that just sprang up overnight.
Social behavior has its roots in biology. Since creatures have evolved - better intelligence, etc - it only makes sense that social senses would improve as well.
Look at dogs. Over 100,000 years, man has tamed the wolf into a household pet. The dog has a different set of social skills and norms because of its closeness to man.
You're not a creationist, are you?
Sam, no, I'm not a creationist.
And in point of fact, I didn't say that you said that "all societies will agree on a simple tenet". Just so's we're clear.
I agree that any society's values (and sense of right and wrong) didn't just appear ("spring up overnight"). But who codifies those values? The people in the society. Are these values written down somewhere? That depends on the society/culture being discussed.
Let's assume (dangerous I know) that the values of a society define their sense of what's right and wrong. If these values are not explicitly recorded (and to some extent, even if they are) the manner in which the values (and hence the sense of right and wrong) are embodied and modelled by the people in that society defines them (the values, that is, not the people).
Now you DID say, and here I must quote:
"our ability to live in society (and to judge between right and wrong) is something that's innate". I do not agree with this statement. It is not innate, it is a learned behaviour. It is learned from the people with whom you interact every day from the moment you are born to the instant you die.
To be clear - what I understand you to be saying is this:
1. You take a new-born baby, and completely isolate it from human contact and society.
2. You somehow manage to raise it and teach it language (without transferring any context or values - which would be almost impossible because of the level of "coding" that occurs in language patterns in a particular society)
3. You then introduce that person into society,
4. They would have a sense of "right and wrong" and be able to interact with that society.
According to your argument they would just know "innately" what is right and wrong, despite the fact that different societies have different understandings of what right and wrong means.
If I have misunderstood your argument, I apologise in advance.
Regards
Okay, I see the misunderstanding.
Let me back the truck up a little. I made a typo above.
I don't agree with this statement:
"The sense of right and wrong is defined by the society one lives in."
I would agree with this statement:
"What is right and wrong is defined by the society one lives in."
The ability to determine between the two is the hard-wired part. If you drop someone into a society that he knows nothing about, he'll be able to quickly learn what the rules of that society are.
It's very similar to language. Babies aren't born with a language, but they learn the local tongue very quickly. The ability for language is in our genetic code. The ability to understand the complexities of social behavior is similar.
Does that make better sense?
Sam, yes, your comment makes better sense. I still have a problem with the "hard-wired part" as you term it.
As I understand it, you are saying that both the "sense of right and wrong" and language acquisistion skills are genetic.
Now, I would agree that human brains are superb instruments for learning, and have evolved to become so over hundreds of thousands of years. But there's still a huge leap of faith to go from "the brain is good at learning stuff" to "the sense of right and wrong is geneticly based". Yes, humans are good at learning - and should our hypothetical person be dropped into a society, they will _learn_ how to behave. They will _learn_ what is right and what is wrong, in the context of the society they find themselves in.
Ability to learn - I believe that this _is_ genetic. What you learn isn't. And I still maintain that you have to _learn_ from interactions with other people in a particular society what the norms are. Similarly language has to be _learned_.
Here's an IT-based metaphor. A computer system is made up of hardware (linked together by a network). The hardware has developed and evolved over the last thirty or so years. Software packages have been created, and these have also developed in sophistication as time passes. The information processed in these packages has become richer as a result of application maturity. Does this mean that the information has been derived from the hardware (or the software)? I don't think so.
This may not be a particularly apposite metaphor, but hopefully it helps to explain what I'm saying from a different perspective.
Looking forward to reading your next response already!
Cheers
As an added blurb, I was watching a show on the discovery channel about robots and artificial intelligence. One of the theories is that intelligence is a growth out of social behavior, not the other way around.
If I can remember what the name of the show was, I'll post it.