Then how do you explain the fact that literally every act we consider moral has a parallel in the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting this is just coincidence? — Pseudonym

Que?

I thought it was quite a simple question. You said that our instinctual drives contain nothing of substance morally and yet those same drives in animals seem to produce all the behaviours we consider moral. We do not carry out any behaviour labelled 'moral' that is not carried out by some species of animal driven, presumably, by those same instinctual drives you've dismissed as empty. I was just wondering how you explained the coincidence.

I thought it was quite a simple question. You said that our instinctual drives contain nothing of substance morally and yet those same drives in animals seem to produce all the behaviours we consider moral. We do not carry out any behaviour labelled 'moral' that is not carried out by some species of animal driven, presumably, by those same instinctual drives you've dismissed as empty. I was just wondering how you explained the coincidence. — Pseudonym

Perhaps the reason why I have not explained this contrast is because I do not believe animals have moral agency. Instinctual behaviour for evolutionary purposes that necessitates "good" behaviour is not the same as being able to display empathy.

I understand what it is you believe, I'm trying to get at why you believe it in spite of what seems to me to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If rational consideration lead to some conclusion that instinctive drives never reached, then we would have an argument that rationality was necessarily involved in moral action, but that is not what we see.

Every behaviour we think of as moral - helping those in need, defending what is just, sacrificing our own well-being for the benefit of others... These are all behaviours which can be seen in the animal kingdom and so, presumably, all behaviours which derive from instinctive drives.

What I'm confused about is why, in the face of such evidence, you feel our own moral behaviour, which looks identical to that found in the animal kingdom, requires some special explanation. We are animals, animals have instinctively motivated behaviours which 'look' moral, why the need to invoke anything other than the simplest explanation that our morals derive from the same place?

Every behaviour we think of as moral - helping those in need, defending what is just, sacrificing our own well-being for the benefit of others... These are all behaviours which can be seen in the animal kingdom and so, presumably, all behaviours which derive from instinctive drives. — Pseudonym

Animals may display behaviours that one could assume to be moral, but they do not posses the same cognitive capacity to transcend to a level of autonomy that human beings can; we are merely projecting our experience of empathy to their behaviour. They are not aware of themselves because they do not have consciousness, and most importantly do not have language, both of which is necessary to attain any sense of moral consciousness. The key difference is feeling and what gives us 'humanity' or a 'soul' is our ability to love and love is not merely remaining with the same mate and being faithful. When I say our behaviour is instinctual, it is blindly identifying to behavioural norms and therefore there is no authenticity in our motives or will that enables a sense of autonomy, not just the evolutionary behaviour that compels us to act a certain way.

they do not posses the same cognitive capacity to transcend to a level of autonomy that human beings can — TimeLine

How do you know this?

They are not aware of themselves because they do not have consciousness — TimeLine

How do you know this?

[language is] necessary to attain any sense of moral consciousness — TimeLine

How are you deriving this?

what gives us 'humanity' or a 'soul' is our ability to love — TimeLine

How do you know animals are incapable of love?

If you don't want to explain how you arrived at your beliefs, that's fine we'll just leave it there, but what you've provided here is not an argument it's just a series of unfounded assertions.

Tangent to the debate, but closer to the title, have a look at this.

My interpretation of this is that the form, as distinct from the content, of the education system is such as to instil conformity, fear of standing out or being wrong, an obsession with 'right answers', competition and not cooperation, and this has a pathological effect that is normal to the extent of being almost universal. And it doesn't make for contented people either.

I started a thread to explore being/having some time ago, but my mind got stuck. While I felt like I had the gist of the distinction, where I was stuck was with notions of character orientation, modes of being, and so forth. I'm still stuck there now, else I would have replied to my own thread by now :D.

Why does autonomy, authenticity have to lead to moral behavior? — T Clark

It is psychological and while I understand the metaphysical considerations, being moral cannot be performed without consciousness, that our instinctual drives or impluses contain nothing of substance and as such conformity is acting on impluse; you do 'good' because that is what you are told and because that is what is expected and not because you consciously will to act. — TimeLine

Then how do you explain the fact that literally every act we consider moral has a parallel in the animal kingdom? Are you suggesting this is just coincidence? — Pseudonym

The issue here, I think, is the question of where we derive moral principles from. Let's say that humanity has produced, with conscious minds, certain moral codes, ethics which ought to be followed by the individuals who apprehend these principles with their conscious minds. We define being moral as adherence to these principles.

The question is where does the human mind derive these principles from. If we do not get them from intuition, instinct, and therefore what is proper to the entire biological realm, then the principles are completely artificial, "inauthentic" you might say. The individual conscious minds will not be inclined to adhere to these principles, because intuition and instinct will be motivating them in a different direction. So if conformity is what is desired from moral principles, it is necessary to have moral principles which individuals desire to conform to.

This distinctness is really the cognitive capacity to rationalise and reason with common sense, but central to this prospect is the autonomy that wills such agency, so it is not really about the separate and unique body that we possess - aside from the health of your brain - neither is it entirely our formative and unique childhood but autonomy is the motive or will that we possess that gives us the capacity to regulate our own behaviour and therefore legitimacy or authenticity to our moral actions; it is moral actions that make us human or good. There needs to be some sort of grounding, though, in this will or autonomy and that is our rational capacity where the mind regulates our decisions and opinions and therefore the obstacles that we face are psychological. We need to overcome these obstacles that enables this continuity of irrational behaviour, such as self-defence mechanisms, fear, negative childhood experiences, self-esteem etc &c., and it doesn't help that these vulnerabilities we possess advantageously complicate the process of transcendence, the latter of which is possible cognitively or psychological and not mystical. — TimeLine

I see a real problem with this perspective. If we ground morality, "what is good", with rationality, and allow rationality to dictate on this, without reference to intuition and instinct, presupposing that consciousness has the capacity to regulate our behaviour in this way, we run the risk of creating a divide between "what we ought to do" according to the rational mind, and "what we can do", according to the rational mind's natural capacity to regulate. Therefore the real grounding needs to be intuition and instinct, the human being's natural disposition.


That's very much to the point. Notice that in Plato's Republic, Socrates defines "just" in a manner which is very much opposed to conformity. Socrates' notion of just is that every individual be allowed to do one's own thing, which is particular to that individual, without being interfered with by others. To be just is to mind one's own business, and the just society seeks to promote the unique strengths of each individual, rather than seeking conformity.

If you take a look at the history of moral principles, the evolution of "ethics" is away from rules of conformity, towards the freedom to do what one determines as good. For example, the Old Testament had ten commandments of what not to do, the new has one golden rule of what one ought to do.

To be clear about 'the problem,' I think about it from an individual's point of view. For some individuals, there must always be a social problem as a prop for their role. As I see it, life is difficult sometimes even for the relatively enlightened. Also, social problems are often directly related to individual freedom. If we want freedom, we will pay for it by tolerating the freedom of others (to be stupid, etc., by our lights.) So the 'broken' world is a mirror of our broken selves (our own ambivalence as complicated creatures.) — foo

I have no problem with the general idea of what you are presenting here, although I don't think the world is broken. You haven't been around long enough to know I am the sweetness and light philosopher on the forum. I think using the phrase "relatively enlightened" in reference to us, I assume, is pretty presumptuous and disrespectful to those you consider relatively unenlightened.

Anyway - I recognize the value and importance of people living by their true natures whether you call that autonomy, independence, authenticity, or self-reliance. I agree that there can be personal problems associated with living one's life to meet the expectations of others. I have personal experience with that. As far as social problems, go, I agree that a society that teaches and supports autonomy is better, more humane than one that does not. In that regard, I think inauthenticity is more a symptom than a cause.

My real problem is with the inclusion of a moral dimension to this issue. People are responsible for their behavior, not for whether or not their internal life meets my standards.

I'll grant that we carry virtual societies within ourselves, and that selves are largely constructed in relation to and dependent upon other selves. Nevertheless, I think you can see the continuum I'm pointing at. In short, I think that people can indeed more or less authentic, which is roughly to say more or less flowing, trusting, uncensored. — foo

This is a very humane way of looking at this issue.

the just society seeks to promote the unique strengths of each individual, rather than seeking conformity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism that plagues us at the moment is a false one. Difference does not entail conflict, individuality does not entail selfishness and antisocial attitudes, cooperation does not require coercion or conformity.

It is psychological and while I understand the metaphysical considerations, being moral cannot be performed without consciousness, that our instinctual drives or impluses contain nothing of substance and as such conformity is acting on impluse; you do 'good' because that is what you are told and because that is what is expected and not because you consciously will to act. — TimeLine

There is a third choice - you do good because you feel empathy for others and want them to be happy and safe because you are a person of good will. Because you care for people. That is not a rational or willful process. It's from the heart, not the mind. You don't have to be self-aware to be good. If someone comes to moral behavior by this path, would you reject that because it doesn't involve reason and will?

It is rational thought or reason that gives us the capacity to structure our phenomenal experiences and even if there are properties that transcend this, accessing objects through spatial and temporal representations is a sensibility that allows us to understand and experience and that is all that really matters. Everything - being your identification to and experience with the external world - requires rational clarity. — TimeLine

I'm not sure if this is intended as statement of psychological fact or metaphysics. If it's a statement of fact, I strongly disagree. If it's a statement of metaphysics, I don't find it a useful, helpful way to think about people.

All that is necessary is focusing on our moral behaviour. Indeed, the metaphysical realm or intuitive consciousness is valuable and perhaps the subconscious allows us to explore concepts, nevertheless we bound by the conditions of sensibility. — TimeLine

I see things exactly the opposite. For me, what you call "intuitive consciousness" is our true self. Reason, self-consciousness, will are just stories we tell ourselves and others about who we are and why we do what we do. The stories are useful. They help us transmit our internal lives to others. They can provide us feedback, guidance on the consequences of our behavior and how to do things better. On the other hand, they can be a source of inauthenticity because people don't recognize the map is not the terrain, the story is not the truth.

The question is where does the human mind derive these principles from. If we do not get them from intuition, instinct, and therefore what is proper to the entire biological realm, then the principles are completely artificial, "inauthentic" you might say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Looking inside myself, what you say about the source of moral behavior is correct. That doesn't mean I reject a more rational approach such as Kant's. It just doesn't describe me and many, perhaps most, others. My only objection is in stating that the rational approach is the only valid way to behave morally.

My interpretation of this is that the form, as distinct from the content, of the education system is such as to instil conformity, fear of standing out or being wrong, an obsession with 'right answers', competition and not cooperation, and this has a pathological effect that is normal to the extent of being almost universal. And it doesn't make for contented people either. — unenlightened

The study described seems pretty bogus. I can't judge for sure without seeing a better description of the study. Was there a control group? That would be difficult. On the other hand, I don't disagree with your statements about the educational system.

When I was 17 I read "Freedom, not License," a book by A.S. Neill. Neill ran the Summerhill School in the UK. The school was set up so that children were not required to attend class. Some never did over periods of years. The children voted on school rules and policy on all but the most critical issues. The book had a big influence on my understanding of how society forms children to fit in.

It would be extremely interesting to do a control study on children from Summerhill, and that's about the nearest you could get to controlling for education system. In the meantime, finding that a test for anything that Nasa finds important that kids can do that much better than adults is quite striking. I may well be over-interpreting above, but I don't think there is much 'bogus'. Did you watch the vid?

It would be extremely interesting to do a control study on children from Summerhill, and that's about the nearest you could get to controlling for education system. In the meantime, finding that a test for anything that Nasa finds important that kids can do that much better than adults is quite striking. I may well be over-interpreting above, but I don't think there is much 'bogus'. Did you watch the vid? — unenlightened

I didn't, but now I have. It's better than the article. Makes me think there might be something there, but it's a TED Talks type explanation. Big, general, facile thoughts with few details. I'll say the same thing I did before - I don't disagree with the general theme, but I'd like to see more detail about the specific study. How was it run? By whom? How rigorous was the set up? How well did they control for outside influences? What percentage of the kids tested at 5 were retested at 12? I'd like to see the questionairre. I'd like to see how the data was analyzed. What was the ethnic, gender, economic status of the participants. What type of school were they in? Were they all in the same school? Was there a difference between different schools and different types of schools. What does "genius" mean? How was test scored. If participants were given numerical scores, what was the distribution? Averages? What was the difference between average scores in the different age groups? What is the relationship between divergent thinking and creativity? Intelligence?

I can think of more. These are not nitpicking or trivial questions. These are the types of questions you ask about scientific studies.

Summerhill used to be famous. Now most people haven't heard of it. Had you heard of it before?

Summerhill used to be famous. Now most people haven't heard of it. Had you heard of it before. — T Clark

Oh yes. I read Neill at uni and was involved with the free school movement and the British home schooling organisation. So I am firmly partisan on this issue. But have some scholarly research on me.

Oh yes. I read Neill at uni and was involved with the free school movement and the British home schooling organisation. So I am firmly partisan on this issue. But have some scholarly research on me. — unenlightened

As I said, his book had a big influence on me. It was the first time I ever came across the idea of psychology. That there is something to study. I'm sure I'd heard of it before, but it never registered till "Summerhill."

Oh yes. I read Neill at uni and was involved with the free school movement and the British home schooling organisation. So I am firmly partisan on this issue. But have some scholarly research on me. — unenlightened

Later in life, I came across a book called "Summerhill, for and Against." It was a series of essays by prominent education theorists. Two things surprised me 1) the venom with which conservative essayists hated Summerhill and its ideals and 2) the extent to which the liberal writers understated the radical nature of what Neill had done. They seemed to want to class it as a rather tame educational reform instead of as a revolution.

Two things surprised me 1) the venom with which conservative essayists hated Summerhill and its ideals and 2) the extent to which the liberal writers understated the radical nature of what Neill had done. — T Clark

Well they go together. Someone says you're ruining the children in your care and bringing up ignorant monsters, so you want to say - it's really not that bad.

But it is scary. While I was working at Leeds Free School, I started to worry - kids not learning to read at 11 or 12 yrs. Were we messing their lives up? It was years later, coming back to find these ex-pupils had made something of their lives, that I was reassured. These were already excluded kids that were one step from reform school or prison, and I found a girl who preferred football in the street had decided to get some qualifications and become a physical ed teacher, another lad had rejected his older brother's violent lifestyle in favour of a job on the railways and a mortgage. And these were the dregs of society being taught by dole- scroungers like me with no pay or qualifications using scrounged materials in a semi-derelict and condemned house. Rather different from the rich brats at fee-paying Summerhill.

I think using the phrase "relatively enlightened" in reference to us, I assume, is pretty presumptuous and disrespectful to those you consider relatively unenlightened. — T Clark

I understand your objection, but it seems to me that the very notion of philosophy is hierarchical. If there is something to be learned from life with the help of books, then those who have partially learned this 'it' are 'relatively enlightened.'

If we look at the context of our conversation (this thread that diagnosis a culture rather than an individual), we see an example of a structure common on internet forums. A poster objects to some kind of broken-ness of the world and suggests a cure. This is implicitly parental, metaphorically speaking. For what it's worth, I try to be especially aware of what is presumed in the projection of problems and solutions. I'm especially interested in what the form of communication says about the communication which is not made explicit within or by that communication.

A simple example might be what the grading structure of the university class says that the lectures do not say. An instructor might verbally emphasize the importance of X, while the silent grading structure sends a second and dominating message to the shrewd students who see through the sentimentalities about pure knowledge to their economic situation in the world at large. The 'A' they seek is itself a tool to be put to use. The instructor is essentially an 'A'-dispensing machine that has to be understood and operating correctly. This is not the whole truth, but it's the 'ugly' part of the truth of the communicative situation. Similarly, the 'ugly' part of the world-diagonising and world-curing pose is the implicit assertion of the world-fixer's superior 'spiritual' or 'moral' status.

I'm not offended, but even your lines quoted above imply your moral superiority to those who imply their moral superiority (to me, for instance). From my point of view, the quest for moral superiority is a fact of life like digestion. What varies is the understanding of what constitutes this superiority.

This distinctness is really the cognitive capacity to rationalise and reason with common sense — TimeLine

It seems to me that being reasonable is a learned, virtuous conformity.

but central to this prospect is the autonomy that wills such agency, so it is not really about the separate and unique body that we possess - aside from the health of your brain - neither is it entirely our formative and unique childhood but autonomy is the motive or will that we possess that gives us the capacity to regulate our own behaviour and therefore legitimacy or authenticity to our moral actions; it is moral actions that make us human or good. — TimeLine

Ideally, I may agree. But I can't follow this downplaying of the body. We are just such social, sensual creatures that a healthy brain in body that is considered ugly will likely lead to a very different formative childhood than a healthy brain in a body that is considered beautiful. I think we are like plants that develop in the direction of recognition.

Second point: Is there not a tension between autonomy and 'moral' actions? If I am incarnate autonomous reason, I may decide that my culture at large is wrong about some issue. I may decide that some kind of prohibited violence is actually good and even a duty. Those who proscribe such actions while celebrating autonomy will presumably do so in the name of 'reason.' But this is to deny autonomy or to identity it with the incarnation of reason. But then who gets to speak in the name of reason? We are back to the same situation. Autonomy with any bite is dangerous. An autonomous person is not easily persuaded by the claims of those who identify either with God's will or universal reason (variants of the basic idea of authority.)

I understand your objection, but it seems to me that the very notion of philosophy is hierarchical. If there is something to be learned from life with the help of books, then those who have partially learned this 'it' are 'relatively enlightened.' — foo

I think that's only (potentially) true if I agree that book larnin' is the only path to moral behavior, which is the whole point I've been arguing against in this discussion.

I'm not offended, but even your lines quoted above imply your moral superiority to those who imply their moral superiority (to me, for instance). From my point of view, the quest for moral superiority is a fact of life like digestion. What varies is the understanding of what constitutes this superiority. — foo

Really? Me civilly and respectfully objecting to something you've written is a claim of moral superiority on my part? Sorry. That's pretty silly. There is no "quest for moral superiority." I'm just trying to be a good person.

And these were the dregs of society being taught by dole- scroungers like me with no pay or qualifications using scrounged materials in a semi-derelict and condemned house. Rather different from the rich brats at fee-paying Summerhill. — unenlightened

As someone with much more credibility than I have on this subject, where do you stand now on the goals and success of the free school movement. Was it a good idea that could be made to work on a larger scale or pie-in-the-sky idealism that can't be maintained in the long run? Or something else?

I may decide that my culture at large is wrong about some issue. I may decide that some kind of prohibited violence is actually good and even a duty. Those who proscribe such actions while celebrating autonomy will presumably do so in the name of 'reason.' — foo

In reading the Stanford Dictionary reference TL sent, I got the impression that Kant believed that the application of reason and will would lead to a universal morality about which there would be no disagreements among rational people. Am I wrong about that?

where do you stand now — T Clark

Well my experience is very limited and close-up, so it is only anecdotal. It was definitely pie in the sky, and also remarkably successful given the circumstances. The difficulty with education is that it is always an unethical experiment for the results of which one has to wait about 20 years. There was a move in the general direction of 'freedom' advised by the Plowden report, in the early 60's. But there is a fundamental difficulty with such top down policy moves, that they expect the same smacking and shouting teachers to implement the new 'child-centred' policy. what resulted was a sort of covert war of manipulation between teachers and children which continues to this day. It's like expecting the Conservative party to run the NHS - but literally, wiping up the blood and performing the operations. :yikes:

From what I remember, I think that was the hope. But I could never take Kant seriously on ethics. I've always related to being more of a realist than a dreamer.

I associate reliable knowledge with a kind of neutrality. I trust those who are more invested in being correct or objective than in supporting a righteous position. In my experience, the 'righteous' tend to 'forget' inconvenient facts and remember convenient facts. Moreover, it's not hard to justify a white lie if the enemy is pure evil or if the battle must be won at all costs.

This has been a really interesting discussion. The idea that being authentic, autonomous has a moral dimension is really alien to me. I don't mean weird or inhuman, just that it is so different from the way I think about these things. I can see the point, and probably believe, that authenticity can lead to moral behavior, but, as far as I can tell, that's not what Kant was saying. It almost seems like original sin - I'm condemned for who I am, not what I do.

I've been struggling with this issue for a while now. This discussion helped make it clearer for me.

My interpretation of this is that the form, as distinct from the content, of the education system is such as to instil conformity, fear of standing out or being wrong, an obsession with 'right answers', competition and not cooperation, and this has a pathological effect that is normal to the extent of being almost universal. And it doesn't make for contented people either. — unenlightened

This is a contemporary outlook on Rousseau and it is interesting the "creative" here is the mode of being Fromm discusses, namely that by being creative, to have an active inner life and to express this faculty outward, symbolises this cognitive potentiality but that the system continuously tempts us further and further away from ourselves.

"In contemporary society the having mode of existence is assumed to be rooted in human nature and, hence, virtually unchangeable. The same idea is expressed in the dogma that people are basically lazy, passive by nature, and that they do not want to work or to do anything else, unless they are driven by the incentive of material gain, or hunger, or the fear of punishment... These considerations seem to indicate that both tendencies are present in human beings; the one, to have - to possess - that owes its strength in the last analysis to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other, to be - to share, to give, to sacrifice - that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherent need to overcome one's isolation by oneness with others."

My real problem is with the inclusion of a moral dimension to this issue. People are responsible for their behavior, not for whether or not their internal life meets my standards. — T Clark

You are still not getting it and it is pretty profound considering I guided you to the most basic literature on the subject. Authenticity is not a standard.