Morality

[alaskaguy]

The online version of Time features an article titled, "What Makes Us Moral?"

Link:
What Makes Us Moral - A to Z Health Guide 2007 - TIME

Excerpts follow:

Our species has a very conflicted sense of when we ought to help someone else and when we ought not, and the general rule is, Help those close to home and ignore those far away. That's in part because the plight of a person you can see will always feel more real than the problems of someone whose suffering is merely described to you. But part of it is also rooted in you from a time when the welfare of your tribe was essential for your survival but the welfare of an opposing tribe was not—and might even be a threat.

Schulman, the psychologist and author, works with delinquent adolescents at a residential treatment center in Yonkers, New York, and was struck one day by the outrage that swept through the place when the residents learned that three of the boys had mugged an elderly woman. "I wouldn't mug an old lady. That could be my grandmother," one said. Schulman asked whom it would be O.K. to mug. The boy answered, "A Chinese delivery guy." Explains Schulman: "The old lady is someone they could empathize with. The Chinese delivery guy is alien, literally and figuratively, to them."

 

[Cyclonepride]

That's an interesting article. It really struggles to maintain it's secular world view. I disagree with the closing comment:

For grossly imperfect creatures like us, morality may be the steepest of all developmental mountains. Our opposable thumbs and big brains gave us the tools to dominate the planet, but wisdom comes more slowly than physical hardware. We surely have a lot of killing and savagery ahead of us before we fully civilize ourselves. The hope—a realistic one, perhaps—is that the struggles still to come are fewer than those left behind.

I really don't think that is possible.

 

[superdorf]

Try the quiz:

The Morality Quiz - TIME

Those are some tough questions.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Those are very tough questions. I'm not sure anyone could answer them honestly without actually being placed in those situations. I would die myself before smothering a baby though, I can tell you that much for sure.

 

[superdorf]

Ya... The smothering baby one was really awful... I don't think I could do that... and if someone in the group did... I thinhk that I would try to stop them.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Tough questions? I don't think so. First, on the trolley scenario, if the guy I have to allegedly push's body will stop the trolley, I think mine would work just as well, and I was raised to sacrifice myself, rather than see someone else suffer.

Second, in the crying baby scenario, I was designed by my God and maker to defend the innocent. I also have a little too much "Irish" in me, which explains why internet discussion forums are normally Not For Me(tm). I really don't have that "huddle and hide in the basement" gene. Enemy soldiers approaching? I see that as an opportunity to "get some". If I die in the attempt, I don't have to watch innocent people die. And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's one less thing to worry about."

Life boat - see my answer to the Trolley scenario. If all it takes is one body to lighten the boat, mine would do, just as easily as the wounded dude.

I guess I don't look to Time magazine as a valid source of morality.

 

[superdorf]

You make valid points doobie... but that wasn't the point of the exercise... How would you answer the questions as presented.

 

[bos]

wow, 100 percent of voters said they could smother the baby? good grief. Yes smother the innocent child who hasnt had a chance at life yet. What is wrong with people. I would go down fighting. there is no way I would smother a child. My life is not greater or worth more than that child. Im sure over the centuries lots of children have died this way. Terrible.

I would hang off of the life boat to save the others, if I lived I lived, if not I guess I would die knowing that they could go home to their families.

 

[iceclone]

These are all classic exercises, and I first remember doing them almost twenty years ago. I answered “could not” to all of them back then, and I’m sticking to it; although I agree that it is hard to know for sure how you react until actually put in that position. I would like to think that I would choose an alternative unselfish action in each case.

 

[bos]

I would like to think that I would choose an alternative unselfish action in each case.

I do too. Its too bad everyone isnt that way. The world would be a better place.

 

[kgreeny]

It seems to me, most of the questions have to do with human surivial. I agree with Herbie, in that I would fight my way out. I understand the the point of the quiz, but most everyone would take option C or D in all those cases. Which is all so an answer on our morality. The theme I see in the questions is, "who would you rather watch die?" And as stated by others, I can't watch anyone. I'm going down fighting, trying to save the others.

 

[Stormin]

Tough questions? I don't think so. First, on the trolley scenario, if the guy I have to allegedly push's body will stop the trolley, I think mine would work just as well, and I was raised to sacrifice myself, rather than see someone else suffer.

Second, in the crying baby scenario, I was designed by my God and maker to defend the innocent. I also have a little too much "Irish" in me, which explains why internet discussion forums are normally Not For Me(tm). I really don't have that "huddle and hide in the basement" gene. Enemy soldiers approaching? I see that as an opportunity to "get some". If I die in the attempt, I don't have to watch innocent people die. And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's one less thing to worry about."

Life boat - see my answer to the Trolley scenario. If all it takes is one body to lighten the boat, mine would do, just as easily as the wounded dude.

I guess I don't look to Time magazine as a valid source of morality.

Defend the innocent? Yet you oppose tax dollars to be spent for nutrition or health care for innocent children and label it as an "income redistribution" scheme. Remarkably inconsistent.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Defend the innocent? Yet you oppose tax dollars to be spent for nutrition or health care for innocent children and label it as an "income redistribution" scheme. Remarkably inconsistent.

I don't think he's referring to nutrition or health care for innocent children as an "income redistribution" scheme as much as certain politicians not doing anything to make sure that certain abusers of the system (such as parents treating having 5+ children with as many fathers just to get to the welfare check as a career) isn't factored out, or, for that matter, is encouraged, is the "income redistribution" scheme.

 

[herbiedoobie]

Defend the innocent? Yet you oppose tax dollars to be spent for nutrition or health care for innocent children and label it as an "income redistribution" scheme. Remarkably inconsistent.

Actually, remarkably consistent. It's YOU that doesn't "get it".

Stormin, I give 10% of my gross income to selected charities, most of which involve feeding innocent children. (As best as I can determine, and I do the background research to determine that it goes TO the kids.)

There is a definite difference between "giving to the poor" and voting to have the government stick a gun in my face to STEAL my money, to pay the 5 to 6 figure income of the bureaucrat who administers a program that is intended to help that welfare mom or dad free up more money in their budget for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets.

Gee, Stormin, what percentage of YOUR income do you give to the poor/charities? And to assuage your bleeding heart, upper-middle class white guilt, I was raised under the poverty line, and, because of an injury, for 5-7 years, I raised a family of four at or under the government definition of poverty. WITHOUT government assistance.

 

[herbiedoobie]

You make valid points doobie... but that wasn't the point of the exercise... How would you answer the questions as presented.

I would answer that the questions are wrong. And that they questions do not represent "morality" at all. In fact, the exercise is an attempt to SUBVERT morality by the morally vacant.

My snide comment about the jerkoffs who write these kind of questions not understanding what morality IS was my initial, and final answer.

 

[iceclone]

I would answer that the questions are wrong. And that they questions do not represent "morality" at all. In fact, the exercise is an attempt to SUBVERT morality by the morally vacant.

My snide comment about the jerkoffs who write these kind of questions not understanding what morality IS was my initial, and final answer.

I think this is more a case of a journalist taking the questions out of context, rather than the people who come up with them being "jerkoffs." Specifically, there is a context to these questions where they are much more interesting.

The first time I encountered them they were posed while we were studying utilitarianism. Indeed, in the context of evaluating utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine, I find that these questions provide a solid starting point for discussion.

 

[neo]

Actually, remarkably consistent. It's YOU that doesn't \"get it\".

Stormin, I give 10% of my gross income to selected charities, most of which involve feeding innocent children. (As best as I can determine, and I do the background research to determine that it goes TO the kids.)

There is a definite difference between \"giving to the poor\" and voting to have the government stick a gun in my face to STEAL my money, to pay the 5 to 6 figure income of the bureaucrat who administers a program that is intended to help that welfare mom or dad free up more money in their budget for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

If anybody is truly concerned about the welfare, no pun intended, of the lower and middle class, I humbly suggest you watch this video all personal politics aside. This is something nobody talks about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s]YouTube - Ron Paul : House of Cards[/ame]

 

[Stormin]

Actually, remarkably consistent. It's YOU that doesn't "get it".

Stormin, I give 10% of my gross income to selected charities, most of which involve feeding innocent children. (As best as I can determine, and I do the background research to determine that it goes TO the kids.)

There is a definite difference between "giving to the poor" and voting to have the government stick a gun in my face to STEAL my money, to pay the 5 to 6 figure income of the bureaucrat who administers a program that is intended to help that welfare mom or dad free up more money in their budget for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol and lottery tickets.

Gee, Stormin, what percentage of YOUR income do you give to the poor/charities? And to assuage your bleeding heart, upper-middle class white guilt, I was raised under the poverty line, and, because of an injury, for 5-7 years, I raised a family of four at or under the government definition of poverty. WITHOUT government assistance.

Give me a list of your charities they sound like fine places to donate money.

Not all government program recipients spend their money on drugs and alcohol. In fact I would suggest it would be a minority. Probably about the same percentage as those who benefit from charitable giving.

And I have yet to have the government stick a gun in my face to steal my money.

You have a lot of hostility there buddy. Slow down. The Lord loves a cheerful giver. As far as deciding how our taxes are spent. Why don't you pay for this God awful War with your taxes. I'll use my taxes to take care of the poor and needy. P*sses me off that the Government steals my money to start pre-emptive wars and kill lots of innocent Iraqi citizens.

 

[neo]

And I have yet to have the government stick a gun in my face to steal my money.

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

 

[Stormin]

What happens if you don't pay your taxes?

They would send you a letter informing you that you owe a certain amount of tax and probably some interest with a penalty. They would not stick a gun in your face.