| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
Morality in isolation, part 2
It is now almost 30 years that I last saw the book "Lord of The Flies", and my memory of it is getting a bit vague. I hope I have not forgotten any crucial points.
> To clarify, a man is said moral or immoral only judging his behaviour towards other men.
Perhaps I have used a different definition for "moral". I would include in it also conscience, covering the cases about how a single person behaves towards himself.
There is also a difference in Euro-American and Oriental cultures here: my Japanese wife told me that western moral control is based on conscience and eastern one on shame in front of the public. This provided, I would expect different attitude from these two cultures, when their people live long time in solitude.
> For example, one cannot do anything he wants in society because there is always obstacles, [...] In nature there is not such a constraint,
This is true, too, but I do not think it tells the whole story of morality. Morality may arise also from internal needs and longings.
A group separated from a large society may deteriorate morally, but the opposite is also possible. In a totalitarian, completely rotten state governed by a mad dictator people may choose to escape in wilderness to live a more healthy life, and I would presume that their moral is better that that of the society they left. On the other hand, criminals and immoral people appear also in the middle of the society, and the culture is unable to rescue them from their immorality.
Continued...
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Morality in isolation, part 1
> Regarding your example of a man lost in the middle of wilderness, I doubt that he still use morality.
It is admittedly true that a person in solitude does not use morality for interaction, and therefore his morality has no social dimensions. However, he still carries with him his education and past life, which may make him obliged to follow some code of morality so that he does not become ashamed of himself. A devout protector of animals might hesitate to kill animals even if no human being would ever see him to kill one, and even in the case that the animal would be convenient for him as food. Some other person might come to another conclusion with his own morality, though.
This ingrained morality (among other reasons) keeps us humane when we live outside society. In children its shielding effect would be weaker than in adults.
However, I am a little bit off-point here, because I understand now that you are discussing of isolated groups rather than isolated persons. I will continue in part 2...
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
I think it's a lot of both. I think most of us have lost it, because it is no longer a survival skill. I think that we can get it back, to a limited extent through concerted exercise, and I think that that will be a lot easier for some of us than for others. I have done some acting myself, and I think I'm pretty good at memorizing lines. I think if I had started 20 years ago as a storyteller, I'd certainly be pretty adept at it by now. I don't know how many epic length poems I could keep all in my head at the same time.
Puti wrote:
Is this because we really have lost the capacity, or because we just do not exercise it? A year or so ago I saw a long play performed by two actors speaking all the time. I am still amazed at their endless capacity to memorize all their complicated lines in a limited time.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:A possible interpreting.
> You seem to base your argument on a specific example: those people living out of any civilization. However, those communities, wether they are mere families, made of a couple and his son, or a some ten individuals tribe, are civilizations.
What I was thinking was actually a middle-aged man living completely alone in his hut among wilderness, visiting inhabited areas once in a year or so, only for reasons like buying rifle cartridges. Such people have no other physically present authority than the nature, and therefore they are free to follow any moral code they may wish. However, extended periods in loneliness do not seem to impair their humanity.
> In Golding's book, the boys are not linked by nothing, [...] This crucial point explains that they do not feel a real common interest, or duty among them, [...]
In such case I would even think about the opposite: the trouble began because they stayed in a tight group, without the maturity required for social life. They were exposed to each others' ambitions and the social games of acception and rejection, resulting in typical formation of gangs, mobs, and mini-tribes. Had they had better tools for survival, some of them might have done better each one in his own solitude.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus Animals: a theory...(1)
> The human being plans his future, establishes several schemes of life; he is a being who has to become something. On the other hand, animals are already what they will be during their entire life and they just struggle to maintain their states.
Male apes often devise long and complex campaigns to gain the position of the group leader. Jane Goodall even told about a chimpanzee stealing man-made things to make an impression to the others.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 3
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Mankind versus apes
One question remains: why has mankind lost his instinct? [...] Following this idea, we can explain the wakeup of morality in mankind, a concept alien to animals which cannot compare each other since they believe that they all belong to the same entity: Nature.
Researchers are surprised again and again as they see the complex behavior of apes, reminding them of human morality and the human ways of breaking the morality. Apes are known to sacrifice their own good even in uncontrolled situations, which have been taken as a proof of deep social sense. They can also view themselves as with an outsider's eye so that they are able to fake in convincing ways. This probably also requires thinking that extends beyond the immediate future.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
> One question remains: why has mankind lost his instinct? [...] While tasks became more and more numerous and precise, men became aware of their unicity and of their identities too, first linked with their tasks., which introduced in themselves the faculty of comparison. Comparing each other, men developped their minds and turned the instinct into an obsolete thing.
Instincts have not necessarily disappeared completely. They may still exist, but may just be buried under the large and complex system of intellect. Man's ability of thought may keep him too busy to notice that he still has instincts, and he also may override his instincts by his decisions of intellect. However, at less busy moments the instincts may reappear briefly to affect his behavior.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
> In literate cultures, since we have a system of written language, that kind of memory is no longer important, and predictably, we no longer have anything like the kind of memory capacity that is taken for granted in oral traditions.
Is this because we really have lost the capacity, or because we just do not exercise it? A year or so ago I saw a long play performed by two actors speaking all the time. I am still amazed at their endless capacity to memorize all their complicated lines in a limited time.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 29, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Mankind versus animals: a theory... (2)
Arnaud, I'm sure you're exactly right.
As Darwin points out, the most surviveable characteristics are always those that are promoted, while those which are no longer necessary drop out of society. A perfect example of this is evident when you compare pre-literate cultures with literate ones.
In oral cultures, all stories must be memorized, and the ability to tell stories well is highly prized. In literate cultures, since we have a system of written language, that kind of memory is no longer important, and predictably, we no longer have anything like the kind of memory capacity that is taken for granted in oral traditions.
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Mark S.
August 27, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: August 29, 2005
|
Re:Answer, part 1
> First, you would like to abolish the right to abort. Abortion in itself is not a bad thing, but it depends on the way people use it. Thus, would you like to abolish abortion, and then what kind of solution would you bring to women who have been raped and find themselves pregnant?
I think that legislation is an inefficient tool to solve the abortion problems, which should rather be dealt with at the point where they originate: we should create a society where people do not even think about violating each others' intimacy with raping or other crimes, and think about sexuality and procreation in the scope of decades and centuries. That should make abortions very rare and the remaining cases easier to solve.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 24, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: August 24, 2005
|
