"Super Science Headache Time" or "A Question About Morality And Emotions"

[Seil]

So I want to study four things: sociology, philosophy, biology and theology. Why? Because I've finally figured out how to phrase... some sort of question:

From a purely biological viewpoint, a predator is right to defend its most recent kill, claiming the food for itself and its young. However, this is seen in todays society as a faux pas, refusing someone because of apparent selfishness or greed. The greed and selfishness bits we would attribute to a antagonist theological figure, or as a part of ourselves that should be controlled or expunged.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, there's the man who shares everything he's got. Societally philanthropic. This leaves him with less: less food, less money, less time... everything that from a biological standpoint would leave the hypothetical "him" at the mercy of the wilds, at more of a risk of being picked off by any other predator.

The thing that I find fascinating is that the logical question from all of this is "At what point did we change our baser natures and how did we accomplish that?" Arthur C. Clarke mentions that it is "yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." And then the question above brings all sorts of other things arise from that, such as the adoption and adaptation of a justice system. How did what we view as "positive" moral aspirations become the social norm?

It's a good thing to donate to a charity. Why is that? Why are humans hard wired to try to react to the suffering of another person or creature, and want to help at a personal cost of time or money? Well, going back to biology, neuroscience talks about "mirror neurons." These neurons were discovered in the 1990's by Italian scientists, and are responsible, it seems, for empathy. They allow you to sympathize - when you see a person stub their toe or bang their head, you wince along with them. It's because the neuron in your brain reacts the their stimuli.

It's a little weird that your heartstrings are being pulled in your head, I think.

Studies on human nature, especially when said nature differs from the collective norm is amazing to me. (And especially since this collective norm apparently only applies to one species on the whole of the world.) Why is morality? A poorly worded question my English professor would throw a fit about. But maybe I'm over thinking it. Maybe we are what we are because through the thousands of years that we've (in our sapien form, at least) been around, we've decided that it's nicer to be nice.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Evolutionary psychology is pretty scientifically bankrupt with a good majority of the field revolving around story-telling that you can use to judge pretty much anything.
Pretty much the only thing we can say for certain is "human nature" is incredibly fluid. We can also trace the origin of lots of "moral" things, like the onset of communities, the codification of rules of behaviour and justice for trangressors, as well as changes to more monogomy and child rearing behaviours. But for why they happened, who knows?
Old father time.

[Krylo]

Man is a social animal. Other social animals share and defend what's theirs on a balance that is, mostly, good for the greater pack as well.

Wolves, ants, lions, etc.

[Doc ock rokc]

The question on morals can like barrel said be traced back to the founding of communities/religions. They are developed over the from the rules of a community.

The whole thing on empathy though has to come from our base sociological pack instinct rather then mirror neurons. Mirror neurons are not really our empathic centers but rather the parts of our brain that do "monkey see monkey do" its the reason why you have the urge to try martial arts after watching a jacky chan flick.

[Amake]

Adam Smith said, "How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it." Which is the same thing you've figured out for yourself here, Seil, except with less commas. I don't think it's important to understand why we are this way, beyond the obvious. It's the same reason why we have two eyes instead of one: We work better that way.

Question it if you must, but to my mind it only matters that you don't forget it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I went to see Adam Smith's grave in Edinburgh. I pissed on it. Let that be a lesson how much we should listen to Adam Smith.

[Seil]

Yes, Barrel, but you'd piss on the grave of the dude who cut in front of you in line, or the waiter that mixed up your order, or the trash collector who didn't grab your garbage when you set it out.

...You're a strange man, is what I'm saying.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

I went to see Adam Smith's grave in Edinburgh. I pissed on it. Let that be a lesson how much we should listen to Adam Smith.

The only moral I learned from this story is don't let Smarty near graveyards.

[Magus]

Smarty is the descendant of the guy who invented pissing on the Blarney Stone, probably.

I'm not sure humans are as empathic as you think, Seil. Plenty seem plenty opposed to any kind of charitable giving at all, regularly spitting on beggars, pushing blind people down stairs, etc. Some are even sociopaths, serial killers, rapists, etc. That's not to say there aren't plenty of empathic people but this idea that we are hardwired to be empathic seems pretty off to me. Your environment and upbringing are going to be massively responsible for how you treat others. Genetics are such a tiny part of the puzzle--it is supposed that humans are genetically hardwired to live in groups, because living in a group gave those who lived in a group an advantage to survive long enough to pass on their genes. BUT there are plenty of lone wolves out there, too.

Something you might be interested in was a scientific study about charitable giving. Respondents were given two scenarios:

1. Women on the other side of the world are being sold into sex slavery. For only 1000 dollars, a charitable organization will buy a slave and free her from bondage. There is 100% documented proof they are successful in freeing slaves 100% of the time, given the cash. Would you donate a thousand dollars to save one of these women?

2. A woman is drowning in a lake as you watch. You are wearing an expensive, 1000 dollar suit. What do you do?

Respondents were much more likely to dive into the lake to save the drowning woman than they were to donate money to free a sex slave, even though the monetary cost was the same. Apparently these questions in conjunction with some others shows that people are more concerned about helping people they can see or are in the presence off than they are in helping faceless people on the other side of the planet, even though both are as documented to be in danger as the other.

Said study's results were probably questionable but you know, food for thought.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Magus

Respondents were much more likely to dive into the lake to save the drowning woman than they were to donate money to free a sex slave, even though the monetary cost was the same.

Actually, it's not. In the second scenario they have already spent $1000 on a suit. That money is gone. They now have an article of clothing that has been devalued through use and they'd be lucky to get a hundred dollars out of if they were to sell it back. In order for it to be an equal monetary cost one would have to ABSOLUTELY NEED that suit to the point that they would have to immediately replace it with another $1000 suit.

Else monetary cost is different, or at least diffused over whatever time period they might need to save money to buy a new suit.

Further, there's more at play than just whether they can see the person. In the former it's a charitable organization, this brings up all kinds of unconscious assumptions, but the one that's mostly going to play into these results is the fact that an organization means there's a shit ton of people involved, and it's a GLOBAL organization meaning they're asking for money probably globally. That means there's around seven billion people worth of diffused responsibility involved.

That is to say, it's easy to justify not spending the $1000 because, hey, someone else will. Which is also why people stand around and watch someone get stabbed to death when any one of them could have potentially stopped it, much less so many of them. Everyone is waiting for someone else to take responsibility. It's a known psychological issue.

In the drowning scenario we're left with 'we see this woman drowning' and not told that it's a busy beach or anything else. It makes it feel like we're the only person who CAN save her, thus we MUST. Blah blah etc. etc.

Further, it's unlikely you'll get an accurate assessment out of asking people hypotheticals. Would you jump into water to save a drowning woman? Most people are going to say yes even if they wouldn't were they actually there, and some people are going to say no who WOULD if they were actually there.

That said: yes, people are more likely to stick their necks out on the line for someone they can see. This isn't going to show up in a study accurately, however, because it's an instinctual gut reaction, not something people really THINK about. It has to do with having to actually see it happening and how that affects us mentally and emotionally as opposed to being told something is happening, and as a study can only tell...

Further: Humans are social animals. The animals we evolved from were social animals. There's been all kinds of science and studies proving that humans just don't work as lone wolves. Not REALLY. There's a whole scale of possible levels of comfort with socialization/not socializing, but all mentally healthy human beings require some form of socialization to not, you know, go nuts. Them's just facts.

It's also just facts that people are empathic toward each other, lacking the mentally unwell. Sociopaths have an actual honest to god chemical imbalance that causes their brains to not work the way it should/does in other people, so they're a very poor example... and also the only people who don't really empathize.

Whiiiiich all goes back to yes, we totally do feel compelled to save people we can see, because the way our brains work we empathize with people we can see much more than things we hear about.