We don't live in the conditions we used to live in. Of course if we would live in a time where we were a tribal species, the objective morality could suit us our whole life.
But we have come a long way, and things changed and i don't really think that "going back to the roots" will help us as a species.
But i absolutely agree with your point. We as a species NEED to study morals and ways we can affect them. We have a natural way to alter them, we just don't really know how. We should look for a way to educate and teach morals in an early age, so that the next generations would be better suited for the life in the modern age. I even think it is our responsibility, as is the responsibility of any parent to raise a "good" kid.
But the evlutionary mechanisms as you put it, aren't up to the task anymore, the society changes too fast. The morals we are born with, the objective, "true" morals, will get outdated eventually. Of course, we can use them as a reference, but the natural state of things is not always the best suited one, when change happens.
Let me explain.
The first is the part of morality we are BORN with. It is derived from evolution. These are the behavioral petterns and traits that have proven themselves to be useful to survival in tribes/small groups. These include all the behaviors and reactions that FEEL right. And exclude everything that does not. So these are the basic "rules". These are common amongst almost every human in every culture, simply, because we all inherit them.
BUT! That does not mean we all feel EXACTLY strong about them. There are variations in everyone, someone has the "group survival" the "social" values stronger than the other. I'm sure there are a lot of categories of morality and everyone has a variation of them. But we all share them to some extent.
The second part is what we "learn". A child comes into this world with a behavior, that is useful for the survival, but only for the first couple of months. Then it learns. A child's brain is plastic. It shapes with every input. So does the childs behavior, his morals, his sense of right and wrong. Because the brain is like that. It needs to get adapted to the local, dynamic conditions, it can't rely on "inherited wisdom". And it needs to do it fast. And once the child grows older, his original values get changed and stirred up and twisted and some get stronger, some weaker, so that it has the best chance at survival, to find a mate, to live etc.
And you can't tell a difference between the two parts, because really there is none, its the same morality you were born with, like a blueprint but with a unique variation of attributes, and then later changed to better suit your survival. Thats why there are different cultures with different moral values.
That means there is no objective morality because everyone gets his morality shaped in a unique way.
The original morality you are born with is just a framework, there to be changed.
Sep 12 2012: I didn't want to watch this talk when i first read the description and the name of it. Oh boy, but im glad i did. It was quite the opposite of what i expected. When i thought about the lifes of chinese workers, it always reminded me of the industrial revolution and the changes it brought to the world and to my country too. I remember a few history lessons and a few theatre plays that mention a some of these changes.
Europe was agricultural a couple centuries ago, most people spent their whole life working at their farm, knowing the few hundred people from their village, got married to one of them, had children and didn't know a thing about the world except a couple of visits to a bigger town/village a few times a year.
Then suddenly, with the industrial revolution, factories came. But they were not built across the countryside, they were centralized, in cities, bigger towns. In a lot of novels and plays from that time, young people couldn't wait to work in a factory. I imagine it was hard work, some people would say "slave work for even less than minimum wage" but it was so much more for them. And believe it or not it was WELL paid, by their standards, you didn't make good money as a farmer, even if you were a craftsman, you were almost always just living on the edge. The only way to earn some money was to become a soldier. The factories, even without a labour code were a good thing for the general population, they moved to the city, got education, made money, they got to know more than their village.
The same thing that is happening to China, happened to us all a few centuries ago.
I knew language was important for the mental development, but never thought this much. The analogy of language being the OS of the brain is astounding.
Aug 9 2012: I already saw a similar question here (about babies).
Mine is more like an alternative version of it.
"If you are deaf, and were never taught any language (verbal or non-verbal) how do you think?"
I'm asking because a few months ago, when i started reading books in english, my - what should i call it? - my "inner voice" became an englishman. When i think about abstract things i mostly do it in english now.
But what about someone who has never heard a word? Or never seen one? How can they "abstract"? What if the person is blind too? (most unlucky person ever)
You can't think in pictures, you can't think in words you can only think in smells, physical sensations? One silly question.... do you even think?
Apr 27 2012: I was wondering about the randomness in our brains. As with everything in the nature or even the universe, nothing works 100% correctly. What about random neuron firings, stimuli and sensation not being "transported" through the brain correctly, or being evaluated a little bit wrong, parts of brain doing only mediocre work. Sure our mind would then look completely different as compared to sort of an idalistic "supercomputer" without "bugs", errors or mistakes.
Sorry was just thinking aloud :)
Apr 2 2012: I think most people in rich countries just cant empathize with people they never saw, they never heard of. And the rich countries are often led by the 5% of "bastards" (of course i have no evidence, a study on politicians would be quite interesting, but come on, most people who get into politics are there not to help others but to help themselves). They gain trust from people, that can be "used" because of their "kind" morality.
Apr 2 2012: You were asking how a belief in an afterlife can affect the life on earth. I think it is the type of afterlife you believe in that is important. If you believe that life is just a test for you (only for you) or if you believe that there is no afterlife and everything that happens after your death is not important, then you basicaly dont care about what happens with this planet, with humanity after you die. I think if people started to care about the world they leave behind, not just their lives or their afterlives, if they would be a bit more humble, if they tried to realize that they are just a tiny little individuals, realize that what realy matters is the longterm wellbeing of humans in this universe, then the quality of life could improve.
TEDCred score: +0.80 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: There exist objective moral truths
We don't live in the conditions we used to live in. Of course if we would live in a time where we were a tribal species, the objective morality could suit us our whole life.
But we have come a long way, and things changed and i don't really think that "going back to the roots" will help us as a species.
But i absolutely agree with your point. We as a species NEED to study morals and ways we can affect them. We have a natural way to alter them, we just don't really know how. We should look for a way to educate and teach morals in an early age, so that the next generations would be better suited for the life in the modern age. I even think it is our responsibility, as is the responsibility of any parent to raise a "good" kid.
But the evlutionary mechanisms as you put it, aren't up to the task anymore, the society changes too fast. The morals we are born with, the objective, "true" morals, will get outdated eventually. Of course, we can use them as a reference, but the natural state of things is not always the best suited one, when change happens.
A comment on Conversation: There exist objective moral truths
"Morality" is made out of two components.
Let me explain.
The first is the part of morality we are BORN with. It is derived from evolution. These are the behavioral petterns and traits that have proven themselves to be useful to survival in tribes/small groups. These include all the behaviors and reactions that FEEL right. And exclude everything that does not. So these are the basic "rules". These are common amongst almost every human in every culture, simply, because we all inherit them.
BUT! That does not mean we all feel EXACTLY strong about them. There are variations in everyone, someone has the "group survival" the "social" values stronger than the other. I'm sure there are a lot of categories of morality and everyone has a variation of them. But we all share them to some extent.
The second part is what we "learn". A child comes into this world with a behavior, that is useful for the survival, but only for the first couple of months. Then it learns. A child's brain is plastic. It shapes with every input. So does the childs behavior, his morals, his sense of right and wrong. Because the brain is like that. It needs to get adapted to the local, dynamic conditions, it can't rely on "inherited wisdom". And it needs to do it fast. And once the child grows older, his original values get changed and stirred up and twisted and some get stronger, some weaker, so that it has the best chance at survival, to find a mate, to live etc.
And you can't tell a difference between the two parts, because really there is none, its the same morality you were born with, like a blueprint but with a unique variation of attributes, and then later changed to better suit your survival. Thats why there are different cultures with different moral values.
That means there is no objective morality because everyone gets his morality shaped in a unique way.
The original morality you are born with is just a framework, there to be changed.
A comment on Talk: Leslie T. Chang: The voices of China's workers
Europe was agricultural a couple centuries ago, most people spent their whole life working at their farm, knowing the few hundred people from their village, got married to one of them, had children and didn't know a thing about the world except a couple of visits to a bigger town/village a few times a year.
Then suddenly, with the industrial revolution, factories came. But they were not built across the countryside, they were centralized, in cities, bigger towns. In a lot of novels and plays from that time, young people couldn't wait to work in a factory. I imagine it was hard work, some people would say "slave work for even less than minimum wage" but it was so much more for them. And believe it or not it was WELL paid, by their standards, you didn't make good money as a farmer, even if you were a craftsman, you were almost always just living on the edge. The only way to earn some money was to become a soldier. The factories, even without a labour code were a good thing for the general population, they moved to the city, got education, made money, they got to know more than their village.
The same thing that is happening to China, happened to us all a few centuries ago.
A reply on Conversation: Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
I knew language was important for the mental development, but never thought this much. The analogy of language being the OS of the brain is astounding.
A comment on Conversation: Strange questions that humans have not yet found an answer for!
Mine is more like an alternative version of it.
"If you are deaf, and were never taught any language (verbal or non-verbal) how do you think?"
I'm asking because a few months ago, when i started reading books in english, my - what should i call it? - my "inner voice" became an englishman. When i think about abstract things i mostly do it in english now.
But what about someone who has never heard a word? Or never seen one? How can they "abstract"? What if the person is blind too? (most unlucky person ever)
You can't think in pictures, you can't think in words you can only think in smells, physical sensations? One silly question.... do you even think?
A comment on Talk: Antonio Damasio: The quest to understand consciousness
Sorry was just thinking aloud :)
A reply on Talk: Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin?
A comment on Conversation: how has a belief in an afterlife affected the quality of life on earth?