Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (4604)	2/3/2001 7:11:01 PM
From: jbe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Whoa, Steven, let's backtrack for a minute. This discussion began with an exchange between yourself and bland. You had commented: I see no compelling reason to suppose that any of our moral values stem from any source other than our collective experience of what is expedient. Bland responded that expediency alone cannot account for everything: Kind people are kind often simply because they are kind. They are compassionate and empathetic simply because that is truly their nature. To which you, in turn, responded: How many would be kind if we were not taught, from earliest childhood, that kindness is a good thing? At this point, I barged in, unceremoniously (sorry about that). The main point I meant to convey is that we will never be able to answer that question, since we can only observe man in society. We can never know for sure to what extent certain moral virtues (e.g., kindness) or moral failings (e.g., cruelty) are innate or inculcated, in each individual case. I then went on to say that I suspected some people might just be born "innately" more "virtuous" than others: I have always held that the doctrine of Predestination is a wicked, wicked doctrine. But I have to admit there's a sort of psychological truth in it: observation of our fellow humans suggests that some folks are born "saved," while others are born "damned." In other, non-theological, words, goodness/kindness comes naturally to some people. Unlike the rest of us sinners, they don't even have to work at it. <gr-r-r!> The following discussion about societies that allegedly teach their children to show the "utmost kindness" to members of their own group, but "bitter cruelty" to outsiders (you STILL have not cited any concrete society that teaches both) got us somewhat off the track, IMO. I would like to return to your original statement: do you really, truly think that ALL "moral virtues" stem from "our collective experience of expediency"? That we are born as "blank slates," on which society can write anything it deems fit? Common sense would suggest (to me, at any rate) that Nature and Nurture both play a role, and that the interrelationship is a complex one. And, another question altogether: why is it easier for people to believe in the innateness of "bad" qualities(.e.g, cruelty, clannishness) than in the innateness of "good" ones (e.g., kindness, empathy)? I am reminded of Peter Kropotkin's challenge to popular Darwinism, which saw competition as the root of all development; Kropotkin argued that, in the animal kingdom, cooperation played an even greater role. Instinct? Is not instinct "innate"? Joan