• 68 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@awesam said:

He's got a good point, but he's wrong. People say money is. People say religion is. People say war is. People say racism is. People say weapons are. Tell me, what created all these things that are considered the "root of all evil"? We did. But, what is evil? Evil is the opposite of good. If he thinks being poor is the root of all evil, that means he must thinks money is the root of all that's good.

In case someone misread my comment. I'm not saying humans are the root of all evil. I actually don't believe one exists.

False dilemma. The logical opposite is that he must believe "money is not the root of all evil", as negating "being poor" does not mean "rich"(there's a spectrum of wealth) and negating "root of evil" does not mean "root of all good" since "evil" negated is "not evil" and not "good"(there's a spectrum of morality).

Also, I'm pretty sure he straight up says that he's not saying that money is the root of all good in the video. But I might have misremembered.

@evilvegeta74 said:

The video displays a valid point, but it thought process behind it is the wrong though process. I say this regardless of whether you are r poor or not has nothing to do with being the root of evil. Evil is a state of mind, that some are born with, and for others it's a (learned act), to put it simply.

What he is saying is a lot more practical than your point of view, you have to admit. Mental states in terms of morality are not something we can currently measure. So, simply saying that "evil" is a state of mind kind of slows down the conversation(or makes it simply subjective philosophy) since you can't even speculate the root of "evil" if the term cannot even be fleshed out as anything more than a state of mind we infer/assume.

I guess you can say think of it as him saying its the root of acts of evil.

@chronus said:

Ignorance is the root of all evil; individuals that choose a life revolving around such a concept are what cause chaos in the world. Science, which obviously involves knowledge and intelligence, is the best way to achieve prosperity, order, advancement, and peace in the world.

Lol

Animals lives do not revolve around such concepts as "good and evil" and there is still "chaos" in the wild, so you are most apparently wrong in regards to your second sentence/clause.

How exactly will we achieve prosperity and peace through all mighty science?

#52 Posted by OmgOmgWtfWtf (6954 posts) - - Show Bio

Perception is the root of evil D:

#53 Posted by joshmightbe (24691 posts) - - Show Bio

Everybody knows that the true root of all evil is Cthulu

#54 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: Constantly making most posts irrelevant....lol

@loki9876 said:

that accent

but poverty isn't the root of all evil. There is a certain amount of money that is needed for basic comfort, the rest of happiness can be achieved by friendship etc.

Just ask Epicurus.

I think he would argue this: When your friend(part of the source of your happiness) is dying of a rare heart disease and you haven't the money to get him the medicine, your unhappiness and any resulting criminal/"evil" actions you may commit out of desperation to gain the money stem from your lack of it.

@yung_ancient_one said:

I say greed is the root of all evil.

( + )

That is essentially what he is saying. Though, greed only refers to those who have and want more. He's including people who don't have and want more. The "want for more" is what he's focusing on.

@aiden_cross said:

I like the video for what it is but i disagree. I think the problem lies in ignorance, indifference and lack of education.

So, basically you agree because ignorance, indifference, and a lack of education = being poor in knowledge and education, possibly due to indifference which is being poor in desire.

Semantics aside, you realize that ignorance and a lack of education can be traced to a lack of money - as in, poorer areas have worse education where the environment promotes indifference and ignorance?

#56 Posted by Yung ANcient One (4613 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@sc: Constantly making most posts irrelevant....lol

@loki9876 said:

that accent

but poverty isn't the root of all evil. There is a certain amount of money that is needed for basic comfort, the rest of happiness can be achieved by friendship etc.

Just ask Epicurus.

I think he would argue this: When your friend(part of the source of your happiness) is dying of a rare heart disease and you haven't the money to get him the medicine, your unhappiness and any resulting criminal/"evil" actions you may commit out of desperation to gain the money stem from your lack of it.

@yung_ancient_one said:

I say greed is the root of all evil.

( + )

That is essentially what he is saying. Though, greed only refers to those who have and want more. He's including people who don't have and want more. The "want for more" is what he's focusing on.

@aiden_cross said:

I like the video for what it is but i disagree. I think the problem lies in ignorance, indifference and lack of education.

So, basically you agree because ignorance, indifference, and a lack of education = being poor in knowledge and education, possibly due to indifference which is being poor in desire.

Semantics aside, you realize that ignorance and a lack of education can be traced to a lack of money - as in, poorer areas have worse education where the environment promotes indifference and ignorance?

QFT

( + )

#57 Posted by Pyrogram (35143 posts) - - Show Bio


@aiden_cross said:

I like the video for what it is but i disagree. I think the problem lies in ignorance, indifference and lack of education.

So, basically you agree because ignorance, indifference, and a lack of education = being poor in knowledge and education, possibly due to indifference which is being poor in desire.

Semantics aside, you realize that ignorance and a lack of education can be traced to a lack of money - as in, poorer areas have worse education where the environment promotes indifference and ignorance?

QFT

( + )

That's an awesome point.

#58 Edited by kuonphobos (4882 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: Semantics aside, you realize that ignorance and a lack of education can be traced to a lack of money - as in, poorer areas have worse education where the environment promotes indifference and ignorance?

I believe that this is true. Few of us really understand the systemic "evil" which leads to poverty and the dynamics within poverty itself which lead to a cyclical self-perpetuation.

But the conversation always seems to come back around to personal morality. While not even remotely as easy as it seems when touted in media stories (ie Ben Carson) at some point each person must make certain choices. It is this dogged determination which seems to be the greatest factor in breaking down the systemic forces of poverty. Certainly it is not the only factor but it may well be the greatest on a case by case basis as well as a societal one.

@yung_ancient_one Does QFT mean "Quit F* Talking?

#59 Posted by Pyrogram (35143 posts) - - Show Bio
#60 Edited by RoyalDivinity (3161 posts) - - Show Bio

Human beings aren't necessarily born evil, it is the environment to which they resided in and grew up in that correlates with their natural personality traits that shape up the conclusion, for it is all variables of an equation. Professor Arber Tasimi, a researcher at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, is where he studies the moral inclinations of babies -- how the littlest of children can understand right and wrong, before language and culture exert their deep influence:

"In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. “Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet,” Hamlin remembers."

Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn’t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can’t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects’ eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer.

Conclusion? Babies prefer the company of good adhering themselves.

I would elaborate more upon this subject and to court it as I am in consensus with its conclusion, but unfortunately, I've not the time to do so, and I'd rather circumvent touts from the contemptuous individuals, and from those whom speak purely with their feelings, and not with their heads.

- RD

#61 Edited by kuonphobos (4882 posts) - - Show Bio
#62 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

Human beings aren't necessarily born evil, it is the environment to which they resided in and grew up in that correlates with their natural personality traits that shape up the conclusion, for it is all variables of an equation. Professor Arber Tasimi, a researcher at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, is where he studies the moral inclinations of babies -- how the littlest of children can understand right and wrong, before language and culture exert their deep influence:

"In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. “Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet,” Hamlin remembers."

Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn’t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can’t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects’ eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer.

Conclusion? Babies prefer the company of good adhering themselves.

I would elaborate more upon this subject and to court it as I am in consensus with its conclusion, but unfortunately, I've not the time to do so, and I'd rather circumvent touts from the contemptuous individuals, and from those whom speak purely with their feelings, and not with their heads.

- RD

Reading the article on the study, I'm not sure this is an issue of good or bad. Babies might prefer pro-social behavior, and preference for pro-social behavior may be evolutionarily(made up word?) advantageous. It definitely had survival benefits for our species in the past. So, it may be hardwired into us for that reason.

Furthermore, how do they know the behavior isn't simply preferred based on the behavior modeled by the babies parents? The experiments I skimmed through in the article used 6-10 month babies and 18 month babies, which gives them time to observe and mimic what their parents do.

#63 Posted by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: Semantics aside, you realize that ignorance and a lack of education can be traced to a lack of money - as in, poorer areas have worse education where the environment promotes indifference and ignorance?

I believe that this is true. Few of us really understand the systemic "evil" which leads to poverty and the dynamics within poverty itself which lead to a cyclical self-perpetuation.

But the conversation always seems to come back around to personal morality. While not even remotely as easy as it seems when touted in media stories (ie Ben Carson) at some point each person must make certain choices. It is this dogged determination which seems to be the greatest factor in breaking down the systemic forces of poverty. Certainly it is not the only factor but it may well be the greatest on a case by case basis as well as a societal one.

My professor from this previous school semester would argue that there is no "personal morality", as rules, choices, and preferences are controlled by reinforcers in the environment.

#64 Edited by RoyalDivinity (3161 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@punkmastaflex said:

Human beings aren't necessarily born evil, it is the environment to which they resided in and grew up in that correlates with their natural personality traits that shape up the conclusion, for it is all variables of an equation. Professor Arber Tasimi, a researcher at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, is where he studies the moral inclinations of babies -- how the littlest of children can understand right and wrong, before language and culture exert their deep influence:

"In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. “Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet,” Hamlin remembers."

Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn’t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can’t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects’ eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer.

Conclusion? Babies prefer the company of good adhering themselves.

I would elaborate more upon this subject and to court it as I am in consensus with its conclusion, but unfortunately, I've not the time to do so, and I'd rather circumvent touts from the contemptuous individuals, and from those whom speak purely with their feelings, and not with their heads.

- RD

Reading the article on the study, I'm not sure this is an issue of good or bad. Babies might prefer pro-social behavior, and preference for pro-social behavior may be evolutionarily(made up word?) advantageous. It definitely had survival benefits for our species in the past. So, it may be hardwired into us for that reason.

Furthermore, how do they know the behavior isn't simply preferred based on the behavior modeled by the babies parents? The experiments I skimmed through in the article used 6-10 month babies and 18 month babies, which gives them time to observe and mimic what their parents do.

Not directly, but it correlates with the origins whether human beings were 'born' good or bad; however, I took stated perspectives into account. For example: Type of parents, location, minimal tangent influence, evolutionary reasons, etc (Regardless, it still points back to whether human beings are primarily creatures that were naturally "bad" or "good", depending on how you would perceive this). However, given the axiom that this is a study, conducted by a team of researchers, there's a good possibility that these factors, plus the questions you posted, has been taken into account. This study is curious indeed, but in terms of absolute exactness -- you and I both know that it isn't going to be absolutely exact; differences in parents, in their surrounding environment, behavior of approach towards the infant, many small things that ultimately paints a different picture -- but at the same time, it also spawns other questions that branches out from scrutinizing this, and can pave way towards this thread when pondering. From what I quoted, since the researchers weren't entirely convinced with the six-month old babies, they also conducted tests with three-month old toddlers, which, in this case, averts the hinder-er -- an age too young to even reliably reach.

- RD

#65 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@punkmastaflex said:

@jezer said:

@punkmastaflex said:

Human beings aren't necessarily born evil, it is the environment to which they resided in and grew up in that correlates with their natural personality traits that shape up the conclusion, for it is all variables of an equation. Professor Arber Tasimi, a researcher at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, is where he studies the moral inclinations of babies -- how the littlest of children can understand right and wrong, before language and culture exert their deep influence:

"In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. “Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet,” Hamlin remembers."

Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn’t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can’t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects’ eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer.

Conclusion? Babies prefer the company of good adhering themselves.

I would elaborate more upon this subject and to court it as I am in consensus with its conclusion, but unfortunately, I've not the time to do so, and I'd rather circumvent touts from the contemptuous individuals, and from those whom speak purely with their feelings, and not with their heads.

- RD

Reading the article on the study, I'm not sure this is an issue of good or bad. Babies might prefer pro-social behavior, and preference for pro-social behavior may be evolutionarily(made up word?) advantageous. It definitely had survival benefits for our species in the past. So, it may be hardwired into us for that reason.

Furthermore, how do they know the behavior isn't simply preferred based on the behavior modeled by the babies parents? The experiments I skimmed through in the article used 6-10 month babies and 18 month babies, which gives them time to observe and mimic what their parents do.

Not directly, but it correlates with the origins whether human beings were 'born' good or bad; however, I took stated perspectives into account. For example: Type of parents, location, minimal tangent influence, evolutionary reasons, etc (Regardless, it still points back to whether human beings are primarily creatures that were naturally "bad" or "good", depending on how you would perceive this). However, given the axiom that this is a study, conducted by a team of researchers, there's a good possibility that these factors, plus the questions you posted, has been taken into account. This study is curious indeed, but in terms of absolute exactness -- you and I both know that it isn't going to be absolutely exact; differences in parents, in their surrounding environment, behavior of approach towards the infant, many small things that ultimately paints a different picture -- but at the same time, it also spawns other questions that branches out from scrutinizing this, and can pave way towards this thread when pondering. From what I quoted, since the researchers weren't entirely convinced with the six-month old babies, they also conducted tests with three-month old toddlers, which, in this case, averts the hinder-er -- an age too young to even reliably reach.

- RD

I would disagree that it points at all to the idea of "good" or "bad". Survival-advantageous behavior like pro-social behavior may often line up with behavior considered good, but that doesn't mean its intrinsically good. I'm sure there is species-advantageous behavior that lines up with what is considered "bad".

Racism stems from quick judgments based on emotion from past experiences which is a survival mechanism that developed from the Amygdala, for example.

If a choice is ultimately related to your survival, can you associate moral judgments with making? Is it morally good that I breath? I guess only if its contrary to your survival.

Whether 3 months or 6, the babies have had significant time to observe and start to adopt behavior. I'm sure the scientist probably acknowledged limitations in an actual peer reviewed write up of their study, not a less scientific-more sensationalized article.

#66 Posted by RoyalDivinity (3161 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@punkmastaflex said:

@jezer said:

@punkmastaflex said:

Human beings aren't necessarily born evil, it is the environment to which they resided in and grew up in that correlates with their natural personality traits that shape up the conclusion, for it is all variables of an equation. Professor Arber Tasimi, a researcher at Yale University's Infant Cognition Center, is where he studies the moral inclinations of babies -- how the littlest of children can understand right and wrong, before language and culture exert their deep influence:

"In fact, 6- and 10-month-old babies did seem to have strong natural opinions about the climbing scenarios: They passionately preferred the helper to the hinderer, as assessed by the amount of time they spent looking at the characters. This result “was totally surreal,” Hamlin says—so revolutionary that the researchers themselves didn’t quite trust it. They designed additional experiments with plush animal puppets helping and hindering each other; at the end babies got the chance to reach for the puppet of their choice. “Basically every single baby chose the nice puppet,” Hamlin remembers."

Then they tested 3-month-old infants. The researchers couldn’t ask the infants to reach for the puppets, because 3-month-olds can’t reliably reach, so they tracked the subjects’ eye movements instead. These infants, too, showed an aversion to the hinderer.

Conclusion? Babies prefer the company of good adhering themselves.

I would elaborate more upon this subject and to court it as I am in consensus with its conclusion, but unfortunately, I've not the time to do so, and I'd rather circumvent touts from the contemptuous individuals, and from those whom speak purely with their feelings, and not with their heads.

- RD

Reading the article on the study, I'm not sure this is an issue of good or bad. Babies might prefer pro-social behavior, and preference for pro-social behavior may be evolutionarily(made up word?) advantageous. It definitely had survival benefits for our species in the past. So, it may be hardwired into us for that reason.

Furthermore, how do they know the behavior isn't simply preferred based on the behavior modeled by the babies parents? The experiments I skimmed through in the article used 6-10 month babies and 18 month babies, which gives them time to observe and mimic what their parents do.

Not directly, but it correlates with the origins whether human beings were 'born' good or bad; however, I took stated perspectives into account. For example: Type of parents, location, minimal tangent influence, evolutionary reasons, etc (Regardless, it still points back to whether human beings are primarily creatures that were naturally "bad" or "good", depending on how you would perceive this). However, given the axiom that this is a study, conducted by a team of researchers, there's a good possibility that these factors, plus the questions you posted, has been taken into account. This study is curious indeed, but in terms of absolute exactness -- you and I both know that it isn't going to be absolutely exact; differences in parents, in their surrounding environment, behavior of approach towards the infant, many small things that ultimately paints a different picture -- but at the same time, it also spawns other questions that branches out from scrutinizing this, and can pave way towards this thread when pondering. From what I quoted, since the researchers weren't entirely convinced with the six-month old babies, they also conducted tests with three-month old toddlers, which, in this case, averts the hinder-er -- an age too young to even reliably reach.

- RD

I would disagree that it points at all to the idea of "good" or "bad". Survival-advantageous behavior like pro-social behavior may often line up with behavior considered good, but that doesn't mean its intrinsically good. I'm sure there is species-advantageous behavior that lines up with what is considered "bad".

Racism stems from quick judgments based on emotion from past experiences which is a survival mechanism that developed from the Amygdala, for example.

If a choice is ultimately related to your survival, can you associate moral judgments with making? Is it morally good that I breath? I guess only if its contrary to your survival.

Whether 3 months or 6, the babies have had significant time to observe and start to adopt behavior. I'm sure the scientist probably acknowledged limitations in an actual peer reviewed write up of their study, not a less scientific-more sensationalized article.

It doesn't point to the idea persay, but branches out towards there, or rather adhering it should one see it through the itinerary of the venture. Of course, as the perception of good and bad can differ throughout species by species-advantageous -- suppose evolution took a different path due to a vastly different habitat, where it was advantageous to be ruthless, a sole survivor. However, talking about this continuously is going to shift us into a different topic than what was primarily being discussed -- but seeing as how we both possess similar cognizance and approach towards the evolutionary aspect of it, we'll simply be in agreement and possibly strengthening our opinions that much more.

I'm cognizant of that -- Amygdala being the part of the brain responsible for emotions, aggression, memory, rational, irrational when confronted with conundrums unfamiliar/unbeknownst to solve. However, I partially disagree with the racism as a support of the example, but I wouldn't mind a discussion of it via PM. :)

And does this not fit into the potential list that the team of researchers took into account and possibility? A group of them, psychologists, whilst observing these babies, possibly discussing what you and I, right now, are discussing about, that the kids would adopt said behavior? That it could be as a result of intrinsic and/or extrinsic value? I also pointed this out in my previous post, that it was, indeed, more than likely to have been taken into consideration by the team of researchers. However, it is, more than likely, that the team were thinking from what we, as humans, are familiar with as a behavioral good, and possibly not that of the concept of an intrinsic good, or correlated between the two.

The concept of intrinsic good -- this can be rebuttal against with various examples, even if it not be advantageous, but it can also be a byproduct of culture, intelligence, wisdom accumulated throughout time based upon the culture, and far too many factors (rambling thought). Taking the fact that it is babies, the factors included: those months, type of parents, emotions surrounding the child's growth, but what we ultimately have is this -- whether it is intrinsic good or good that results from the pro-social behavior of us humans, it is good nonetheless, at least for us -- and this then paves a road to this video and this topic.

- RD

#67 Edited by RoyalDivinity (3161 posts) - - Show Bio

This video -- beautiful poetry, but this person isn't standing on enough books, inquiries far too minuscule to see over the box to reality, as it is far too simplistic to even grasp at how large "reality" is. This video, repletes with straw man, and furthermore, is in absence of experience, knocking down and opening up new theories and thoughts. Homeless people can be very happy, even when being aware of their current predicament, whereas the wealthy, can be quite unhappy.

There is, however, the moral of the poem -- which is greed; to want more.

- RD

#68 Edited by Jezer (3096 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@punkmastaflex said:

Not directly, but it correlates with the origins whether human beings were 'born' good or bad; however, I took stated perspectives into account. For example: Type of parents, location, minimal tangent influence, evolutionary reasons, etc (Regardless, it still points back to whether human beings are primarily creatures that were naturally "bad" or "good", depending on how you would perceive this). However, given the axiom that this is a study, conducted by a team of researchers, there's a good possibility that these factors, plus the questions you posted, has been taken into account. This study is curious indeed, but in terms of absolute exactness -- you and I both know that it isn't going to be absolutely exact; differences in parents, in their surrounding environment, behavior of approach towards the infant, many small things that ultimately paints a different picture -- but at the same time, it also spawns other questions that branches out from scrutinizing this, and can pave way towards this thread when pondering. From what I quoted, since the researchers weren't entirely convinced with the six-month old babies, they also conducted tests with three-month old toddlers, which, in this case, averts the hinder-er -- an age too young to even reliably reach.

- RD

I would disagree that it points at all to the idea of "good" or "bad". Survival-advantageous behavior like pro-social behavior may often line up with behavior considered good, but that doesn't mean its intrinsically good. I'm sure there is species-advantageous behavior that lines up with what is considered "bad".

Racism stems from quick judgments based on emotion from past experiences which is a survival mechanism that developed from the Amygdala, for example.

If a choice is ultimately related to your survival, can you associate moral judgments with making? Is it morally good that I breath? I guess only if its contrary to your survival.

Whether 3 months or 6, the babies have had significant time to observe and start to adopt behavior. I'm sure the scientist probably acknowledged limitations in an actual peer reviewed write up of their study, not a less scientific-more sensationalized article.

It doesn't point to the idea persay, but branches out towards there, or rather adhering it should one see it through the itinerary of the venture. Of course, as the perception of good and bad can differ throughout species by species-advantageous -- suppose evolution took a different path due to a vastly different habitat, where it was advantageous to be ruthless, a sole survivor. However, talking about this continuously is going to shift us into a different topic than what was primarily being discussed -- but seeing as how we both possess similar cognizance and approach towards the evolutionary aspect of it, we'll simply be in agreement and possibly strengthening our opinions that much more.

I'm cognizant of that -- Amygdala being the part of the brain responsible for emotions, aggression, memory, rational, irrational when confronted with conundrums unfamiliar/unbeknownst to solve. However, I partially disagree with the racism as a support of the example, but I wouldn't mind a discussion of it via PM. :)

And does this not fit into the potential list that the team of researchers took into account and possibility? A group of them, psychologists, whilst observing these babies, possibly discussing what you and I, right now, are discussing about, that the kids would adopt said behavior? That it could be as a result of intrinsic and/or extrinsic value? I also pointed this out in my previous post, that it was, indeed, more than likely to have been taken into consideration by the team of researchers. However, it is, more than likely, that the team were thinking from what we, as humans, are familiar with as a behavioral good, and possibly not that of the concept of an intrinsic good, or correlated between the two.

The concept of intrinsic good -- this can be rebuttal against with various examples, even if it not be advantageous, but it can also be a byproduct of culture, intelligence, wisdom accumulated throughout time based upon the culture, and far too many factors (rambling thought). Taking the fact that it is babies, the factors included: those months, type of parents, emotions surrounding the child's growth, but what we ultimately have is this -- whether it is intrinsic good or good that results from the pro-social behavior of us humans, it is good nonetheless, at least for us -- and this then paves a road to this video and this topic.

- RD

I don't see how it points to morality at all, but I guess this is an issue with our differing concepts of morality. I say its not an issue of morality because I think of morality as basing/categorizing a behavior based on an abstract ethical standard of good or bad. If there is a deeper explanation that even encompasses using the ethical standard in terms of a specific decision or choice, than the idea of that choice being good or evil is thrown away and morality is a non-issue. If you have a different opinion on what morality is, that for example may encompass behavior explained as having self-serving survival value, than we agree to disagree. It only points to morality if we simply say that everyone defines morality differently--so it may go towards some possible definition of morality(though I think morality is generally thought of in the way I outlined) But you said we agree on the evolutionary perspective?

I'm too lazy to talk via PM, we can discuss it here?

It does. But, I was remarking that aside from a couple direct quotes, we are actually reading the interpretation of the writer of the article Abigail Tucker(who's commenting on the literature as a whole). Not a scientific paper actually detailing the results, methodology, limitations, and etc of the experiments. We're not necessarily reading the scientists thoughts and opinions on what they did. Therefore, I'm not criticizing the scientists, but this writers interpretation of their studies - and every criticism I have said may have been acknowledged by the actual scientists in their papers, but since we have no access to them/I'm too lazy to, there's good in pointing them out.

Eh I'm essentially saying that "good" acts/mindsets that stems from pro-social behavior is not good, but simply advantageous for the baby. Similar to a baby breathing or a baby crying.

#69 Posted by isaac_clarke (5448 posts) - - Show Bio

Morality itself is flexible - Evil is very much what you perceive it to be.

#70 Posted by Pyrogram (35143 posts) - - Show Bio

this has gotten pretty interesting