- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Now where the actions could arguably be said to be immoral, is that in each individual, there exist a sense of right and wrong. Each and every homosexual knows from the very beginning of their sexual awakening that their desires for sexual gratification from those of their same gender are wrong. They know from the moment that they conclude their first homosexual encounter, that their behavior is wrong.
Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment.
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.
I do think there are innate ideas of right and wrong, but I doubt they are necessarily the same for all individuals. I seriously doubt that homosexuals "know" somehow that their actions are wrong. Some, perhaps most, may experience some shame due to socialization when they discover their sexual orientation, but I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they know it's wrong. People who think otherwise are likely to be heterosexuals who imagine how they would feel having sex with a person of the same gender.
Much of morality can be traced to evolutionary adaptation.
Nothing that I know of supports that view. Virtually everything in morality is sociocentric including the topic discussed in the quote.I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view.
CaptainAdverse said:If morals were innate they would be born within each and every child.
CaptainAdverse said:There would be the same moral starting position for all human beings.
CaptainAdverse said:If this were so, then we would have to explain how and why they change from group to group.
I don't think you are giving children enough credit. My dog knows when he has done something wrong and shows it.I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference.
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.
Much of morality can be traced to evolutionary adaptation.
Nothing that I know of supports that view. Virtually everything in morality is sociocentric including the topic discussed in the quote.
Survival and replicating our genes are the only things innate in most animals. That some animals are programmed not to replicate their own genes directly doesn't mean they don't replicate them indirectly by helping siblings or cousins. No "natural laws" are violated with homosexuality any more than jumping on a grenade to save a half dozen friends violates the natural law of survival.
As humans, we exist on multiple planes as individuals and group members. We are more affected by the societal than by the specie evolution.
I don't think you are giving children enough credit. My dog knows when he has done something wrong and shows it.
I don't think you are giving children enough credit. My dog knows when he has done something wrong and shows it.
Is your last statement saying you think memes (well-known ideas) have more of an effect on us than our genes?The point in red is a very interesting idea. This would obviously stop the possibility of spreading one's genes, but the story of this is so selfless and so well known that it does affect the evolution of the ideals in society.
Of course, the action of being a suicide bomber is the same and has the same personal and societal evolutionary impacts.
As humans, we exist on multiple planes as individuals and group members. We are more affected by the societal than by the specie evolution.
Is your last statement saying you think memes (well-known ideas) have more of an effect on us than our genes?
PS
I hope you're NOT talking about "collective memory" ...?
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.
I am fascinated by the collective memory theory..
For instance..
Florida veteran passes out in motel and wakes up speaking Swedish | Metro News
How can this happen??
I am also interested in transplant recipients who take on the personal habits of the donors organ..
Now called “cellular memory''.
The bolded portion is what makes a meme. It's a term coined to represent the social equivalent of a gene, which does seem to be what you're talking about.No.
I'm talking about how we become members of groups and how those groups affect us. These groups can be as loose as a groups that all watch a particular TV show to a group that shares a particular goal and works methodically and constantly to achieve that goal.
So people who all watch Two and Half Men may all start to use the same idioms and the simple act of changing the way an individual speaks often changes the way that individual thinks.
As our groups evolve, we evolve. The Boy Scouts seem to be evolving as a group right now. Of course this evolution is driven by and dependent on the evolution of the society in they exist. Some evolution is by design and some by natural growth, the same as biological evolution.
Our ability to accept and to interpret anything is often the result of the places and people that we value.
IMO, it's a very wacky idea of, yes, some kind of telepathic connection if you like combined with long-term memory. In other words, it's perpetuated down the years. I mentioned it because someone else seemed to interpret your post that way. If you don't know what it is then we're good. I've had enough fantasy nonsense for one week.I'm not sure I understand what a "collective memory" is. Is this a shared understanding of history like "George Washington chopped down the Cherry tree" or is it some kind of a telepathic connection like a Vulcan mind meld?
Hmm, the article seems to indicate that he knew Swedish before the accident. I'd guess something got damaged in his brain to make him think of Swedish as his native tongue.
The bolded portion is what makes a meme. It's a term coined to represent the social equivalent of a gene, which does seem to be what you're talking about.
I agree that memes can have a big effect on human behavior. They adapt and change many times faster than genes but, unlike genes, we usually get to pick and choose which ones we adopt - though you're certainly correct that we may adopt some and not even know it.
IMO, it's a very wacky idea of, yes, some kind of telepathic connection if you like combined with long-term memory. In other words, it's perpetuated down the years. I mentioned it because someone else seemed to interpret your post that way. If you don't know what it is then we're good. I've had enough fantasy nonsense for one week.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?