"inner chimp"
14More
Chimp Fights and Trolley Rides - Radiolab - 13 views
-
-
-
waitin
-
-
-
That's really interesting! In highshcool, I only heard the first 5 minutes of this, but to hear about the stuff like how the brain uses different regions to say yes or no was interesting! The whole psychology aspect of this is really cool.
-
- ...4 more annotations...
-
-
I found that it was very interesting how quickly they dismissed the idea that parents instill some of the qualities into their children. In my opinion someone has to stimulate the children to succumb to the evolutionary inner chimp. Even though when the younger chimps couldn't decide who got the branch, then the older ones had to intervene and teach them how to properly act. In the same way parents intervene when their child can't seem to figure out the proper way to share during their play date. The evolutionary aspect seems to be proven fairly well but from previous knowledge we all know that from birth we do not have that innate sense of right and wrong. Your inner chimp has to grow and mature before being able to sense right and wrong. -
Exactly. What kind of environment one grows up and, and the types of influences one gains throughout one's life should be able to play a big factor in how they act. We learn these things.
-
-
-
I thought it was great how they took an incredibly abstract concept such as morality and put it to the scientific test. It suggests that morality may be instilled according to upbringing and environment but is inherently biological. It takes what is generally considered to be subjective and makes it predictable within our species (with a few outliers), for reasons we can't even quite understand. Which means that evolution dictates many of our ideas of right and wrong.
-
-
-
I thought it was interesting that when the brain was looked at when asked the trolley questions that so much changed and different parts started to light up. How people saw the two deaths a different when they had to ask themselves about "personally killing" someone versus just pulling the switch -
The brain really battles itself and really shows how people get to what is right and what is wrong can be more than just moral ,but biological as well.
-
To me personally i found it interesting that the two trolley stories both ended with someone being killed, but the what one person had to do were on the opposite ends. Its fascinating to see how when ask which option they would chose most people said pulling the lever even though it still ended in the same result which is a death of one person. I agree in the statement above that the brain when making decisions is not only based on morals but also biological. To me the fact that our morality might not have come from they way us humans grow up and our surroundings but instead from our basic inner chimp bring forth the question of if our morals play any part of decision making.
-
-
The most interesting possibility is that the brain may have more than one way to handle complex decisions. I'd have to say that at this point science can't say much beyond that when it comes to morality and ethics. Morality and ethics are constructs we come up with to try and put some order into personal actions both on an inter-personal level and in larger groups and societies as a whole.
-
-
If found interesting the fact that people don't feel as shamed of pulling a lever to save five people and kill one instead of pushing the person over the train. The people in the interview think that pulling a lever is better because they wouldn't feel as much guilt as pushing the person down from the trolley. Even if we all know that both are not great solutions. The gut feeling called as "inner chimp" I like how they say that moral sense is a unique and special human quality. Maybe we should ask ourselves what it really is. How the human brain works of different people is also very interesting I find because many people think differently and are ashamed of what other people think or would choose. Out of competition comes morality. We already have a sense of right and wrong when we are born, even before our parents can tell us. Basic primate morality understands the effect of pushing a person off, in this case, the trolley. The "inner chimp", which is "act of deep goodness". this is all connected to the 10 commandments, especially the one "thou shall not kill " Everything is always for a reason. Same story Killing your own baby or saving a village. I find it interesting how people would choose to kill their own baby and therefore save themselves and the rest of the people who live in the village. Others instead are very contrary because they say that a baby is God's gift. Everything now can evolve around having the inner strength for doing things like killing your own baby. I wonder if people that say that they would kill their own baby have actually the inner strength to do it. Actions speak louder than words. I think that it is also different when you have to decide to kill your own baby or save a village especially when you don't have one because you don't really know how it feels to be a parent and have a gift from God that not everyone can rece
13More
The emerging moral psychology - 7 views
-
cognitive conflict
-
There is probably a point of cognitive dissonance as well. When you are under this much pressure to save the five people, though you know in your mind it's wrong you may end up pushing the heavy man out of anticipation (or vice versa). I feel like it's hard to really know how people will react because the scientists never factored in the idea of cognitive dissonance.
-
-
Morality is a social phenomenon, and so it is little surprise that the way our social lives are structured—whether we live in small, tight-knit communities or large, anonymous cities—also sculpts our moral outlook. Haidt suggests that it is no coincidence that rural areas of the US, where communities are more bound together and interdependent, tend to be more conservative and religious, while urban dwellers tend to be more secular and liberal, with a focus on “individualising” ethics (see below).
-
Coming from a small closely-knit community, I have recognized that the rural areas are more group-oriented and mutually dependent on each other. They rely on each other for support: emotionally, economically, and morally. They are responsible to each other. While in urban communities, others want to be more individualistic and focus on there rights. They are focused on the well-being of themselves.
-
-
-
This is pretty interesting to me and reminds me of a question that was asked in a class a few years ago: "Are we born inherently evil or good?" This one is a little different in that it asks if we are born knowing what is right and what is wrong. I might be in a minority, but I generally disagree with the premise that we as humans are hardwired and born with a moral compass of sorts. I believe all of that comes from the experiences that we have had growing up and continues until the day that we die. Near the end of the article it is pointed out the difference in moral views that people have from a political standpoint. These viewpoints are things that are developed over time and with every experience we have had. People that are born in a specific religious family will generally be that specific religion as they grow up. I am not sure you are born 'believing' in that religion. Same with morality, experiences may shape it and it may evolve over time. Maybe at one time you feel pushing the large man in the tracks would be a rational thing to do and maybe as you grow older and have experienced death on a personal level you would have a much tougher time deciding on the morality of that same decision. That is why asking people if they would flip the switch and/or if they would push someone physically on the tracks seems like it may not fully prove that we are inherently born with knowing something is 'wrong' because the people that are asked have had experiences that might mold their decisions. Obviously asking someone that has been isolated from everything for their entire lives is not realistic and therefore making this sort of idea hard to answer definitively, which in turn will make it a hotly debated topic between people with different views.
-
- ...4 more annotations...
-
-
I found this quote interesting because it tries to get you to think about what you consider morally correct and incorrect. In a way, I think it answers the previous questions about the supposed "harmless" acts.
-
-
-
A lot of issues concerning morality are almost always based on what we've been through - our experiences. It goes along with "learning from our mistakes." People tend to trust those who have more experience with a certain problem, or those who have been through it before. The argument of saying that "I just know it's wrong," is not a good enough answer brings up the question of what makes it good enough? Scientists who think logically and need proof have to realize that a lot of what makes the "rules of life" were made from what we realized what was wrong, because of what was felt, what was thought, and or what was said at the time. -
I completely agree with Alexa when she commented that "People tend to trust those who have more experience with a certain problem, or those who have been through it before." especially pertaining to when the article said, "In a separate study which asked subjects for their ethical views on consensual incest, most people intuitively felt that incestuous sex is wrong, but when asked why, many gave up, saying, "I just know it's wrong!"-a phenomenon Haidt calls "moral dumbfounding."" When people respond with "I just know, it's wrong!" it's possible that they grew up in a community that proclaimed that incest was wrong without any reason stating otherwise. Or what Alexa mentioned, when people are asked why something is the way it is, they usually go off from what people have told them, they have a trust in that what they learned from elders who are more experienced than them, is true.
-
-
-
But what about when one actually HAS to make these decisions? When you are actually there, what will your response be? Realistically speaking, you would only have maybe a few seconds to make that decision, and I highly doubt someone would mull the moral ups and downs before making a rash action. As it says further down in the article, I think it also has to do with how intimate and personal the situation becomes. With the lever, you can distance yourself, in your mind, tell yourself the train killed the person, not you. Chances are that if a person was in that sort of situation with under 5 seconds to think, it would be much easier to pull the lever and tell yourself you had no choice. Pushing someone, however, would make it YOUR fault. YOU would be responsible for this person's death, and chances are you'd be the last thing they see. Which is why I find this article so interesting. Its fascinating how putting a middle man in a situation can completely change a point of view or outcome.
-
I find this article interesting, but a little structured. Moral obligation is embedded in everyone. Moral decisions are made by a moral compass, which is influenced by the surrounding of an individual. The problem with this study is structure. The event that is taking place is highly unlikely, the study does not stress the influence of a timed decision. -
Time has to be the most powerful factor within the study. Time is valued differently based on customs and cultural.
-
-
-
It is crazy the way our institutions have caused our way of thinking to develop. a lot of what students learn in school becomes what they believe because of the schools influence and they also in some cases know no different.
-
-
I discussed this ethical scenario in depth last semester in my American Political Thought Class. The idea is: Is it ethical to harm one person in the act of saving another? We as humans tend to think these scenarios over all the time. Even at parties, we often entertain ourselves with silly "Would you rather?" questions. The thought is: What makes us reach such conclusions? To me, it seems people reach such conclusions based on the experiences they have had throughout their lives. I agree with the poster above me in the sense that we are not "hardwired" with a sense of moral knowledge. I feel we derive our own morality in decision making based on our own upbringing and lived experiences. For example, I grew up with parents whom were both police officers. From birth, I had my sense of morality influenced by their want to see me follow the law and be respectful to authority. Although I am now an adult, I still feel their parenting has installed a set of values that determines what I view morally right and wrong. I hate people who text and drive, and where do I get such a judgement? From my parents. Now, if I had parents whom texted while driving I most likely would have a different view on the subject. In conclusion, our own so-called moral compass comes from the own circumstance in which we are brought into the world. A boy growing up in Bel Air with rich parents will obviously have a different sense of morality regarding assisting the poor than someone born to more frugal parents. Although the concept of men being born equal can still be held as true, it is the culture that we are brought into that ultimately determines our fate.
2More
Best content in contemporary issues in public policy | Diigo - Groups - 0 views
-
I believe all of that comes from the experiences that we have had growing up and continues until the day that we die.
-
I agree with this wholeheartedly. I talk about this in my post as well. Our sense of morals come from our own upbringing, not from some magnificent force that gives us moral judgement from birth.
-
1More
Chimp Fights and Trolley Rides - Radiolab | Diigo - 1 views
-
-
I found this insanely interesting. I agree with some parts of this and disagree with some. I think that some of our 'morality' does come from a biological sense, but that a large part of it comes from how we grow up, what our upbringing was, different situations we were put in and what kind of people we are put in close contact with at a young age. If morality was all (or at least primarily) biological and arising from evolution, then why is it that morality is so different across the human species? It's quite possible I'm way off, but that's just the basics of what i pulled from that..
-
test - 1 views
Index of /PDFs - 0 views
Colebatch - Policy 3e - 0 views
Dram Shop Liability - 0 views
View AllMost Active Members
View AllTop 10 Tags
- 7question
- 2heuristics
- 2framing
- 2discussion
- 2inducements
- 2Africa
- 1lecture
- 1November
- 1society
- 1patternicity
- 1pausch
- 1persuasion
- 1Rights
- 1randy
- 1repaying
- 1last
- 13
- 1about
- 1charity
- 1cheat