Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:02 am
Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.
Empathy is cognitive and has to be nurtured. It's sympathy that is instinctive
And how do you differentiate that? Does one? Scientifically? Rats certainly learn empathy by suffering. Because the wiring is there.
It's just me quibbling about the meaning of words. I find my definitions are useful for aligning with sympathy as instinctive according to David Hume, and with empathy as a good thing to deliberately teach in schools.If the teaching of empathy inspires felt sympathy then all the better. Indeed empathy would be a poor thing without affect.
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 7:32 pm
.......with sympathy as instinctive according to David Hume, and with empathy as a good thing to deliberately teach in schools.If the teaching of empathy inspires felt sympathy then all the better. Indeed empathy would be a poor thing without affect.
And I think this one Hume got backwards. To be excused, as he was from before "evolution" so could not think to ask "what might evolve to aid a social animal learn how to predict the behavior of another individual in some given situation. How I perceive self placed in that situation not of use. Must be able to switch perspective -- how I would perceive self placed were I the other in the situation. Definitely not just humans on this one. Chimps and bonobos need to be able to do it too.
Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:38 am
Directing? It's after the event. We make up morality tales to justify our hard wired moral impulses.
If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.
Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.
Empathy is not instinctive to psychopaths, as a matter of fact evolution has maintained them. Morality cannot be reduced to instinct without a contradictive element occuring.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am
If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.
But it doesn't have to be "morality" itself that is inherent (some instinctive "moral impulse")
We have ALWAYS been social animals with culture (longer than we have been human). So what I believe the human baby starts out with is not any rules of your culture but a "learn the rules of your culture" << in any situation, learn what choices of action are "right" and which are "wrong">> By learned I mean be trained, as you were trained rules about elimination, covering your nakedness, etc. At the start, interactions with mommy, later, interactions with others. This training becomes mutual, your playmates training you as you train them.
We MAY have built in tools to aid in this learning/training. Say a quick "fairness estimator" and/or "tit for tat" (in other words, might not have to learn "there is no better strategy for repeated "prisoners dilemma" than tit for tat). The point is, that for millions of years, human survival, rather the survival of our human band, depends on co-operation and ability to predict the behavior of other members of the band in various situations. It is not just us. A pack of wolves chasing prey are not getting in each others way like Keystone Cops. A lion approaching a lone proto-human experienced a successful hunt. A lion approaching a band of proto-humans experienced all of a sudden the sky began raining rocks and sticks (and so learns, don't approach a band of protoi-humans).
I'd say THAT morality (covering interactions possible in a small group, all individuals known, repeated interactions with the same individuals) gives us an "intuitive morality", learned as opposed to innate. With it will be attached "side learnings". In other words, will have learned "cover your nakedness" + "in this way"(the culturally approved mode of dress).
Societies war, social integration does not negate conflict between peoples.