|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th February 2019, 11:12 AM | #1 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Oxford anthropologists identify seven universal rules of morality
|
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
19th February 2019, 11:58 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 11,901
|
Looks like something of an extension of moral foundations theory:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mora...ve_foundations |
__________________
Knowledge is Power; France is Bacon. |
|
19th February 2019, 12:40 PM | #3 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 816
|
I notice that two things that I personally would consider moral behaviors did not make the universal cut: honesty and charity toward strangers.
These do appear to be things that the US political left and right disagree on. |
19th February 2019, 12:56 PM | #4 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
19th February 2019, 01:12 PM | #5 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
I think most, if not all, of these things are observable in primates. That certainly strengthens the case that they apply to humans. The catch is that our ability to plan for the future and think in abstractions means that any of these could be perverted for any purpose. For example, just about all of these are displayed by mass cult suicides. Yet, I doubt anybody would seriously argue that Jonestown or Heaven's Gate were moral outcomes. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
19th February 2019, 01:16 PM | #6 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Posts: 816
|
Sure, if you value honesty then under reciprocity you will want to both give and get it. But not if honesty just isn't all that important to you.
By strangers I meant to imply those who are not in your "group". Loyalty to your group implies that outsiders are second class citizens. Do you try to help them and work to include them in your group or do you treat them as enemies and take advantage of them for the betterment of your current group members? |
19th February 2019, 01:24 PM | #7 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 8,843
|
Ever since the days of Bush Mark I*, I've wanted to hear a definition of "family values." I hope the anthropologists take a stab at it.
*AKA Whiney. Well, that's what Nancy Raygun called him. |
__________________
When I spoke out against the bullies, they called me woke. When I lashed them with a length of chain, they called me sir. |
|
19th February 2019, 01:29 PM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,983
|
They seem like vague labels or categories rather than moral rules.
|
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen |
|
19th February 2019, 01:46 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 39,057
|
"Group Loyalty" has been and continues to be responsible for a lot of really bad stuff.
|
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant. |
|
19th February 2019, 01:55 PM | #10 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
That's what I was going to say. A crazy addition if you ask me.
Reciprocity is dubious too, although in a moot kind of way. Bravery? In what way is bravery moral in itself? ISIS fighters are brave. They're also big fans of group loyalty. I would imagine concepts such as kindness to animals and respect for the planet are measures of morality, but they don't appear in the list at all. Respect is there but without qualification it's meaningless. Respect for what? Seems like pish to me. |
19th February 2019, 02:16 PM | #11 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Maybe honesty isn't even on the list because of the necessity of (some) dishonesty in order to maintain moral stability. IOW, everything collapses if there is not some dishonesty happening sometimes.
Quote:
It's possible that "being moral" towards other cultures isn't on that list because it isn't a universal value across all cultures. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
19th February 2019, 03:08 PM | #12 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
This study examined 60 different cultures. In order to make the list the moral attributes must be valued by all 60 cultures. If animal kindness is considered a moral by 59 cultures then it can't make the list because it requires 60 cultures.
Animal kindness would fall under moral relativism, not moral universalism. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
19th February 2019, 09:51 PM | #13 |
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
|
Yeah, they're not morals. At best they're hard-wired shortcuts that at some point created an evolutionary advantage. I think xenophobia is probably hard-wired into people as well. But it's been recast here as "family" and "group" loyalty. In any case, since any of these things can be overridden at any time, I'm not sure I even see the value in making the list to begin with. |
__________________
I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader |
|
19th February 2019, 10:15 PM | #14 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
19th February 2019, 11:59 PM | #15 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Aren”t “group loyalty” and “family values” essentially the same thing? And are they necessarily compatible with “fairness”, in particular relating to those outside the group?
Perhaps we are, to quote Gag Halfrunt, “crazy mixed-up animals.” |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
20th February 2019, 01:13 AM | #16 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
Kindness? It’s not the same as fairness or reciprocity. Is any other word better as the oppocite of cruelty, which I’m sure every society would aspire to?
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
20th February 2019, 10:52 AM | #17 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
"Property rights"??? Yeah. "Christian values"???
Complete BS propaganda. |
20th February 2019, 10:59 AM | #18 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Here is "the paper" in case anyone wants to read it.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/701478 |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
20th February 2019, 12:43 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
I would consider group loyalty and family values to be similar at least in terms of the behavior expected among the group members. I think the difference, if any, would lie in how the group is formed. Group loyalty can refer to a group of one's own choosing whereas family values would be loyalty to one's (unchosen) kin.
You could argue that the loyalty tenets are focused on conduct within a group: each individual incorporates the interests of the other members of the group as a moral imperative. Okay fine, but then this really only matters where there are in-group and out-group dynamics. Loyalty to the group matters only if there is a choice between whether to favor the in-group or display fairness to an outsider. Does that make sense to anyone else? As have "family values," which in the context of this study is defined as favoring one's kin. I'm thinking of nepotism specifically, in which someone in power provides for one's kin irresponsibility. Nepotism is morally murky, and not something I would consider a virtue. I was hoping someone would raise this issue, because "family values" is often co-opted by the Christian right as a euphemism to signify and legitimize their particular brands of bigotry. I had a mild knee-jerk reaction to seeing that on the list and wondering who is going to equivocate that to justify their contrived moralizations. It's what got me to read the full paper to see exactly what was meant. |
20th February 2019, 11:46 PM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I haven't had many time to read the proposed article in detail (Curry, Mullin & Whitehouse, 2017), but as some of the comments below suggest, I find it rather deficient.
1. It shows an unjustified ignorance or contempt for classical anthropology and sociology. The subjects they say are studied here for the first time have often been studied by social and philosophical anthropology from Rousseau to Geertz, through Malinowsky, Marvin Harris, Durkheim, etc., etc., etc. 2. The only relatively new thing is the seven-point limitation and its denomination as "Morality-as-Cooperation" (MAC). And I say relatively because the functionalist school of anthropology has already studied many of these aspects. 3. The difference between the current MAC approach and classical anthropology apart from jargon is that the latter has not only studied the seven cultural elements as cooperation, but also as a source of conflict, division and domination. These aspects are unreasonably overlooked by MAC 4. The categories used by MAC are abstract. What defines a social value system (morality) is that under the heading "family" very different forms enter, some more cohesive or more oppressive than others. For example: what differentiates some cultures from others is not the condemnation of theft, but the different conceptions of what the limits of personal property are. This type of diversity is ignored by MAC, to limit itself to cooperation issue. 5. As some of the commentators in the article emphasise, MAC does not analyse the internal conflicts between the different elements considered. Often the link with street groups replaces the family one, for example. It is ridiculous for the authors to claim that there is no morality that attacks family ties when they can find it in the gospels themselves. 6. MAC does not consider the relationships between cultures and their social base. Although it speaks of having analyzed 60 cultures, it does not make explicit what the differences between them are. For example, a patriarchal society will favour the values of family submission, while a society based on individual competition will favour the values of alternative (business) groups. In this sense, the absence of an analysis of the interrelationship between productive forms and the values of cooperation or competition-domination within groups is very striking. 7. Finally, MAC does not take into account the difference between social norms (morality) and moral norms (ethics). Moral norms, as different of social norms, appear within the conflicts that I have pointed out above, not as an impulse to conformity, but to dissidence or conscious and free choice. To say that in the 60 societies analyzed there is an impulse towards the conformity of social rules does not mean that this impulse is good in itself, nor that a dissident person or group cannot consciously opt for better norms that suppose the dissolution of family ties or the denial of hierarchies. Therefore, to claim that this study is a milestone towards the formation of anthropologically founded moral consensuses seems to me to be an assertion that lacks any foundation. These are some preliminary considerations, awaiting a deeper analysis. |
20th February 2019, 11:58 PM | #21 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,980
|
What about...
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin! |
|
21st February 2019, 01:13 AM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
|
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
21st February 2019, 03:52 AM | #23 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
|
21st February 2019, 04:25 AM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,632
|
Pretty sure our ancestors bred them to be better, more amplified versions of our own better nature. It's both surprising and not surprising to me that everywhere on earth humans have been, we've had doggos right there with us. From the north pole to the deserts of the middle east, even the most inhospitable places have had dogs and humans co-thriving together.
|
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically not to accept uncritically whatever were told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan |
|
21st February 2019, 07:39 PM | #25 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 28,092
|
A few of you appear to confuse the list with a list of desirable morality. Example above. I doubt you could find a society where people generally were not loyal to their country or some other group. This is what they are saying. If this is good or bad or somethings good and at other times bad is another issue.
|
__________________
This signature is for rent. |
|
22nd February 2019, 09:57 AM | #26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|