Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Neurotyping and Moral Development

Page 2 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

02 Apr 2013, 7:09 am

There can't be one.

It depends on the situation and the context.

Ie a homeless man stealing food because he is starving is vastly different to someone stealing for greed when they do not need whatever they stole.

Someone stealing medicine to save a life is vastly different to someone stealing it for profit.

And so on. There are no set rules and never can be.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

02 Apr 2013, 7:11 am

bumble wrote:
There can't be one.

It depends on the situation and the context.

Ie a homeless man stealing food because he is starving is vastly different to someone stealing for greed when they do not need whatever they stole.

Someone stealing medicine to save a life is vastly different to someone stealing it for profit.

And so on. There are no set rules and never can be.


With no ultimates though, there is just chaos

Stealing is stealing regardless of the reason for it

If we allowed it based on context everyone would have a good reason



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

02 Apr 2013, 7:13 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
I just stumbled across this post.

You know, OP, you could have at least had the decency to provide a link to the original thread.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5298319 ... t=#5298319


One last comment on this.

I appreciate your feelings were hurt, as were mine by your accusation that I have no decency but do you think you could have tried an alternative approach such as:

Hi, I see you have made this post relating to a previous thread that I started. I would appreciate it if you could please provide a link to my thread in your OP as this is the way we prefer to do things around here.

(or similar)

That way no one gets judged and no ones feelings get hurt.

Thank you.



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

02 Apr 2013, 7:15 am

nessa238 wrote:
bumble wrote:
There can't be one.

It depends on the situation and the context.

Ie a homeless man stealing food because he is starving is vastly different to someone stealing for greed when they do not need whatever they stole.

Someone stealing medicine to save a life is vastly different to someone stealing it for profit.

And so on. There are no set rules and never can be.


With no ultimates though, there is just chaos

Stealing is stealing regardless of the reason for it

If we allowed it based on context everyone would have a good reason


what is immoral in one situation is not immoral in another. Just as what is negative in one situation can be positive in another.

All relevant factors have to be considered. Stealing for need is different to stealing for greed.

At the end of the day life and the welfare of the individual in terms of making sure their needs are met should always be considered to be more important than materialism, power, status and so on.

Edit: please bear in mind that needs are not the same as wants and what each individual needs might be slightly different from one person to another. Needs also include both physical and emotional.

Bearing this in mind would result in a more peaceful society at the very least.



bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

02 Apr 2013, 7:33 am

PN it is not an excuse to run around stealing for the sake of it every time you think you need something.

I never steal but if I had to in order to preserve a life (that of my own or another), yes I would. I just don't need to, so I don't.

If i can preseve a life by stealing and I have the means to do so, to not do so would be akin to murder. Murder is far worse than theft...in most instances (there may be exceptions but there would have to be pretty strong reasons to just letting someone die or to harm them in that way...bloody strong).

I veer more towards preserving life, not harming it.



Last edited by bumble on 02 Apr 2013, 7:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

02 Apr 2013, 7:34 am

nessa238 wrote:
I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.


Indeed, there's a univeral moral, if we consider going to very basics of what moral is.

In a very basic way, moral is a set of rules that a society develops. Why any moral survive and expands? Because the society does so.

For example: why is killing against most of moral codes? Because no society where killing each other is morally aceptable is intended to last.

So, the very last question about any moral code, to be considered moral, is 'does this rule help to the survival and expansion of this group'? Of course, it's a very utilitaristic view of a moral, but in the very essence, this is what a moral is.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


bumble
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,073

02 Apr 2013, 7:39 am

Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.


Indeed, there's a univeral moral, if we consider going to very basics of what moral is.

In a very basic way, moral is a set of rules that a society develops. Why any moral survive and expands? Because the society does so.

For example: why is killing against most of moral codes? Because no society where killing each other is morally aceptable is intended to last.

So, the very last question about any moral code, to be considered moral, is 'does this rule help to the survival and expansion of this group'? Of course, it's a very utilitaristic view of a moral, but in the very essence, this is what a moral is.


Not always...certain states in america commit murder every day.

They do so every time they give someone the death penalty and carry it out. They consider it morally acceptable to do so.

I am anti death penalty by the way but I am not American and we don't have a death penalty in the UK.



Last edited by bumble on 02 Apr 2013, 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

02 Apr 2013, 7:39 am

Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.


Indeed, there's a univeral moral, if we consider going to very basics of what moral is.

In a very basic way, moral is a set of rules that a society develops. Why any moral survive and expands? Because the society does so.

For example: why is killing against most of moral codes? Because no society where killing each other is morally aceptable is intended to last.

So, the very last question about any moral code, to be considered moral, is 'does this rule help to the survival and expansion of this group'? Of course, it's a very utilitaristic view of a moral, but in the very essence, this is what a moral is.


I've noticed society has become a lot nastier and more selfish as I've grown older - how is this helping society?



Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

02 Apr 2013, 7:45 am

nessa238 wrote:
Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.


Indeed, there's a univeral moral, if we consider going to very basics of what moral is.

In a very basic way, moral is a set of rules that a society develops. Why any moral survive and expands? Because the society does so.

For example: why is killing against most of moral codes? Because no society where killing each other is morally aceptable is intended to last.

So, the very last question about any moral code, to be considered moral, is 'does this rule help to the survival and expansion of this group'? Of course, it's a very utilitaristic view of a moral, but in the very essence, this is what a moral is.


I've noticed society has become a lot nastier and more selfish as I've grown older - how is this helping society?


I didn't say it's helping. We should survive as a species first, to discover if the way society is changing is the right one.

If we don't survive, if wasnt.


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

02 Apr 2013, 7:52 am

Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.


Indeed, there's a univeral moral, if we consider going to very basics of what moral is.

In a very basic way, moral is a set of rules that a society develops. Why any moral survive and expands? Because the society does so.

For example: why is killing against most of moral codes? Because no society where killing each other is morally aceptable is intended to last.

So, the very last question about any moral code, to be considered moral, is 'does this rule help to the survival and expansion of this group'? Of course, it's a very utilitaristic view of a moral, but in the very essence, this is what a moral is.


I've noticed society has become a lot nastier and more selfish as I've grown older - how is this helping society?


I didn't say it's helping. We should survive as a species first, to discover if the way society is changing is the right one.

If we don't survive, if wasnt.


I feel I probably wasn't meant to survive; as if society in general considers me too defective hence I get treated badly and I'm expected to go off and die somewhere

I feel by staying alive I'm subverting what my biological imperative is

From what I have observed, society helps the people it wants to survive and abandons and treats badly the ones it wants to go to the wall

I'm certainly not getting any encouragement from society at all

In which case, what is my incentive to abide by society's rules?



Greb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 964
Location: Under the sea [level]

02 Apr 2013, 8:10 am

nessa238 wrote:
I feel I probably wasn't meant to survive; as if society in general considers me too defective hence I get treated badly and I'm expected to go off and die somewhere

I feel by staying alive I'm subverting what my biological imperative is

From what I have observed, society helps the people it wants to survive and abandons and treats badly the ones it wants to go to the wall

I'm certainly not getting any encouragement from society at all

In which case, what is my incentive to abide by society's rules?


Well, the origin of moral is the selfish gene, that makes us involve with the survival of our close ones. That probably gets settled as a set rules with common elements in different societies (as 'don't kill'). The more common the element, it's likely to be the more important to the survival of the society. The rest of them could be considered, from my point of view, circumstantials or even random.

Anyway, what changes everything is the fact that in some moment we start to wonder about 'what is a moral code'. As long as the moral code comes from God (or any other religious or spiritual entity) we don't make any question. But... what happens when we start to make questions about what is right? But right and wrong are just only words we made up to describe circumstancial social set of rulesevolved because the survival of societies. What happens when we start to look at ourselves (and not society traditional set of rules) as the judges of what is right and wrong?


_________________
1 part of Asperger | 1 part of OCD | 2 parts of ADHD / APD / GT-LD / 2e
And finally, another part of secret spices :^)


nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

02 Apr 2013, 8:14 am

Greb wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
I feel I probably wasn't meant to survive; as if society in general considers me too defective hence I get treated badly and I'm expected to go off and die somewhere

I feel by staying alive I'm subverting what my biological imperative is

From what I have observed, society helps the people it wants to survive and abandons and treats badly the ones it wants to go to the wall

I'm certainly not getting any encouragement from society at all

In which case, what is my incentive to abide by society's rules?


Well, the origin of moral is the selfish gene, that makes us involve with the survival of our close ones. That probably gets settled as a set rules with common elements in different societies (as 'don't kill'). The more common the element, it's likely to be the more important to the survival of the society. The rest of them could be considered, from my point of view, circumstantials or even random.

Anyway, what changes everything is when we start to wonder about 'what is moral code'. As long as the moral code comes from God (or any other religious or spiritual entity) we don't make any question. But... what happens when we start to make questions about what is right? When right is just only a word we made up to describe a circumstancial social set of rules? What happens when we start to look at ourselves (and not society traditional set of rules evolved because the survival of societies) as the judges of what is right and wrong?


Exactly

If you are rejected from society and made to feel you aren't included, you have no incentive to take on board society's rules

So you are in danger of developing your own set of rules and morals

I abide by society's general rules for an easy life but sometimes I think to myself that I have no incentive to do so.
I think the people who abide by the rules are getting rewarded for doing so whereas I am not.

I understand why people kill other people - they are saying they have their own morality/set of rules



Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

02 Apr 2013, 4:14 pm

Quote:
So you criticize the author for stereotyping NTs, then turn around and stereotype conservatives? Interesting.


It's no stereotype. Google 'right wing authoritarianism'.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

02 Apr 2013, 5:45 pm

IMHO:

bumble wrote:
Do you think they result from neurological difference (IE autistic vs NT) or could it just be a matter of people being at different stages of moral development regardless of their neurological make up?

Is moral development related to a difference in neurology or differences in learning or both?


I view humans like I would view any primate species.

As it so happens, primates are highly social animals that have been programmed throughout thousands of years with a brain that prioritizes "social reasoning." It's not inherently "bad" that humans primarily interact with the world via a network of social relationships: it is, after all, what humans have evolved to do, and what we excel at (we have the most complex social structure of any known primate).

I would imagine that people with a bug in their "social reasoning program" might need to take alternate paths towards "morality."

Quote:
Is there a limit as to how far an individual can develop their moral development and can that limit depend on other factors such as general level of intelligence (in other words can all human be trained to the same stage of moral development or is there an individual limit that can be reached).


"Morality" is too fuzzy of a concept for me to answer succinctly.

Quote:
If they cannot how would you go about correcting problems such as those outlined in the aforementioned blog, without impinging on free will in the process (another moral issue).


I wouldn't try.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


scarp
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 194
Location: Virginia

02 Apr 2013, 8:42 pm

It seems that the subject has veered a bit from talking about moral development in different neurotypes to talking about morality in general. While we're on the subject, though, this mini-series on morality is pretty good:

Video #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

Video #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo

Video #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN-yLH4bXAI

Each video is ~15 minutes, but they are well scripted and well preformed (no rambling, long pauses or veering off topic) and as such should go by fairly quickly.

Carry on, then. :wink:



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

05 Apr 2013, 2:37 am

bumble wrote:
How was supposed to know you would be hurt because I made a post about my reply to your thread and didn't link your thread.

It is a strange thing to feel hurt over and I am not bloody psychic.


With all due respect, you seem more hurt than anyone.

What do starving children have to do with my gripe?

It's not the end of the world, no. I just thought it was a bit weasily to mention 'another thread,' and conveniently not provide a link, as if you didn't want others to have access to the thread, like you didn't want them to see/read the original thoughts that you didn't agree with.

So I thought I'd share, since emotions are essential and all. Should I not have granted any legitimacy to my emotions?