Morality its just a word we made up to describe particular human behaviours which change from century to century ,country to country , individual to individual. Its bollocks. Its social acceptability. .all social animals have it to degrees .chimps have it in there social groups. Dolphins. Elephants. Its just a natural phenomenon
To some terrorism is a moral action,though they don't call it terrorism.its action by freedom fighters for instance.plus they normally claim to have god on their side and use the action as a judgement from god. If all morality is god given then surly god was responsible for Hitler and the Nazis and the ethos.let's not forget that what the Nazis done was done in gods name.and sanctioned by the Vatican at the time.
My favorite part of this was Dr Thompson's closing sentence "You be the judge." Rather than claim that he is right, he presents evidence and let's you decide.
I got to say, this was quite entertaining. This is why I love to learn about this stuff, the experts are excellent talkers. My Anthropology teacher faild at talking... and staying on topic, He was the only teacher that ever yelled at me for trying to keep things on topic, goodness forbid we not talk about politics in a class about evolution... half the class never cam back after his 30 minute rant at me...
22:40 That's exactly what I was thinking. The guy standing on the bridge next to you is not a worker on the track and neither are you. Neither one of you should have to own the risk of working in that environment. If he jumped off the bridge it would be noble, but you shouldn't make that decision for him (to own that risk). I know if I were a track worker, I would not want an innocent bystander to pay the price. If my life was saved because someone was pushed, I'd call the pusher a murderer.
I've heard an even more extreme example: Say you're an expert surgeon and you can pull off any organ transplant easily. You have four different patients, each with a different failing organ that will eventually kill them. Luckily, there's a man in the waiting room with a blood type that could be accepted by all of them. Presuming you COULD get away with it, is it okay to kill that one guy and use his organs to save the other four?
good one at 43.00 minutes in. Prozac affects the submission level of the brain. We are a Prozac Nation, so far. This has been my observation that has bothered me for so long. That rather than helping people to cope with depression it is preventing them from making decisions to get out of the situation they are in that is depressing them in the first place. So, they stick with the same patterns in life which are not necessarily a mentally healthy out come for all involved.
I don't think religion breeds psychopaths, however I think it tells them that NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOU WILL BE FORGIVEN. Meaning they are not held accountable for the disgusting things that they do because "God" will forgive them. Think of all the people that go to church every Sunday but behave like devils. Religion gives them a pass on their "sins".
Richarddawkinsdotnet is one of the best channels on youtube! I love listening to Andy Thomsons give these talks! They're great! Thank you RDF, Richard Dawkins, and Josh Timonen for your hard work and for these wonderful/educational videos! I look forward to the next one! Keep up the good work! :-)
It always made sense to me that allies are better than enemies; without brain science it stands to reason that if I do harm to another person I am expecting reciprocity in kind. I appreciate the brain science but I think that most of us atheist think morality is instinctive and reasonable. Most enlightening and appreciated. I live in a very Christian community and have my friends from here and we have actual love for each other; they don't try to convert me because they know they can't, and I do respect them because of the good they do for others. I don't care why they are good, but I hate them for that brief moment they black in the voting tabulation; when they come out of the voting booth, I love them in an instant.
@ivlfounder Six months ago I thought that ants acted largely mechanistically. But a month ago I listened to a podcast discussed the moral code of ants and how ants that act outside the accepted code are punished by the colony to bring them back into line. So ants are quite capable of making judgements and judgements imply a form of logic.
I was lucky that I live about 30 minutes from the hotel that hosted the event. Unfortunately, next year's event will be in Montreal... a bit further than I think I'll go. I did have a GREAT time this year and accomplished my goal of personally thanking Dr. Dawkins for his work.
For e.g. he shows some images of activations from an fMRI study of normative judgements - but what does that prove exactly ?? I am a researcher working in computational neuroscience, and this is a common problem we face in our field - people using "brain mapping" to draw all kinds of unsubstantiated conclusions. Just because we know where something is happening (even this is dubious) doesn't mean we know how / why it is happening. Localization is only 2% of the explanation
It's important to be honest that dogma is not indigenous to religion but rather religion is a vehicle for dogma. There are all manner of ilk promulgated by (as you mentioned; corporations, nationalism, and even sadly scientific institutions) people that are largely destructive to society. My beef is that religion, and more specifically the lack of critical thinking too often inextricably interwoven within it, is a bastion for this behavior rather than against it.
That was a well spoken and informative speech. Interesting study about involving infants at 26:42 Definition of moral intuition at 25:52 Interesting facts about Darwin at 30:48 Unfortunately he strawmans religion at 39:40 and presents a false dilemma about religion early on, but on the whole that was very interesting speech.
I'm an audio engineer, so it probably annoys me more than most. But I wish they would hire competent audio engineers for this kind of thing. The monotonous feedback makes this hard for me to watch.
This is because primarily of the dogma of religion. Claims to absolutes. These are all constructs meant to foster the in-group, out-group mentality, and are these constructs that set us back. They are all too often in opposition to change and to understanding the way the world actually is in favor of blind assertions of what we think the world is. Subscribing to the in-group, out-group mentality religion all too often promulgates means a rejection of reality in favor of following the group.
The Steve Weinberg quote I always find especially apt says it best: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." In any case, I appreciate your civility. Most people on UA-cam would have resorted to named calling by this junction. :)
I’m still bothered by the reaction of a co- worker fifty years ago. I worked for him one time when he asked me though it put me out at the time. When I really needed to get off, I asked David and he said to me, “When I needed you to work for me, I never said I would work for you.” He said this to me rather than saying he couldn’t because it would be onerous to him. I knew that it would cause him little problem to work for me. Later his girlfriend said to him how little he felt when he hurt her so much by treating her poorly though he had an option to do otherwise.
In the tube at 24:10 - you have a list from Haidt and Joseph, 2004. Moral domains = 1. Harm / care 2. Reciprocity /fairness 3. Authority / Hierarchy 4. Community / coalitions 5. Purity
True, people don't always act in their own best interest. But that doesn't change the fact that there are certain universal rules of conduct that benefit both individuals and society as a whole, and that most people, when they reflect on it, can come to see the inherent value in such principles.
I'm interrested to know the age/gender distribution of those hospital patients chosen to survive. My wife does these sort of moral dilemas at her school, but she plays with the genders. So far she's found that pre-menopausal females have by far the best survival rates in moral dilemas. This would certainly fit the evolutionary model. Saving a baby would provide your tribe with one extra life. Saving a fertile female would give your tribe 16 extra lives by the time the baby could produce one.
Great talk! I'm not so sure about his answer to the question asked at 44:10. He says it's a secondary justification, and so on. I'm not sure we can trick our brain into "buying" the "fact" that the big guy will stop the trolley. Maybe this specific moral dilemma isn't even valid because of this?
Those who were not psychopaths still chose to kill the one man to save 4 You dont need to be psycho to make the right decision Psychopathy is bad when making decisions because technically, a psychopath is not likely to interfere in the situation at all since he doesnt have the emotional conflicting part necessary to make him even consider the scenario To him the cost benefit analysis may be that its not worth the effort even to push the man since doing nothing costs him the least time/energy
The main thing I am taking away from this is not to bring up classic philosophical dilemmas in a room of intellectuals. Everyone seems to want to show off how their variation or solution.
There is a maturity when it comes to emotional reactions to others. When you have not achieved that maturity, due to brain damage or drug abuse or mental abuse, then you are a detriment to society and that is why we have checks and balances to prevent sociopaths from causing chaos.
I'd recommend reading the book; Wade does, in fact, cite evidence from anthropology, to biology, to in depth looks at tribes like the San Bushmen or the Aborigines in Australia. It's a look at belief itself: How early man believed, how this changed during settlement and agriculture, what place it has held in various cultures and the possible reasons we're predisposed towards it. While I won't say it's the end-all, be-all, it is insightful as a part of a broader understanding of faith.
@myerssa7 I'm with you, for the following reason: 1. If adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, consciousness does not exist 2. Without space, time, and matter, adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, although the opposite is not necessarily the case. Therefore, consciousness is less fundamental.
Regarding altruism... I had the experience named NDE. Of course, your mileage may vary... I discovered that the meaning of my life had been the integral sum of all the interactions with other minds weighted by consanguinity. I was content. The grand crescendo on a major chord was not the end. It appears there is a coda to that life. A chance for new and different interactions with other human beings being human too. May you enjoy the trip. The journey, not the destination is the thing.
The first problem with the 5 guys vs 1 guy could be made much more difficult (or easier?) by replacing the one guy with a person you know instead of someone you don't know. Do you save say your dad over 5 other people for instance? / Another excellent speech by Andy. Lots of material to dig into.
Lol. Personally I'd love to see the talk by Bill Maher that was mentioned in another video. Keep em coming; these are great! I'm gonna have to try to attend this convention next time.
Depression is a hormonal imbalance, peptides are hormonal signals between neurons. When the imbalance is addressed, the drugs are not needed. Thank you.
I once had an argument about a version of the trolley problem. It was in the movie "the Dark Knight". I argued that it was immoral for the people on the boat to not kill the inmates on the other boat. Since from an outside perspective, it was a choice between 100% of them dying, or only 50% of them dying. And that not turning the switch was the equivalent of killing everyone on the boat. The other guy didn't agree ofcourse, good to see a study that proves me right. (there were other factors).
@mebe84so we cant be sure of anything I'm not religious or anything, and a huge pain-in-the-ass skeptic. But the Tao says all we can be sure of is : change. Things will change. I am no Taoist, but I have no skepticism about that. Of course the overly skeptical, like the overly credulous, tend to eliminate themselves from the gene pool.
That's very all or nothing, wouldn't you say? Consider this for a memoent -- morality may be relative because, out of all the living things on the planet, there is only one that is in a cognitive position to conceive of the concept, or come up with the notion that it is needed. Or as Mark Twain said: "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to."
The most objective view of life; each species puts itself first. Knowledge today says life here is interdependent. As a transcendent species we understand that, others don´t. So we are in a position of special responsibility.I hold that as the guiding mission of mankind.Add to that, the nature of our success as a species as social interdependent being, and you have a basic guide for morality as objective as you can get. Potential for narrow egotism, or humanity are built in.Its a start.We chose
foot bridge/trolly prob: there is the lever in between the two persons. makes it more impersonal and as a consequence easier, emotionally to pull the lever. pushing the fat guy: you need to make physical contact. there is the diff. thats why automated , push button, remote control war is so lethal. it makes it much less emotional to pull a lever than it is to personally physically harm someone else. a level of physical separation from the one that is going to die.
I think it is a mistake to see equivalence in the two trolley examples that Dr. Thomson proposes. In the first case there is a clear opportunity to choose whether the trolley will proceed toward one potential victim or five potential victims. In the second case there are no clear opportunities. It is only a guess that pushing the one large individual off the bridge might stop or slow the trolley and thus save the other workers from harm.
43:48 "I'm among friends so..." Once you are on UA-cam it's not so cosy ;) You have to realise that most of your new friends are friends who maybe enjoy your thinking but don't necessarily run with the conclusions. Regards.
"Science" doesn't fall into absolutionist dogma. People do. I think this is an important distinction: Science is a process, and any honest scientist would not claim absolutes, and those that have learned hard lessons regarding such. (Another Einstein reference in his years long rejection of quantum mechanics.) Anything established by science must, by definition, be subject to the possibility of falsification. In physics if the math doesn't add up then the theory is off in some capacity.
Second clarification, and it's sadly a point you'd have garnered watching this wonderful video above. Religion is a social construct for in-group, out-group mentality. It once did have a place in our survival against competing groups. As we settled into agriculture religion changed as groups and individuals began to better able break down the originally egalitarian constructs of religion. We have now begun to reach a junction in our understanding where religion hinders rather than helps.
The body, stuck under the trolley, may provide friction against the tracks, SLOWLY bringing the trolley to a stop. If it hits the guy in the front of the group of 5, the trolley may not stop fast enough to not kill the remaining 4.
@ElysianFields100 I don't have any problem with your description of light, though I'm no physicist. My use of the analogy was only to highlight that the perceptual phenomenon of 'color' emerges out of the physical properties, the nanometers in wavelength, of those little packets of energy setting up a cascade that only begins in your eye. There is no color "in" a photon. Similarly, consciousness emerges from brain functions. Mind is what brain does.
And BTW, I am most definitely an atheist and think that the moral "argument" if you want to call it that is totally juvenile. I'm a human and I accept that I can't defeat my conscious. We can outsmart it in some ways, but I have and accept my own human biases because I couldn't live with myself otherwise. Doesn't make it objectively right or wrong, it is just my personal preference that is influenced by evolution.
@llnetbeast Im going to have to refer you to the last sentence of my previous comment. I specifically put in "in these types of situations" because i dont think that everyone should lack empathy towards everyone else. I simply contend that in situations that require sacrificing some to save many it is better to not be hindered by that emotion.
@PillowcaseHead The example doesn't really matter. It could've been anything to satisfy whatever you have a problem with. He's just using it to show how these problems make certain parts of people's brains light up perhaps suggestion that morality can be something determined be genes and not just something you learn in school.
Ignoring an aspect of a hypothetical situation is a bad reason to disagree with something. It was not asked what you would do if the guy had a -chance- to stop the trolley, it was if you -knew- that he would. The fact that you couldn't actually know this is what makes it a purely hypothetical question. If the only thing you're worried about is needlessly hurting someone, then if you were absolutely certain the guy would stop the trolley, it seems that you would push him - there's your answer.
Thomson seems to be saying that our evolved moral emotions govern how we behave to each other and that these are then simply rationalised. I'm sure this happens a lot of the time, but it seems to downplay the fact that we have also evolved the ability for abstract rational thought. I'd like to think that also informs my moral decisions more than a little.
Evolution is subtle and the rules apply that we, as a species are so connected to each other, that changes will occur with all of us. For example, due to refined diets, our jaw structures have shrunk by 20% in the overall populace, which means, extraction of wisdom teeth. Other examples are the no longer needed appendix. It happens as a whole, because the environment tends to make a probability that more than one individual mutated at the same time, because evolution isn't always by chance
They are also letting intrauniversal arguments apply to something of which we have no data. It's the same with the dubious statistical analysis of the likelihood for a universe like our to exist. It's an analysis based on 1 datapoint one.
What I meant, what that I feared, since you highlighted WLC, I could assume that those were amongst the strongest arguments put forwards by religious philosophers. If that were to be the case, then I'm back at square 1.
My current thinking is that the origins of morality is the oldest ever insurance policy and that this is completely in line with Darwinian principles. Our ancestors contributed to their group, and demonstrated a proportionately small amount of care to other individuals knowing that this would be returned if or when required. Hence, insurance that benefits the group/species as a whole and site the following Shanidar Cave findings. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186684 If "goodness/morality" is evident in our Neandathal cousins, surely we are closer to realising that we gave morality to religion, not the other way around.
Not necessarily. It is believed that altruism stems from the possibility of reciprocation, even if that possibility is very low. That behaviour is fuelled by emotions which have evolved to assist altruism within smaller groups where the possibility of reciprocity is quite high. Altruism is generally defined only as the pursuit of the welfare of others; that definition doesn't necessarily rule out a selfish motive, whether concious or otherwise.
If he didn't mention the other research, it would have just been him talking about "his" ideas. He's presenting arguments that are backed up by loads of studies.
Fascinating. I don't know what I would do in the second trolley car example, cost benefit is obvious, one life instead of five, but still, I would be directly hurting the guy. Now I'm going to lose my sleep...
They are the same problem but people think about it differently. With pushing the man YOU are killing him, not the trolley. With pulling the lever you're changing the trolley's course, and can rationalize it by saying you didn't kill him, you only moved the trolley. Also with the first one all of those people were hired to work on the tracks. They knew what risks could exist, so one could rationalize it that way. With the second that guy didn't work on the tracks. He didn't 'sign up for it'.
The examples he gave were slightly off because people weren't sure whether pushing the guy wud work or not. The better example is: 3 triplets. 2 of them r tied to a train track and the last is tied to a side track. The train is heading towards the 2 people and will kill them. you have the choice to pull a lever and turn the train towards the 1 person to save the other 2.
Oh. Well the guy at 45:00 points this out. But I disagree with Thomson's answer. By sheer calculation based on our experiences (human bodies can't stop trollies), it is a bad Utilitarian answer. I disagree that this in any way comes from "don't hurt the guy" mentality. Rather, I think we should just restructure the example so that a single bodily human sacrifice that the subject must effectively kill actually could plausibly prevent the deaths of five other people. (e.g. the starving shipmen)
I am sceptical that a trait would evolve in humans, or any other creature, which is (or was initially) entirely devoid of self interest. Even if altruistic behaviour is genuinely selfless, it seems to me that it is an offshoot of the tendency to help others in a group where there will be some kind of return. To me, it makes sense that it is in fact the same mechanism, which still operates in a wider society where reciprocation is unlikely.
What am I going to do it's a cataclysmic dilemma, & I'm only a surgeon we have to evacuate the hospital. I'M GOIN TO START PRAYING? Ok then god please grant me a strong heart, pair of steady hands also please god give me an evolved mind. Well since none of that worked I'm going to start shoveling sewage and save some lives, thanks god.
@raeat426 That was stated quite clearly in the video...that the 'reasoning' we apply to morals can indeed result in what we also term 'bad' actions for 'good' reasons... And since everyone has had a different history in life it is not unlikely that the same base rules will lead to different decisions.... However generally speaking most lectures like this are not absolutist since the lecturer knows full well the audience are free to, encouraged and most likely to read up from other sources.
I think you are getting to the point there, and missing it at the same time.From a non theist stand point the rules/morals were always made by man, and modified by man. There is an objective guide to morality, basically the well being of life, and the continuation of a prospering human community. Plenty of argument to be had there. So our predecessors decided it was best to say a "God" had given them rules. Practical, but most likely not true.I don´t think we can continue on a dishonest basis.
but he says morality is subjective, and the mediator may choose your view. But the default view is not to consider they took the risk but instead that its 4 lives against 1. I assume the study showed that the majority will choose that 4 lives are worth more than 1 no matter how you can justify another decision.
It seems like a lot of theists talk about their personal relationship, feelings, etc. I wonder what a study about psychopathic tendencies would reveal amongst atheists? Anyone know if this has been done (like they did with the Fortune 500 company execs)?
"please ant!" of course. I know - I always forget that these people are working hard every day while we are reading what they were working with before :) It's like hearing a favourite pop star (if one had one) suddenly sing anew song... and then you wonder where they have been :D
I can be pretty dense around complex philosophical issues at times, but I was wondering the same thing. I interpreted his analysis as the parts of the brain that provide the basis for morality is objective, while the interpretation is subjective. Or am I way off base?
@TheAmazingamerica - there is no 'evil' there's just people who are more or less willing to go outside of social norms. With some psychopaths we see that they experiment further and further out, whereas others probably never get diagnosed at all because they are just 'very focused' people about certain topics. I bet there are more psychopaths among politicians than executives.
I love what you have to say here. And it totally makes sense. It's important to note that I also read the Old Testament which accounts for much of the Holy Book of the Judaism and Islam. At the same time as I was reading the book I researched each faith as well as Eastern ones. The theory behind them all had fundamental flaws in how they work except Christianity. I unfortunately ruled the others out after meeting Jesus and accepting the Holy Spirit.
@@E.6-f9f If you care to know, the first experience felt like huge weight lifted off of me physically. Everything I cared about or cared to worry about did not matter at all anymore. Like ZERO. Immediately after, I had a flash vision and understanding of a new direction in how I operate from the Holy Spirit (which to me the vision was a brown, grainy, outline of a humans portrait). Thereafter, any conversations with God (or Jesus) only came after lots of faithful prayer and worship. I can never predict when I hear anything. It's still weird when I do receive a message.
Are you sure you read what I wrote? Anyway, I have no time for this now. I'm studying for some exams. I'll be back when they are over; and I'll take a look at some of the other philosophers you've listed.
There is a word for what is going on in this video. That word is equivocation. This definition of morality, just like with religious absolutism, doesn't allow for negotiation. Our morality may be influenced by natural tendencies, but that is not the entirety of morality's definition.
Let me ask you. Wouldn't you find it a big difference to make a decision about saving someone's life by killing someone else as opposed to sacrificing yourself? Both are altruistic, certainly, but the later is of a much greater magnitude.
again, im not arguing that certain rules of conduct benefit individuals and societies in various ways. What i am saying, is that there is yet to be convincing evidence or argument to support the claim that human flourishing is what we should seek, or individual freedom or anything else. There is yet to be any persuasive evidence for the statement that there are universal rules of conduct that are objective and true, more so then any other rule of conduct.
From where do we get morality? Dr. Andy Thompson explains.
'Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?' by Dr. Andy Thomson, AAI 2009
Morality its just a word we made up to describe particular human behaviours which change from century to century ,country to country , individual to individual. Its bollocks.
Its social acceptability. .all social animals have it to degrees .chimps have it in there social groups. Dolphins. Elephants. Its just a natural phenomenon
John marks wrong, morality is an innate human trait. No animals have it nor is it learned behavior. It is directly from God.
Fool
To some terrorism is a moral action,though they don't call it terrorism.its action by freedom fighters for instance.plus they normally claim to have god on their side and use the action as a judgement from god.
If all morality is god given then surly god was responsible for Hitler and the Nazis and the ethos.let's not forget that what the Nazis done was done in gods name.and sanctioned by the Vatican at the time.
Plus show me how animals don't have morality. How did you come to this conclusion
I think we need a "5th horseman". And he's it. Also Sean Carroll. Okay, 6. 6 horsemen.
Sean Carroll would be good. I haven't seen Andy talk yet. Bouta watch this vid though.
For anyone interested; the book mentioned, by Hare about psychopathy in business, is called 'Snakes in Suits'.
One of the best talks I've seen. Thomson is a great thinker and orator.
My favorite part of this was Dr Thompson's closing sentence "You be the judge."
Rather than claim that he is right, he presents evidence and let's you decide.
Keep these ~hour long lectures coming. I love them.
Wow ! I've been late to parties before but most of these comments are 10 years ago ! Well I am just discovering all these great talks.
Yes, I know. I'm glad everyone is enjoying these videos. :) - Josh
I got to say, this was quite entertaining. This is why I love to learn about this stuff, the experts are excellent talkers. My Anthropology teacher faild at talking... and staying on topic, He was the only teacher that ever yelled at me for trying to keep things on topic, goodness forbid we not talk about politics in a class about evolution...
half the class never cam back after his 30 minute rant at me...
The parts about the heirability and physiology of psychopathy were very interesting.
It is certainly a subject, that deserves more research.
Yet another fantastic talk by Dr. Thomson
22:40 That's exactly what I was thinking. The guy standing on the bridge next to you is not a worker on the track and neither are you. Neither one of you should have to own the risk of working in that environment. If he jumped off the bridge it would be noble, but you shouldn't make that decision for him (to own that risk). I know if I were a track worker, I would not want an innocent bystander to pay the price. If my life was saved because someone was pushed, I'd call the pusher a murderer.
I've heard an even more extreme example:
Say you're an expert surgeon and you can pull off any organ transplant easily. You have four different patients, each with a different failing organ that will eventually kill them. Luckily, there's a man in the waiting room with a blood type that could be accepted by all of them.
Presuming you COULD get away with it, is it okay to kill that one guy and use his organs to save the other four?
good one at 43.00 minutes in. Prozac affects the submission level of the brain. We are a Prozac Nation, so far. This has been my observation that has bothered me for so long. That rather than helping people to cope with depression it is preventing them from making decisions to get out of the situation they are in that is depressing them in the first place. So, they stick with the same patterns in life which are not necessarily a mentally healthy out come for all involved.
I don't think religion breeds psychopaths, however I think it tells them that NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, YOU WILL BE FORGIVEN. Meaning they are not held accountable for the disgusting things that they do because "God" will forgive them. Think of all the people that go to church every Sunday but behave like devils. Religion gives them a pass on their "sins".
Just because you will be forgiven does not mean you won’t be held accountable AT ALL. You should read more about that.
Richarddawkinsdotnet is one of the best channels on youtube! I love listening to Andy Thomsons give these talks! They're great! Thank you RDF, Richard Dawkins, and Josh Timonen for your hard work and for these wonderful/educational videos! I look forward to the next one! Keep up the good work! :-)
It always made sense to me that allies are better than enemies; without brain science it stands to reason that if I do harm to another person I am expecting reciprocity in kind.
I appreciate the brain science but I think that most of us atheist think morality is instinctive and reasonable. Most enlightening and appreciated.
I live in a very Christian community and have my friends from here and we have actual love for each other; they don't try to convert me because they know they can't, and I do respect them because of the good they do for others.
I don't care why they are good, but I hate them for that brief moment they black in the voting tabulation; when they come out of the voting booth, I love them in an instant.
@ivlfounder
Six months ago I thought that ants acted largely mechanistically. But a month ago I listened to a podcast discussed the moral code of ants and how ants that act outside the accepted code are punished by the colony to bring them back into line. So ants are quite capable of making judgements and judgements imply a form of logic.
What about these: Anti-gravity dark energy is 73%. Cold non-atomic dark matter is 23%, dark atomic matter is 3.6% and visible atomic matter is 0.4%?
I was lucky that I live about 30 minutes from the hotel that hosted the event. Unfortunately, next year's event will be in Montreal... a bit further than I think I'll go. I did have a GREAT time this year and accomplished my goal of personally thanking Dr. Dawkins for his work.
THANK YOU JOSH!
This was one of the lectures I missed during that great weekend, so thank you very much for the edit and post.
For e.g. he shows some images of activations from an fMRI study of normative judgements - but what does that prove exactly ??
I am a researcher working in computational neuroscience, and this is a common problem we face in our field - people using "brain mapping" to draw all kinds of unsubstantiated conclusions. Just because we know where something is happening (even this is dubious) doesn't mean we know how / why it is happening.
Localization is only 2% of the explanation
That was perhaps the most interesting video I have ever seen on youtube.
It's important to be honest that dogma is not indigenous to religion but rather religion is a vehicle for dogma. There are all manner of ilk promulgated by (as you mentioned; corporations, nationalism, and even sadly scientific institutions) people that are largely destructive to society. My beef is that religion, and more specifically the lack of critical thinking too often inextricably interwoven within it, is a bastion for this behavior rather than against it.
That was a well spoken and informative speech.
Interesting study about involving infants at 26:42
Definition of moral intuition at 25:52
Interesting facts about Darwin at 30:48
Unfortunately he strawmans religion at 39:40 and presents a false dilemma about religion early on, but on the whole that was very interesting speech.
I'm an audio engineer, so it probably annoys me more than most. But I wish they would hire competent audio engineers for this kind of thing. The monotonous feedback makes this hard for me to watch.
Thank you for uploading these videos. They are some of the most educational videos I've watched on UA-cam.
This is because primarily of the dogma of religion. Claims to absolutes. These are all constructs meant to foster the in-group, out-group mentality, and are these constructs that set us back. They are all too often in opposition to change and to understanding the way the world actually is in favor of blind assertions of what we think the world is. Subscribing to the in-group, out-group mentality religion all too often promulgates means a rejection of reality in favor of following the group.
Worth shaping. How you define what is worthy, what has worth.
The Steve Weinberg quote I always find especially apt says it best: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." In any case, I appreciate your civility. Most people on UA-cam would have resorted to named calling by this junction. :)
I’m still bothered by the reaction of a co- worker fifty years ago. I worked for him one time when he asked me though it put me out at the time. When I really needed to get off, I asked David and he said to me, “When I needed you to work for me, I never said I would work for you.” He said this to me rather than saying he couldn’t because it would be onerous to him. I knew that it would cause him little problem to work for me. Later his girlfriend said to him how little he felt when he hurt her so much by treating her poorly though he had an option to do otherwise.
this was shot with a really nice camera!!!
In the tube at 24:10 - you have a list from Haidt and Joseph, 2004.
Moral domains =
1. Harm / care
2. Reciprocity /fairness
3. Authority / Hierarchy
4. Community / coalitions
5. Purity
True, people don't always act in their own best interest. But that doesn't change the fact that there are certain universal rules of conduct that benefit both individuals and society as a whole, and that most people, when they reflect on it, can come to see the inherent value in such principles.
I'm interrested to know the age/gender distribution of those hospital patients chosen to survive.
My wife does these sort of moral dilemas at her school, but she plays with the genders.
So far she's found that pre-menopausal females have by far the best survival rates in moral dilemas.
This would certainly fit the evolutionary model.
Saving a baby would provide your tribe with one extra life. Saving a fertile female would give your tribe 16 extra lives by the time the baby could produce one.
Great talk!
I'm not so sure about his answer to the question asked at 44:10.
He says it's a secondary justification, and so on.
I'm not sure we can trick our brain into "buying" the "fact" that the big guy will stop the trolley. Maybe this specific moral dilemma isn't even valid because of this?
I feel bad for people who haven’t watched this videos after 12 years, is a lecture where you learn more than 5 university classes. 🔥
Those who were not psychopaths still chose to kill the one man to save 4
You dont need to be psycho to make the right decision
Psychopathy is bad when making decisions because technically, a psychopath is not likely to interfere in the situation at all since he doesnt have the emotional conflicting part necessary to make him even consider the scenario
To him the cost benefit analysis may be that its not worth the effort even to push the man since doing nothing costs him the least time/energy
The main thing I am taking away from this is not to bring up classic philosophical dilemmas in a room of intellectuals. Everyone seems to want to show off how their variation or solution.
There is a maturity when it comes to emotional reactions to others. When you have not achieved that maturity, due to brain damage or drug abuse or mental abuse, then you are a detriment to society and that is why we have checks and balances to prevent sociopaths from causing chaos.
I'd recommend reading the book; Wade does, in fact, cite evidence from anthropology, to biology, to in depth looks at tribes like the San Bushmen or the Aborigines in Australia. It's a look at belief itself: How early man believed, how this changed during settlement and agriculture, what place it has held in various cultures and the possible reasons we're predisposed towards it. While I won't say it's the end-all, be-all, it is insightful as a part of a broader understanding of faith.
@myerssa7 I'm with you, for the following reason:
1. If adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, consciousness does not exist
2. Without space, time, and matter, adequate oxygenated blood flow to the brain does not exist, although the opposite is not necessarily the case.
Therefore, consciousness is less fundamental.
I know, I know. That's what I get for trying to take a quick bow. :) - Josh
Regarding altruism...
I had the experience named NDE. Of course, your mileage may vary...
I discovered that the meaning of my life had been the integral sum of all the interactions with other minds weighted by consanguinity. I was content.
The grand crescendo on a major chord was not the end. It appears there is a coda to that life. A chance for new and different interactions with other human beings being human too. May you enjoy the trip. The journey, not the destination is the thing.
The first problem with the 5 guys vs 1 guy could be made much more difficult (or easier?) by replacing the one guy with a person you know instead of someone you don't know.
Do you save say your dad over 5 other people for instance?
/ Another excellent speech by Andy. Lots of material to dig into.
17:00
It'd be nice to see if Jerry Falwell would actually fall well.
To easy? Yeah, but I had to.
I just hope many others follow your example!
Lol. Personally I'd love to see the talk by Bill Maher that was mentioned in another video. Keep em coming; these are great! I'm gonna have to try to attend this convention next time.
Depression is a hormonal imbalance, peptides are hormonal signals between neurons. When the imbalance is addressed, the drugs are not needed.
Thank you.
I just got really excited. I was drinking last night. Thanks for the info. At least I know now that they're on the way.
Cheers,
(I'm also named) Josh
I once had an argument about a version of the trolley problem. It was in the movie "the Dark Knight". I argued that it was immoral for the people on the boat to not kill the inmates on the other boat. Since from an outside perspective, it was a choice between 100% of them dying, or only 50% of them dying. And that not turning the switch was the equivalent of killing everyone on the boat. The other guy didn't agree ofcourse, good to see a study that proves me right. (there were other factors).
@mebe84so we cant be sure of anything
I'm not religious or anything, and a huge pain-in-the-ass skeptic. But the Tao says all we can be sure of is : change. Things will change. I am no Taoist, but I have no skepticism about that.
Of course the overly skeptical, like the overly credulous, tend to eliminate themselves from the gene pool.
That's very all or nothing, wouldn't you say? Consider this for a memoent -- morality may be relative because, out of all the living things on the planet, there is only one that is in a cognitive position to conceive of the concept, or come up with the notion that it is needed. Or as Mark Twain said: "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to."
The most objective view of life; each species puts itself first. Knowledge today says life here is interdependent. As a transcendent species we understand that, others don´t. So we are in a position of special responsibility.I hold that as the guiding mission of mankind.Add to that, the nature of our success as a species as social interdependent being, and you have a basic guide for morality as objective as you can get. Potential for narrow egotism, or humanity are built in.Its a start.We chose
foot bridge/trolly prob:
there is the lever in between the two persons. makes it more impersonal and as a consequence easier, emotionally to pull the lever.
pushing the fat guy: you need to make physical contact. there is the diff. thats why automated , push button, remote control war is so lethal. it makes it much less emotional to pull a lever than it is to personally physically harm someone else. a level of physical separation from the one that is going to die.
I think it is a mistake to see equivalence in the two trolley examples that Dr. Thomson proposes. In the first case there is a clear opportunity to choose whether the trolley will proceed toward one potential victim or five potential victims. In the second case there are no clear opportunities. It is only a guess that pushing the one large individual off the bridge might stop or slow the trolley and thus save the other workers from harm.
43:48 "I'm among friends so..."
Once you are on UA-cam it's not so cosy ;) You have to realise that most of your new friends are friends who maybe enjoy your thinking but don't necessarily run with the conclusions. Regards.
"Science" doesn't fall into absolutionist dogma. People do. I think this is an important distinction: Science is a process, and any honest scientist would not claim absolutes, and those that have learned hard lessons regarding such. (Another Einstein reference in his years long rejection of quantum mechanics.) Anything established by science must, by definition, be subject to the possibility of falsification. In physics if the math doesn't add up then the theory is off in some capacity.
Second clarification, and it's sadly a point you'd have garnered watching this wonderful video above. Religion is a social construct for in-group, out-group mentality. It once did have a place in our survival against competing groups. As we settled into agriculture religion changed as groups and individuals began to better able break down the originally egalitarian constructs of religion. We have now begun to reach a junction in our understanding where religion hinders rather than helps.
The body, stuck under the trolley, may provide friction against the tracks, SLOWLY bringing the trolley to a stop. If it hits the guy in the front of the group of 5, the trolley may not stop fast enough to not kill the remaining 4.
@ElysianFields100 I don't have any problem with your description of light, though I'm no physicist. My use of the analogy was only to highlight that the perceptual phenomenon of 'color' emerges out of the physical properties, the nanometers in wavelength, of those little packets of energy setting up a cascade that only begins in your eye. There is no color "in" a photon. Similarly, consciousness emerges from brain functions. Mind is what brain does.
And BTW, I am most definitely an atheist and think that the moral "argument" if you want to call it that is totally juvenile. I'm a human and I accept that I can't defeat my conscious. We can outsmart it in some ways, but I have and accept my own human biases because I couldn't live with myself otherwise. Doesn't make it objectively right or wrong, it is just my personal preference that is influenced by evolution.
I'm a believer, however, I enjoy atheist lectures.
@llnetbeast Im going to have to refer you to the last sentence of my previous comment. I specifically put in "in these types of situations" because i dont think that everyone should lack empathy towards everyone else. I simply contend that in situations that require sacrificing some to save many it is better to not be hindered by that emotion.
@PillowcaseHead The example doesn't really matter. It could've been anything to satisfy whatever you have a problem with. He's just using it to show how these problems make certain parts of people's brains light up perhaps suggestion that morality can be something determined be genes and not just something you learn in school.
Ignoring an aspect of a hypothetical situation is a bad reason to disagree with something. It was not asked what you would do if the guy had a -chance- to stop the trolley, it was if you -knew- that he would. The fact that you couldn't actually know this is what makes it a purely hypothetical question. If the only thing you're worried about is needlessly hurting someone, then if you were absolutely certain the guy would stop the trolley, it seems that you would push him - there's your answer.
Great lecture... wish they would've corrected the typos... :-)
the thing to notice about this psychopathic thinking is that its purely logical and rational, not letting emotions interfere.
bravo !!!!! someone actually backed up my beliefs that has a degree !!!! proud Atheist !!!!
Geez, settle down buddy. More talks are coming, be patient. - Josh
Thomson seems to be saying that our evolved moral emotions govern how we behave to each other and that these are then simply rationalised. I'm sure this happens a lot of the time, but it seems to downplay the fact that we have also evolved the ability for abstract rational thought. I'd like to think that also informs my moral decisions more than a little.
Evolution is subtle and the rules apply that we, as a species are so connected to each other, that changes will occur with all of us. For example, due to refined diets, our jaw structures have shrunk by 20% in the overall populace, which means, extraction of wisdom teeth. Other examples are the no longer needed appendix. It happens as a whole, because the environment tends to make a probability that more than one individual mutated at the same time, because evolution isn't always by chance
They are also letting intrauniversal arguments apply to something of which we have no data.
It's the same with the dubious statistical analysis of the likelihood for a universe like our to exist. It's an analysis based on 1 datapoint one.
What I meant, what that I feared, since you highlighted WLC, I could assume that those were amongst the strongest arguments put forwards by religious philosophers. If that were to be the case, then I'm back at square 1.
My current thinking is that the origins of morality is the oldest ever insurance policy and that this is completely in line with Darwinian principles. Our ancestors contributed to their group, and demonstrated a proportionately small amount of care to other individuals knowing that this would be returned if or when required. Hence, insurance that benefits the group/species as a whole and site the following Shanidar Cave findings. journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186684
If "goodness/morality" is evident in our Neandathal cousins, surely we are closer to realising that we gave morality to religion, not the other way around.
Not necessarily. It is believed that altruism stems from the possibility of reciprocation, even if that possibility is very low. That behaviour is fuelled by emotions which have evolved to assist altruism within smaller groups where the possibility of reciprocity is quite high. Altruism is generally defined only as the pursuit of the welfare of others; that definition doesn't necessarily rule out a selfish motive, whether concious or otherwise.
If he didn't mention the other research, it would have just been him talking about "his" ideas. He's presenting arguments that are backed up by loads of studies.
Scientifically evaluative and excellent!
Fascinating.
I don't know what I would do in the second trolley car example, cost benefit is obvious, one life instead of five, but still, I would be directly hurting the guy. Now I'm going to lose my sleep...
They are the same problem but people think about it differently. With pushing the man YOU are killing him, not the trolley. With pulling the lever you're changing the trolley's course, and can rationalize it by saying you didn't kill him, you only moved the trolley.
Also with the first one all of those people were hired to work on the tracks. They knew what risks could exist, so one could rationalize it that way. With the second that guy didn't work on the tracks. He didn't 'sign up for it'.
amazing speech.
thx for sharing it with us.
The examples he gave were slightly off because people weren't sure whether pushing the guy wud work or not. The better example is:
3 triplets. 2 of them r tied to a train track and the last is tied to a side track. The train is heading towards the 2 people and will kill them. you have the choice to pull a lever and turn the train towards the 1 person to save the other 2.
Very interesting, thanks for posting
Oh. Well the guy at 45:00 points this out. But I disagree with Thomson's answer. By sheer calculation based on our experiences (human bodies can't stop trollies), it is a bad Utilitarian answer. I disagree that this in any way comes from "don't hurt the guy" mentality.
Rather, I think we should just restructure the example so that a single bodily human sacrifice that the subject must effectively kill actually could plausibly prevent the deaths of five other people. (e.g. the starving shipmen)
I am sceptical that a trait would evolve in humans, or any other creature, which is (or was initially) entirely devoid of self interest. Even if altruistic behaviour is genuinely selfless, it seems to me that it is an offshoot of the tendency to help others in a group where there will be some kind of return. To me, it makes sense that it is in fact the same mechanism, which still operates in a wider society where reciprocation is unlikely.
What am I going to do it's a cataclysmic dilemma, & I'm only a surgeon we have to evacuate the hospital. I'M GOIN TO START PRAYING? Ok then god please grant me a strong heart, pair of steady hands also please god give me an evolved mind. Well since none of that worked I'm going to start shoveling sewage and save some lives, thanks god.
Good point of people naturally moving back from the person presented as an atheist.
@raeat426 That was stated quite clearly in the video...that the 'reasoning' we apply to morals can indeed result in what we also term 'bad' actions for 'good' reasons...
And since everyone has had a different history in life it is not unlikely that the same base rules will lead to different decisions....
However generally speaking most lectures like this are not absolutist since the lecturer knows full well the audience are free to, encouraged and most likely to read up from other sources.
I think you are getting to the point there, and missing it at the same time.From a non theist stand point the rules/morals were always made by man, and modified by man. There is an objective guide to morality, basically the well being of life, and the continuation of a prospering human community. Plenty of argument to be had there. So our predecessors decided it was best to say a "God" had given them rules. Practical, but most likely not true.I don´t think we can continue on a dishonest basis.
but he says morality is subjective, and the mediator may choose your view.
But the default view is not to consider they took the risk but instead that its 4 lives against 1.
I assume the study showed that the majority will choose that 4 lives are worth more than 1 no matter how you can justify another decision.
It seems like a lot of theists talk about their personal relationship, feelings, etc. I wonder what a study about psychopathic tendencies would reveal amongst atheists? Anyone know if this has been done (like they did with the Fortune 500 company execs)?
"please ant!" of course. I know - I always forget that these people are working hard every day while we are reading what they were working with before :) It's like hearing a favourite pop star (if one had one) suddenly sing anew song... and then you wonder where they have been :D
I can be pretty dense around complex philosophical issues at times, but I was wondering the same thing. I interpreted his analysis as the parts of the brain that provide the basis for morality is objective, while the interpretation is subjective. Or am I way off base?
@TheAmazingamerica - there is no 'evil' there's just people who are more or less willing to go outside of social norms. With some psychopaths we see that they experiment further and further out, whereas others probably never get diagnosed at all because they are just 'very focused' people about certain topics.
I bet there are more psychopaths among politicians than executives.
I love what you have to say here. And it totally makes sense. It's important to note that I also read the Old Testament which accounts for much of the Holy Book of the Judaism and Islam. At the same time as I was reading the book I researched each faith as well as Eastern ones. The theory behind them all had fundamental flaws in how they work except Christianity. I unfortunately ruled the others out after meeting Jesus and accepting the Holy Spirit.
@@E.6-f9f If you care to know, the first experience felt like huge weight lifted off of me physically. Everything I cared about or cared to worry about did not matter at all anymore. Like ZERO. Immediately after, I had a flash vision and understanding of a new direction in how I operate from the Holy Spirit (which to me the vision was a brown, grainy, outline of a humans portrait). Thereafter, any conversations with God (or Jesus) only came after lots of faithful prayer and worship. I can never predict when I hear anything. It's still weird when I do receive a message.
Excellent talk
Are you sure you read what I wrote?
Anyway, I have no time for this now. I'm studying for some exams.
I'll be back when they are over; and I'll take a look at some of the other philosophers you've listed.
There is a word for what is going on in this video. That word is equivocation. This definition of morality, just like with religious absolutism, doesn't allow for negotiation. Our morality may be influenced by natural tendencies, but that is not the entirety of morality's definition.
Let me ask you. Wouldn't you find it a big difference to make a decision about saving someone's life by killing someone else as opposed to sacrificing yourself? Both are altruistic, certainly, but the later is of a much greater magnitude.
again, im not arguing that certain rules of conduct benefit individuals and societies in various ways. What i am saying, is that there is yet to be convincing evidence or argument to support the claim that human flourishing is what we should seek, or individual freedom or anything else. There is yet to be any persuasive evidence for the statement that there are universal rules of conduct that are objective and true, more so then any other rule of conduct.