Tuesday, April 03, 2007

This post is about Ch 7 that we were supposed to read this week... It was about morals and what is the cause of morals. Rowlands talked about the movie, The Hollow Man, where Kevin Bacon decided that he could do anything he wanted after he became invisible. Rowlands' theory was that we act "morally" because we care about what others perceive us to be. In other words, I don't say nasty things to someone who annoys me because I don't want to be interpreted as mean or impatient. Also, Rowlands thought that we have an unsaid pack between people that can be interpreted as morals. It is the thought "If I don't hit you, you won't hit me."

The first theory, more than the second, interests me because my professor in my gen psych class keeps telling us about his research that deals with the same concept. Basically, from what he has told us, his research is testing the theory that we act according to what other people think we should act. For example, I study and try to get good grades because my family emphasizes academic success. Take someone else from a different family who values athletic success more, that someone will be more prone to skipping studying to lift weights.

I don't agree with the theory that morals are a result of environment, though the environment undoubtedly influences them. I do agree that we are more prone to "acting out" when we are by ourselves (take for example, yelling at a slow driver in front of you when you are by yourself) but we still have a sense of morals (I feel some sense of guilt for saying such mean things to the slow driver later)... Any thoughts? Do you have inborn morals?

1 Comments:

Blogger bemily said...

I was wondering this, too. About if morals are innate or no. If morals are due to nature or nurture, or some combo of both. Besides Hume suggesting that our morals are innate, somehow I remember (or think I remember :p) C.S. Lewis hitting on this . . . maybe in Mere Xianity? Something along the lines that God had placed our desire for goodness (a.k.a. "moralness") inside us so that we would be drawn to him and long for something that confirmed this goodness/moralness we feel. (OK, maybe that wasn't Lewis, and was some other writer. I have very odd and misplaced memories at times.) But the idea of God putting moralness inside us so we relate to him seems kinda like Prof. Jensen was tlkaing about today (11 April) about how it's not really "moralness" if we have no reason for the "moralness" outside of God. So, if God put the "moralness" inside us, we have no reason to act on the moralness ourselves, because God put it inside us to act on. Like an automatic rxn, maybe. And of course this gets all fuzzy because it goes right back to the unanswerable concept of free will and if God made us automatically moral than shouldn't we stop looking at it as a choice (because it's automatic) and perhaps more as a bodily function? Crazy! And, for people who aren't moral, do they purposely choose to ignore the (let's suppose it is) innate morality within them and choose to hurt others? Why would God call us to love one another if our moralness already makes us care for our fellow human? Or, is God trying to say "Hey guys, try not to be so selfish. Think abotu others, yeah?" The moralness issue feels just as unanswerable to me as does the concept of free will.

1:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home