I moved this here…[:)]
Empathy needs to be cultivated by reason or else the feral child. Without learned reason and culture humans don’t know where/how to focus their instincts. Children grow up to learn different world views and are not born with them. This is why discoveries are made in science and philosophical debates encourage new ways at looking at life. We learn what to do with what we have and with physical culture expand our ways of dealing with the world.
I cannot describe my points in unambiguous text so I am forced to give a few examples to illustrate my point:
Assume that the typical human looks like some type of intelligent sea-creature living in the water. They are intelligent, capable of reading the minds with each other one thousand miles away. They display much empathy, compassion, and benevolence. Evolution has selected them to help one another in case of danger. If one sea-creature senses danger, it sends out messages to all the sea-creatures within a thousand degree radius. Receivers of those messages would immediately rush to the location, detecting any predators, to save the endangered creature.
One day, one sea-creature, called Chris, thought of a malicious idea. He was born with a talent to deceive messages, to lie to other sea-creatures. He soon found that he is able to send false calls of danger to others, in order to scare them. Chris will “cry wolf” to manipulate other sea-creatures to perform chores that he dislike to do. Some of these creatures will die of the exhaustion in attempt to help Chris.
By libertarian standards, Chris is acting immorally. He deceived other sea-creatures to perform his duty under the guise of the presence of danger. It is fraudulent, and equivalent to enslaving others.
Libertarians usually support some rights such as defamation, libel, and slander. Should the sea-creature society legalize the freedom of speech, it would allow Chris to be dishonest to exhaust the sea-creatures to extinction.
In addition, the female sea-creatures get highly traumatized by voyeurism. If a female sea-creature finds out that a nearby voyeur had spied her having sex, then she will acquire post-traumatic stress disorder. Every night, she will have nightmares from knowing that some other male has spying her having sex. All of the females will go traumatized throughout life.
However, libertarians usually support the legalization of voyeurism. This shows evidence that ethics depend of biology, as some laws can apply to humans but not to animals.
Imagine a enormous super-creature, shaped like a octopus, with one million tentacles. It roams about the earth, and weighs one billion kilograms. Within each tentacle, there exists a brain at its tip. Each brain is capable of rational foresight, empathy for other tentacles. Each tentacle is autonomous, can move in its own direction, and can move above and below each other. Occasionally, a new tentacle is created, old ones die and falls off. Each tentacle drills beneath the earth, looking for minerals to eat, and water to drink.
However, some tentacles eventually found out that it can be more efficient by specializing its labor. Instead of every tentacle drilling beneath one part of the earth for water, and minerals, they discovered that each could divide those tasks.
Now, some tentacles, who are strong and sturdy, can dig up gold to consume. Some tentacles, who are narrow enough, can pierce through the earth, through the hard rock, for groundwater. Some tentacles, who are created with a heat-resistant cover, can resist heat up to a million degrees Celsius. They dig through the hot molten mantle through earth, absorbing great amounts of heat to prepare for winter.
Each specialize with their own job. They exchange with each other. The gold-digging tentacles exchange for groundwater dug up from the water-digging tentacles. The heat-adsorbing tentacles exchange water from the narrow-welldiggers to rehydrate themselves.
However, the super-creature can only survive if exactly one third dug gold, exactly one-third dug water, and exactly one third absorb heat. It is programmed to be that way. If slightly one more or one less of the tentacles dug gold, then the whole super-creature will collapse, due to disequilibrium.
Therefore, newly born tentacles are assigned to a job.
In the libertarian viewpoint, this violates voluntary association, because it forbids each tentacle to choose their job. However, because forbidding the freedom to jobs is necessary for the tentacle to survive, the each tentacle should not have this right.
Its tentacles has mysterious dynamics. Besides the brain, a mouth is also located at the tip of each tentacle. Each tentacle must eat a balanced meal of gold and water every day. However, the gold and water will eventually flow from the tip of each tentacle to the central body of the super-creature, where the tentacles meet. If a tentacle each too much and turns fat, the nutrients will flow faster to the central body. Those excess nutrients get redistributed to other smaller tentacles.
The redistribution of nutrients happens constantly. The more productive tentacles will get upset for redistributing their nutrients to the poorer ones. And the less productive tentacles are happy that they receive free nutrients from the more productive tentacles.
This redistribution of nutrients functions like a welfare program. The more productive tentacles are being “taxed” to support the poorer tentacles.
At this point, the distinction of positive and negative liberty collapses. Because “negative liberty” is freedom from interference, each and every tentacle lacks negative liberty because of the nutrient-redistribution program.
Imagine some creatures who can travel through each other without interference. Therefore, it is unreasonable to forbid trespass and aggression, because nobody will get interfered or get hurt.
However, humans must ban trespass and aggression because of their biological trait that disallows the same organism to stand on the same location on the same time. Therefore, trespass and aggression are ad hoc rules that applies to humans but not to ghost-creatures.
These three examples demonstrate that ethics depends on the morphology of animals.
Below we will discuss four flaws of psychological egoism.
The first flaw of psychological egoism is that it does not accurately describe all human action. Reflexes are not based on pleasure and pain.
The second flaw of psychological egoism is that it is arbitrary to label the brain as “egoistic” when the components of the brain are not. Likewise, it is absurd to label the brain as “egoistic” when composites of the “whole brain” are not.
Let us look into this. Assume that the human brain is divided into parts or modules. Each part functions independently with each other. However, they often conflict with each other.
Let us imagine a brain with three parts. One part of the brain, called area-A, deals with the maximization of pleasure. Another part of the brain, called area-B, deals with the maximization of acquiring wealth. Another part, area-C, deals with the minimization of pain.
How do they function? Area-A tries to maximize pleasure when area-C tries to minimize pain. They conflict with each other: does area-A want more pain at the tradeoff of more pleasure, or vice versa? Does area-A want desire short-term pleasure at the expense of long-term pain of area-C? How much pleasure and pain should each of these areas settle?
How does area-A and area-C resolve those conflicts? Area-A sometimes have to sacrifice pleasure for less pain in area-C. Area-C may have to increase pain threadhold for area-A to gain long-term pleasure in the future. All these actions involves area-A or area-C sacrificing with each other. Area-C may sometimes altruistically benefit area-A, and sometimes area-C may be altruistic to area-A.
Should we say that area-A and area-C behave in their own interests, or they collectively interact for the greater interest to “maximize” the “whole brain,” the composite satisfaction of area-A, area-B, and area-C?
The question is that the interactions between the three components are selfish or the component parts – areas-A, area-B, and area-C – are each selfish but altruistic relative to the composite brain combined?
Let us look at the family.
We will use a metaphor of brain parts to represent family members. One part of the brain, called area-A, represents the mother. Another part represents, called area-B, represets the father. The third part represents, called area-C, represents the child.
The family members help each other. Each family member help one another when one is sick. Each help one another on housework. Why do all three family members help one another? Because they have an innate instinct to help each family member. Humans have evolved an instinct to help their kins. Therefore, can we describe the whole family as based on “self-interest”?
Each person is interconnected with one another in the form of an instinct to help each kin, for the greater benefit of the family. Similarly, each part of the brain conflict with each other, for the greater benefit of the aggregate brain.
Psychological egoists describe each family member as “egoistic” even when they help one another. This seems intuitively correct. However, could we say that each of the three parts of the brain are egoistic themselves, just like what each family member are?
Likewise, could we describe the aggregate “whole brain” is overall egoistic? Psychological egoists would tend to agree. But could we describe the family collectively itself as egoistic? Psychological egoists may intuitively disagree.
Each of the three brain components conflict and compromise with each other, producing an overall equilibrium. Similarly, each family member may conflict and compromise with each other, producing an overall equilibrium. Could we say that the overall equlibrium is “egoistic”? Could we say that the aggregates of the three components are as egoistic as the aggregates of the three family members?
Why do psychological egoists arbitrarily pick the brain as “egoistic,” while the family member as a whole as not “egoistic”? This is very arbitrary.
One may object that the best level is to pick the individual brain, instead of groups more than one person. They claim that is is more accurate to analyze action on the individual level rather than the group level. They practice methodological individualism.
However, picking the “whole brain” as the starting point of egoism is very arbitrary. Why do psychological egoists deny that “the family as a whole” as not egoistic but assert that “the brain as a whole” as egoistic? All parts in these two interact, conflict, and compromise with each other, right?
A third flaw of psychological egoism is that decisions made by the brain are not necessarily ‘optimal’ to maximize pleasure or to allievate uneasiness. Preference can change, and it is difficult to keep track of different preference changes developed throughout life.
For instance, an eight-year-old schoolboy, called Bob, may decided to assault his classmates for fun. Turning about 13 years old, he sexually matures and becomes sexually obsessed in girls. However, no girls at his school will be romantically interested in him, because of his poor reputation during his childhood. Bob regrets that he had ruined his reputation during his childhood. He wished that he had not assaulted his classmates when he was eight years old. Bob feels upset because he could not change that.
Let us say that Bob does not know that he will have a obsession for girls when he turns thirteen. Therefore, Bob, when he is eight-year-old, does not know that assaulting his classmates will lead to bad consequences for the rest of his life. Because he lacks the knowledge that he would have a preference for girls later in his life, he did not “maximize” that.
The Bob example has proven that humans cannot accurately adjust to dynamic preferences.
Humans have cognitive biases that simply cannot “optimize” pleasure. Imagine that you are preparing to go to an airport to go on a trip. However, humans decide to arrive an hour early on the airport because they are biased to reduce risk. Even though they can arrive merely five minutes earlier, they decide to miss fifty-five minutes of pleasure.
People that have obsessive-compulsive disorder do repetitive stuff. They simply do not “maximize” pleasure.
The problem is that empathy is itself not an instinct, but rather a manifestation of the physical features of mirror neurons. They allow us to mimic the mental theatre of others, illustrating the quantities of pain/pleasure that another may experience. But there’s something missing that can make the leap from feeling another’s pain to doing something about it. And that is the choice to act and to think on the consequences of one’s actions. Without that choice, whether free will or not, ethics is not possible. All you have is the simple pain/pleasure mechanism at work, where pain is largely avoided and pleasure is largely sought after.
AM, You might want to check out Herbert Spencer. He does a synthesis of biology and ethics but the conclusion he reaches is different than yours. Besides, he deals with biology and evolution as they are instead of introducing fictional creatures =P (I did enjoy your imagination exercise, tho).
I liked your post A-merc, and agree with a lot of it. A few points:
The way I think of it is that there are most definitely reflex arc type responses that guide much human action-- this shouldn’t be too controversial, i.e. knee jerks when the hammer hits it etc. Austrians may object that this is not really “action,” and they’re right in the sense that Mises and others don’t define action this way, but such a definition of action excludes a lot of what people think of as “action.” It wouldn’t be a problem if it were only simple things like a knee jerk, but I think that more complex actions such as getting up and drinking coffee before going to work, and even “moral” situations such as whether or not to electrically shock someone who fails a memorization test are based on programs that are basically reflex arc-like. It may be that they are innate biological hard-wirings, or it may be that they are formed by habit or a number of other possibilities-- the point is that they aren’t purely egoistic. Mises says that instincts are “for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world.” The problem I see with this is that it may very well be that many of the supposed (commonly thought of) “actions” of the “acting ego,” are actually “facts of the external world,” if we take this position. Now this is not necessarily an untenable position to hold-- although it certainly is a strange one which most psychological egoists don’t believe in.
The problem with my position is that I can’t quantify exactly what is action and isn’t-- but it’s as much a problem for psychological egoists as they can’t quantify exactly what is egoism and what isn’t.
In short, the mind is something like a computer. It has many programs, some of which seem to operate on “egoistic,” principles, but many of which seem not to. We can’t quantify exactly how much so.
There was a discussion about whether “the self,” is a single indivisible entity or not on here not too long ago. Most people seemed to come down on the side of there being a single, indivisible self, (the “whole brain” was picked arbitrarily as egoist) so you might have trouble convincing people of it.
Your third point seems weak to me. Is this not just saying that it is difficult to maximize pleasure/minimize pain, rather than saying that it is not human nature to do so?
I disagree. Deception is not immoral under a strict libertarian ethic, unless it includes a violation of contract. Most libertarians also hold to a humanist or judeo-christian ethic, under which this would be considered immoral activity, but lets be clear.
Calling the sea creature’s stupidity “slavery” is a serious distortion of language, as they are not being coerced, neither are they helping against their will.
This just shows that the actions would lead to the extinction of the species, not that such actions are immoral.
All you have shown is that biology can explain the way ethical systems have developed. You have not, and cannot, justify an ethical system based on biology. If I misunderstood, and that is not your intent, then I apologize. If that is the case, I do not think the concept very enlightening.
This simply exposes your misunderstanding of egoism.
Humans that decide to arrive an hour early to an airport, even if an hour earlier than absolutely necessary, does not mean that they are not maximizing pleasure. Uncertainty is inherent in nature, and these people simply have a smaller tolerance for risk. They are maximizing their knowable pleasure by choosing the comfort of arriving early and assuring they make the flight as more valuable than the alternative, which is to arrive 5 minutes early, achieving 55 minutes of pleasure at the risk of missing their flight.
People that have obsessive-compulsive disorder do repetitive stuff because to not do so bring immense psychological trauma. They are maximizing pleasure by minimizing pain. You do not understand what you are talking about.
Or, they are part of larger action-schemes, or they are actions themselves (ones that have been done so repeatedly they become almost reflexive…)
Psychological egoism deals with voluntary action. Reflexes are not applicable.
Some may deny that biology may justify ethical systems. Although it may be true that one cannot justify an “ought” from purely descriptive science, it is however not untrue that biology may refine or suggest further arguments for ethics. For example, evolutionary research on the causes of rape may suggest stricter penalties for convicted rapists.
Biological research, may, in fact, argue in favor of anarchy. Evolutionary psychologists have found that it is almost universal that humans feel empathy for each other, feel contempt against criminals, and use tit-for-tat for cooperation. Therefore, because evolutionary psychology has proven that most people are nice, have incentives to punish bad behavior (‘moralistic aggression’), and exchange goods with each other (‘reciprocal altruism’), this suggests that humans can sustain anarchy.
Evidence suggests, though with some exceptions, that genes overwhelmingly influence human behavior, as contrasted with the blank slate doctrine. In consequence, this suggests that punishment does not work in the long term, because malicious behavior are significantly influenced by genes. Therefore, psychology makes it unnecessary for parents to violently discipline their children.
These examples suggest that evolutionary biology may refine ethics, law, and criminology. In particular, evolutionary psychology redefined “human nature” as not necessary psychopathic, but empathetic. Psychology may refine the guidelines in dealing with criminals, for example. Rather than the axiomatic theory of retribution, as per Rothbard, evolutionary psychology may refomulate a more sound theory of self-defense and punishment. Contemporary libertarian theorists have played endless loops and sophistry to justify their theories, and now it is time for ethics to be refined–or even grounded–by science.
I actually agree.
The line “now it is time for ethics to be refined -or even grounded- by science” also, I think, refers to the struggle of reducing state-societies monopoly over science & even information itself, especially since the inception of The Internet.
We are not Blank Slates. Empathy has to do with relating to others. For example, the ability to put yourself in someone else’s place, or understanding one’s emotions without having it verbally transmitted to you. It is certainly a highly innate trait. There is ample evidence for this.
The idea that such traits are learned from the environment was the biggest blonder of mainstream psychology during much of the 20ths century, perhaps worst then Keynesian economics. You take the view of a “behaviorist”, yet behaviorism is literally a dead theory.
Consider that a lack of empathy can be a serious neurological disorder, such as in the case of Autism. Or that certain brain damages can also result with similar symptoms, yet the ability to reason may remain fully intact.
We are not trained monkeys.
It is.
It can only refine or suggest further arguments within the context of an ethical system, but never justify one. For example, an ethic based on the axiom of human survival and sustenance may very well use biology to elucidate and clarify a system of morals. The judeo-christian ethic, which has at its foundation the idea of human deprecation, subject to his carnal lusts, would have no need for biology, and could not be serviced by it.
A strictly libertarian ethic, one concerned with individual sovereignty and the right of each individual to his own system of valuation, does not seek to maximize humanity as a group, which limits the applicability of biology to it.
Never said we were.
yeap
Yes, but it needs cultivated. Society or an individual can reject this for more adrenaline, hyped up aggressive emotions. A famous study in Africa in which young male elephants were found killing rhinoceroses and other animals out of the blue was linked to high adrenaline in blood due to no adult male elephants around to calm them. For when they brought in adult male elephants from other areas the young males were calmed by the adult males setting their territory and putting the young in their place. The adrenaline levels in the young males blood dropped. They took numerous samples before and after. That is what the scientific study found. The adult males were not present in these particular young male areas due to State culling activities, it became a unintended consequence via the State.
Empathy is obvious and so is aggression in humans. Cultivation or lack thereof leads to either. Biology is the pool in which to cultivate these biological traits from. I never argued against empathy being biological. Yet, I also say aggression is biological too.
Never took that view.
Check up on what feral child means. It has nothing to do with empathy not being biological. It has more to do with development or else we remain child-like. After a certain age it becomes near impossible and then after even an older age ever the more near impossible for humans to even learn language. And at this point in development the exercises become about trying to get through ABC’s and clear communication and such.
I disagree. We are not born Socrates. We need to learn. This does mean we are exposing/releasing our biology and cultivating it into more skillful application. You ever here of the Shaolin monks? Now that’s tapping into potential.
I’m not sure what you mean by the term"cultivated" ? I think you mean that different environments can “shape” differently the personality of an individual. But I think you are also saying that human psychology (or human nature), or at least some of it, is also dependent on a learning process that takes place by observing others, perhaps during childhood.
I strongly disagree with such assertions based on the conclusive scientific evidence that has come out of the field of Behavioral Genetics over the past 4 decades. Many of the studies during the 20th century that have showed correlations of personality and behavior between parents and off-springs, wrongly inferred causation to the environment, because they carelessly or deliberately ignored biological heredity as a factor. They never controlled for any such factors. The correlations in fact, are a result of genes and not the specific upbringing of the parents or the specific environment. It’s not to say that it is all genes, but what is not a result of heredity is also not what I believe you refer to as “cultivation”.
The study of elephants that you have pointed to is exactly the type of research that one cannot infer anything valuable with respect to causal relations. It is certainly bad practice to base such conclusions on such a study in light of all of the overwhelming evidence from such reliable controlled experiments that point in the other direction.
Again, you are making many assertions based on a combination of things that don’t really prove anything that you are claiming.
Nobody says that the environment is not required for development. But having certain minimum conditions to stay on course doesn’t mean that “enriched environment” for example, develops a child any better. Short of severe neglect, there isn’t much evidence that there is any serious influence on one’s outcome. “enriched environments” often termed by experimental psychologist can be a misleading term. It usually means not a neglected environment.
Of course you are not born speaking German or English. You must learn that from the environment. But the learning is possible at a very young age only because language itself must be innate. Not the dialect, but the basic circuitry to speak, understand, and learn language is there. The fact that it must be acquired at a young age, simply means that it is part of some genetic program that enables a limited window of opportunity to acquire the specific dialect of the environment. Children are not conscious to the fact that they are learning to speak. They do it effortlessly without any structured environment or drills. Yet language is extremely more complex then anything we learn consciously. Children are not learning language like you are learning Austrian economics.
You must distinguish between the types of learning. One that is effortlessly acquired by specific mental ability that is mostly innate, and one that is acquired by discipline, reason, and logic, and often takes time and practice, such as reading and writing, math, science, history, etc. But human basic human psychology traits like empathy are most certainly innate. They are prerequisites for acquiring higher functions like language.
Arguing that human psychology is not a product of environmental conditioning doesn’t mean we are Socartes. It also doesn’t meant that environment doesn’t have a role in development. What it does mean is that the interaction between biology and environment is not necessarily a learning process in the sense of conscious learning that can be manipulated or predicted according to one’s environment.
It’s not all genes. And yes I well understand the past 4 decades. Do you speak Chinese? Do you know Rothbard before you read Rothbard? That’s what I’m saying by cultivation. But do our genes provide us with the faculty to speak Chinese? yes Do your genes provide us with the faculty to read and understand Rothbard? yes
If you think so. It was a recent study. Why do studies even occur if our genes tell all anyways? - so no genes don’t tell all, we need to learn.
Well the world is made up of assertions some scientific but you don’t have to believe them either.
thank goodness… So it was only a misunderstanding on your part then.
Back to square one. So if I never teach a child anything brought up in schooling the child will know it anyways cause of genes? doubt it.
thank goodness… So maybe back to you only misunderstood me. We also learn worldviews. Look around. There’s plenty of diverse cultures presently and in the past.
yes, I never said otherwise.
of course, your not saying anything to me I don’t know
I never said otherwise. Language requires the faculty reason too. I really don’t know what you’re seeing going on in my posts but it seems your seeing something that I’m not writing. But I see you taking a heavy gene approach that says reason is not necessary cause people will do it automatically (genes will tell them). Reason is a cultivator of the potential ground that our biological form is. Other people using reasoned or unreasoned knowledge also cultivate our biological mass. We are willing and ready, but without the proper guidance our genes might just do anything - even become criminal. But I hope not. I choose liberty instead.