Why do you have the moral beliefs you do? You will probably be able to clearly articulate your beliefs and the reasons you have for holding them—and even to use these reasons to try to persuade others. So you may think that rationality plays a large part in the formation of your moral belief system.
Yet an emerging cross-disciplinary area of study—call it “moral psychology”—is beginning to find empirical support for the proposition that when it comes to morality, it is our emotions in the driving seat rather than our reason—whether we are aware of it or not. In a fascinating web exclusive for Prospect, Dan Jones explains.
Also this week, Shaun Walker, the Independent’s Moscow correspondent, on how the west’s recognition of Kosovo has given fresh impetus to the attempts by Abkhazia, the breakaway province of Georgia, to achieve full independence.
Interesting, although one has intuitively thought along these lines for some time. The next step is to address that red state/blue state issue and find out whether the religious element of morality can always be justified. Reading the scene-setting paragraph called ‘hot morality’, I found that I was saying things to myself very much along the lines of the end of the article - was that initial paragraph written in the best way? I wonder which part of their brains Bush and Cheney use to justify torturing suspects?
It was so much interesting to see the other sides of morality.. though i hve just studied the two kinds of morality. Slave and Master morality (Ubermanch) :Superman: … but to read it unifocusly one can easily link the hot morality wid the master morality.. which obviously American has. Morality deals with sympthy, peace love, Co-operation and help, but in hot or Master Morality such kind of things r the basic objective to be ignored. The up mentioned basic pillers are for the slave morality.. which a country lyk India, pakistan, and third world countries have.. i really appreciate the way U pendown some thing to realize ureself.
peace and Love
sami khan
Dear Sir:
At the risk of needling the old Oxon boar Prof Dawkins, I do think this old trend of locating the moral cypher and the conscience trip-wire in the endocrine system or the junk gene for lunacy is a tad dated and now over-blown - besides Dawkins went out in the Noughties - design in an inert molecule is an absurd idea that Dawkins has peppered with the moda of respectability though all geneticists would call his theory of the selfish gene absurd if not selfish.
German SS clinicians tried to airbrush the conscience out of social and political and medicare life in the Thirties before the start of their mad war on the rest of Europe - for much the same rationale - as will soon emerge from the archives over in Austria, so we can put this new effort to remove the conscience from public life to one side - it is simple another stab in favour of the know-all, decide-all state - all encompassing, all-efficient, but clinically a tyrant.
Try discussing these junk gene and junk endocrine theories in the light of the cries of beautiful young yiddish and italian and slav children as they were marched into the chambers of Dachau - as previously discussed and clinically anaesthetised by the German version of the Daily Mail - all those “horrible johnny foreigners” that merited a final clinical solution? We will learn to rationate logically one day I hope - those of us who had little friends in Dachau.
As my Afro girlfriend says of this era - just too blind to believe - where are the children of CCCP Russia - they are all dead too at the hands of cold ethically-air-brushed clinicians. Do we also need an Anti-Nazi League in Russia?
TV
The issue of morality and it’s origins is a bit hollow.
Men are essentially wild beasts. However we want to rise above that beastiality and so we have laws and religion.
Law is inforced. We have to obey or be punished. So to give our selves some degree of autonomy we create ethics. Rules by which to live but which are inforceable only bt a social pact and if we fail to abide by one of these ethics we face only a social ostrication but face no real punishment.
Religion on the other hand carries with it no real earthly punishment and so it’s rules can be violated with impunity if you do not beleive in any kind of a life hear after. However if you do beleive in a life beyond death as most of us do, then you fear a most dire punishment for transgressions.
Moralists feel that rules of conduct with eternal consequences are all fine and all that but if man is advanced as he now seems to be in as far as his understanding right from wrong then should we not be in on or better yet in compleat control of making the rules for “proper conduct”. To look at the Psycological origins of morality by simply poseing morals puzzles is not looking into the origins of morality at all.