Inherently good at birth?
People at birth are inherently good.
Chloé Zhao
This is a current meme by the director of the film Nomadland.
I would contend that at birth there are no moral inclinations. What ever our moral values become are a result of environment and personal development- of which a newborn has little. Quips like the one above are hopeless underthought and better seen as a mechanism to garner a 'feelgood' vibe for the author. Right or wrong?
Chloé Zhao
This is a current meme by the director of the film Nomadland.
I would contend that at birth there are no moral inclinations. What ever our moral values become are a result of environment and personal development- of which a newborn has little. Quips like the one above are hopeless underthought and better seen as a mechanism to garner a 'feelgood' vibe for the author. Right or wrong?
Comments (52)
Yeah, maybe; but at which "birth"...
And "good" – for what? to whom?
Ms. Zhao's (congrats, btw! :clap:) statement is just as ambiguous (as most versions of) "the golden rule". All that can be said factually about people at any stage of life is that 'we're all suffers dependent on one another as suffers for brief respites from suffering'.
That may be so. However, it doesn't mean that "at birth there are no moral inclinations". A new-born lion cub may look cute and cuddly and inclined to do only good, but deep inside it may already dream of the day it is big and strong enough to have you for breakfast. The inclinations may be already present at birth in latent form.
Quoting Apollodorus
There are studies that show that human children start making what we would call "moral" distinctions at a very early age - two or three months. Here's a link to an episode of 60 Minutes. It's about 13 minutes long with 2 minutes of ads. I've never seen a psychological study that impresses me or has influenced my views of human nature more. I always think of this when someone disparages psychology as a science. What could be more important than this?
https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/msGw1iFHLOXlVdeZtfO9KBW9Kffq3VUl/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/
Correct. And this would suggest that moral inclinations are present at birth in some latent form. Thanks for the link.
There may be hard wired inclinations for sure- but the eating me part is my interpretation of 'good', the lion is just being a lion.
If an agent's actions affect somebody else, then the person or creature at the receiving end is entitled to make a moral judgement in regard to those actions. If a lion decided to eat me, I wouldn't be inclined to see that as "good". I don't care if it's in the lion's nature to eat people. That's why some animals are generally regarded as pests i.e. "bad" for you.
Haha. I read the title as inherently "good at birth." Like Octomom, who gave birth to octuplets.
I think this is the old philosophical question of whether we're all born innocent and corrupted by the world; or if some people pop out fully evil. Like The Bad Seed.
I just listened to a street preacher earier today. He INSISTED that we are horrible creatures when we get born, and we are sinners, and never get rid of that rap.
Right.
Tapeworms and polio bacili are seldom referred to a cuddly little creatures. I have yet to see a four-year-old girl who loves her blonde, blue-eyed, fashionable looking thing from the movie "Alien".
That's what I'm saying. Bat viruses like Covid-19 may or may not have evil intentions at birth, but what if they develop some later or if someone releases them on the world as a form of biological weapon?
This is a good analogy. Hm, what to add? I suppose based on the savage and chaotic environment in which we live (violent collisions of rock and dust creating planets, among other things), perhaps those who remain good are in fact excellent and those who turn bad aren't completely terrible. Hard to say. Depending on whose grave you stand on to speak, of course.
Polio is caused by a virus, not a bacilli. Not much good about it, and it has almost been stamped out. Tapeworms, on the other hand, have one benefit: people who have severe allergies suffer less if they have tapeworms, because the worms suppress the immune reaction--to protect their wormy selves.
Not sure that I would sign up for worm therapy if I had bad allergies.
Quoting Proximate1
It isn't like Ms. Zhao is the first one to have that thought -- the goodness of the new-born has been a topic of much discussion for a long time.
We are so constituted that there probably IS a moral inclination at birth -- not a preference for moral vs. immoral, but rather a brain structure (and species habit) that will lead to people having fear, guilt, and comfort connected to their behavior. How does this work?
Young children depend on caregivers. Caregivers reward good behavior and punish bad behavior (however good and bad are defined, and however you think of reward and punishment). Where are fear, guilt, and comfort situated? In the limbic system. Where is the part of the brain that tries to please caregivers? It's in the frontal cortex. There are (normally) strong neural connections between the two parts. As the child develops, the rules and regulations, fear, guilt, comfort, and joy are internalized. The person will tend to behave morally ever after. Perfect system? No -- good people can manage to do bad things.
The worst outcome for this system is when the connections between the frontal cortex and limbic system fail to develop. The result is a psychopathic person who doesn't feel much guilt or joy, and has no internalized moral code.
By saying "good" of something, James Riley inadvertently made man the measure of all things.
How one can shoot himself on the foot in one easy step.
Polio is caused by a bacilus that carries the polio virus and gets into a human's body.
Joking. I stand corrected.
As I noted in a previous post on this thread, there is strong evidence that babies as young as three months can make clear choices that it makes sense to call "moral," and others that it makes sense to call "biased." I think that shows that human moral judgements are strongly built-in. That doesn't negate the importance of learning and socialization as children grow older.
How can anyone's reasoning be so faulty? I did not make man the measure of all things when I said I found a blob of clay to be good. I am not the measure of all things, nor do I speak for All.
You mean, "how can someone not agree with me?"
By dividing ALL things into being good and not good, you give all things a measure of goodness or badness. And good and bad are qualities that are humano-centric; without humans (or equivalents) the terms "good" and "bad" would be meaningless.
It's true that language itself also would not exist; but you use the language to translate your judgment of things (good or bad) into human-understood information. Language is a transfer element; the "good" and "bad" are primary judgments, the measure of man, and only of man.
Another demonstration of your faulty reasoning is when you tell someone else what they meant.
Quoting god must be atheist
I did not divide ALL things into being good and not good.
Quoting god must be atheist
First, good and bad are not qualities that are humano-centric. Second, to find "meaninglessness" is your subjective opinion. All may find an objective good or bad (or something else) in spite of us.
Quoting god must be atheist
My judgement is not the measure of all things. And my use of language to translate my judgement into human-understood information says nothing more than I am human. It does not make man the measure of all things. And being "human-understood" is not necessary to All.
Quoting god must be atheist
Other creatures have language and transfer judgements of good and bad all the time.
Sorry, then I take back my post. Sorry.
By attributing a quality to a blob of wet clay, honestly I thought it was symbolic of all dead matter. I mean, how could I not think that?
Okay, I take it back. So you think a blob of clay is good.
Would you say that a piece of driftwood is bad, or good? or an old piece of tv part lying on the side of the road is good or bad? I mean, if a clay could be judged for being good, I don't see how we can stop at not going on with this.
But you say, that the buck stops at blobs of clay. Fine, I accept that. You don't put everything into good and bad piles of judgment. Fine. Just clay.
Whether I am the measure of all things, it is a fundamental assumption of my philosophy that humanity is. Basic units for measurement are at human scale. We measure things in feet, horses in hands. Of course, we measure power in horsepower, so maybe humanity and equinity are the measures of all things. If you don't believe in an absolute moral standards, as I don't, human value is a product of human thinking and feeling. As I noted in posts earlier today in another thread, established science indicates that humans develop a moral sense at a very early age, as early as three months. This indicates that, to a large extent, our moral thinking and behavior is inborn. Something similar is also true of language and maybe number.
Beyond that, it makes sense to me that our understanding of the world, reality itself, is a function of our particular human nervous system and perceptual organs. I'm not ready to defend that position at this point.
You were correct, it is, but my saying so says nothing more than my subjective opinion is human. It does not make man the measure of it simply because a man acts like a man. It is my philosophy that All perceives itself through All it's parts. That would make clay, wood, whatever All would have it be. Not us. Not man.
Quoting god must be atheist
There you go again, telling me what I say. LOL!
"In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is mans supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of it's own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted." J.O. yGassett
What I see in your entire post (correct me if I am wrong) is that humans are humans; that humans are stuck being human. I can agree with that. But that does not transmogrify us into the measure of all that we measure.
Well, on one hand you said it is not all things that are dead matter that you judge, and on the other hand, you agree it is all things that are dead matter you judge.
it is easy to refute my point, when you contradict yourself, because no matter which of the two-part contradiction
- I attribute to you
- I disprove,
you will say (and HAVE said) that I am wrong in doing so, by drawing my attention to the opposing side of your contradictive claims.
TC I have always held this as an intuitive belief. Humans think like humans for human reasons - the world and us is to some extent 'created' by our corporeal strengths and limitations.
Slow yourself down, and try thinking before posting. In referencing clay, I talked of nothing else (i.e. not all dead things). Then, in explaining how man is not the measure of all things, I referenced All as the measure of the rest, good or bad. My humanity is not the measure. And that would not only include clay or "all dead things" (I don't know where you pulled that language from) but also living things.
Quoting god must be atheist
It is easy to refute your point when you set up straw men and try to impose your measure of me on me by telling me what I mean or think or say.
Quoting god must be atheist
There's were you fall down. My claims are not contradictive.
I think that is correct. I don't quite understand how that makes us the measure of all things. If it's simply saying that we can't not be us, okay. If that means there cannot be an objective perception, or the perception of anything other than man, or that any such other perception is irrelevant, then I would disagree.
I hear you. I guess it depends on what 'the measure of all things' means. Protagaros aside, I am the measure of all things in my universe. As Gore Vidal used to say - 'When I die I'm going take all of you with me."
HA! Love it.
I just watched a lady die today and was talking with my wife about it. Notwithstanding all the talk and actions, when it boils down to it, death is ALL about the living. I've seen it's approach, it's arrival, the Wills, the memorials and many other angles. There is a lot of memory and memories and homages. But it's all about the living. I just see other measures, or at least I'm willing to acknowlege they might exist in spite of me or anyone else.
I've seen animals measure. I've seen them measure others, and I've seen them measure me. Anyone who's spent time with horses knows it.
Never, never say "correct me if I am wrong" in a response to me. Surprisingly enough, yes, you are wrong. Well, let's just say I disagree with you. We didn't "transmogrify" into the measure of all things. We invented measurement. Measurement is human enterprise. Why else would we care about measurement except as it applies to ourselves? What would we ever measure except things that have an effect on our lives?
By my calculation, I am a bit less than 2 ^10-16 light years tall. That's about 2,000,000,000 nanometers. Please don't check my math.
I think you and I agree. If I were born today, I'd ask for factory installed blue-tooth and undercoating. I've noticed things getting a bit rusty lately.
Agreed.
You don't think animals measure their environment? And is what we care about the only measure? And where does the "we" come from? By that, I mean why are you and I, both "man" aligned together in measure under the heading of "man", instead of being pitted against each other in our measurement as would, I guess, be man and animal? Wouldn't it be better to say "Each individual is the measure of all things?" That way the truth, as Plato might have it, is whatever we, individually, say it is. Or is there some collective human experience that has yet to collect?
I don't suppose we would measure anything that didn't have an effect on our lives, but I don't see how that makes us the measure of all things? Are you saying "measurer" or "measurers" or simply "measure" as used in my initial post? Regardless, we measure. But that doesn't mean we are the measure of all things.
SYMBOLIC OF ALL MATTER. You agreed.
Quoting James Riley
I really don't understand why you can't think back what you had said just five minutes before.
So by saying that you don't judge all things, the only thing that remain exclusive of your judgement are living things. All things that are dead matter, are good. Living things are neither good, nor bad.
Gaaaaa!!!!!
Quoting James Riley
But you contradicted this, by this:
Quoting James Riley
If you were consistent in your statements just for five minutes... it would be so lovely. You'd make sense, and there would be substance to your reasoning.
You keep calling me an idiot, whereas I only try to make sense of you utterances (or rather, point out that it is not possible).
What am I supposed to say to your barrage of attacking me, calling me out on all kinds of drummed up reasons?
First, on the merits of our argument, that does not make man the measure of all things. That makes me the measurer of those things. Second, my point in entertaining your digression, from clay to all other things, was, as already explained to you, in reference to All. All is the measure of all things, good or bad. Not man.
Quoting god must be atheist
I did not contradict, as explained above and below.
Back to the merits of our argument: The statement "Man is the measure of all things" is exclusive. If man is the measure of all things, then nothing else can be the measure of anything. If you do not agree with that, then let's argue that. If you agree with that, then when I measure a baby with clay, or clay with a baby, and measure the clay as good, that does not demonstrate that man is the measure of all things. As I said in response to your digression, I leave it to All to measure (and I'll add, be the measure) of all things as good or bad. Man is not the measure of all things, and my measuring anything as good will never make it so.
Quoting god must be atheist
?
Quoting god must be atheist
The reasons were not drummed up. They were responses to your digression from clay to all things, your trying to put words in my mouth, and your hyperbolic, emotive frustration, as demonstrated by suggesting I called you an idiot, or that by saying "good" of something, I inadvertently made man the measure of all things, or asking "How one can shoot himself on the foot in one easy step."
So, trying to get back on track, is the following statement true? "If man is the measure of all things, then nothing else can be the measure of anything." If you disagree, then we can argue. If you agree, then I would be happy to argue that things other than man can be the measure of other things.
Good or bad comes from what Man wants, and so I feel you might have boxed yourself in.
I don't see how I boxed myself in. I can stipulate to all you just said (and I do), and yet it does not mean that man is the measure of all things. There is a leap there, that cannot logically be made. I like the Gore Vidal quote, not only because it is witty, but it is illustrative of what I think is meant by the statement "Man is the measure of all things." When Vidal dies, he is going to take all of us with him. I get that. That is true, for Vidal. Yet: 1. We are still here; and 2. The same is true for an elk. Are elk the measure of all things?
If a pack of wolves is harrying a herd of elk, looking for the weakest link, are they not measuring the herd, even if no man is there to witness it? Even if I never proposed it? If they select what they perceive to be the weakest link and kill it, have they not measured that elk? And when that elk dies, does he/she not take all those wolves and all she's ever known, with her?
Why is man the measure of all things when there is so much more than man to measure, and be measured? It seems the height of something, if not arrogance, to say we are the measure of all things. If not arrogance, then what is it the height of, to say that? It's clearly the height of something. Maybe someone can explain that to me.
Personally, I believe All is the measure of all things.
Just to make sure you and I are using the same meaning, the definition of "measure" I think the line is talking about is "a standard of comparison, estimation, or judgment." The important word there for this discussion is "comparison." When we measure, we compare one thing, what is being measured, with another, a measure. So, no, I don't think most animals do that. It strikes me that it takes a strong capacity for abstraction. And yes, when we "take the measure" of something, we hold it up to and compare it to what we care about.
Quoting James Riley
Measurement is a matter of social convention. We, humanity, decide on how to measure by what standards, except here in the US where we'll never use that Communistic, depraved metric system.
Quoting James Riley
At this point, I think we've reduced this to a question of language preference. There's probably no further we can take it than that. I say "tomato" and you say kg-m/s^2.
As you can probably tell from my posts, I agree with you.
No one takes anyone with them into death.
I guess there is the rub. I think we can use the same definition of measure, but still disagree on whether man is the sole measure. As a slight digression, I think the distinction you draw is one that we use to assuage our feelings about how we treat animals. But again, that's an aside.
Quoting T Clark
I agree, and those social conventions often spring from experience. We might say that pack of wolves doesn't attack that giant, prime bull because "instinct" and "evolution" have taught them not to. I disagree. Getting kicked to pieces, or seeing a peer get kicked to pieces is a lesson an animal can measure. They won't even waste their time, even when hunger is the great motivator.
The fact that we, humanity, do this does not render it our province to he exclusion of all else, much less All.
Again, I think we've pared this down to a question of language.
I was trying to acknowledge the Vidal quote as illustrative of the statement that I take issue with: "Man is the measure of all things." I'm not here going down another rabbit hole unrelated to the argument at hand.
I wish that were the case, but I've stipulated to your use of terms. I don't think it's a question of language so much as it is a difference of opinion on the merits of the statement. Anyway, thank you for forcing me to think without the triggering.
Fun as usual.