Charles Manson dead!

[SoulMonster]

48 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Translation=it's all a big nothing.

1. Really? How?
2. How do they do that?
3. Isn't empathy just a potential for morals? Someone may feel empathetic and then completely disregard that feeling. Actually carrying out the empathy is what's moralistic.
4. Can you give examples? How can we be certain we aren't projecting things onto these other species because of our human filter?

1. Mutations that change the amount of gene product and/or function of the gene product. 

2. In humans, study people with spontaneous  mutations in genes hypothesised to be correlated with components of morality. In animals, create mutations in such genes and study the effect. 

3. Empathy is, depending upon how you define it, a component of morality. Like altruism. 

If someone feels empathy they are likely to behave empathically. Similarly, people won't behave with empathy if they don't have that feeling. 

4. There are thousands of well-studied examples from other animals. All social animals have to various extent behaviours that are highly reminiscent of human morality. If you are genuinely interested, and from your comment that it is "all a big nothing" I am inclined to think you aren't, then a simple Google search should give you lots to read. 

[Ace Nova]

Never heard of any studies that come anywhere close to proving morality is genetic.

Please post some links Soul.

 

[SoulMonster]

44 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Never heard of any studies that come anywhere close to proving morality is genetic.

Please post some links Soul.

In these discussions I think it is crucial to maintain nuances. I never claimed it was proved that "morality is genetic", I said that morality has "a genetic basis". These are two different things, the first implies that morality is nothing but genetics, the latter that at least parts of morality has a genetic foundation.

Morality in itself is a fuzzy term and hard to study. But components of morality, like empathy and altruism are more precisely defined and can be studied experimentally. I will not be able to provide you with a comprehensive summary of research on these fields, some come from direct genetical research others from studies of tissue defects in people with anti-social behaviour which strongly implies that genes are at work, but if you do a simple search in pubmed with the words "empathy" and "heritability" you get 16 hits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=empathy+heritability

[SoulMonster]

43 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

1. You mean mutations in the creation of human life? I thought you were saying someone could be alive and walking around and have their genes and therefore their morals corrupted.

2. Correlation isn't causation though. What you say sounds very broad/vague, could you define their process further or is that asking too much? Animals are not proven to possess morals.

3. A component/part of the puzzle of morality is not morality.

Most of us feel deep empathy with homeless people, starving kids, victims of war etc and shrug it off and not only do nothing but willfully allow it to happen. Empathy is selective, which is why I don't classify it as inherently moral.

4. Define reminiscent. Can you think of any particularly good studies I should look at? When I said "It's all a big nothing." I wasn't saying what you had said was nothing. I was talking bleakly about life/existence, also it was a joke.

1. Yes, I mean that people can be born with genetic variants that result in changes to their behaviour, including morality. Genes determine the structure of our brain, which again modulate our behaviour. Certain damage to brain tissue modifies behaviour in somewhat predictable manner. E.g. you can find lots of studies where various forms of brain damage has caused alteration of behaviour, including anti-social behaviour. Similarly, if you are born with gene variations that directly cause such abnormal brain tissue equivalent to having brain damage, you start off life that way.

2. Animals don't possess morality because morality is usually defined as a uniquely human trait. But animals do, to varying degree, display behaviour that we typically consider to be component of morality, like the aforementioned empathy. There are lots of studies on empathy and altruism in animals. I could provide you with lots of examples but I am a bit short on time now and you can easily find these things yourself by simple searches.

3. I have never claimed as much.

4. See 2. I can provide you with examples when I am back.

[CHRISSY]

oh no. I'm posting in a Charles Manson thread, again.

we are inherently good people, as created. We stray because we are weak, and because we can. For me personally I think because I was raised with strong Christian values I am able to feel empathy, respect and the entire host of virtues that allow most of us  to live in peace and harmony.  default reaction in being in a bad situation, or by someone seeking a confrontation is to go to my faith, every time. Life isn't fair but so what.

 I also happen to believe if that upbringing is force fed, it has a reverse affect. I have seen this first hand in people I associate with. In the case of Manson I think the absence of these values being instilled at an early age, the rejection and hopelessness of his trying to wander through youth alone led to him allowing evil to somehow comfort him. Same I assume with his followers.

It doesn't take much for any of us to go off the rails and lash out in anger, even to the point and level of the evil we see in these lost souls of infamy. Whether it be Manson, Hitler, or the guy next door it is certainly in us.

The constant in faith is reminding yourself to be forgiving. And realizing the reward may only be in contentment, for now.

Edited November 30, 2017 by CHRISSY

[Len Cnut]

Steve McQueens background has alarming similarities with Charlies.  Both had parents that didn't want em, born out of wedlock, a youth with a fair bit of petty crime in it, both were sent to boys town reformatories by parents who couldn't be bothered to look after them.  Steve was even on Charlies death list, a he even lived in the area of the Tates/LaBiancas, or close by.  His other neighbour was Keith Moon.  Some people never get a break, do they?   Steve was actually invited to the Tates the night of the murders but couldn't be bothered turning up.  Jay Sebring, one of the murder victims was a good friend of Steves (as well as being Jim Morrisons barber).

I would've loved to've seen Tex Watson vs Steve McQueen in a one on one, that wouldn't've lasted long

Edited November 28, 2017 by Len Cnut

[soon]

16 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Steve McQueens background has alarming similarities with Charlies.  Both had parents that didn't want em, born out of wedlock, a youth with a fair bit of petty crime in it, both were sent to boys town reformatories by parents who couldn't be bothered to look after them.  Steve was even on Charlies death list, a he even lived in the area of the Tates/LaBiancas, or close by.  His other neighbour was Keith Moon.  Some people never get a break, do they?   Steve was actually invited to the Tates the night of the murders but couldn't be bothered turning up.  Jay Sebring, one of the murder victims was a good friend of Steves (as well as being Jim Morrisons barber).

I would've loved to've seen Tex Watson vs Steve McQueen in a one on one, that wouldn't've lasted long

This guy had a barber?  

 

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

This guy had a barber?  

 

I think he'd lost a bit of it by then but apparently he went to Jay Sebring with an old photograph of Alexander the Great, or rather a picture of some statue of him or him on a coin, and said he wanted his hair like that.

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by Len Cnut