[Lava Lamp Freak]

Are there studies of genes that play a part in morality? Aside from religious upbringing, and learned rules/laws, are our brains encoded with basic rules of what is right and wrong? Or is morality as a whole just a fabrication of society?

What about people who were raised in the same family, yet one turns out to be a doctor who saves lives and the other a killer who takes them? Was this killer born inherently "bad," or did he make a choice at some point which took him down that path? Or, did he, perhaps, have a mental ailment that interfered with either his learned or natural moral compass.

I heard someone mention this and became curious. I can't find anything helpful online on the topic.

[Chuckit]

I've read about studies in this general area (don't have any links handy — I'll see if I can dig anything up later), but as I recall, the answer is basically that it's not possible to answer this question categorically. Genes seem to play a role, but they're usually not the overwhelming factor. But then you have people genetically predisposed to mental illness, and in those cases the impact is much more direct. That's what I seem to recall, anyway.

[JonoMarshall]

Bad gened MacNN folks:

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...oisy-neighbors

For me the concept of right and wrong preceeds everything else, be it by genes or simply an understanding of communication/experience/social norms.

[BRussell]

Don't know about morality, but there are a number of twin studies showing heritability of criminality. Do a search on 'human behavioral genetics" or 'twin studies' or 'heritability' and criminality.

And I think most people believe that people with antisocial personalities (i.e., immoral people) are more born than made.

[olePigeon]

In the 11th chromosome there's a gene that attributes to what we call altruism. That's about as close to genetic morals as you can get.

[olePigeon]

American Renaissance News: Israeli Researchers Find ‘Altruism Gene’

Here's an older article, I'm trying to find a more recent one in Science. There was a followup of the study.

[lpkmckenna]

From the report: "Anorexic women score high on the Selflessness Scale. “They may take altruism to an extreme, eating minimally to ‘sacrifice’ food for other people.”

Uh, I'm pretty sure anorexia and morality are completely separate things, neither influencing the other. Do we evaluate mental illness on a moral basis now?

I'd love to see this "selflessness scale." Sounds like nonsense.

[JonoMarshall]

The selflessness scale:

You (Not Important) - - -> Everyone Else (Important) - - -> Friends/Family (V. Important)

Simple really?

[Chuckit]

How is it more selfless to value those who are close to you above those who aren't than to value everybody equally no matter how much they affect you directly?

[JonoMarshall]

Because you'll interact with their lives more frequently so it's more important to have a positive effect on them.

Baudrillard's "Hyper reality" can be used to defend this kind of system as you need to use more "real" elements within your everday interaction with others to avoid your own layers of perception and understanding. Selfless individuals should always be moving the individuals labelled here as "everybody" toward the traditionally close realm of "friends/family" by default.

But in the "real world" a selfless individual is a boring individual and the system would only work if it was possible to have a unified understaning of one another (as each individuals sense of identity or "projected self" is entirely selfish).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

The selflessness scale:

You (Not Important) - - -> Everyone Else (Important) - - -> Friends/Family (V. Important)

Simple really?

I'm pretty sure that the scale used by these psychologists is somewhat more indepth.

Besides, your "scale" is retarded. Regarding oneself as "not important" is an indicator of low self-esteem, not morality.

[JonoMarshall]

I'm pretty sure that the scale used by thpse psychologists is somewhat more indepth.

No doubt, heh.

Besides, your "scale" is retarded. Regarding oneself as "not important" is an indicator of low self-esteem, not morality.

By "Not Important" I meant that you put the needs of others first. You're using the word "Important" slightly differently.

Here's a ridiculous example: The Chief of an island places himself on the scale.

[JonoMarshall]

Besides, your "scale" is retarded. Regarding oneself as "not important" is an indicator of low self-esteem, not morality.

Also, the scale is to do with selflessness, not morality (directly). Flame on! Heh.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

The selflessness scale:

You (Not Important) - - -> Everyone Else (Important) - - -> Friends/Family (V. Important)

Simple really?

I don't get that either. I haven't seen the scale they use, but I'd imagine it would be more like:

selfish ---> neutral ---> altruistic

[JonoMarshall]

I made up the scale, so I doubt it's an accurate representation of anything. It was meant to symbolise putting others before yourself in a simple (and at the time 'amusing') way.

Altruism is a vague term as it can still has two meanings, but I guess here you mean in the pre-planned recognition of a selfless act sense?

I'd still argue that it's impossible to be truly selfless as it's impossible to be ignorant of (or abstracted from) your own identity, which is then perceived and reflected/interpreted by those who interact with you.

None of this really makes sense and I have to be off, but I guess I'm trying to suggest that we have a hidden level of (entirely) selfish communication as a device for judging/aligning yourself with others in an originally primitive, but perhaps now more sophisticated way.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

There is an article on The New York Times that in part discussed this. It's a good read if you are a subscriber. I didn't understand most of it, though.

One can speculate, as Dawkins does, that members of a species are generous to one another out of a desire (not consciously held) to preserve the gene pool, or that unconditioned giving is an advertisement of dominance and superiority. These, he says, are “good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral’ towards each other.”

The New York Times > TimesSelect