RE: Psychology Addict # 49 | Where do Human’s Moral Convictions Come From? - A Psychological Overview
Welcome back, Abi.
People are as fragile as they are daredevil. Reading your article, I thought there had to be something like a collective memory. Then again, all of us who are born into great civilizations are already put into quite finished environments. Everything is already there, the whole environment is structured, explored, cultivated and loaded with content. Morality also seems to be something that is given into the field by the human collective in such a finished state. From an unspoken and not detailed point of view, I think we all understand morality to mean the same thing, even if we have different rules. For example, I do not believe that where the death penalty still exists, the executors are still convinced of the correctness of this practice. I believe that there is a fear of changing the rules and the resulting circumstances or dreaded debates. Hot potatoes.
Whether man is inherently good or evil is now such a strained debate that hopefully nobody believes anymore to have to decide for one side :-))
babies and toddlers are equipped with a great capacity to make accurate judgements about characters. Quite remarkable, right? So, we better watch our judgments and actions to set good examples to them, and gain their interest.
Yes, good point.
Presumably we always underestimate our own appearance in public space, not only the eyes of small children observe us, but the whole human world surrounding us. I also think that what I secretly think about morality or revenge has an influence on my environment. I don't even have to say it. The individual can count himself lucky if he doesn't feel tempted to repay evil with evil, because in fact the roles are always distributed and the whole world is never good, nor is it evil. The more time passes between my immoral deeds and mine, the better. Until I jump into the grave, I hopefully have balanced my account to some extent.
I liked your personal example with the girl that wanted to trade her toy for your water.
Babies are probably the most underestimated species when humans look at themselves.
Erika 😃
Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts here. I mostly like the observations you made about how everything is already here in terms of social structures. This is something particularly poignant when it comes to the development of identities . I believe. I was curious about your observation of people agreeing morality to be the same thing, in spite of different rules... Revenge is definitely a good point to raise in this discussion Erika, as it is manifested as a reaction to injustice.
Glad you liked my example. She was a sweet looking girl, too bad I don't remember what exactly her stuffed toy was.
I wish you a great weekend.
Lots of love from sunny Portugal :*
Yes, that is really something: revenge often is a reaction to injustice and makes things difficult.
In addition I had some further thoughts:
The existing rules do not always correspond to the zeitgeist that is already emerging and established in many parts. They are lagging behind in parts. This is certainly due to the fact that there is no homogeneity between people and while some still favour the eye-to-eye mentality, others are in favour of rehabilitation. The world has become a very big place, moral values not limited to one's own locality. This is why I find the most dangerous flows to be those in which one part of the population, in exaggerated zeal, tries to convert other parts of the world, thereby motivating not progress but counterproductive stagnation, sometimes even extreme terror. One should not overdo it with one's own permissiveness if elsewhere more sensitive value systems with a probably still stronger moral feeling are present. The systems are far more complicated than one could observe and judge and find a moral and communicative superstructure for all equally. Even physicists find it difficult to find a unifying theory, so why should philosophers, psychologists and sociologists be any different?
Isn't it much easier to find a moral agreement between two people or to negotiate it, than to want to do it for whole peoples? Very few of us speak simultaneously with thousands of people, but rather in dialogue with individuals or, when it comes up, in groups. It is better to keep the masses out of such encounters, isn't it? I recently visited a Syrian family and I get along very well with the mother. Nevertheless, I know that divorce is something morally questionable to them, but we elegantly circumnavigated the subject after there was such a hint and I only briefly revealed that I was divorced myself so that there would be no embarrassment later because the information was important to note.
The direct confrontation would not only be detrimental to our relationship, but also completely unnecessary, because we are mature enough to realize that agreement in this regard will be difficult to reach. Nevertheless, it also resonates that we do believe in meeting in friendship. But we do not need moral debates as long as we have not first discovered the similarities and a friendship can be established. The differences can be accepted much better if one has got to know the other person in all his good qualities. Then every moral judgement will not be as sharp, will it not?
This lets me think of diplomacy and things unspoken, because everybody feels the small influences with some sensitivity and uses them himself. It's a kind of elegant game, I noticed.
Have a lovely Sunday, dear Abi