Conscience

[AlphaTemplar]

Are we born with a conscience or is it a product of social conditioning? Does it work to our advantage, our disadvantage, or neither? Discuss

Personally I'd say conscience is genetic, it keeps us from killing each other indiscriminately and instead fosters helpful cooperation that's beneficial for the species as a whole. In the natural world, animals kill each other but only when its necessary for survival - that's conscience, albeit at a simpler level.

 

[judas69]

My take on this is that genetics and environment work together as it does in most cases (always a safe bet). However, as you have alluded to, having a conscience is definitely a product of higher brain function (ie, smaller, simpler animals appear to have less of a conscience if any ..while those capable of higher brain function - having a more complex frontal lobe - have a greater sense of it thus have a greater feeling of guilt associated with the wrong they might see and do. And I do agree that survival does preceed this ability, else no animal would kill another for fear of the guilt that would come along with that ..and we would die off and quickly become extinct. But I do think you can be conditioned otherwise (ie, many humans would die before killing and eating another human being, even if it were necessary for their survival).

Now, take my cat for example. Though feed very well at home, she will still go outside and look for rats, chase birds and stomp on grasshoppers etc, and just follow her instinct and kill without any regret .. and just leave it there dead. This is mainly becauase she has the inability to fully process pain, and death, and thus her conscience is probably very limited to what she did that has had a direct negative reprocussion to her in the past ..that is to say, if I had physically conditioned her not to do this. So, not having the intelligence to understand what is right and wrong herself, and cannot fully grasp that all animals feel pain and not just her ...there is little thought that goes into considering the morality of it, and thus little to no guilt from it. Though, she still has some ability.

Assuming the inclination towards higher brain function in the animal, I think environment is the other very large piece of the pie that probably relates more to the degree of integration and sense. It's been years since I've taken a psychology course, but I vaguely recall what was defined as the "superego" ..though, from what I do remember, it consisted of all those societal rules we had integrated throughout the years that we put above our own ego and id most times, depending.

Most people feel bad when they steal (if they steal), and even worse if they steal from the poor for instance (most probably wouldn't do it). It's there in most people despite the environment they grow up in, but I do feel environmental condition just brings out all that inherent potential.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Conscience is a different thing from consciousness. Consciousness is just about being aware of things, but conscience is about feelings of guilt which may prevent someone from doing certain things.
I don't think animals feel guilt or shame. Thinking about how a dog behaves when told off by his master, it may look like guilt or shame, but is probably more to do with submission. The owner is like pack leader to the dog and if the pack leader shows aggression, the dog responds by proving his lower status and being submissive.
There is a human personality disorder where the sufferer is incapable of feeling compassion, guilt or love. Such people are called "psychopaths", or "sociopaths", either word's acceptable.
Conscience in humans is quite flexible. Most people try to fit in with social norms and they get ideas about how right or wrong something is by perceiving what seems normal in their society. Things that made people feel very guilty and ashamed (pricked their consciences) in the past, but which would hardly bother people at all now are common. Having a child out of wedlock for example.
Having thought about this I don't like to say that it is a conscience that should make someone behave well. It ideally should be a sense of honour. This sounds a lot less snivelling to me because your sense of honour is less governed by considerations of what other people think acceptable and is more about doing the right thing because it makes you feel true to yourself.
Does this sound reasonable?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

i've read a book that says that in a sane person self-preservation supercedes every thing else and that any of the things contradicting this self-preservation instinct (love altruism conscience) are forms of psychosis... any one have any thoughts on this theory???

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes I have a view on this! In these matters we must look at how things are with wild animals. (I make a distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals because the latter have lost or warped instincts and are thus insane. Civilisation and the lack of natural selection have similarly warped humans.)
In nature every animal has one purpose which overrides all other urges, and that is the imperative to reproduce. Each animal is a vessel containing a number of genes. These genes will attempt to multiply their numbers. They do this by making the animal have a particular appeareance (phenotype) or behaviour. These genes are each concerned with their own reproductive success (if they had a mind, which of course they don't - its just an effect) and a best-selling book has been written on the subject by Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene".
The genes have created the animal to recognise its own kind so that it can have offspring which will contain the gene again. The genes are interested in self-preservation in this way, and they make their vessel (through instinct - which is genetic also and shows that some different genes have to cooperate to be successful) act in a way intended to make it spread the genes.
Self-preservation of the individual animal or human is important only in the sense that if you are dead or damaged you are less viable for reproduction. Altruism towards your own kind (the instinct gets stronger the more your genes recognise a fellow carrier of many same genes) is normal when it seems cost-effective. So a mother will fight to the death to save her offspring rather than run away and save herself. A male of certain species will fight (other males) to the death to get a chance to get a female, rather than settle for being without decendents. Or someone will sacrifice themselves fighting in a war to save their family or tribe.
The feeling of extreme loyalty that I have described is something you can call "love". This kind of love is not insane, but if a creature was to sacrifice itself to help another which was not at all related genetically to it that would indeed be insanity. But not if there was an ulterior motive, like the unrelated benefactor was going to reward the helper in a way that would fit in with the genetic advatage rules above. Or if a similar outcome was intended.
So you can see that in fact self-preservation at the expense of spreading your genes is in fact abberant behaviour and it is an instinct gone wrong.
This is a very complicated subject so I don't know if I have managed to simplify it accurately enough.

 

[AlphaTemplar]

any of the things contradicting this self-preservation instinct (love altruism conscience) are forms of psychosis... any one have any thoughts on this theory???

Perhaps true altruism is insanity - but is there such a thing as true altruism? Most people help others because it makes them feel good about themselves, gives them a good reputation, satisfies their religion, or could lead to favors in the future. There's nothing wrong with that, its instinct to act for our own benefit...the problem is when we act for our own benefit at the expense of others. Love and conscience I don't think are insanity, because they provide long term benefits (love can provide you with chances to reproduce, monetary support, care when your sick. Conscience prevents you from doing stupid things that will come back and haunt...murdering someone and getting thrown in jail)

However, I'm not going to complain if someone does something selfless (insane?) to help me.

 

[judas69]

Though you can't always expect good when you do good, in our society ..doing wrong almost always brings wrong.

 

[Scott W]

Are we born with a conscience or is it a product of social conditioning? Does it work to our advantage, our disadvantage, or neither? Discuss

Personally I'd say conscience is genetic, it keeps us from killing each other indiscriminately and instead fosters helpful cooperation that's beneficial for the species as a whole. In the natural world, animals kill each other but only when its necessary for survival - that's conscience, albeit at a simpler level.

From my standpoint this is extremely difficult to answer. I study ecology and evolutionary history of animals, and its relatively plausible to do so. If I find a drosophila fly that lives off cacti in the desert, I can make testable hypotheses about how it came to be. I dont have to worry about social norms, or complex behavior as part of my hypothesis. I talk about resources and genetics and dispersal, etc. However, with humans and the idea of cultural evolution...its extremely difficult to make any concrete evidence. Perhaps as LRD's book points out, our genetics is still steeped in our animalistic side and we are at heart savage beasts that are reigned in by social norms. Or maybe you have a point in saying that perhaps cultural evolution has strongly effected our genetics so that the individuals who are somewhat altruistic (not to a fault), and help to preserve order and society have been selected for.

I must say...Im actually quite torn and I dont know how I feel. As a biologist, I have to admit that altruism has little place in animal groups that dont involve kin selection (being altruistic because it will benefit ones family, therefore a percentage of ones genes), or social hierarchies such as those found in hymnopterans (bees, ants, etc). However, evidence of altruism is there, and if ever there was a species that was the exception to the rule, its humans. Being a supreme liberal, my obvious tendency is towards altruism being genetic, and not just a repression of our savage ways. But who knows. Sociobiology (aka social darwinism) is gaining popularity, but its really very dodgy science at best. Im really still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

and a best-selling book has been written on the subject by Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene".

i think that this might be the book i was refering to but i couldn't remember the title/author because it was stolen a while ago

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yes I thought this may be the book you meant. The title "The Selfish Gene" is often misunderstood to mean a gene for making people selfish, when it infact means that genes, not their host animal/human are selfish.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Yes I thought this may be the book you meant. The title "The Selfish Gene" is often misunderstood to mean a gene for making people selfish, when it infact means that genes, not their host animal/human are selfish.

do you know how i could get another copy of this book???

 

[Norsemaiden]

All major book stores should be able to get you one, or try Amazon. Doesn't the prison get books for you if you ask them?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

All major book stores should be able to get you one, or try Amazon. Doesn't the prison get books for you if you ask them?

first i'm not in prison any longer i'm in an apartment in ghetto-ville

second texas prison wont let you have books that contradict christianity even though technacly they're supposed to under "freedom of religion"

third texas prisoners don't have access to the internet even though the prisoners do in other states

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is an interesting thing that humans share 98% of our DNA and almost all our genes with chimps. We evolved from them 5 to 6 million years ago, supposedly because our mating habits were different (I'm going to have to get more detail on the mating aspect, but it is from a very reliable source).
So obviously the genetic difference must be miniscule between individuals from our own species, yet there is still a huge instinct to recognise kin.
I think that instinct makes us discriminate so much that evolution driven by people's sexual choice of partner and social choice of group they hang out with has got to be much stronger in a civilisation like now than it would be in wild conditions. An example of natural selection going on in civilisation could be - ability to drive cars safely. Those who can't drive safely or safely cross roads are being killed and injured so much that it may well influence future genotypes! Also, if nothing is done to stop the sterilising/killing effects of sexulally transmitted diseases, only people who are monogamous and careful will tend to reproduce and this genetic behaviour will come to dominate. This probably happened in the past, causing certain racial groups to naturally prefer monogamy.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Good to hear you're out of jail LRD. That's sick how the jail doesn't let inmates study.

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

It is an interesting thing that humans share 98% of our DNA and almost all our genes with chimps. We evolved from them 5 to 6 million years ago, supposedly because our mating habits were different (I'm going to have to get more detail on the mating aspect, but it is from a very reliable source).
So obviously the genetic difference must be miniscule between individuals from our own species, yet there is still a huge instinct to recognise kin.
I think that instinct makes us discriminate so much that evolution driven by people's sexual choice of partner and social choice of group they hang out with has got to be much stronger in a civilisation like now than it would be in wild conditions. An example of natural selection going on in civilisation could be - ability to drive cars safely. Those who can't drive safely or safely cross roads are being killed and injured so much that it may well influence future genotypes! Also, if nothing is done to stop the sterilising/killing effects of sexulally transmitted diseases, only people who are monogamous and careful will tend to reproduce and this genetic behaviour will come to dominate. This probably happened in the past, causing certain racial groups to naturally prefer monogamy.

this seemingly explains racism

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Good to hear you're out of jail LRD.

are you one of the people that knew me before i got locked up???

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

That's sick how the jail doesn't let inmates study.

texas usa is worse about it than almost any where else on earth

 

[Norsemaiden]

No I didn't know you before, I was just being friendly saying glad you're out of jail and hopefully you'll behave yourself now....!
So - has your conscience ever troubled you about the drug dealing or the necrophilia? Good thing your not a peadophile because that is a lot worse and I wouldn' talk to you.
Have you taken drugs or just dealt? I know some dealers think their customers are losers and they don't use anything stronger than cannabis themselves.
That reminds me of an experiment I heard of where monkeys were offered intoxicants and the scientists found that the alpha male wouldn't touch it, but the lower status males did. I am going to try and look that up on the net.

 

[judas69]

What were you in for? Dealing? How long did you do?