The Source of Morality

[aggle-rithm]

I am currently reading a book called "The Sociopath Next Door", by Martha Stout. It's an intriguing (and somewhat scary) look at people who have no conscience, and how they can blend into society without being noticed.

I found it interesting in the context of those who make a case for religion by saying, "If there were no religion and/or belief in God, what would keep us from raping and pillaging to our heart's delight?"

Well, in order to explain how there can be people who DO rape and pillage without feeling any remorse, Stout explains why the rest of us (96%, according to studies) DON'T do this.

The most obvious reason is that most people have a conscience, which Stout defines as "an intervening sense of obligation to those with whom we share an attachment". The closer the attachment to someone, the more obligation we feel. If it's a spouse, a close friend, or a family member, we might go out of our way to help them. If it's a stranger, we probably wouldn't go this far, but would probably try to save them if their life were in imminent danger. We certainly wouldn't try to deliberately harm them.

Conscience, however, is only one factor that keeps us in line, according to Stout. Others are:

Peer pressure: We don't want others to think poorly of us if we behave badly.
Self esteem: We want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror at the end of the day.
Enlightened self-interest: In most cases, we can expect reciprocal behavior.

These things cause us to act in a moral fashion above and beyond what is required by law. Therefore, although it is not a crime to fail to pick someone up at the airport as promised, most people would not shirk this responsibility for one of the above reasons.

Interestingly, Stout never once mentions the threat of being cast into the everlasting pit of despair. Such a threat is not necessary. We police ourselves without requiring such a radical Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

Stout uses Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" quite a bit to explain this tendency towards moral behavior: Even though lack of empathy can give an individual a strong competitive advantage, cooperation among the group helps the genes to survive. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense that, if there are individuals with no moral center, the number would be severely limited so that it won't have an appreciable impact on the group. It is the sort of thing that keeps an individual alive, but not a species.

I highly recommend the book.

 

[MG1962]

I believe our sense of morality pre-dates most organised religions and the fear of punishment in the after life. The arguement that a certain level of behaviour needs to be upheld and reinforced for a society to be successful is valid and the study of prehistoric man seems to show this basic truth was known well in their time

In the modern world the first great law giver, Moses with the 10 commandments, really codified " successful society 101" - not to steal, or murder, covert another's wife, all basic tennents to a stable and regulated society.

 

[Upchurch]

I would recommend "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright. It's a general audience book on the basics of evolutionary psychology. If you want a book on "the" source of morality, this is probably a good place to start.

eta: Although, I would recommend reading it in short bursts. Too much of this stuff can screw with your head and your relationships. I have a friend who is working on her PhD in evolutionary psychology. Despite being very smart and attractive, her social perception has been skewed horribly by her studies. She can't recognize when someone is genuinely interested in her.

 

[Darkhole]

Wel, de Waal does not aprove Dawkins selfish genes.

Behaviorists are not the only scientists who have avoided thinking about the inner life of animals. Some sociobiologists-researchers who look for the roots of behavior in evolution-depict animals as "survival machines" and "preprogrammed robots" put on Earth to serve their "selfish" genes. There is a certain metaphorical value to these concepts, but it has been negated by the misunderstanding they've created. Such language can give the impression that only genes are entitled to an inner life. No more delusively anthropomorphizing idea has been put forward since the petrock craze of the 1970s. In fact, during evolution, genes-a mere batch of molecules-simply muliply at different rates, depending on the traits they produce in an individual. To say that genes are selfish is like saying a snowball growing in size as it rolls down a hill is greedy for snow.

Logically, these agnostic attitudes toward a mental life in animals can be valid only if they're applied to our own species as well. Yet it's uncommon to find researchers who try to study human behavior as purely a matter of reward and punishment. Describe a person as having intentions, feelings, and thoughts and you most likely won't encounter much resistance. Our own familiarity with our inner lives overrules whatever some school of thought might claim about us. Yet despite this double standard toward behavior in humans and animals, modern biology leaves us no choice other than to conclude that we are animals. In terms of anatomy, physiology, and neurology we are really no more exceptional than, say, an elephant or a platypus is in its own way. Even such presumed hallmarks of humanity as warfare, politics, culture, morality, and language may not be completely unprecedented. For example, different groups of wild chimpanzees employ different technologies-some fish for termites with sticks, others crack nuts with stones-that are transmitted from one generation to the next through a process reminiscent of human culture.

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/OurInnerApe/pdfs/anthropodenial.html
prof Dr. Frans B.M. de Waal, PhD

http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/dr_frans_de_waal/

 

[INRM]

MG-1962,

When did people start believing in the afterlife? When did people start believing in punishment in the afterlife for transgressions?

Because if anything it sounds like it would be early in human development. For example chimpanzees do not usually do good things because they feel good for doing it, it's because they know they will get a good result out of doing it. They know if they do something bad they will receive a reciprocal punishment. Good behavior almost totally for the reason of avoiding punishment.

Which kind of reminds me of the same attitude religion has. That humans would never behave and are only motivated to do the right thing because they're afraid of going to hell. All about crime and punishment.

INRM

 

[calebprime]

I am currently reading a book called "The Sociopath Next Door", by Martha Stout. It's an intriguing (and somewhat scary) look at people who have no conscience, and how they can blend into society without being noticed.

I found it interesting in the context of those who make a case for religion by saying, "If there were no religion and/or belief in God, what would keep us from raping and pillaging to our heart's delight?"

...
Stout uses Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" quite a bit to explain this tendency towards moral behavior: Even though lack of empathy can give an individual a strong competitive advantage, cooperation among the group helps the genes to survive. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense that, if there are individuals with no moral center, the number would be severely limited so that it won't have an appreciable impact on the group. It is the sort of thing that keeps an individual alive, but not a species.

I highly recommend the book.

The book is one thing, the general thrust of your post is another. I agree with the general thrust.

Your post actually makes better reading than Stout.

I once spent a few months somewhat obsessively tearing this book apart, so I'd be happy to discuss it, but I'm not sure that's what you're after. I'll dig up my notes, in any case.

The book is badly written, badly organized, New-Agey, sentimental, sloppy.

The case studies are fictions, and don't really support her arguments.

The 4% figure seems to come from a Canadian study about "conduct disorder"--in any case, it's an arbitrary figure very much dependent on definition.

Ad-Hom: Stout is a (former?) recovered-memory therapist who makes it quite clear, in her previous book, that she has convinced a number of people that they were abused when they resisted the idea. But a lot of hypnosis and suggestion wore them down.

Also, at the time the book was published, she was still claiming to be a Harvard prof when she in fact wasn't one. (former Harvard prof.)

There are many little mistakes--like the mistake about heart-rate of sociopaths being flat in response to exciting stimuli. (they're not--it's only skin conductivity).

There are weird things, like the canard about the sociopathic "stare."

My main problem with the book: It encourages paranoia. Robert Hare rightly warns against people attempting to "diagnose" their fellows as sociopaths or psychopaths--because the definitions are notoriously slippery and bias quickly enters in, and because we simply don't know our fellows.

The idea that 1 in 25 is a "bad seed", in her book, leads very quickly to the idea that we should completely shun the 1 in 25.

As I said, I could dig up my notes. This is only from memory.

eta: also, The reference to Dawkins--only 1 page, after 4 pages of intro. She gives his approach the problem treatment. She seems more comfortable referring to the Bible.

 

[Bikewer]

I once read a crime novel that had been written by one of the FBI's "profilers" who had his own take on "sociopathy". He maintained that these people were born without emotions entirely, and learned to feign them in order to get along in society.
Of course, they were all potential serial killers...

This is at odds with what psychologists feel about sociopaths, of course. Last year or so, they had an hour on the subject on one of those NPR shows I listen to. The psychologist interviewed said that sociopaths tend to be manipulative, charming, and personable.
Often, they excel in business and "people-person" positions.
They have very little regard for anyone else's feelings or welfare, however. Still, the percentage of such people that turn to crime (much less serial killing) is very small.

The prominent sex researcher, John Money, maintained that serial killings were essentially sex-crimes, a specific type of paraphilia.

 

[MG1962]

MG-1962,

When did people start believing in the afterlife? When did people start believing in punishment in the afterlife for transgressions?

Because if anything it sounds like it would be early in human development. For example chimpanzees do not usually do good things because they feel good for doing it, it's because they know they will get a good result out of doing it. They know if they do something bad they will receive a reciprocal punishment. Good behavior almost totally for the reason of avoiding punishment.

Which kind of reminds me of the same attitude religion has. That humans would never behave and are only motivated to do the right thing because they're afraid of going to hell. All about crime and punishment.

INRM

Evidence seems to suggest that man's belief in the after life came very early. I am not aware of any evidence that those early beliefs were tied to crime and punishment as in going to hell.

However I would offer that far more contempory religions such as pre-Christian Celts held no concept of good and evil with the after life, nor ever explored Hell or it's equivelent. Yet managed to have a vital and stable culture

 

[aggle-rithm]

The case studies are fictions, and don't really support her arguments.

I assumed that the case studies were composites of the stories of people she knew and/or worked with in her practice. It bothered me a little that this wasn't explained, and that some readers would accept them as being true stories.

Ad-Hom: Stout is a (former?) recovered-memory therapist who makes it quite clear, in her previous book, that she has convinced a number of people that they were abused when they resisted the idea. But a lot of hypnosis and suggestion wore them down.

Also, at the time the book was published, she was still claiming to be a Harvard prof when she in fact wasn't one. (former Harvard prof.)

I wasn't aware of her history. Probably a good thing, because I was able to read the book without any pre-conceived notions about the author.

There are many little mistakes--like the mistake about heart-rate of sociopaths being flat in response to exciting stimuli. (they're not--it's only skin conductivity).

One that I noticed was her implication that Hitler was a sociopath. Based on her definition, I don't think that he was. He had close relationships to many people that did not appear to be manipulative or self-serving. Just because he was, on the balance, evil, doesn't mean he had no conscience.

Now Stalin--THERE's a sociopath!

 

[aggle-rithm]

The idea that 1 in 25 is a "bad seed", in her book, leads very quickly to the idea that we should completely shun the 1 in 25.

She did seem to be promoting the idea that there is a very sharp line of demarcation between sociopaths and the rest of us. It is unlikely that this psychological state would differ so fundamentally from all others, which exist in a continuum between completely <x> and completely not <x>.

In other words, there are likely people with no conscience, others with very little conscience, others with normal conscience, etc. Of course, this would be a difficult thing to measure with any confidence.

 

[Ladewig]

In the modern world the first great law giver, Moses with the 10 commandments, really codified " successful society 101" - not to steal, or murder, covert another's wife, all basic tenets to a stable and regulated society.

Are you leaving Hammurabi out because you do not consider him to be part of the modern world or because he was not a great law giver?

Also, why do you consider the law to not covet another's wife a basic tenet of a stable and regulated society?

 

[calebprime]

She did seem to be promoting the idea that there is a very sharp line of demarcation between sociopaths and the rest of us. It is unlikely that this psychological state would differ so fundamentally from all others, which exist in a continuum between completely <x> and completely not <x>.

In other words, there are likely people with no conscience, others with very little conscience, others with normal conscience, etc. Of course, this would be a difficult thing to measure with any confidence.

exactly.

btw, it's easier to criticize, as I'm doing, and harder to create, as Stout attempted to do. She did succeed, at least, in covering a difficult subject in a way that is entertaining to read.

personal disclosure: this book unsettled me enough that I called up a former therapist.

"Hello, Q-----?, I've been reading this book. Do you think I'm a sociopath?"

She just laughed. "You? No. Sounds like the book is a little over the top."

(Of course, if you're worried about it, the answer is probably no.)

Another thing that bothered me. Definitions.

Here's a DSM-IV version:

DSM-IV:
-Failure to conform to lawful social norms
-Deceitfulness
-Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
-Irritability and Aggressiveness as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
-Reckless Disregard for safety of self or others
-Consistent Irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain work behavior or honor financial obligations
-Lack of Remorse, as indicated by being indifferent about having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Here's Stout:

According to the current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three (!) (my exclamation point!) of the following seven characteristics:
-Failure to conform to social norms
-Deceitfulness (Stout adds: manipulativeness)
-Impulsivity, failure to plan ahead
-Irritability and Aggressiveness
-Reckless Disregard for safety of self or others
-Consistent Irresponsibility
-Lack of Remorse, after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

The presence in an individual of any three (! ) of these “symptoms”, taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.

By leaving out some key words (which I've italicized) , Stout is broadening the definition. Recognize yourself?

I myself am irritable, nonconformist, and don't plan ahead enough. I've certainly "abused" cannabis, although it seems that this is my right and prerogative as a jazz musician.* That's 4 right there.

But I've never been in a fight, am basically honest, never blew up frogs, etc., and would probably step in front of a bus to save my kid. So I don't worry when I read the DSM-IV definition, but I do worry when I read Stout.

Do I deserve shunning?

Another thing about the book: The first story illustrating conscience. (If I remember correctly, Joe, a busy guy, chains up his dog, then returns to feed it.)

I don't like this, because it's quite possible to be kind to your dog (like Hitler or Dennis Nielsen) and still be a monster. And Joe isn't even especially kind to his dog.

And yes, the case of Hitler or even Pol Pot shows that people can act with some feeling of attachment for some people, and still be monsters.

Also, I wonder if Stout isn't making the same error of failing to extend a perception of full humanity to people she doesn't like. Everyone does this to some extent. Her vision may be skewed by a lifetime of (mainly women) telling her their horror stories about bad relationships.

All this being said, it does come as a shock to someone like me when I've fallen prey to certain scam artists. You ask yourself, why did they do it? The answer: because they could.

To develop a conscience, you've got to have:
1) a brain that's functioning well enough '
2) an upbringing with enough love and discipline
3) some sense of connection to other people
4) practice

at a bare minimum, and maybe some other things as well.

If one thinks of conscience as a braided rope made of many strands, including some things that Stout would rule out as extrinsic--instead of looking for an essence, as Stout does--one comes to a clearer understanding of how conscience operates. So duty, honor, self-esteem, fear of punishment, fear of other's disapproval all play into conscience and reinforce each other. I don't need the cop or the waiter to love me, just to do their jobs, for whatever reason.

*obscure reference to a favorite cartoon

 

[MG1962]

Are you leaving Hammurabi out because you do not consider him to be part of the modern world or because he was not a great law giver?

Also, why do you consider the law to not covet another's wife a basic tenet of a stable and regulated society?

Because Hammurabi gave us the shading and subtlety - the grey areas if you please. Moses' Law was old when he was supposed to have written them down.

As for coveting another mans wife. First humans pair bond, and a society that celebretes that bonding, expects itself to honor the bond. Even today a great source of conflict is to chat someone elses partner up

 

[Ladewig]

Because Hammurabi gave us the shading and subtlety - the grey areas if you please. Moses' Law was old when he was supposed to have written them down.

As for coveting another mans wife. First humans pair bond, and a society that celebretes that bonding, expects itself to honor the bond. Even today a great source of conflict is to chat someone elses partner up

Moses's law also outlawed adultery and I think that is a good thing that helps stabilize societies; but is it necessary to prohibit coveting? I can't look at an attractive married woman and desire her? Why does my coveting (without acting on it) dishonor this important bond recognized by society?

 

[Ladewig]

Because Hammurabi gave us the shading and subtlety - the grey areas if you please. Moses' Law was old when he was supposed to have written them down.

The Ten Commandments were already law before Moses received them from God? I'm not following you here.

 

[Gate2501]

As I said before in another thread,my sense of morality is completely based upon my empathy for other humans (and animals). This of course has evolved over the history of man and our ancestors.

Empathy and fear of punishment/reprisal keep me in line! I would say that an awful lot about what we see in others who are very Moral is largely based in fear. That or they are very compassionate and have much empathy.

 

[aggle-rithm]

If one thinks of conscience as a braided rope made of many strands, including some things that Stout would rule out as extrinsic--instead of looking for an essence, as Stout does--one comes to a clearer understanding of how conscience operates. So duty, honor, self-esteem, fear of punishment, fear of other's disapproval all play into conscience and reinforce each other. I don't need the cop or the waiter to love me, just to do their jobs, for whatever reason.

It did occur to me that some of the traits that Stout said were distinct from conscience were actually tied in with it very closely. One thing she didn't mention at all was the physiological basis for empathy -- mirror neurons, among other things. It would be interesting to do a study on how these neurons function in a sociopath.

 

[calebprime]

It did occur to me that some of the traits that Stout said were distinct from conscience were actually tied in with it very closely. One thing she didn't mention at all was the physiological basis for empathy -- mirror neurons, among other things. It would be interesting to do a study on how these neurons function in a sociopath.

That would be interesting. Yeah, the book doesn't go into the brain much.

wicki: (good at least for intro)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

quote:
Mirror neurons have been linked to empathy, because certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula and inferior frontal cortex) are active when a person experiences an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain etc) and when they see another person experience an emotion. [26] [27] [28] However, these brain regions are not quite the same as the ones which mirror hand actions, and mirror neurons for emotional states or empathy have not yet been described in monkeys. More recently, Keysers and colleagues have shown that people that are more empathic according to self-report questionnaires have stronger activations both in the mirror system for hand actions [29] and the mirror system for emotions [30] providing more direct support to the idea that the mirror system is linked to empathy.