Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

cschoonover's picture

Morality

 When reflecting on this week’s discussion, I began to ponder the origins of morality. Last semester in my biology class we had a debate about this very topic in an effort to decide if nature or nurture was the bigger player. We watched a video documenting the abilities of primates to share with each other and work together to open a container of food. After much discussion, we came to the conclusion that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of morals.

 
If this is the case, then is there a part of the brain that is specific to morality? And does someone who seems to have a weaker “moral compass” come from a less nurturing background? Or is it possible that they could have had a very nourishing  childhood? Even though nature and nurture are both involved, it seems to me that one may be more so than the other. And if so, which one?
 
With this idea of the basis of morality, I began to question which story I like better, Descartes’ or Dickinson’s. Initially, I preferred Dickinson’s because I liked that it was supported by scientific evidence. For example, mental illnesses were originally thought to have been diseases of the mind. Now, it has been shown that they are really the result of alterations to the brain that can be managed with pharmaceuticals. But now I’m not so sure. I think the idea of loopy science is appealing here because further exploration may provide more information about morality. The notion of “getting it less wrong” makes science more approachable by more than just scientists and allows for discovery of new ideas. This discovery of new ideas is what draws me to science and I hope that loopy science eventually prevails over linear science. 

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
6 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.