Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bloodstone Press" data-source="post: 1659254" data-attributes="member: 12468">Some good discussion here. I just have a few observations: like most aspects of psychology and behavior, the answer is "a little of both nature and nurture"   Would a Roman of 1,000 years ago be as revolted and shocked at witnessing a murder as a person from modern day China?  Maybe, maybe not. They would, however, both experience a sense of psychological and physiological arousal that is based on the biological reaction of witnessing a violent death. The Romans found this somewhat exhilarating  Here’s a brief note about bio-psychology:Believe it or not, your body responds the same way to emotional situations, whether they are happy or sad, angry or funny. When confronted with an infuriating situation, your biological reaction is identical to your reaction when you encounter a humorous situation, or a sad situation. Your heart rate increases. Your palms sweat a little. Your rate of respiration increases. The only thing that is different across these situations is how your mind interprets these biological signals.  Witnessing a murder will cause biological and psychologically arousal, no matter who you are (trust me). What differs is the psychological interpretation of this arousal, which is learned from cultural influences and life experiences and is mitigated by circumstances unique to the situation and biological predisposition unique to each person.  Watching a Christian get murdered in the Coliseum by a gladiator was probably a lot different for a Roman citizen than watching his friend get killed by thugs  in an ally as they walk home from the coliseum.  I agree somewhat with this. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence and scholarly speculation that certain pro-social behaviors are hard wired in our brains and anti-social behaviors are typically blunted.  The rule of reciprocity, for example isn't something you *learn,* though it may be strongly reinforced by learning. The feeling of companionship and indebtedness you feel when someone helps you is based on your biology, not your learned behavior.  Again, this idea is strongly reinforced through learning. We teach children to return favors and we have such common clichés as "you owe me one." However, I believe that the inner tug you feel on your emotions and thoughts is based on hard-wired survival instincts. Namely, the fact that we are social creatures and we need each other to survive. Therefore, the rule of reciprocity is an innate part of our genetic makeup, reinforced through social conditioning (like many other human behaviors).  Anti-social disorders occur either because the subject's biology is out of whack or because the subject has learned to be anti-social through harsh life experiences.  I do however agree with the assertion that "developing a moral framework doesn't happen overnight. It requires years of hard, human effort."  I interpret "moral framework" to be something rather abstract, thought-out, and based on concepts and principles, rather than a basic sense of right and wrong.  I'll agree at least that it requires years of human experience and learning.As for defining evil, I’ll try that after I’ve read the rest of the thread. Right now, it’s past my bed time!</blockquote>

Verification