010 | Goldenrod City | Text

[usedlaserbeam]

When posed the question, "which contributes more to personality - nature or nurture?", a psychologist once replied, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle - its length or its width?" The simplistic answer, therefore, is that neither one contributes more to a creature's personality; rather, that it's some interdependent combination of

Comments

[explosivecombat]

I find it interesting that you should raise such a morally-founded question in a place such as this; everything here is based around raising these creatures and collecting the badges and what have you. Battle culture, if you will, and morality has no place on the battlefield. Soldiers take lives, because that is the duty of a soldier; regardless of whom they are in their lives as civilians, as soldiers they are expected to see their orders through because the battlefield is the one place where civilian rules and morals no longer apply.

In a world that is, for all intents and purposes, based on battle culture, can you really say that this is any different from how humans treat each other?

[usedlaserbeam]

I see - then from your perspective, this entire world should be perceived as a battlefield, with ourselves as the solders, the Pokemon as our weapons, and our mandate to defeat the gym leaders as our orders from our superiors?

By that interpretation, I suppose it comes down to a question of whether we carry our morality with us, or whether by necessity we should adopt the morality of whatever world we find ourselves in, regardless of its dictates. Which is a separate debate from that of nature versus nurture, but it's an interesting one nonetheless.

[explosivecombat]

It isn't a separate debate by necessity - the concept of morality as a whole is highly subjective, leading back around to the question of why one carries their morality (or perhaps a lack thereof, as the case may be) with them in the first place. Or do you believe morality to be a trait inherent in all sentient things to begin with?

[usedlaserbeam]

Ah, then you're raising it as one application of the overall debate: is morality a function of our nature, or is it something we're taught. That does relate, I agree.

And call it hedging my bets if you will, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as simply one or the other.

[explosivecombat]

Yes, exactly - if one doesn't assume morality to be an inherent trait that comes with sentience, then it logically follows that it would be the product of circumstance as well, whether nature, nurture or a combination of both.

And regardless of whether it's hedging one's bets or not, I'm inclined to agree with you, though I'm interested in hearing your reasoning.

[usedlaserbeam]

Well, on one side, there's an argument to be made that some aspects of morality are inherent in all people - for example, the abhorrence of murder. If a vast array of cultures all arrive upon that same standard independently of each other, it makes a fair case for it being innate, rather than something taught.

On the other hand, that reasoning doesn't explain issues like sociopathy.

[explosivecombat]

Doesn't it explain those issues, however? Forgive me if I'm missing your point, but the world has very set boundaries for what it considers heresy and what it does not; most people won't argue against the point that sociopathy is an abnormality - isn't it considered such because it defies what should be innate knowledge?

[usedlaserbeam]

Ah, no, I think it's just a discrepancy in definitions. My approach was this: if morality is inherent in all people, then lacking morality should, by extension, remove one's status as a 'person'. But I think most would agree that despite any figurative accusations of a sociopath being 'inhuman', lacking morality doesn't discount them from being a person.

Put more simply, if all people have morality, then those without morality aren't people. Which in turn fails to explain sociopaths, who are the exception in that they're people without morality.

[explosivecombat]

...I understand. A valid point, then, although it does bring up the question of how you're defining 'morality' as a whole. Bear in mind that sociopaths are often capable of simulating normalcy - they learn what the world considers acceptable, and they behave accordingly, making moral decisions because the world expects them to. However, a moral decision made through obligation and not empathy is still a moral decision, and as such it can be argued that sociopaths do have some sense of morality, if a bit of a flawed one.

This is why I say morality is highly subjective, and the nature versus nurture argument is a bit of a moot point overall. Often, that which should be an inherent trait - in this case, morality - can be simulated through learned behavior by those who don't have that trait naturally.

[usedlaserbeam]

That's an interesting distinction to draw. They do have a sense of morality, by the definition that they have a perception of it, but the way you describe it makes it an external one as opposed to an internal one - and environmental, rather than natural.

Please forgive me, I'm finding this discussion fascinating. From your perspective, then, would you also say that the nature versus nurture argument is somewhat irrelevant, because what ultimately matters is who we are, not the means through which we became that way?

[explosivecombat]

You flatter me - you managed to bring up an interesting point, I merely expanded on it. However, you can consider the sentiment returned.

The debate of why we are the way we are is neverending, of course; if one really felt like being pedantic, one could question why any given sociopath chooses to follow societal norms in the first place, in contrast to those that simply don't care and act on impulse - why bother choosing to make moral decisions based on society's standards to begin with? Is it a natural inclination toward rationality, perhaps? Or was it something in the person's upbringing? We can debate this all day.

But at the end of the day, you have a person who made a decision that is, for all intents and purposes, a moral decision. To answer your question, that's exactly what I'm saying: what matters is whom we are, which is dictated by what we do. I find that the question of why is best reserved for study or personal curiosity - not that those aren't valid reasons for inquiry, as I'm no stranger to personal curiosity about

[usedlaserbeam]

Doesn't that present something of a circular argument, though? Who we are is dictated by what we do, but what we do must stem from some motivation - which, you could argue, is the why in question. But I think I see where you're coming from; it's the same logic by which one might say 'the ends justify the means', isn't it?

[explosivecombat]

Yes, that's exactly it.

[usedlaserbeam]

And that's a theory you subscribe to?

[explosivecombat]

One of many.

But yes.

[usedlaserbeam]

I'd imagine it's one that could be difficult to maintain, without the occasional exception.