Neurotyping and Moral Development

Post Reply New Topic

Below is part of a reply that I made to a thread about this blog here: http://izgad.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/neu ... al_19.html

"Perhaps we need to work on their moral development a little bit instead of doing the same to them as they do to others, or in other words instead of playing what seems to be a game of tit for tat."

As I feel that the fair and equal treatment of humans and their 'feelings' is a moral issue, in regards to the issues raised in the blog linked above, my questions are:

Do you think they result from neurological difference (IE autistic vs NT) or could it just be a matter of people being at different stages of moral development regardless of their neurological make up?

Is moral development related to a difference in neurology or differences in learning or both?

Is there a limit as to how far an individual can develop their moral development and can that limit depend on other factors such as general level of intelligence (in other words can all human be trained to the same stage of moral development or is there an individual limit that can be reached).

If they cannot how would you go about correcting problems such as those outlined in the aforementioned blog, without impinging on free will in the process (another moral issue).

Anything else you would like to discuss and add.

Thank you for taking the time to read my ramble and putting up with my 'ponderings,' however strange they may be.

I've often thought that different moral values is the main thing that separates me from other people, regardless of neurology

It's why I don't relate to most people; AS or NT as most do not seem to be focused on the moral/ethical side of things as much as myself; it's not that they aren't moral; it's that the moral perspective doesn't seem to be at the forefront of their minds to the extent it is in mine.

I don't know if this is linked to intelligence or due to being more of an outsider than others.

I don't think people with Aspergers/ASDs are any more moral than NTs, I think they are just less likely to be presented with the same moral dilemmas as NTs and hence less likely to be forced into morally questionable situations

ie if you have few or no peers there will be no peer pressure to do drugs etc

These are good ponderings, they are interesting, although i am a little confused i think about what the outcome or answers are; the blog idk what to make of the blog...or its qoutes, i'm confused by that.

Yet i think our morals we have learned young from our families. My moral values are not the same as my girlfriends. We both have different values which still pisses me off at times as some of her value completely contradict what i believe in and i feel its not right thing to do...
Yet i realize her mother raised her to think differently and thus she has ill formed moral values over some issues.

People seem to be raised up and taught morals.
Those who have no morals, despite trying to have been taught, sometimes are sociopaths. (My gf's sister is one).
She has no morals, everything is out of need for herself and herself only. She cares for no one, not even her kids, uses people left and right.
She is all around problematic and needs rehab right now.

People varying on the individual seem to pick up a set of morals from family, early environment, childhood, values instilled into them, learned behavior of parents, etc.

My morals i think are excellent, however my NT gf seems to lack some morals. Then again it was how she was raised up.

I think for neurotypicals morality is actually based on approval and disapproval from other people, they have an inner view of them self as a good or bad person and this isn't based on any objective criteria but instead on other people telling them they are good or bad.

On some level I think this is the most profound difference between NT and AS/A, they respond to approval/disapproval intuitively and we just don't. I think this is what starts the ball rolling even in early childhood, AS/A children have slower verbal development because there is no response to approval, they don't care about pleasing their parents.

Stereotyping alert!

I've met plenty of left-wing neurotypicals that this does not fit at all. This is a description of conservatives, not neurotypicals generally.

Seriously, those of you who want to theorize about how AS and NT differ, could you at least read some of the psychological literature?



So sexual abuse, provided it causes no physical injury, would be OK in your opinion? After all, it's only emotions.

It seems really ironic that people like you claim to be 'rational' while being just as illogical in your own way as NTs are in theirs.

I just stumbled across this post.

You know, OP, you could have at least had the decency to provide a link to the original thread.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5298319 ... t=#5298319

So you criticize the author for stereotyping NTs, then turn around and stereotype conservatives? Interesting.



As I stated in my original thread when I posted this article, you people seem to have missed the point. The author isn't saying emotions don't matter. The author is saying that using emotions as validation for harming another person in day-to-day interaction is not acceptable.

"I don't like the way that guy looked at me. Or I misunderstood what he was saying, and am assuming the worst. I'm offended, and that's all the excuse I need to punch him."

That mentality is what the author is condemning and that mentality runs rampant among NTs.

Both neurology and learning have a role in the development of morals, see psychopathy/sociopathy.

I didn't realise I was supposed to.

Why does everyone keep having a go at me.

You are really horrible mean and nasty people around here. No better than the f*****g NT society you keep criticising.

Did you expect everyone to be saintly?

You've used the terms 'moron' and 'slow' to refer to people on here so I don't think you're so perfect yourself

How was supposed to know you would be hurt because I made a post about my reply to your thread and didn't link your thread.

It is a strange thing to feel hurt over and I am not bloody psychic.

Do you own copyright to the subject matter or something?

There are starving children in the world, people out there being murdered, crime, abuse, animal cruelty and people are upset because I didn't link their thread!

You have to be kidding me.

I am sick and tired of petty pedantic human squabbles creating pointless unnecessary drama. ##

Sorry I didn't link your thread because I didn't realise I was supposed but please consider growing up and worrying about more important things.

You're either prevaricating or rationalizing. The author did say emotions don't matter: "I refuse to grant moral legitimacy to emotions. One has no right to consider emotional hurt as a legitimate wrong or to counter with physical actions that could not otherwise be justified."

The author is essentially saying there is nothing wrong with emotional/psychological abuse and that if he inflicts it on another person they have no right to consider such abuse a legitimate wrong. He also says that using emotions as validation for harming another person in day-to-day interaction is not acceptable, but he has already disqualified a fairly typical way to harm people as legitimate harm, which makes his stance lopsided and probably self serving. That is, I do not see how someone could hold such a stance except to protect their own problematic behavior - or they're so ignorant of emotions that they're simply stating profoundly wrong things because they're incapable of understanding any better. Some people who fall into this category could probably be described as psychopaths.

As far as morality and neurology go - neurology does impact morality to some degree.

As far as being moral, the Dunning-Kruger effect leads me to think that sometimes people might convince themselves they are better at being moral than they actually are, whatever the reason they may not be so good at it. A good sign is anyone who considers their own moral code neyond reproach and yet are quick to judge others. Sometimes, quick to judge others for doing the same things they have done themselves (but since they did it, it was automatically justified).

There's also a tendency for people of all neurologies to abandon their morality and ethics when dealing with people who differ from them in particular ways. In place of both, they act according to their own preconceived notions and prejudices, and are often unwilling to consider that such prejudices are both harmful and inaccurate. It seems to me that when this happens that people can be selectively sociopathic toward some people, perhaps because they do not view those people as entirely human in a particular context, and this gives them all the justification they need to treat them poorly, despite the lack of rational justification for such behavior.

Anyway, I'm not claiming to be perfect or that I've never made any of the mistakes I described above. I try to do my best, but I am only human. My intent is to describe some of the flaws in moral reasoning I have seen others express - sometimes even trying to present those flaws as moral themselves.

I agree that most people think they are more moral than they really are.

What I find hard is that there's no universally-accepted authority on what is and isn't moral. There's religion but this is primarily made up by people and interpreted according to their agenda. This is why I wish God/a higher being would just come along and categorically give us the rules as otherwise it's a wilderness of not knowing what's right or wrong - it gets made up by everyone according to their needs most of the time. All I want is a definitive version of the 'rules' of right and wrong. There isn't one though.