3 ms·

IMO the above case is more of a symptom of the problem rather than what causes the problem itself. Someone who helps is implicated as guilty because being indif

IMO the above case is more of a symptom of the problem rather than what causes the problem itself. Someone who helps is implicated as guilty because being indifferent and lacking morals is expected behavior, while 'helping' is considered highly abnormal and therefore the action is suspect. From personal experience I do not believe this is the real reason for why a family is left dying on the road. When I travel to certain countries in Asia I notice that there is a severe lack of morals and ethics. Heck in China, drivers back up over accident victims that they just hit to make sure the victim is dead so as to avoid a lifetime of hospital fees. I mean, this is murder done in the name to avoid paying a fee. What you see here in India is part of this same lack of ethics and morals that pervade certain cultures. People are honestly capable of great evil. What makes one culture more ethical than another country? I believe that the anthropological correlation lies in wealth and population. If a country is of high population and poor, then you will see more of this type of behavior. High population cities that are wealthy like tokyo or singapore are not like this at all while in the rural areas of nepal I've seen a sherpa carry an injured european stranger on his back down a mountain to base camp. Of course this is all anecdotal. There really needs to be a scientific study on ethics and culture. It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others.

chaostheory 10y ago
http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity/dp/0684825252 http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperi...
burfog 10y ago
"It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others." You don't say? There is a mighty good chance it is even worse: this is a brain trait, and we know that brain traits are at least partially due to DNA. Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure.
- crimsonalucard 10y ago
  I disagree. I believe there is higher chance that the trait is cultural. But this of course is just derived from my anecdotal observations of human nature. >Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure. What is interesting though is that in the field of anthropology there is total awareness of a certain fact. Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men. There is no definitive reason why this is the case, however biological imperative has not yet been ruled out. It's "nuts" but this is a case where political correctness has not yet suppressed what is otherwise a scientific observation. More interesting is that I was made aware of this fact by an anthropology professor at UCLA. She specifically believed that it was biological. She thought that women in general do not want to be leaders. (keyword: She)
  - eric_h 10y ago
    > Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men I suspect that this is largely due to men's greater capacity for violence than women, due to having proportionally more muscle mass.
    - crimsonalucard 10y ago
      This theory has been examined. It is unlikely. First and foremost strength does not correlate with power, neither does violence. The most powerful people throughout history are not those that are strong or violent, but those that are well connected. Obama, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump are not known for their physical strength. Additionally, power correlates with age. Those that are older and weaker tend to be more powerful then younger people while younger people tend to be physically stronger but less powerful. When the most powerful people throughout history are not simple minded violent brutes, it becomes unlikely for men to be in power due to physical strength or violence. Personally, I do not believe that the reason is biological. Other than that I'm as befuddled as the rest of the anthropological field, I don't know why men have consistently been in power throughout the majority of human history, but the correlation cannot be denied.

chaostheory 10y ago

http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperity/dp/0684825252 http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Social-Virtues-Creation-Prosperi...

burfog 10y ago

"It would be a very touchy subject though as the results of the study will implicate some cultures as more 'evil' than others." You don't say? There is a mighty good chance it is even worse: this is a brain trait, and we know that brain traits are at least partially due to DNA. Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure.

crimsonalucard 10y ago
I disagree. I believe there is higher chance that the trait is cultural. But this of course is just derived from my anecdotal observations of human nature. >Anybody who dares to research this one is completely nuts, with or without tenure. What is interesting though is that in the field of anthropology there is total awareness of a certain fact. Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men. There is no definitive reason why this is the case, however biological imperative has not yet been ruled out. It's "nuts" but this is a case where political correctness has not yet suppressed what is otherwise a scientific observation. More interesting is that I was made aware of this fact by an anthropology professor at UCLA. She specifically believed that it was biological. She thought that women in general do not want to be leaders. (keyword: She)
- eric_h 10y ago
  > Throughout all ancient and historical human cultures, women have consistently been to certain degrees less privileged and more subservient to men I suspect that this is largely due to men's greater capacity for violence than women, due to having proportionally more muscle mass.
  - crimsonalucard 10y ago
    This theory has been examined. It is unlikely. First and foremost strength does not correlate with power, neither does violence. The most powerful people throughout history are not those that are strong or violent, but those that are well connected. Obama, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump are not known for their physical strength. Additionally, power correlates with age. Those that are older and weaker tend to be more powerful then younger people while younger people tend to be physically stronger but less powerful. When the most powerful people throughout history are not simple minded violent brutes, it becomes unlikely for men to be in power due to physical strength or violence. Personally, I do not believe that the reason is biological. Other than that I'm as befuddled as the rest of the anthropological field, I don't know why men have consistently been in power throughout the majority of human history, but the correlation cannot be denied.