http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php
A feral child is a human child who has lived isolated from human contact from a very young age, and has no (or little) experience of human care, loving or social behavior. These feral children are generally found living in forests living alongside a pack of animals. Feral children can be used as very important proof against philosophers such as Plato, who believe that people are born with an innate intuition of what morality is, and a tendency towards morality. After studying a feral child, it is concluded that they feel no empathy for others, do not know how to behave socially and cannot decipher between right and wrong.
What is your perspective on this issue? How does the fact that some social scientists argue that these children cannot be classified as homo-sapiens allow for Plato’s perspective on morality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
If the feral children have been proven to show absolute no empathy towards others than it definitely disproves Plato. This proves Glaucon to be right that people do 'good' because of the pressures of society. Since the society of the feral children have them act in ways we consider 'bad' they still act this way because to them it is 'good.'
First of all, for a being to be clasified as a homo-sapien is not debatable by social scientists. It is a taxonomical classification based on physical properties, thereby classifying all humans as homo-sapiens. With regards to feral children being a proof against Plato, there is a very fuzzy description of morality. That is to say, Plato believed in an absolute set of morals that all humans are born with in innate sense of, and as such, adhered to. Absolute morality, which is what Plato believed in, is beneficial in some cases, such as in a society of cannibals, which we can regard as innately wrong, even though their culture deems it to be right. However, it is impossible for us to pass moral judgment on a feral child, because he isn't doing something so morally awful that it would repulse the average human. Rather, he is performing actions that are deemed normal and moral in his society (i.e. the pack of animals).
Even though these children do not display social behaviours or posses certain socially acceptable values and emotions , they are still physically and scientifically homo-sapiens. Therefore, one could easily argue that this disproves Plato's theory that all humans are born with an innate desire to act morally.
If social scientists choose not to classify these children as humans, then obviously Plato's theory is still valid in this circumstance.
As well, even if we classify these children as humans, perhaps Plato's theory is still valid. How are these children supposed to know what morality is without living in society? Maybe the children have a desire to act morally, yet have no idea how to do so.
Perhaps we are all born with an innate desire to act morally, but society must dictate what proper moral behaviours, values and emotions are.
Clearly this article further proves that science and philosophy contradict each other. Scientist based their conclusion on test and their observations and Plato based his conclusion on life experience. This article sways towards Glaucon's opinion which states that people act according to the pressures of society. Therefore the feral child does not feel empathy towards people because the environment of which they were brought up does not stress the importance of social behaviour towards other people.
Regarding Leora's and Evans comment about the classification of feral children as homo sapiens:
"A huge variety of bizarre physical abnormalities have been attributed to feral children, including bodies covered with hair, various differences in the shape of the skull, and arms longer than normal. (However, nothing about the diet of wolves' milk is going to change the size of the long bones in the arm, or the shape of the skull.) But it was the reported characteristics gave rise to to Linnaeus' classification Homo Ferus as four-footed, dumb and hairy."
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/physical.php
I think that a human with a heart and a brain, no matter what capacity it has, should still be considered a homo-sapien. They aren’t monkeys!!!!!!!
Feral children are still humans. Just because this child may not have morals which today’s society deems acceptable or up to par, does not give social scientists the argument that they are not homo-sapiens. There are over 3500 different religions all over the word, which all have different morals. In india, there is a tribe with the tradition where they burn a body when the person dies in a huge bonfire. After that, they burn the spouse alive as well. They find this moral and socially acceptable. We cannot judge other peoples morals with our Canadian morals because they do not apply. They are still homo-sapiens.
Bottom line, Morals do not define a person!!!
Yael,
There are many people in the world that have "bizarre physical abnormalities",yet they are still humans.
How can we decide that someone is not human because they have different physical characteristics and/or behaviours which society deems bizarre?
I think that unfortunately for Plato, the cases of feral children really do help to argue against his opinion of man.
In the Republic he states that many people would act ethically even if they could act unethically without repercussions. He believed that man acts morally, because it makes one a better person and helps to balance their internal selves.
In the Republic he also brings the counter argument in the form of Glaucon, who states that Morality is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT and that we only act morally in order to maintain our reputations within society and to avoid the negative consequences that we would incur from society.
These feral children seem to prove this, as it has been shown that they have no concept of right and wrong and do not know how to behave socially. For these children there is no fear of consequence from society for their actions, because they have no concept of human society and therefore they do not naturally act morally as Plato would believe.
I believe that social-scientists arguing that these children not be classified as homo-sapiens, make a huge mistake in that these children may in fact show what man is in his natural state. These children may in fact represent the most basic/primitive form of Homo-sapiens and should not be deemed anything less.
Unfortunately, the story of handsome, glamourous, ethical Tarzan is fiction. this is a story plate would agree with in that all humans have a sense of humanity and morals. in the real world, if a child from a young age with little or no contact with others is only exposed to the wild, IT will become what it is surrounded by. i use the word 'it' instead of him/her because the feral child is not, in my eyes human. the human mind cannot come up with the idea of morality on its own, parents that teach their child the difference between right and wrong teach them morality. without the guidance of other moral humans, morality in these childen is impossible. the question is, are these children more human than they are animal? if they are more animal, plato is correct in his theories of morality
Post a Comment