Beiträge von heuteniccht

Hey Leute,
Also in Deutsch sollen wir sozusagen ein Gespräch schreiben, dass in der Unterwelt entweder zwischen Gotthold Lessing und Katzenelson stattfindet oder zwischen Lessing und Jean Jacques Rousseau..
Dabei soll es sich um Religion handeln, um die jetzige Situation mit der Pegida und was die jeweiligen Dichter dazu sagen würden..
Kann mir da jemand helfen wie man das schreiben könnte?
Wie die z.b. das Gespräch anfangen könnten?

Ist das so korrekt? Also vom englischen her oder nicht?*

The text "what makes us moral" by Jeffrey Kluger is about human psychology and about the moral behavior of human beings. He is talking about human psychology and that we can distinguish between right or wrong since we were born or when when we learn it from others. His opinion is that we were born with a sense of right and wrong but we must be taught how to use it. He goes on to talk about how people seem to be nicer to those around them than "outsiders". He mentions how during war its really easy for people to forget their morals and treat foreigners as evil and kill them without feeling bad. We feel bad if someone we can relate to dies, but if a stranger or "outsider" is hurt or killed we dont care as much.*

Also ich finde das klingt irgendwie falsch.. Meinungen dazu?
"We feel bad if someone we can relate to dies, but if a stranger or "outsider " is hurt or killed we don't care as much. We were born knowing right and wrong but it takes time to learn what "right and wrong" is.

Kann mir jemand bitte ganz dringend bei der Zusammenfassung hiervon helfen? Eine Zusammenfassung auf Deutsch würde reichen, da ich diesen Text überhaupt nicht verstehe und am verzweifeln bin... Ich weiß nur, dass es in diesem Text um das Verhalten des Menschen geht, aber alles andere erschließt sich mir nicht.
Wäre super wenn ihr helfen könntet.

"We're a species that is capable of almost dumbfounding kindness. We nurse one another, romance one another, weep for one another. Ever since science taught us how, we willingly tear the very organs from our bodies and give them to one another. (...)
The deeper that science drills into the substrata of behavior, the harder it becomes to preserve the vanity that we are unique among Earth's creatures. We're the only species with language, we told ourselves--until gorillas and chimps mastered sign language. We're the only one that uses tools then--but that's if you don't count otters smashing mollusks with rocks or apes stripping leaves from twigs and using them to fish for termites.

Morality may be a hard concept to grasp, but we acquire it fast. A preschooler will learn that it's not all right to eat in the classroom, because the teacher says it's not. If the rule is lifted and eating is approved, the child will happily comply. But if the same teacher says it's also O.K. to push another student off a chair, the child hesitates. "He'll respond, 'No, the teacher shouldn't say that,'" says psychologist Michael Schulman, co-author of Bringing Up a Moral Child. In both cases, somebody taught the child a rule, but the rule against pushing has a stickiness about it, one that resists coming unstuck even if someone in authority countenances it. That's the difference between a matter of morality and one of mere social convention, and Schulman and others believe kids feel it innately.

Of course, the fact is, that child will sometimes hit and won't feel particularly bad about it either--unless he's caught. The same is true for people who steal or despots who slaughter. "Moral judgment is pretty consistent from person to person," says Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard University and author of Moral Minds. "Moral behavior, however, is scattered all over the chart." The rules we know, even the ones we intuitively feel, are by no means the rules we always follow.(...)

Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. Hauser believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar--the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone teaches you how to apply it.

It's the people around us who do that teaching--often quite well.

What does, or ought to, separate us then is our highly developed sense of morality, a primal understanding of good and bad, of right and wrong, of what it means to suffer not only our own pain--something anything with a rudimentary nervous system can do--but also the pain of others. That quality is the distilled essence of what it means to be human. Why it's an essence that so often spoils, no one can say.
We face our biggest challenges not when we're called on to behave ourselves within our family, community or workplace but when we have to apply the same moral care to people outside our tribe.

The notion of the "other" is a tough one for Homo sapiens. Sociobiology has been criticized as one of the most reductive of sciences, ascribing the behavior of all living things--humans included--as nothing more than an effort to get as many genes as possible into the next generation. The idea makes sense, and all creatures can be forgiven for favoring their troop over others. But such bias turns dark fast.
Schulman, the psychologist and author, works with delinquent adolescents at a residential treatment center in Yonkers, New York, and was struck one day by the outrage that swept through the place when the residents learned that three of the boys had mugged an elderly woman. "I wouldn't mug an old lady. That could be my grandmother," one said. Schulman asked whom it would be O.K. to mug. The boy answered, "A Chinese delivery guy." Explains Schulman: "The old lady is someone they could empathize with. The Chinese delivery guy is alien, literally and figuratively, to them."

This kind of brutal line between insiders and outsiders is evident everywhere--mobsters, say, who kill promiscuously yet go on rhapsodically about "family." But it has its most terrible expression in wars, in which the dehumanization of the outsider is essential for wholesale slaughter to occur.(...)
That, of course, does not take the stain of responsibility off the people who follow those leaders.
For grossly imperfect creatures like us, morality may be the steepest of all developmental mountains. Our opposable thumbs and big brains gave us the tools to dominate the planet, but wisdom comes more slowly than physical hardware. We surely have a lot of killing and savagery ahead of us before we fully civilize ourselves. The hope--a realistic one, perhaps--is that the struggles still to come are fewer than those left behind."