Innate Morality?

[Babelfish]

Do human beings have an innate, or inborn, moral sense? If you answer yes, what is its source? If you answer no, why is there such general agreement about what is truly immoral?

[Orpheus]

All human beings are born with an innate moral sense.
Adolf Hitler committed atrocious acts against humanity.
Therefore, Hitler must not have been human.

If the initial premise of an argument is at fault, an accurate conclusion can never be drawn. With that said, it would be inconceivable to believe that we are born with an inborn moral sense and to do so would be a denial of reality.

So long as a person remains part of a greater society, his/her ideas, beliefs, and sense of moral responsibility will not be of a nature originating within that individual but will instead be the conditions unto which each individual must adhere in order to be accepted as a member of that society. I say adhere as if the individual actually had a choice. However, the conditioning of a person starts long before he/she learns to speak properly and “certainly before he/she learns to think philosophically.” (Sophie’s World)

The reason why there is such a general consensus in relation to moral responsibility is not because we have all been born with the same innate moral code but because we have all been subjected to, more or less, the same conditions within society. However, it is only within the society to which a member is a part of that there is consensus. Within another society you would very likely find a different moral code and sense of responsibility to which the people adhere.

So, if our sense of moral responsibility is in fact not our own but only that of which we have been coerced into believing and following out of obligation, how are we ever to follow our own code of values and sense of responsibility, you might ask? By realizing that we are the product of our conditioning, the first step will already have been taken. Through this act we can begin to take control of our realities and ourselves. “And from that moment when he is thrown into the world, he will be responsible for everything he does.” –Jean-Paul Sartre

[Dark Star]

Yes, we do. Much like chimpanzees -- our closest relatives in the animal kingdom -- and other apes there are basic, inborn rules against stealing, killing, or otherwise harming with no justifiable reason the members of the in-group. Why? The beauty of evolution: A basic, hardwired, primitive sense of morality was necessary for survival of a species of group animals.

[PanzaFan]

So long as a person remains part of a greater society, his/her ideas, beliefs, and sense of moral responsibility will not be of a nature originating within that individual but will instead be the conditions unto which each individual must adhere in order to be acceptedlity.
–-Paul Sartre


The beauty of evolution: A basic, hardwired, primitive sense of morality was necessary for survival of a species of group animals.

I do believe that humans (like chimpanzees and other animals) are born with a sense of what is "right for me". That is if I am starving and you have food, I am right to take it. If you are starving and I have food, you should not assault me and take it, because that would be wrong. To me this is the only morality that animals are born with. I believe it is survival of the most determined. And I agree that we are conditioned to what our society thinks is moral. For example, the idea of eating a fat white worm or using a single root for clothing, is very disagreeable to me but I have been taught not to go to the mall wearing a root and all the people around me (except my four year old son) thinks eating worms is gross. But had I been born and raised in these societies I would be more than happy to do so with a smile. :eek2:

[Dark Star]

We're also born with a sense of 'group morality'. Group animals such as monkeys, when studied, do not tend to steal food, hurt, or kill within the group unless it is for reasons of gaining power. Even more interesting is that those who DO steal from group members are exiled. It applies in a larger sense than "what works for me" but "what works for the group". Needless to say, it doesn't apply to out-group members.

However, I will not disagree on the idea that this sort of 'morality' doesn't apply to sexual relations (beyond rape, which has evolutionary reasons for being so psychologically damaging and for not being right), the clothing one wears, that sort of thing.

[PanzaFan]

They really don't steal within their group? I know very little about primate behavior but find it hard to believe a starving monkey would not steal from its own mother if it had to. I quess, if their groups are so strong, if one was starving they would all be starving, right? Interesting that the rules do not apply when seeking positions of power. Can this example be a good argument for innate "morality" since we are not dicussing humans? I do not see how this proves that we are born with notions about right and wrong. If a baby were raised by itself it would know right from wrong simply because a monkey knows better than to kill another member of its group. Aren't these primates' behavior learned as well? Just alot of questions.

[Bakiryu]

I think we are born with some sense of morality and our surrounding environment teaches us the rest. We are born with slight notions of right and wrong but it doesn't necessarily fits what society deems right and wrong.

For example, back home few people would be disgusted with eating, let's say, a cat. Here in the United States it's considered disgusting and nobody would do it. (I agree with this, it is.) But if you're starving you take what you find.

Morality is connected with society. Most people are born moral with respect to the self. And learn morality towards others.

[Auriga]

It's a tough question to answer.. To truly find an answer, I suppose we would have to raise a child in complete seclusion, then thrust them into the world and see what kind of actions they take. I suppose from that, we could see what kind of values and ethical choices they make in regards to survival. Now, granted, this is an inherently amoral thing to do, so it would sort of prove the point that humans are NOT born with innate moral values :p

[Dark Star]

They really don't steal within their group? I know very little about primate behavior but find it hard to believe a starving monkey would not steal from its own mother if it had to. I quess, if their groups are so strong, if one was starving they would all be starving, right? Interesting that the rules do not apply when seeking positions of power. Can this example be a good argument for innate "morality" since we are not dicussing humans? I do not see how this proves that we are born with notions about right and wrong. If a baby were raised by itself it would know right from wrong simply because a monkey knows better than to kill another member of its group. Aren't these primates' behavior learned as well? Just alot of questions.

I'm sure they would if starving, however, there tend to be rules against thieves which apply there and throughout the animal kingdom. In particular with social animals like monkeys there are rules against stealing and punishment for doing so, much like with humans.;)

The behavior is 'learned' to an extent, however, it says something when this is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom, too. And this isn't really my field per se, but I know that a share of it is hard-wired in from the beginning, an instinct.

More on this topic can be seen in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, Moral Minds is also a good one.

[motherhubbard]

I think that we are born with morality, but that things can happen to change us. Here is an interesting article about babies judging naughty from nice people that I think is somewhat related to this topic.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Babies_Develop_Social_Judging_Skills_Before_S peech_10872.html

[Virgil]

I think that we are born with morality, but that things can happen to change us. Here is an interesting article about babies judging naughty from nice people that I think is somewhat related to this topic.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Babies_Develop_Social_Judging_Skills_Before_S peech_10872.html

I guess the central argument of that article is this:

The researchers also believe that the ability to tell the helpers from hinders might be the first step in the formation of morals.
I don't know if I agree with that. It seems to me the babies are making judgements of self-preservation, not morality. They are distinguishing bad people because they may do harm to them, but to say that is related to morality is a leap I can't see. Even the worse murderer has the instinct for self-preservation. Babies can be quite cruel. I'm no expert but I would lean to morality being a learned behavior. If one looks across cultures, I can see lots of differences when it comes to morality. The Aztecs routinely performed in human sacrifices, and lots of cultures have put lots of people to death for many reasons, none of which were for self defense.

[jon1jt]

Of course humans have an innate moral sense. Even the bad know they perform bad acts. They just do it anyway. There is evidence of a universal ethics all around us.

[Virgil]

Of course humans have an innate moral sense. Even the bad know they perform bad acts. They just do it anyway. There is evidence of a universal ethics all around us.

But that doesn't prove it's innate. Those people who have some compunction have grown up through a social construct and have been socialized.

[jon1jt]

But that doesn't prove it's innate. Those people who have some compunction have grown up through a social construct and have been socialized.

Moral sense doesn't require proof.

Since we've been on the subject of dogs today with Sweets' loss and all, may I ask, Does a dog kiss his owner because she's 'socialized?' :p

[Virgil]

Moral sense doesn't require proof.

Since we've been on the subject of dogs today with Sweets' loss and all, may I ask, Does a dog kiss his owner because she's 'socialized?' :p

:lol: How the hell do I know. No dog ever explained it to me.

[NikolaiI]

I'm pretty sure there is an innate trait of morality which runs through every human culture. It might be influenced by evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate. After all, instinct and other innate behaviors are created by evolution, aren't they? We have innate desire for food, hunger, and innate sexual drives, I'm fairly sure we have innate social desires, too. True it is also engrained in us by our mothers holding us as babies, but it's a thin line.

One person proving himself an exception doesn't invalidate the rule. I mean, as in one person in ten or whatever. Yes there are criminally insane, rapists, murderers, and all of that, but these people are perhaps deficient in something that is innate to the rest of us. Babies also can do horrible things, but only because they don't realize what's going on. If you raised someone completely away from everyone, they'd be an idiot, and animal like or what we might call cave-man like. They'd have all sorts of deficiencies, in language; their brains wouldn't have developed as their bodies did. Consider that they have an innate ability to think and reason, do math, and language, they have a proclivity for it, but if they're raised in isolation their brains won't develop. Same thing with moral intelligence.

As to what exactly right and wrong are; true this is a philosophical subject and its basic answer is: it is subjective. We all as individuals make up what right and wrong are. However, I believe, as Maslow did and described, that not only are there values innate to us all- He called them Being-Values or B-Values- we can know what they are. Maslow gives about fiften or sixteen of them, including aliveness, wholeness, fairness, beauty, playfulness, honesty, and self-sufficiency.

[jon1jt]

I'm pretty sure there is an innate trait of morality which runs through every human culture. It might be influenced by evolution, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate. After all, instinct and other innate behaviors are created by evolution, aren't they? We have innate desire for food, hunger, and innate sexual drives, I'm fairly sure we have innate social desires, too. True it is also engrained in us by our mothers holding us as babies, but it's a thin line.

One person proving himself an exception doesn't invalidate the rule. I mean, as in one person in ten or whatever. Yes there are criminally insane, rapists, murderers, and all of that, but these people are perhaps deficient in something that is innate to the rest of us. Babies also can do horrible things, but only because they don't realize what's going on. If you raised someone completely away from everyone, they'd be an idiot, and animal like or what we might call cave-man like. They'd have all sorts of deficiencies, in language; their brains wouldn't have developed as their bodies did. Consider that they have an innate ability to think and reason, do math, and language, they have a proclivity for it, but if they're raised in isolation their brains won't develop. Same thing with moral intelligence.

As to what exactly right and wrong are; true this is a philosophical subject and its basic answer is: it is subjective. We all as individuals make up what right and wrong are. However, I believe, as Maslow did and described, that not only are there values innate to us all- He called them Being-Values or B-Values- we can know what they are. Maslow gives about fiften or sixteen of them, including aliveness, wholeness, fairness, beauty, playfulness, honesty, and self-sufficiency.

Nikolai, didn't you know that relativist thinking is banned on litnet? hehe...just kidding. :p

[amanda_isabel]

i think the answer depends on your perspective of what moral is, etcetera.

my sophie's world lectures aren't really in mind right now but you get the idea. i'm not sure who said what, but i'll do my best:

if evil is defined as the absence of God, or a god for that matter as darkness is defined as the absence of light, then no, man is not innately evil. evil is something learned.

morals can also be taught. like Freud (at last, a concrete name) who said that the superego of one person is a reflection of the parents' superego. to say whether or not a child has a sense of right and worng, yes, they do, based on what they see. kids immediately are able to develop some moral sense, though it may not be done explicitly.

i would love to expound on that but i'm not prepared :)

if we go back to my earlier statement, what about if we think of morals as the absence of evil? in that case, morals may be said to be innate, since i don't really think that anyone is born bad. come to think of it, no one ios truly bad since motives are generally correct but the execution would be more subject to being condemned.

hope this makes sense. i seem to have left my head somewhere...

[Jeroun]

I think there is both innate moral sense and moral sense you have been taught. However this is only true if we understand morality as what is right and what is wrong. When humans are born, they cry: they associate warmth with good and cold with bad. It hasn't been taught to them that this is so. (Btw I realize this is a ridiculous example but I couldn't find a better one right now.)

On the other hand, certain views on right or wrong are taught to us. Example: murder, incest, stealing, etc. These things must have been taught because otherwise we would just satisfy our needs at the moment we have them. Example: a child wants a certain toy, the child sees another child with the toy. If he wasn't taught that stealing is wrong, he would simply steal the toy. No objections would be made. Maybe if the child in question was a friend, brother but let's assume that moral sense of stealing would be the only objection.

[blazeofglory]

I do not subscribe to this idea that man is born with morality or it is innate. No at all. Man is a cruel creature, and very selfish, and all his moralities are counterfeit, fake of course. Otherwise the world could be a better place to live in. See the number of killings, atrocities, mmassacres.

Moralities are very fickle, fragile flames that can not be put out at any time. We are fools to idealize them. It is a candle in the wind.

[blazeofglory]

[QUOTE=Orpheus;490133]All human beings are born with an innate moral sense.
Adolf Hitler committed atrocious acts against humanity.
Therefore, Hitler must not have been human.

I do not agree at all. Everybody can be Jesus or Hitler. It is not at birth that man comes as a cruel and ruthless creature. Of course a circumstance. Everybody has a little of Hitler and a little of the Buddha and when Hitler looms large on him, he will act mercilessly and when the Buddha possesses him, he acts with infinite compassions.

It is indeed the circumstance or the ideal that molds a person. Please read the biography of Hitler and the circumstance he had undergone. Had he been groomed in a better circumstance he would not have been so mercilessly in humane.

[Orpheus]

[QUOTE=Orpheus;490133]All human beings are born with an innate moral sense.
Adolf Hitler committed atrocious acts against humanity.
Therefore, Hitler must not have been human.

I do not agree at all. Everybody can be Jesus or Hitler. It is not at birth that man comes as a cruel and ruthless creature. Of course a circumstance. Everybody has a little of Hitler and a little of the Buddha and when Hitler looms large on him, he will act mercilessly and when the Buddha possesses him, he acts with infinite compassions.

It is indeed the circumstance or the ideal that molds a person. Please read the biography of Hitler and the circumstance he had undergone. Had he been groomed in a better circumstance he would not have been so mercilessly in humane.

I'm afraid that you misunderstood what was written. My post was from the perspective of one who is convinced that our morality is NOT an innate quality. The initial false premise was intended to support my arguement. However, it appears to have led to nothing but confusion. My appologies.

Immediately after this I wrote, "If the innitial premise is at falt, an accurate conclusion cannot arise" or something like that. The false innitial premise being "All human beings are born with an innate morality." Since we know that Hitler was human, it falsifies the innitial premise. All that it is saying is that human beings are not born with an innate morality. If they were Hitler (or anyone for that matter) would not be able to perform actions that are considered to be less than benevolent. Perhaps we are not in such opposition as you think.

[NikolaiI]

My post was from the perspective of one who is convinced that our morality is NOT an innate quality. The initial false premise was intended to support my arguement.

Would you say we are born with an innate intelligence? Perhaps it is more accurate to say we are born with an innate capacity for morality, as we are for everything that can be developed in humans. And yet, allow me to try to show that your Hitler example is not proof of the falseness of the original premise. The mortal fallacy of Hitler's morality was the lack of balance; it was driven by the desire for purification, which was out of balance with the drive of grace. Grace allows us to accept, purity wants us to purify by the bad elements, such as inferior races- per Hitler's morality. Now morality is a vast and sticky subject, although for most of us, most of the moral choices we make are simple. It's subjective; Hitler was right in Hitler's mind, although he was wrong to the rest of us--- and it is telling, for instance, how many drugs he needed to do to find rest.

Anyhow perhaps you're entirely right to say the premise is false. Do we not take innate morality to mean something similar to innate maturity? Yet of course we are not born with maturity. Is there any part of morality that does not in fact mean, maturity, values, what we've learned? Isn't it true that under the circumstances, any psychological type known to man could be bred? This has not been tested, but do we agree? So you're right in that it's false; however, there's a couple of things that point to a common morality, at least.

First are the values that run throughout different cultures; and in this I am relying on the scientific 'authority' of Maslow and his research of Being values.

http://www.csulb.edu/~tstevens/h12maslo.htm

This site has a list of the sixteen Being Values he came up with. He wrote in The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, that there were about sixteen values that he found inherent to being. I won't really go into that more, since I think I've made it clear morality can only be learned, insofar as it is synonymous with a kind of moral maturity of any kind.

I guess my last point is somewhat stretching to the imagination. If you don't believe in our evolution from single-celled organisms, then it has no positive value at all. However if you do, think about our most primitive ancestors. Single-cell organisms react by feel- they react on a bio-electro-magnetic field, plane, dimension, and on this dimension alone do they have any contact with the world. They are on and off. Forward or backward. And we have evolved from this. What morality do bacteria have? None. We have morality so we can be happy together (man, isn't this presumptuous! but I need it to finish my point)- and as such complex beings as we are, it is possible that we can be very happy. Er...........gasp, I fall out onto the sand- I had the thought of the bacteria, and I was going somewhere with it, but I fail, the thought collapses; Morality is Learned! :D :D :p ;)

[edit: So no, morality (root: empathy) must be learned, and I can make no point that it's not. However consider what we came from, how our earliest ancestors interacted, and don't forget that this is a part of our interactions today. I say bliss instead of happiness; inspite of all the religions which say morality is absolute, we know it is subjective (after all, hey, I am saying that everyone has a say here!) but we do it because we were taught empathy, and also because it fits with our deepest feelings of what is right, in that we see there's no need to hurt others to be happy ourselves.]


Immediately after this I wrote, "If the innitial premise is at falt, an accurate conclusion cannot arise" or something like that. The false innitial premise being "All human beings are born with an innate morality." Since we know that Hitler was human, it falsifies the innitial premise. All that it is saying is that human beings are not born with an innate morality. If they were Hitler (or anyone for that matter) would not be able to perform actions that are considered to be less than benevolent. Perhaps we are not in such opposition as you think.

Morality is learned, but innate capacity for morality I believe we have. Hitler had it but obviously chose the worst path. Okay, that's all I got. Your turns.

[Orpheus]

hahaha! Yes Nikoli, verily we are in agreement. In fact I do not find in your writing anything directly or indirectly contradictory to my own thoughts. My understanding is that our sense of morality is determined by the experiences that we have had, our conditioning duing developement, as well as the society into which we live. Perhaps, and most certainly, we do have as you say "the innate capacity for morality."

My post had nothing to do with Hitler, which unfortunately has been the emphasis of those who have replied to that post. Any name could have just as easily been substituted.

That form of logic is known as Categorical Syllogism and I thought it would be fun to use in creating a thesis. And while this example may not have proved that morality is not an innate quality, it did offer the support for my thesis, which led to an antithesis, and perhaps now one will come with a synthesis :). Good Night

[mayneverhave]

I agree with Orpheus. One is not born with any innate sense of philosophy, god, or morality. We create those ideas and concepts intellectually.

"Judgments, value judments concerning life, for or against, can in the last resort never be true: they possess value only as symptoms, they come into consideration only as symptoms - in themselves such judgements are stupidities" - Nietzsche

Although in a different vein of though, Simone de Beauvoir wrote "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman"

This statement can be understood as refering to all values. Morality is not innate, it was slowly created through years and years of civilization.

[blazeofglory]

Moralities are indeed fleeting indeed and of course it is as weak as blocks of ice that melt when the first rays sunlight fall on them.

[B-Mental]

My two bits. I think it is a shared thing that happens with morality and for that matter kindness. Take Hitler for example. Here was a man that was trying too hard! He had several flaws all of them glaring. Imagine the exact opposite of Hitler... If he is logically sound and compassionatte he will spread this like the wind.

Someone of this nature comes around and changes things. Their life changes the entire concept of the world. They used to come around every thousand years... and are teachers and sharers and prophets.... They are becoming more frequent, and the world is recognising their goodness. John Lennon was one of the last ones that I can think of. Muhammud Ali is one...he should be sainted. A man that goes against all common logic and fights against an unjust situation. Rightousness. Definitely Ghandi. He/She will be a leader, and every single person that enjoys this person will start to feel it. Things like this spread...

The thing is... all of humanity is unique and has the possibility to be flawed. You know it just takes one apple...lol. Ok, done...i'm borderline and doing well Nik, cheers B