• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Innate Knowledge of Right and Wrong

I think we do have an innate sense of morality. We are capable of understanding that there are things we don't want to happen to us, and we have the empathy not to want them to happen to others. But sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality. They don't belong in the same discussion. It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and low pressure fronts.
 
But he wasn't Swedish..had never been there..

How can your brain make you think you are Swedish..up to the point of speaking the language??
Really???

Mr Boatwright is said to have long ties with the Scandinavian country, having visited it in the 1980s and reportedly moved there in 2003.

And a medieval re-enactment team from Sweden have come forward to say they knew him as ‘Strongbow’, and said he was as proficient at jousting as he was at the local lingo.
 
The great thing about our minds is the ability to appreciate fantasy nonsense.

Without that within us, our politicians would have nothing to say.
As long we appreciate for it's entertainment value that's fine. When one starts to accept it as reality there's a problem. I have no problem watching hero movies with my grandsons but I don't believe Capt. America, Hancock, or Superman exist IRL as depicted in the movies. ;)
 
I think we do have an innate sense of morality. We are capable of understanding that there are things we don't want to happen to us, and we have the empathy not to want them to happen to others. But sexual orientation has nothing to do with morality. They don't belong in the same discussion. It's not apples and oranges. It's apples and low pressure fronts.

While I'm doubtful about how innate morality is, it makes sense to me that once the concept was invented a variation of the Golden Rule was going to be one of the first conclusions to be arrived at in such a conversation.

I agree it has nothing to do with homosexuality, though. Certainly not in any modern sense.
 
But he wasn't Swedish..had never been there..

How can your brain make you think you are Swedish..up to the point of speaking the language??

Well, he'd already spoken the language before...I don't know about the bit about his brain making him think he's Swedish.
 
Well, he'd already spoken the language before...I don't know about the bit about his brain making him think he's Swedish.
Brain trauma results in all sorts of odd behavior, not just a change in speech or absence of memory.
 
Brain trauma results in all sorts of odd behavior, not just a change in speech or absence of memory.

Oh, indeed. I'm just saying I don't know the actual change in the brain that caused it.
 
Your behavior informs the dog that your unhappy with him and he behaves submissively in reaction. Dogs feel no guilt.

Fair enough. Sometimes they fool us into thinking it is more than trained behavior. Dogs are bred to have an instinct to befriend and be loyal to humans in the same way a honey bee has an instinct to seek nectar in blossoms. No argument.
 
Fair enough. Sometimes they fool us into thinking it is more than trained behavior. Dogs are bred to have an instinct to befriend and be loyal to humans in the same way a honey bee has an instinct to seek nectar in blossoms. No argument.

Dogs (like many other animals) are excellent at reading body language. It's why many people think their dogs are telepathic.

I know that sometimes I do, and I know better
 
But if this is intended to be inferred from the above, it does not follow. As you note below, morals seem to change from group to group (and even individual to individual). There's no reason to suppose that human beings cannot each be born with an innate but distinct moral code. In fact, I think that's largely the case.

To impute an innate moral code into humans at birth is unreasonable. Humans are simply a more developed form of primate. You would have to show that every other primate was born with an innate set of morals. By extension, then all MAMMALS would have to be born with such a code.

However, humans have demonstrated a higher level of congnitive ability which gives us the ability to reason. Morals are developed through the process of reason, and are merely accepted standards of conduct within whatever cultural group they develop. If we all shared the same set of "accepted standards of conduct" from birth, what need for any variation? They would automatically be accepted by all disparate cultural groups.

However, if you are born as a "blank slate" and you adapt to your growth environment by learning as you grow, then "accepted standards of conduct" would be developed by each cultural group's experiences and transferred to new members by teaching it to them. We see that every time someone moves to a new environment and attempts to adapt to it's customs and mores.

Conversely, where is your evidence of "innate" morality.
 
Last edited:
This sounds confusing? Can you clarify it for me?


Basically, it boils down to altruism. Altruistic social behavior can improve an organism's overall inclusive fitness.

Inclusive fitness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I believe that humans do, in fact, possess a rudimentary sense of right and wrong very early on. Clearly, that moral intuition develops and changes as our brains develop and change and in response to external social experience. There's a growing body of evidence that supports this. Studies have even shown that infants as young as 6 months appear to mentally distinguish between "good" and "bad". There's also the incredible universality of human morality that needs to be explained. People like to point out how different they think morality is across different cultures, but I find the exact opposite to true. The differences, even though they are easier to recognize, pale in comparison to the enormous similarities. For example, all cultures idolize, to some degree, bravery; there is no culture that idolizes cowardice.

Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality - 60 Minutes - CBS News
 
Captain Adverse said:
To impute an innate moral code into humans at birth is unreasonable. Humans are simply a more developed form of primate. You would have to show that every other primate was born with an innate set of morals. By extension, then all MAMMALS would have to be born with such a code.

Your argument is fallacious; technically, it has a false premise. To see this, you only need substitute any other uniquely human characteristic in for "moral code" in the above. See how this reads:

To impute a relatively hairless body to humans at birth is unreasonable. Humans are simply a more developed form of primate. You would have to show that every other primate was born with a relatively hairless body. By extension, then all MAMMALS would have to be born with a relatively hairless body.

The point here is that there's no contradiction that ensues from holding that human beings have an innate moral code, but no other animal does. Human beings have unique properties which are found in no other animals. There's no reason to suppose that an innate moral code isn't one of them. That said, I suspect that most primates, and some other mammals (cetaceans, canines, felines) also have a moral code.

Captain Adverse said:
However, humans have demonstrated a higher level of congnitive ability which gives us the ability to reason. Morals are developed through the process of reason, and are merely accepted standards of conduct within whatever cultural group they develop. If we all shared the same set of "accepted standards of conduct" from birth, what need for any variation? They would automatically be accepted by all disparate cultural groups.

This skates over quite a bit, but since the main point seems to be a conditional statement, I'll leave it alone.

Captain Adverse said:
However, if you are born as a "blank slate" and you adapt to your growth environment by learning as you grow, then "accepted standards of conduct" would be developed by each cultural group's experiences and transferred to new members by teaching it to them. We see that every time someone moves to a new environment and attempts to adapt to it's customs and mores.

Again, since you've just stated a conditional, there's not much with which to contend.

Captain Adverse said:
Conversely, where is your evidence of "innate" morality.

I'm not sure why you ask by leading off with "conversely," but there are quite a few studies which suggest that the processes underlying moral reasoning are almost universal to human beings. The work of Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph is pretty good for this. There's also a book by Patricia Churchland called "Braintrust" that has some good information on the subject. I almost hate to mention the latter, since I have an otherwise low opinion of both the Churchlands, but that book is at least factually accurate.

The work by Haidt and Joseph focuses on five dimensions of moral reasoning which appear to be universal to human beings, except in rare cases of brain damage or other diagnosable abnormality. However, different people place different "weights" on each of the five, with the result that different moral codes flourish.
 
Your argument is fallacious; technically, it has a false premise. To see this, you only need substitute any other uniquely human characteristic in for "moral code" in the above. See how this reads:

It reads like comparing apples and cars. Using a clearly identifiable physical characteristic that separates a species as a substitition for a hypothetical thought process you imagine the species might possess is the real fallacy.

Once you recognize that all of the rest of your arguments fail. We, as a species have minds which can reason at a higher level then those of all our known animal relations, at least that seems to be the case so far. The cognitive ability to REASON is at the root cause of developing moral codes, not some innate mystical quality granted at the time of inception. What, are you some sort of religious philosopher, presuming the existance of a higher power who instill us with a code we then have the free will to alter to our success or detriment?

As for your comment about how studies "suggest" the processes underlying moral development seem almost universal to human beings, that is easily explained by the level of interaction between human beings and differing cultures as expressed in my prior responses. Even so, history and current empirical evidence shows morals are not equally shared by all cultures. There is no proof morals are or ever were "innate" to humans from birth.
 
Captain Adverse said:
It reads like comparing apples and cars. Using a clearly identifiable physical characteristic that separates a species as a substitition for a hypothetical thought process you imagine the species might possess is the real fallacy.

This begs the question. Why is it impossible that human beings, but not other primates, have an innate moral code? Human beings, but not other primates, have other characteristics. Why cannot a moral code be one of them?

Captain Adverse said:
Once you recognize that all of the rest of your arguments fail. We, as a species have minds which can reason at a higher level then those of all our known animal relations, at least that seems to be the case so far. The cognitive ability to REASON is at the root cause of developing moral codes

I disagree. I think emotional and evaluative processes play a much larger role in the development of morality than does reason. In fact, I don't think reason plays a very big role at all. If you ask someone whether rape is wrong, they don't go through some long reasoned argument to discover the truth. The idea just appears, "rape is wrong," fully formed. If you confront someone with a novel situation with moral implications, people just have intuitions about what is right and wrong. Reasoning about why comes later.

Captain Adverse said:
not some innate mystical quality granted at the time of inception. What, are you some sort of religious philosopher, presuming the existance of a higher power who instill us with a code we then have the free will to alter to our success or detriment?

I'm not sure why you're asking. Why would I need to be? Maybe it's just the case that we all have similarly-wired brains in the relevant respects.

Captain Adverse said:
As for your comment about how studies "suggest" the processes underlying moral development seem almost universal to human beings, that is easily explained by the level of interaction between human beings and differing cultures as expressed in my prior responses.

I've just reviewed all your prior responses in this thread. I don't find that you've made any relevant comments about the level of interaction between human beings and differing cultures. Then again, I probably wouldn't recognize it if you had, since I don't know what that means.

Captain Adverse said:
Even so, history and current empirical evidence shows morals are not equally shared by all cultures. There is no proof morals are or ever were "innate" to humans from birth.

I don't argue that people have different moral codes or ideals. Only that the ones they have are very likely inevitable, at least within some broad categorization, at birth.
 
Last edited:
People may not know at a very young age that something is right or wrong .. but they do get an intuitive experience that something is not quite altogether normal.

As they get older, and become more consciously aware, they are more able to validate, both intuitively and sensingly, their abnormality.

Awareness of right and wrong, or, more to the topical point, a recognizing a physiology and neuropsychology that is at defective cross-purposes, comes a little later.

Sadly, they can sometimes lose their intuitive reality awareness if they are compelled from a collective ideological mindset to deny that reality.
 
This begs the question. Why is it impossible that human beings, but not other primates, have an innate moral code? Human beings, but not other primates, have other characteristics. Why cannot a moral code be one of them?

Because other primates, to the best of out current knowledge and experience, do not have sufficient cognitive capability to reason at that level of complexity nor communicate the lessons learned down through the generations. Morals are a development of high-level social cooperation and generational communication. Our early human ancestors probably didn't have much more use for morals than our ape cousins did, unless one counts "I'm strongest, I get everything and you all fight over the leftovers" as an early development of moral code.

Over time this simple process was replaced with more complex ways of interacting, verbal communication; and this would aid moral developments even further after encountering other groups and exchanging information. Moral conduct, i.e. how to deal wth each other and how to deal with such groups, comes from retained experiences. We, unlike other apes, are able to pass this down generationally through complex methods of communication; "Songs" or stories.

Only that the ones they have are very likely inevitable, at least within some broad categorization, at birth.

The only things we get at birth that help this process are the abilities to learn and communicate. We are a tabula rasa with the qualities of a sponge, and we learn our moral codes from our parents and as we grow within our social environment. That's all; no mystical pre-ordained, innate weathervane of "good or evil."
 
Last edited:
If one believes in reincarnation, one must admit there is an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Of course, this knowledge would depend on the level of your soul evolution, so it would greatly vary. :)



.

What does reincarnation have to do with an innate knowledge of right and wrong, if that was true? Soul level doesn't guarantee remembrance of what constitutes right and wrong...
 
Captain Adverse said:
Because other primates, to the best of out current knowledge and experience, do not have sufficient cognitive capability to reason at that level of complexity nor communicate the lessons learned down through the generations.

OK...I'm not sure I agree, but so what? This doesn't do anything to answer the question at all. Suppose what you've said is correct. This doesn't mean that human beings cannot be born with some innate moral capacity or foundation. Just to drive the point home, it is possible to take what you say as true, but also hold that human beings have an innate moral code or foundation. I can consistently believe that other primates lack even the basic capacity for moral reasoning, because they lack sufficient cognitive capacity to reason at the requisite level of complexity and to communicate the lessons learned through the generations, but also that human beings do have those capacities and are born with an innate moral code or foundation.

Captain Adverse said:
Morals are a development of high-level social cooperation and generational communication.

Again, this begs the question. If you assume this is what morals are, then they cannot be innate. But you're assuming the conclusion you wish to draw, at least to some extent, before you start arguing. You don't get to help yourself to this proposition, at least in this way. If you have independent reasons for arguing that this is all that morals are, that wouldn't be begging the question, so feel free to state those.

Captain Adverse said:
Our early human ancestors probably didn't have much more use for morals than our ape cousins did, unless one counts "I'm strongest, I get everything and you all fight over the leftovers" as an early development of moral code.

Well, not even those ape cousins work on such a code. But the best evidence we have of primitive human societies suggests they had a well-developed moral code.

Captain Adverse said:
Over time this simple process was replaced with more complex ways of interacting, verbal communication;

I'm not sure if this is meant to be a chronology of human development or something, but human beings have always had verbal communication of some kind. Chimpanzees and other primates have verbal communication, and all the evidence we have of human beings indicates there was never a hiatus of human vocal interaction.

Captain Adverse said:
and this would aid moral developments even further after encountering other groups and exchanging information. Moral conduct, i.e. how to deal wth each other and how to deal with such groups, comes from retained experiences. We, unlike other apes, are able to pass this down generationally through complex methods of communication; "Songs" or stories.

Well, just to be clear: I don't think human beings are born with a bunch of propositions in their minds such as "murder is wrong, except in circumstances c1...c115" or "theft is only acceptable in cases of extreme desperation." But we don't employ such propositions even when navigating the normal exigencies of life. If I'm confronted with a novel situation that has some moral import, I don't find my way through it by reasoning about it. What happens instead is that I intuit what the proper way to act is, and I either do that, or not. I would agree that upon reflection, I might decide I should have acted differently. But the intuitions are still there, and they remain more or less primary.

Captain Adverse said:
The only things we get at birth that help this process are the abilities to learn and communicate. We are a tabula rasa with the qualities of a sponge, and we learn our moral codes from our parents and as we grow within our social environment.

I think Locke's psychology has been refuted pretty thoroughly. His theory of knowledge doesn't work, as both Liebniz and Hume were able to show. I don't know if you're aware, but this (i.e. Locke's) position is what you seem to be taking here. Perhaps you could state your position a little more clearly, and if it is your intent to revive Locke's psychology, you might state that openly. Alternately, if that's not your intent, I'd appreciate some sense of why you think human beings are born as a blank slate. It's a commonplace of psychology since the 1950's that we know we are not.

Captain Adverse said:
That's all; no mystical pre-ordained, innate weathervane of "good or evil."

Whether it's mystical or not is beside the point. Most modern proponents of some kind of innate moral code or foundation think it's due to similarities in how human brains are wired, not in whether there's some divinely inspired code implanted in the human soul or something.
 
Soul level doesn't guarantee remembrance of what constitutes right and wrong...

Actually it does and that's the whole point. ;)
 
OK...I'm not sure I agree, but so what? This doesn't do anything to answer the question at all. Suppose what you've said is correct. This doesn't mean that human beings cannot be born with some innate moral capacity or foundation…

…I don't know if you're aware, but this (i.e. Locke's) position is what you seem to be taking here. Perhaps you could state your position a little more clearly, and if it is your intent to revive Locke's psychology, you might state that openly…

…Most modern proponents of some kind of innate moral code or foundation think it's due to similarities in how human brains are wired, not in whether there's some divinely inspired code implanted in the human soul or something.

First of all, please do not try to categorize me by tying my views to any particular philosopher. I am a moral nihilist, although my arguments appear to be based upon descriptive moral relativism. That’s because, although morality is a construct without universal or even relative truth, once a culture constructs a moral code they defend the tenets based upon to the traditions, convictions, or practices developed by the group.

I garnered this position partly from empirical evidence and partly from a study of history. Through personal experiences, observations of children at all stages of development, and observations of animals in a state of nature, I’ve come to find arguments about innate morality rather silly.

I have never observed developing children act within innate moral codes when dealing with each other unless they have some prior experience with moral coding. I have seen bullied children consider this "unfair" but still bully others, but conversely the experience might teach them a "moral lesson" against the "rightness" of bullying. Usually it appears that morality starts to truly develop after adults have either seen a child act out, then explained and stressed “right and wrong” action, or the child has already observed some adult demonstrating how to act in each circumstance. In either case children begin to emulate what adults or personal experiences have taught and reinforced in them, thus maintaining and passing on to their children the mores of that particular cultural group.

Human history, which shows varying cultural groups displaying the whole gamut of conflicting moral codes, also seem to bear me out.

Now until you can point out where within the human genetic code there is a specific sequence identifiable as “morality markers” that provide this innate characteristic to our species, you will have no foundation upon which to ever start convincing me otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I felt this deserves its own thread. I would like to know what supports this view. From my own work with children I have learned there is very little that they know is "right" or "wrong" until they are socialized to know the difference. Children are taught the difference between right and wrong based on how people react to their behavior and what rewards and punishments they face to subsequently reinforce or eliminate the behavior. They also learn through watching and imitating the actions of others who serve as their role models within their environment. As I understand it from my study of developmental psychology and my personal experiences, children learn morals and appropriate social behavior through socialization and acculturation not through some innate, inborn source. If there is some evidence to indicate otherwise, I would love to see it, particularly since the poster above bases his entire moral argument against homosexuality on its alleged existence.

What is innate are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, which include the laws of logical contradiction, the fundamental operations of human apprehension (the analogous, the univocal and the metaphoric) and the ontological imperatives of origin. They are universally self-evident, hardwired from birth, but one doesn't begin to become actively conscious of them until one's early teens (?), albeit, varying from person to person. In other words, just like we're cerebrally hardwired to eventually develop language, we're cerebrally hardwired for certain fundaments of cognition.

Ultimately, the distinction between right and wrong goes to self-preservation and the awareness of contradiction. Your claim that "morality is a construct without universal or even relative truth" is all wrong. You simply fail to observe the underlying continuity of ethics that persists from culture to culture and the injustice of contradiction. The matter is simply more subtle than you would have it.
 
Last edited:
Much of morality can be traced to evolutionary adaptation.

Evolutionary adaptation explains next to nothing about the normative impulse, let alone about altruism. And note: the impulse for survival is not necessarily the same thing as self-preservation.
 
Back
Top Bottom