Innate Knowledge of Right and Wrong

[Rawlings]

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.

You're close, but sexual behavior, if not sexual orientation, like any other behavior, necessarily entails morality. Homosexual behavior is immoral.

 

[Rawlings]

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.

Exactly right! Collectivism, like any other form of conformity, is the bane of virtue.

 

[ashurbanipal]

First of all, please do not try to categorize me by tying my views to any particular philosopher.

Well, OK but surely you are aware that your views are likely to coincide with those of some philosopher or other.

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.

OK.

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.

Again, OK.

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.

Well, I have respect for personal experience, but personal experience that is of the negative kind (i.e. I've never personally experienced or observed x) doesn't have very much weight. I've never personally seen the Himalayas. By parity of reasoning, I should be able to conclude that they don't exist.

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.

You seem to have a very odd view of morality. Morality is what one ought to do. What one actually does is history, and the two often do not coincide. So what? There are records, for example, of samurai being routed and running from a battle. This is expressly against their moral code--does that mean Bushido literally doesn't exist? Of course not--it means they didn't live up to their ideals. Happens all the time.

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.

The child would still have to have some concept of what the adult is saying in order to understand.

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.

No doubt. How does this mean that morals are not innate, at least on some level?

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

Actually, I disagree. Certain ideals are nearly universal among human beings. This is the result of Haidt and Joseph's research.

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.

Well, that seems an unreasonably high standard. I doubt it's sustainable. Tell me: which genes encode for our linguistic capacity? Which genes code for our mathematical capacity? Which genes code for our ability to feel emotions? These things are all innate--we know, for example, from Chomsky's work, that our capacity for language is underdetermined by the environment.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You seem to have a very odd view of morality. Morality is what one ought to do. What one actually does is history, and the two often do not coincide.

But I am not arguing against the existence of morality, that is self-evident. It's "innate" origins? That's not only less evident outside a social context, it flies in the face of reason unless (to my mind at least) you are positing pre-programming by a higher power. That is based upon faith, and I can have "faith" in such irrational beliefs depending on my religious background because I cannot prove a higher power does not exist. Establishing this as a fact however, has not been proven either.

Well, that seems an unreasonably high standard. I doubt it's sustainable. Tell me: which genes encode for our linguistic capacity? Which genes code for our mathematical capacity? Which genes code for our ability to feel emotions? These things are all innate--we know, for example, from Chomsky's work, that our capacity for language is underdetermined by the environment.

I must commend you on your patience and persistence. You also provide well reasoned responses. Please forgive me if I don't respond to all of your comments, since some aren't really asking anything of me, and others...I feel I have provided a sufficient response to. This last point you make has some merit though, and I must point out I do not claim to be a geneticist. I merely stated that in order for me to see a foundation for the possibility of an "innate" characteristic I needed some basis in genetic coding for it.

We ARE coded for communication capability (voiceboxes, hearing organs, tongues, etc.), we ARE coded for higher mental capacity (brain structure); else we would simply remain "great apes." Emotions? Yes we are coded for those as well, as in attraction reponses to hormonal patterns (pheromones); fear capacity (autonomic adrenal responses) or pleasure/pain (try MDMA or burning your finger). As for differing capabilities at mathematics, linguistics, etc.? Genetic diversity in mental capacity allowing for survival of the fittest.

I could go on and on, but why? We are speaking about "codes of conduct," as you originally indicated above. Their only merit exists in social interactions, and I still contend that based on diverse examples of group flexibility in terms of "what ought to be done," there is no "innate" sharing of "right and wrong." Thus, find me the basic coding directing this innate system and we can start to talk about the validity of your subsequent arguments.

 

[Surtr]

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.

Or we're all the same species, so having the same needs while having different cultural backgrounds means that we can easily have a core set of root morals innate to our species, as well as secondary cultural moralities.

 

[ashurbanipal]

But I am not arguing against the existence of morality, that is self-evident.

Why do you think I was suggesting otherwise? I took your argument to be something like this: because children do not behave according to a moral standard, they have no innate moral standard. My counter-point is that the moral standard could exist, but simply be disobeyed. The behavior of children in most situations probably isn't relevant to deciding the issue. Of course, some behavior is relevant, but we typically set up experiments to control for variables and isolate the behavior so it can be studied.

It's "innate" origins? That's not only less evident outside a social context, it flies in the face of reason unless (to my mind at least) you are positing pre-programming by a higher power.

I'm not sure why you think this. Unless, that is, the "higher power" in question can be something like a series of serendipitous and consequential accidents, or the normal processes of evolution, or something. Of course, a divine being may also be included in the set of candidate "higher powers," but most proponents of some innate foundation for morality prefer one of the former two options.

It may be the case that certain proto-moral concepts go all the way back to rodents. The importance of cooperation and reciprocity may manifest in some rodent behavior, such that those rodents which occasionally reciprocate and cooperate among themselves have an overall better chance of survival than those individuals that don't have those behaviors (and presumably, the corresponding conscious states). Through the millions of years of mammalian evolution, the foundations of morality evolve to provide a reproductive advantage to individuals that manifest those behaviors and conscious states. By the time we get human beings, these foundations are well defined and constellate a large part of the psyche of most individuals. No divine intervention needed; it's just good ole' fashioned evolution. But on this account, morality is still innate.

I could go on and on, but why? We are speaking about "codes of conduct," as you originally indicated above. Their only merit exists in social interactions, and I still contend that based on diverse examples of group flexibility in terms of "what ought to be done," there is no "innate" sharing of "right and wrong." Thus, find me the basic coding directing this innate system and we can start to talk about the validity of your subsequent arguments.

The point is, I'm not a geneticist either, so I cannot (personally) locate the genes which code for an innate moral foundation. However, I happen to know more than the average layperson about genetics (mainly through my study of neuroscience, thanks to my interest and work in Philosophy of Mind). What I was attempting to point out is that no one knows which genes code for linguistic capacity, mathematical capacity, occurence of emotion, and so on--but no one seriously argues those things are not innate.

Again, my claim is not that human beings are born with a set of propositions in their minds which convey some reasonable set of instructions about moral codes of behavior. Nor do I claim that each human being is born with the exact same moral foundation or code. Rather, what is there are a basic set of values, each of which is present in all human beings, but for which each human being assigns different weights. According to Haidt and Joseph, the five values are:

1. Harm
2. Fairness
3. Purity
4. Loyalty
5. Hierarchical dominance

They develop a theory about how these evolved due to pressures facing mammals over the last several tens-of-millions of years. For example, in the first value, most mammals have vulnerable offspring, and the need to care for them (i.e. to negate harm) is paramount to reproductive success. Mammals that develop harm-avoidance mechanisms which they apply interspecially are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who do not. Mammals that have a concern for keeping their bodies clean (purity) are more likely to survive than those who do not. And so on. Over time, these values become innate. We can see this because these values underlie all of the moral systems of all cultures.

 

[MoSurveyor]

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.

There is on conflict between evolution and "altruistic" behavior.

 

[Paschendale]

There is on conflict between evolution and "altruistic" behavior.

If anything, the opposite is true. Cooperation and teamwork are part of our human makeup. We survived natural selection and evolved as a more cooperative species. Altruism breeds that cooperation. Survival, for most primates and even most mammals, is a team activity.

 

[Rawlings]

There is on conflict between evolution and "altruistic" behavior.

If anything, the opposite is true. Cooperation and teamwork are part of our human makeup. We survived natural selection and evolved as a more cooperative species. Altruism breeds that cooperation. Survival, for most primates and even most mammals, is a team activity.

My apologies for the misunderstanding. It's my fault. I'm talking about altruism in the higher, spiritual sense of self-sacrifice, not mere cooperation within species.

 

[Rawlings]

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.

But I am not arguing against the existence of morality, that is self-evident. It's "innate" origins? That's not only less evident outside a social context, it flies in the face of reason unless (to my mind at least) you are positing pre-programming by a higher power. That is based upon faith, and I can have "faith" in such irrational beliefs depending on my religious background because I cannot prove a higher power does not exist. Establishing this as a fact however, has not been proven either.

Though this post may be of no interest to you given your skepticism of religious philosophy, I find your talk about identifying a specific genetic sequence of morality astonishing, as a universal code of morality would not necessarily hinge on such a thing, and to my knowledge the only system of Western thought that arguably holds that a specific moral code is imprinted on the minds of humans at birth is Platonic Idealism. Certainly Judeo-Christianity holds to no such foolishness. You're beating on a strawman, while that which is innate and that which is consequently universal are staring you right in the face.

(By the way, the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy is a false alternative, and Judeo-Christianity's epistemology is akin to a synthesis of the two.)

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, the metaphoric) and the ontological imperatives of origin.

These are universally self-evident, but typically one doesn't become fully or actively conscious of their ramifications until one's early teens, albeit, varying from person to person. In other words, we're not only genetically programmed for language and mathematics, but for the recognition of the universal code of justice and liberty, among other things, as a matter of will.

As for the latter, I don't know why you keep saying there is no such thing, when, as we shall see, there most certainly is. And while we need not appeal to Haidt and Joseph's research, as the matter is infinitely simpler and more obvious than their set of five values, Ashurbanipal is absolutely right to argue that "[c]ertain ideals are nearly universal among human beings." Indeed, I would argue that the only human beings who may not, after a fashion, be capable of appreciating the ramifications of certain imperatives are the congenitally retarded, dishonest, psychopathic, masochistic or suicidal; for ultimately, the distinction between right and wrong for humans goes to self-preservation, empathy and logical consistency.

The notion that "morality is a construct without universal or even relative truth" entails an indemonstrable transcendental claim, and you simply ignore the underlying continuity of morality that clearly persists from culture to culture. Notwithstanding, the innate universality of something would not necessarily hinge as you seem to think on man's universal acquiescence to the same. It would hinge on man's universal apprehension of the same.

(By the way, the recognition that God is or must be is not based on faith at all, but reason; and God, by definition, is not a material being Whose existence is subject to the rigors of empirical proof, but a transcendent being of revelation Whose claims are subject to the rigors of logical and prophetic consistency.)

Apparently, you reject "the existence of a higher power who instill us with a code we then have the free will to alter to our success or detriment".

According to Judeo-Christianity, God does not instill us with a moral code as such; rather, once again, the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universal, genetically hardwired. It's from these that humans derive by reason certain moral/ethical values that are universal. This is a subtle but real distinction. And this notion is not incompatible with the Aristotelian or Lockean notion of a blank slate.


"[T]o our success or detriment"?

Hmm. I think Burke's adage is self-evident, on the very face of it and from history:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.​

Still not convinced?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are the right to life, to liberty and to the pursuit of happiness.​

Of course, Jefferson's "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a paraphrase of Locke's triadic construct regarding the sacrosanct concerns of human life, liberty and private property under the natural law of self-preservation, empathy and logical consistency in terms of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness.

Make no mistake about it. Locke the empiricist of the tabula rasa and the Founders are talking about a universal moral code of conduct touching on the common and political affairs of man, and Locke in the Augustinian tradition extrapolated his theory of natural law from the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, which is premised on the above construct of a universal structure of rational apprehension.

The Imago Dei.

We're not born knowing right from wrong in any sense nobler than our inherent aversion to pain and deprivation. We come to apprehend the universal moral code of justice and liberty, which amounts to the Golden Rule and the recognition that we are our brother's keeper, after a period of neurological, emotional and intellectual maturation, upon experience and reflection. Hence, Judeo-Christianity's exegesis of the age of accountability.

More to the point. . . .

I'm bemused by the debate over the nuts and bolts of innate knowledge, its nature and particulars. Judeo-Christianity resolved the matter centuries ago beyond dispute in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But I need not appeal to God.

Obviously, every normal human being of maturity knows that he's subject to the lose of life or limb should he violate that which he would have no other human being violate of his (life, liberty, property). Those who violate the fundamental rights of others know they must fight or flee, for such behavior and the imperatives of justice necessarily entail force. Moral renegades don't stand around twiddling their thumbs, expecting peace. Every culture throughout recorded history has held that murder and theft and the like are morally wrong and punishable by the sword of the wronged or that of the state.

It's really not all that complicated, but I guess some folks never tire of reinventing the wheel.

Locke never flinched, and the Founders didn't *****foot around in the remonstration of the socio-political philosophy on which they founded a great nation as if its particulars were irrational, indemonstrable or untenable simply because they were premised on Providence. Pffft! Indeed, they held, and rightly so, that the denial of God as the only unimpeachable Source and Guarantor of human liberty defaulted to a tyrannical state arbitrarily granting and revoking rights.

 

[Paschendale]

My apologies for the misunderstanding. It's my fault. I'm talking about altruism in the higher, spiritual sense of self-sacrifice, not mere cooperation within species.

It's the same thing.

 

[Rawlings]

It's the same thing.

Sorry. I don't agree.

 

[Rawlings]

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.

The Golden rule was not invented; it's a readily self-evident necessity of the human experience and human interaction. Think natural law. See post #60.

 

[afr0byte]

The Golden rule was not invented; it's a readily self-evident necessity of the human experience and human interaction. Think natural law. See post #60.

I don't know about that. Maybe part of the time. If I can get enough support on my side we could go crush our opposition without having to worry about also being attacked.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

New Study Finds First Links Between Genes and Moral Judgments - Georgetown University

“What this study showed is that one variable that predicts how people’s moral judgments diverge when confronted with this kind of scenario is a gene,” says Marsh, who has worked on the study at Georgetown since 2008. “It’s a gene that controls how serotonin is transported in the brain, and it affects how people respond emotionally.”

She says people who have the short version of the gene tend to have stronger emotional responses to negative events.


Genetic Evolution and Moral Choice | Alfred Kracher - Academia.edu

Taken together, the ideas presented here suggest that ever since the earliest beginning of human culture there has existed an awareness of the biological limits of human behavior. In themythological narratives that have survived to our time this awareness has often reached asophistication which surpasses the parallel reasoning of sociobiology. On the other hand,sociobiology has been able to formulate some of the constraints with scientific precision. Aproperly restricted sociobiology which grants that it cannot explain all human actions would notonly be more credible scientifically, but could actually help us recognize the significance of symbolic narratives like the mythical adoption stories. On this view, a dialogue between these very different traditions, science and mythology, is necessary (Kracher 1992) to advance our self-understanding as human beings. Neither one by itself is likely to improve human conduct.

 

[Rawlings]

I don't know about that. Maybe part of the time. If I can get enough support on my side we could go crush our opposition without having to worry about also being attacked.

But you're actually underscoring our universal awareness of natural law, i.e., the Golden Rule in the political terms of classical liberalism. I addressed this. See post #60. Think about it.

Obviously, every normal human being of maturity knows that he's subject to the lose of life or limb should he violate that which he would have no other human being violate of his (life, liberty, property). Those who violate the fundamental rights of others know they must fight or flee, for such behavior and the imperatives of justice necessarily entail force. Moral renegades don't stand around twiddling their thumbs, expecting peace. Every culture throughout recorded history has held that murder and theft and the like are morally wrong and punishable by the sword of the wronged or that of the state.​

Recall what I observed in the above: "Notwithstanding, the innate universality of something would not necessarily hinge as you seem to think on man's universal acquiescence to the same. It would hinge on man's universal apprehension of the same."

 

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by Captain Adverse
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.

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal
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.

Precisely! Though Judeo-Christianity more perfectly explains that the universal moral code of humanity as such is not innate, but derived from the ramifications of the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness. See post #60.

Also, aren't Haidt and Joseph essentially arguing the same thing, i.e., that the universal human moral code is "one step removed via reason" from being innately imprinted at birth?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Though this post may be of no interest to you given your skepticism of religious philosophy…

The notion that "morality is a construct without universal or even relative truth" entails an indemonstrable transcendental claim...

According to Judeo-Christianity, God does not instill us with a moral code as such; ..

Hmm. I think Burke's adage is self-evident, on the very face of it and from history:

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites. …

Make no mistake about it. Locke the empiricist of the tabula rasa and the Founders are talking about a universal moral code of conduct touching on the common and political affairs of man, …

Locke never flinched, and the Founders didn't *****foot around in the remonstration of the socio-political philosophy on which they founded a great nation as if its particulars were irrational, …​

I’m not surprised that Ontologuy “liked” your little exposition there. You both seem to think that if you can only use enough $20 words to express a ten cent idea, this must prove the truth of your position. To quote W.C. Fields “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.”

Apparently you don’t know much about Judeo-Christian beliefs, since anyone who does knows that God allowed humanity to retain knowledge of good and evil after eating of the forbidden fruit, and our free will allows us to choose how to act between these moral opposites. This dichotomy of good vs. evil in western belief systems actually had it’s origins in Zoroastrianism, but can also be found in just about every religion which seeks to show how to enlighten oneself, from the eight-fold path of the Buddha to the cycle of reincarnation of the Hindus. This being in contrast to all the blood gods and nature deities of old who required human sacrifices of one kind of another.

Every culture in history has NOT agreed that murder is universally wrong…many cultures, including our own, have determined murder is perfectly alright as long as it is not one of our own tribe we are murdering…and there are many which determined it was perfectly fine to murder a member of their own culture if it was done “fairly.” Of course, each culture had its own ideas about what “fairly” could entail.

Most of the rest of your blah blah blah arguments are discussing exactly what I’ve pointed out; how moral codes are “human constructs,” not universal laws. Your whole point is about how humans have gotten together after much thought and controversy and determined “this is universally RIGHT and this is universally WRONG, and since we say it is so, then it must be innately so!”

Of course I am not arguing against the existence of moral codes, I acknowledge we have constructed them and they have merit in a social context, i.e. how we should and should not interact in order to preserve each person's rights within our shared society. But to declare such constructs "innate" as in from birth? No sir, sorry about that, history shows too much "moral code" diversity for this to be true.

Now see how clear my response is? No attempt to baffle with bull****, just plain language…your position is just a load of pompous B/S.​

 

[Rawlings]

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.

Indeed, his psychology has been mostly refuted. We clearly are not born as blank slates. But in this instance I don't believe Locke is wrong. My understanding of Locke is that he rejected specific innate ideas or notions about geometric forms and calculi, and ethics prior to experience, not necessarily an innate cognitive structure unique to man, though he did reject the notion that we were born with the ability to negotiate spatial dimension and time. (And it would appear that he has been refuted on that score too.) In other words, the slate is blank, but not necessarily or entirely without structure. I know that Aristotle's rendition allows for this, but perhaps I've got Locke's wrong.

Clearly you are much better read than I on the philosophy of mind. My reading of Locke's epistemology is not nearly as extensive as my reading of his political theory, my primary interest.

Any suggestions or corrections would be welcome.

Regardless, I don't believe specific moral values are innate, but the cerebral and spiritual structure of human apprehension is and that explains the universality of human morality that Captain Adverse inexplicably fails to recognize.

 

[Rawlings]

Wow! I mean Wow!

I’m not surprised that Ontologuy “liked” your little exposition there. You both seem to think that if you can only use enough $20 words to express a ten cent idea, this must prove the truth of your position. To quote W.C. Fields “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.”

Adverse, you've been roundly refuted on this thread on a number of key points by ashurbanipal and me, and the universality of human morality is obvious. You're as blind as a bat, embarrassingly naive and silly.

Apparently you don’t know much about Judeo-Christian beliefs, since anyone who does knows that God allowed humanity to retain knowledge of good and evil after eating of the forbidden fruit, and granted mankind free will so that we can choose between these moral opposites.

Wrong. As everybody who knows from the chronology of the biblical narrative, man did not acquire free will from the forbidden fruit. Man had free will from the jump. He was created with it. He came into the knowledge of good and evil as a result of his disobedience. Perhaps this is what you meant, but your expression of the matter is careless and misleading.

Apparently your deluded as there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in my post that preludes this common understanding of things. On the contrary, my post underscores this understanding of things. You're the confused one, not this Christian with decades of scripture and theology under his belt. But then you don't directly refute a citation from my post or expound the rationale of your insinuation.

This banality of yours is hands down even more bizarre than your failure to recognize the mostly intuitive nature and universality of human morality, and your glaringly fallacious argument that primates—but not just primates, but all mammals, which you typed in all caps for some reason!—would necessarily have to be born with an innate set of morals if we were.

LOL!

Well, no, actually, on second thought, the above banality is not as bizarre as the primate-mammal thingy.

Is that plain enough for ya?

As for my supposed $20 words, you could have simply asked for an explanation of those terms with which you're unfamiliar in the spirit in which I introduced them. Terms like the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness or the ontological imperatives of origin, no doubt among those you're complaining about, are among the common, well-established referents in contemporary theology that go to Judeo-Christianity's metaphysics and epistemology. The only bull on display here is your ignorance and juvenile behavior, your dishonest attempt to marginalize due to your obvious disdain for theists, typical of the snooty denizens of the new atheism.

Talk about smiles and shoe shines.

Is that plain enough for ya?

This dichotomy in western belief systems actually had it’s origins in Zoroastrianism, but can also be found in just about every religion which seeks to show how to enlighten oneself, from the eight-fold path of the Buddha to the cycle of reincarnation of the Hindus. This being in contrast to all the blood gods and nature deities of old who required human sacrifices of one kind of another.

Nonsense. The oral tradition of the monotheistic God of the ancient nomads of the Near East predates Zoroastrianism by centuries. Your blather is an old canard which carelessly assumes that Zoroastrianism, clearly derived from the Near Eastern pagan tradition of polytheism, is an older religious tradition simply because its written tradition is older. But the progenitor and early acolytes of Zoroastrianism were city dwellers. The progenitors of the monotheistic tradition of Jehovah were tribal nomads.

But you digressed, veered way off the topic, didn’t you?

Every culture in history has NOT agreed that murder is universally wrong…many cultures, including our own, have determined murder is perfectly alright as long as it is not one of our own tribe we are murdering…and there are many which determined it was perfectly fine to murder a member of their own culture if it was done “fairly.” Of course, each culture had its own ideas about what “fairly” could entail.

Anecdotal claptrap. And I note that you avoid quoting the pertinent observations in my post that answer this.

Most of the rest of your blah blah blah arguments are discussing exactly what I’ve pointed out; how moral codes are "human constructs," not universal laws.

False. I argued natural law, which is universal. Take your "blah, blah, blah" and intellectual dishonesty. . . . Once again you fail to refute a direct citation from my post.

Your whole point is about how humans have gotten together after much thought and controversy and determined “this is universally RIGHT and this is universally WRONG, and since we say it is so, then it must be innately so!”

False. Another strawman. I argued no such thing, and once again you fail to refute a direct citation from my post.

Of course I am not arguing against the existence of moral codes. . . .

No one said that you're arguing against "the existence of moral codes"! LOL! Your stawmen in the absence of direct citations from my post are getting increasingly more desperate and transparent.

I acknowledge we have constructed them and they have merit in a social context, i.e. how we should and should not interact in order to preserve each person's rights within our shared society.

Them? Plural? You haven't understood me at all.

Contrary to you're insinuation, I don't acknowledge that we fabricated the universal moral code of humanity! That would be contrary to the teachings of Judeo-Christianity, wouldn't it, genius?

I utterly reject your contention.

You're confused.

We come it, each and every individual, via experience, intuition and/or reflection. The author is God. We discover it; we don't fashion it. The Judeo-Christian construct of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not that of Zoroastrianism! LOL! I know what you're thinking, though, apparently, you don't know how to articulate it, but you're all wet. The Judeo-Christian construct goes to the plight of human nature and decision after the age of accountability.

Now see how clear my response is? No attempt to baffle with bull****, just plain language…your position is self-serving B/S.

The response in which you never once directly refute any citations from my post? Get virtually everything backwards? The response in which you stupidity confound the distinction I draw between specific innate moral values, which I eschew, and the innate structure of human cognition?

Plain language? Your post is full of lies and insults and confusion. I didn't attack you in my post.

You're out line, and I'm done with you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

...You're as blind as a bat, embarrassingly naive and silly.

TROLL much, do ya? LOL

Wrong. As everybody who knows from the chronology of the biblical narrative, man did not acquire free will from the forbidden fruit. Man had free will from the jump. He was created with it. He came into the knowledge of good and evil as a result of his disobedience.

You really don't pay attention much to signature lines do you? If you had you would have noticed that well before you posted this reply I had edited the post you quoted to reflect my actual position which is that prior to eating of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they had free will, but no need to exercise it aside from choosing where to sleep, what to have for dinner, and if they wanted to pet this or that animal today.

Once they ATE the fruit they NOW had to make the hard choices between what was morally good and morally evil. God could have opted to take that knowledge away and start all over, but GOD chose instead kick them out of Eden and let mankind EARN paradise or hell by how he acted from that point on. That's why Christians believe in original sin which taints a baby from birth and remains until whatever serves to remove it from each person before death and judgment. Soooo, take your scriptural knowledge and shove it.

I'm skipping your "primate lecture" points because I think man is just another animal who happens to have lucked into a little more smarts. I don't imbue him with any divine characteristics, or think he is any better in his actions than any other creature with the drive to overpopulate the planet. We just do more damage faster. Now my "faith" (a hope I am wrong) is a different matter because it would be nice if I didn't simply "end" when I died. Won't know for sure until that happens but no harm in hedging my bets. LOL

...As for my supposed $20 words, you could have simply asked for an explanation of those terms with which you're unfamiliar...

WRONG! I am highly educated as you might have known had you simply LOOKED in my profile. One of the things I have learned is that an intellgent person provides information at the level of his general audience, clearly and without pretense at erudition. A person who is merely trying to show how smart he thinks he is, will try to use as many "big words" as possible to give others an impression of intelligence. So I'll just skip your attempts to denegrate MY intellgence and see if I can find any point in the rest of your post...


NOPE. so far nothing worth responding to.... :yawn:

...You're out line, and I'm done with you.

Oh, if thats your final impression..I'm HURT! Cut to the Quick!!! Alas, alack, alackaday!!! I'll just have to suffer through and live with it. :rofl

I found nothing in what you've had to say to this point of any value either, so to quote that emminent TV philosopher FEZ!! "Good Day sir!" :coffeepap

 

[ashurbanipal]

Indeed, his psychology has been mostly refuted. We clearly are not born as blank slates. But in this instance I don't believe Locke is wrong. My understanding of Locke is that he rejected specific innate ideas or notions about geometric forms and calculi, and ethics prior to experience, not necessarily an innate cognitive structure unique to man, though he did reject the notion that we were born with the ability to negotiate spatial dimension and time.

There are some points on which he is ambiguous. I also have to admit to an aversion to reading Locke (though I have read the entire Essay as well as some of his other stuff) and so I cannot claim to be a Locke scholar or anything like that.

Basically, he was concerned to defeat Descartes and Spinoza, who did believe we are equipped with certain a priori "ideas" (it's not clear that a priori and innate are the same thing, but Locke argues that unless it's innate, it cannot really be a priori). And indeed, the a priori ideas we're supposed to have according to D&S are like mathematical and geometric understanding, some ethical knowledge, and knowledge of logic.

The way Locke argues against this is by doing away with any innate...well, anything. He then argues that if it's not innate, it must be learned through experience, and ergo, not a priori. Now, as I mentioned, there are some points on which he's a little ambiguous, and it's possible for there to be some disagreement about whether he really thought he was covering everything with this argument. I tend to think he was, and this is why Liebniz's New Essays work as a proper reply to Locke.

All of this said, again, I'm not a Locke scholar, and it's been a while since I've read his stuff. So you should take what I say with a grain of salt--I'm as subject to the errors of "memory drift" as anyone else.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

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.

Yes I agree with the quote. That everyone knows right from wrong, and there is an innate knowledge that homosexuality is wrong.

 

[ashurbanipal]

If anything, the opposite is true. Cooperation and teamwork are part of our human makeup. We survived natural selection and evolved as a more cooperative species. Altruism breeds that cooperation. Survival, for most primates and even most mammals, is a team activity.

I'm not sure this sufficiently answers the point. I suspect that if there is anything transcendent about morality (i.e. that it's not just innate due to how our brains are wired) this is likely it. Evolutionary psychology can explain the behavior of altruism (though it is, perhaps, a stretch--you have to say something to the effect that it's a mechanism that's gone a little haywire). But saying it can explain the behavior, and saying it can explain the whole phenomenon, are two different things.

People who commit altruistic acts, including those that risk their own lives, often report a strange shift in consciousness leading up to their act. It's typical that they become aware of their own relative lack of importance, and feel an inseparable connection with the object of their act, whether that be another human being, another animal, or sometimes, even an ideal.

Now, perhaps the conscious experience of an altruistic impulse is "wired in" to our brains from birth. I don't think such arguments go far enough, however, because we really do not understand experience at all. Experience itself may not be a result of wiring, and if not, then it's obvious the explanation doesn't fare well. Similarly, one might just dismiss the idea of an accompanying conscious experience as anecdotal, but this strikes me as pretty cheap at the end of the day. I find it difficult to seriously doubt that the moments leading up to doing something like diving into a freezing river to save a drowning stranger, or throwing yourself onto barbed wire under heavy machine-gun fire so that the rest of your platoon can cross over your dead body, is accompanied by the same sort of conscious experience one might have while doing laundry or eating a cheeseburger.

From an evolutionary perspective, this shouldn't be necessary. For the person who commits to an act of altruism, especially a life-risking one, new truths about the world and their relationship to others leap into consciousness. Those truths remain to be apprehended and explained by evolutionary psychology.

All of this said, I'm not sure you need to go so far as to say that those truths are innate. Indeed, I suspect they are learned, but they may nevertheless be learned a priori...and obviously not by everyone.

 

[Rawlings]

There are some points on which he is ambiguous. I also have to admit to an aversion to reading Locke (though I have read the entire Essay as well as some of his other stuff) and so I cannot claim to be a Locke scholar or anything like that.

Basically, he was concerned to defeat Descartes and Spinoza, who did believe we are equipped with certain a priori "ideas" (it's not clear that a priori and innate are the same thing, but Locke argues that unless it's innate, it cannot really be a priori). And indeed, the a priori ideas we're supposed to have according to D&S are like mathematical and geometric understanding, some ethical knowledge, and knowledge of logic.

The way Locke argues against this is by doing away with any innate...well, anything. He then argues that if it's not innate, it must be learned through experience, and ergo, not a priori. Now, as I mentioned, there are some points on which he's a little ambiguous, and it's possible for there to be some disagreement about whether he really thought he was covering everything with this argument. I tend to think he was, and this is why Liebniz's New Essays work as a proper reply to Locke.

All of this said, again, I'm not a Locke scholar, and it's been a while since I've read his stuff. So you should take what I say with a grain of salt--I'm as subject to the errors of "memory drift" as anyone else.

I read Locke's Human Understanding nearly 25 years ago and never looked back. Unsatisfactory. As for the empiricists, Berkeley's my man, and Descartes is my favorite philosopher, his rationalism being closer to the truth in my opinion. Grain of salt or not, you stirred a recollection in me: he rejects innate ideas and is suspicious of those derived from self-evident propositions alone. I believe you're right, and it's the latter assertion that annoyed me the most, well, except, perhaps, for his insistence that he knew substance via sense perception. Apparently, I am confounding his view with Aristotle's.

Locke's strength is his political theory, which I believe to be second to none.

Now I'm going to read his work again followed by Liebniz's. Thanks.