Diaboleros said:

If there is no instinct for morality, where do animals get their morality from?

For me morality is logic. Cause and effect. People who don't have morals are simply unable to see far enough how their actions are creating a chain and an avalanche of causes and effects. No morality equals blindness.

---

What are you mumbling about in there?

Poid said:

youbreakyoubuy said:

Is morality a thing of nature or of nurture?

---

It is nurture. 100%.

---

Quote:

Obviously, peoples' morality is largely influenced by the culture that they were born into; this means that a person's morality is "nurtured" into his/her psyche.

---

Well, which is it?  Whole hog or just the rump?  Make up your mind, man!

MushroomTrip said:

Diaboleros said:

If there is no instinct for morality, where do animals get their morality from?

For me morality is logic. Cause and effect. People who don't have morals are simply unable to see far enough how their actions are creating a chain and an avalanche of causes and effects. No morality equals blindness.

---

What are you mumbling about in there?

---

Excuse me for having offended your intelligence, it was not my intention, I hope you can forgive me?

youbreakyoubuy said:

Single genes are not solely responsible for complex psychological behavior such as morality.  A whole coterie of them may be though. But that is conjecture.

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

Well, which is it?  Whole hog or just the rump?  Make up your mind, man!

---

I already said that it is nurture. 100%.

Diaboleros said:

All nurture is orignally created by nature.

---

Diaboleros said:

Saying nurture vs nature makes no sense. I find it funny how you claim your thinking is seperate from nature, while the brains with which you do your thinking is created by nature. Or did you think aliens put brains inside your head?

---

I agree with you here, and would say that it's just improper terminology; perhaps a better way of putting it would be "Human Nature vs Human Nurture".

Poid said:

So you are saying there are Muslim genes, and Christian genes, and genes for whatever other established moral code?

---

Not really.  I'm more implying that there could conceivably be an evolutionarily favored, psychological mechanism for a predisposition towards adopting a moral code that is encoded within the genome.  How that particular mechanism is manifested would then be a matter of environment.

But to clarify, I don't believe that there is any research supporting this.  It's a bit far fetched.

youbreakyoubuy said:

Poid said:

So you are saying there are Muslim genes, and Christian genes, and genes for whatever other established moral code?

---

Not really.  I'm more implying that there could conceivably be an evolutionarily favored, psychological mechanism for a predisposition towards adopting a moral code that is encoded within the genome.

---

I would agree that this is possible, and perhaps even probable, but that sort of thing is different than a gene which necessarily predetermines a human's moral values.

youbreakyoubuy said:

How that particular mechanism is manifested would then be a matter of environment.

---

So the individual would have no control over his/her own morals? His/her morals would merely be up to his/her genetics and environment?

youbreakyoubuy said:

But to clarify, I don't believe that there is any research supporting this.  It's a bit far fetched.

---

In any case, IMO, it's pretty probable that there are genes which have the potential to influence a human's decision making capabilities in terms of morality.

Diaboleros said:

No clarifying answer?

---

For what, since your question didn't address anything I was saying? What do I need to clear?

Anyways, there's no evidence or even a slight sign to make me think animals have a morality instinct, and what you describe is nothing more than the actions of any living being that has some ability to reason, observe, experience, and then take decisions. This doesn't mean that doing so is "moral", since this isn't the definition of morality.

Poid said:

So the individual would have no control over his/her own morals? His/her morals would merely be up to his/her genetics and environment?

---

MushroomTrip said:

This would mean that right and wrong are preset, and this isn't true, otherwise all the people would automatically consider everything in the same way, and there would be no need for morals to be set within a social context.

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

By that I mean, we have little control over the development of our early lives, which has an over arching effect over every decision we make for the rest of our lives.

---