We are not born with morals, this has been scientifically proven by a few very immoral acts. There have been cases where children were raised with little to no human contact even kept in cages. The ones that are rescued never develop the same sense of right and wrong that we have. For obvious reasons we cannot repeat this but it does show that we learn morality after birth.
I'd beg to differ that such a method doesn't prove that we have no morals, simply that they can be broken.
We are born completely dependent on others for our survival and learn very soon what we like and what we don’t like to have done to us. Obviously food is good, touch is good, environmental comfort is good but because we cannot provide any of these things for ourselves we learn what behaviors will get others to provide these and other things for us. The lesson learned is the foundation for what behaviorist call reciprocal altruism. A favor or kindness done today brings a favor or kindness tomorrow.
Nonsense. I've done plenty of good things and recieved nothing back. If I wanted something, I'd get it directly.
Empathy is the foundation on which morality is built upon. It is the understanding that what hurts me will feel the same way to you and our helplessness at birth is key to developing this empathy. This helpless dependence on others is a hard lesson learned right out of the womb for many creatures. In contrast creatures that are self sufficient at birth have no interest in their offspring at all, except maybe for a quick meal. they’ve never made a connection between them and their younger versions and hence never empathized with them.
How is empathy morality?
This is all you need to develop basic moral programing, a period of total dependence, the ability to make the reasoned connection too that period and an instinct for self preservation. Emotions are not even necessary for basic morality and are one of the things that can cause us to act immoral.
All you need to develop a sense of right or wrong is to be fed?
This period of dependence is also responsible for the perceived innocence of a child and is almost identical to the perceived innocence of a dog. It only requires two things, a lack of understanding of the world around them and a level of dependence. That’s why we like dogs so much, that perceived innocence last all their lives because they never gain that much knowledge and they’re always dependent on us. In humans the more independent a child becomes the more their perceived innocence disappears and knowledge is the final destroyer.
You say that like everyone likes dogs. How is this, however, pertinent to morality?
What these “what’s happening to our kids” group fail to understand is this is that’s all happening to our kids. This period of innocence just isn’t lasting as long as it used to. Religion can’t do anything about this short of artificially stagnating children so they remain innocent and ignorant longer.
I'd beg to differ. I find kids behave badly younger because we are born with an internal desire, and they lack any sense of direction.
As a society we are far more moral than we were just a few hundred years ago. If you doubt this your in serious need of a history lesson. Do you think anyone would care if we were torturing prisoners 400 years ago? We tolerate far less injustice now and while from a religious standpoint, sex being immoral and all, we could seem less moral most people don’t think any kind of consensual sex is immoral.
We're also much more religious than long ago (at least in the sense of common-man high-knowledge religion). We have also become like dogs to our desires.
