Morality - Nature or Nurture?

[bigfatcarp93]

Simple question, Escapist. Does out morality - what we believe is right and wrong, justified and not - simply part of who we are? Or is it the result of how we are molded by family and society?

I WOULD STRONGLY remind the clear difference between "morality" and "sanity".

 

[Norithics]

The byline we like to believe is that we're all in control of our own individual philosophies, but as Science continues to reveal new things about psychology and sociology, we're learning more and more that we're influenced by other things and people to a degree that's nothing short of shocking. Something as simple as the temperature or the comfort of the clothes we wear can make us alter our behaviors in meaningful ways.

I believe that agency is very important to the full human experience, but it's extremely hard to understand how much of our own thoughts and beliefs are truly our own, or were planted by and large as seeds much earlier in our lives by forces that are invisible to us until we examine them.

In short... I dunno! That's part of the mystery of being alive!

 

[Nirallus]

As far as I know, every Nature vs. Nurture question has been basically answered with "both".

But since some animals exhibit "pre-moral" behavior, and the development of morality is well-explained by evolutionary psychology, I'd say the foundation and framework is laid by nature. The rest is built by nurture around that framework.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I think it's something that just came with necessity when humans first started forming tribes and communities. Obviously some kind of laws, no matter how primitive, had to be established in order for them to exist for a long period of time. That in itself is probably the foundation for morality.

But honestly, I don't see morality as being a natural thing. It's a human concept. If you look to the wild, to nature, well, there isn't much morality to be found at all. It's incredibly vicious, driven by the instinct to survive. We see this in the universe as well, with stars dying and their systems being destroyed (and in the process, any living thing within). Everything that is natural tends to be pretty damn destructive, or for its own personal benefit (though of course unintended positive side affects do happen, such as bees pollinating flowers).

I think if we looked back far enough, before civilisation, humans may have acted as animals, behaving purely by instinct with morality coming later.

Of course I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Batou667]

It's both, but rooted in nature, specifically our evolution as a social species. Stuff like altruism and reciprocity (and even self-sacrifice) makes sense from the point of view of the survival of a group rather than individuals.

Being social animals also made an ability to empathise important, and that's key for concepts like justice, mercy, and even stuff that has no particular evolutionary advantage like respect for the dead.

I think most of our current "moral" concepts are hard-wired but an individuals' upbringing or conscious rationalization can weaken or bypass certain moral imperatives. A lot of effort has to go into dehumanising an enemy before even trained soldiers are willing to shoot to kill, for example.

If you look to the wild, to nature, well, there isn't much morality to be found at all. It's incredibly vicious, driven by the instinct to survive.

I dunno, perhaps that's true for solitary animals and less-developed species, but most social animals exhibit some kind of "morality", even if it's just stuff like kin altruism, protecting their sick and young, voluntarily endangering themselves to act as a lookout for predators, having a memory of who has shared food in the past and avoiding group-members who are known to not reciprocate favours, and so on. Some higher mammals have social norms (and punish members who break those norms), and possibly have a basic understanding of death and mortality.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I dunno, perhaps that's true for solitary animals and less-developed species, but most social animals exhibit some kind of "morality", even if it's just stuff like kin altruism, protecting their sick and young, voluntarily endangering themselves to act as a lookout for predators, having a memory of who has shared food in the past and avoiding group-members who are known to not reciprocate favours, and so on. Some higher mammals have social norms (and punish members who break those norms), and possibly have a basic understanding of death and mortality.

I'd still say that'd fall under instinct, mostly. The will to survive would also go for your species, I guess, and protecting the young is a big part of that continued survival. I'd say protecting one's young is less about morality, and more instinctual. Though I guess there are plenty of examples of certain species who abandon their young to fend for itself.

As for your latter point, that could just be humans putting what we identify with onto animals, to more easily relate with them.

 

[Verlander]

It's a mixture. I've got four kids, and it's interesting watching them grow and develop. One in particular has always had a generally pleasant disposition since birth. The eldest finds it difficult to sympathise with a victim, although not in a nasty way, and another would appear to be the "menace", but has a strong emotional reaction to those who are suffering in a way he can relate to (he's sworn that when he's rich, he'll spend his money on a homeless shelter).

This is totally circumstantial evidence, but it echos my experience in the wider world as well. People are born a particular way, but then developed by circumstance. It's very difficult to point out what holds the stronger influence, because it's difficult to separate your opinions or observations on someone in their current circumstance, and a hypothetically different circumstance. The person in the poor country who gives up everything he has for his neighbours... would he be so selfless in a society that has given him a lot? The motivated political activist, would he go to the same lengths during his life if he was born in a society he agreed with? The only thing that we know for certain is that even if the situation is identical, different people cope with it differently.

 

[Batou667]

I'd still say that'd fall under instinct, mostly. The will to survive would also go for your species, I guess, and protecting the young is a big part of that continued survival. I'd say protecting one's young is less about morality, and more instinctual. Though I guess there are plenty of examples of certain species who abandon their young to fend for itself.

As for your latter point, that could just be humans putting what we identify with onto animals, to more easily relate with them.

True, but why shouldn't morality be at least part instinctive? If moral behaviour evolved with us then it stands to reason that it'd be largely innate. I don't think it makes sense to try to separate the two. Most of what we call "moral" is good for survival on a society-wide scale and most of what we'd call "immoral" is harmful to survival.

 

[Piorn]

Does it matter?
All that matters is if more people stopped and imagined what other people must feel like, we'd have much less trouble, ethics and morality aside.
Everyone should have to at least watch Princess Mononoke in school.

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

Morality is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Simply put, it's a set of informal rules by which you live by. It might be a communal sense, where everyone in a particular geographic area shares some common values, or it could be more like a personal honor code.

All that being said, I think this guy has it best.

As far as I know, every Nature vs. Nurture question has been basically answered with "both".

But since some animals exhibit "pre-moral" behavior, and the development of morality is well-explained by evolutionary psychology, I'd say the foundation and framework is laid by nature. The rest is built by nurture around that framework.

 

[freaper]

Large parts of what we believe to be moral or ethical (if that's what you meant, OP?) behaviour stem from our natural/biological drives; be it reproduction, self-preservation, self-affirmation, etc. The rest is purely Nurture. This makes humans, and all other living beings amoral (imo). Right and wrong does not exist in nature.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

True, but why shouldn't morality be at least part instinctive? If moral behaviour evolved with us then it stands to reason that it'd be largely innate. I don't think it makes sense to try to separate the two. Most of what we call "moral" is good for survival on a society-wide scale and most of what we'd call "immoral" is harmful to survival.

Because with morality, comes empathy. It could be considered a weakness, really. If an animal was merciful or kind in the wild, he'd perhaps not last too long. Of course, this is coming from modern human morality, from what is unarguably much softer civilisations than what existed thousands of years ago. In older cultures where the struggle between life and death was still very much a part of everyday life, the morality of the time would probably work well with instinct. But as we know it today? Not so much, I feel.

I believe that maybe a primal kind of morality may be natural, to a degree, but humans have certainly taken that concept to exceptionally more complex levels.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Mortily as in the set of rules as to whats moral or what's immoral is nuture 100%.

But some natural human behaviours just happen to be in line with morality anyway.

Helping and sharing with other humans allied or otherwise not in competition to ourself is both natural human behaviour and moral.

Whilst not-taking revenge on someone who wronged you is moral only, and not natural human behaviour, revenge is natural human behaviour.

 

[Mahorfeus]

I think that this is one of the things Freud came up with that isn't total bullshit. Morality is not innate - it is from society that we learn of what things are acceptable, and what things are not. That is all nurture.