Why do some people lack morals?

[Jaranja]

This is just something that I wonder about sometimes. Are people just born that way? Is it because parents neglect to teach their children morals? Maybe some people just don't care about morals? Are there more reasons for lacking morals besides these?

It's a number of reasons. Where they grew up, childhood experiences, desires...

Everyones different, and how you define morals will vary from person to person. So someone who you think has no morals may actually have morals, they're just different from yours.

Is it time for me to finally one-up Aylaine?! :O!

Here's something you'll like, OP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

Negatory! Free will basically means morals are not set from person to person, much like personality, feelings, views and other things that free will effects. I could have just said we're all different, but how often do you hear that? ;P

Personality, feelings and views and all shaped by each other and everything else including environment, upbringing, personal biology and past experiences. It's a blend of these that helps to form the first three things.

 

[lucky_sharm]

This is just something that I wonder about sometimes. Are people just born that way? Is it because parents neglect to teach their children morals? Maybe some people just don't care about morals? Are there more reasons for lacking morals besides these?

It's more likely that you just don't understand their sense of morals. its best not to try and judge other people for the "Kind of person" they are, because were almost always wrong.

Just because you don't think someone is a good person doesn't mean your right.

I'm not judging anyone. I just want to hear people's thoughts on this.

Maybe the question was a bit too general. Maybe a hypothetical situation might help more. Perhaps a situation that involves people, the actions that they take, and how they justify their actions or something like that. I just need to think of one. If someone could help me out with this then that would nice.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Because morality is a completely subjective concept that varies wildly from culture to culture and even by modern definitions isn't anything beyond "how I was raised?"

I mean, its kinda hard to have or lack something thats completely undefinable.

Do you watch "Extra Credit"? The most recent one had a moral choice from Mass Effect 2, a good example of two immoral actions (or death).

That's what I mean by "unwinnable situations".

Ugh. They (extra credits) kinda fucked that one up completely. The "good" dialogue does mention brainwashing a few times, but thats not what was being asked of you.

The decision was more along the lines of "subversive propaganda" vs "annihilation." They were talking about making a very small, practically undetectable alteration to one of the baser functions, that would influence higher functions. Not strapping people down, playing Beethoven, holding their eyes open while pumping them full of drugs that made them feel horrible while showing a rape on a screen. It was closer to how watching a documentary or learning something new can completely change a person's mind on a particular subject.

To parallel, the abortion issue is based in whether or not an unborn fetus is alive. One of the basic concepts of christianity is the "soul." The idea there is something about you that is undefinable and immortal that enters a body at the moment of conception to define you as a person. Conversely, science has watched an egg develop from conception all the way to "birth," have has established nothing even resembling higher functions exist until at least two months. These two ideas are in conflict but the actual, functional difference the two is when a human is "human." One says at the instant of conception, another says a couple months later, once a brain develops. Theres really only a ~.3% difference between the two, but it creates a fierce divide between people.

The decision isn't brainwashing vs annihilation, its breeching all the walls of ignorance, misconception, and prejudice and correcting an error of judgement versus annihilation.

 

[Mimssy]

Morals are subjective. Just because someone does not have your morals does not mean they lack morals.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Everybody has their own morals. Some merely conflict with proper society.

 

[LemonMelon]

Because Mr Burke offered a better reward than Lucas Simms.

I always use the black widow perk and shake my lady-bits around to convince him that he doesn't in fact, want to kill everyone.

OP, I think it has a lot to do with what your view on morals is, as well as how kids were raised. I think events also happen to change people.

For example: My home was rocked by infidelity. Before that happened, I wouldn't have thought of cheating as being that immoral, and probably would have cheated in my relationships. However, that event gave me more morals in this regard, or at least better ones.

 

[Urgh76]

The vulture pokemon in Black and White is named Vuljina.

Your morals are a lie.

Those aren't morals, that's just plain "pants on head retarded".

OT: Weird, because I was recently thinking about this. Like:

-How could people waste so much food
-How could people listen to Rap being full blown with their windows DOWN?!
-How could people walk out in front of cars at places like Walmart, etc.
-How could people kill
- How could, How could, How how HOW HOWHOWOHOWHWOW

Spoiler: [b

HOWOHOHWHWHWOHWOHWOHW[/b]]

 

[C95J]

I think it's mainly how they were raised, and who they grew up with, I highly doubt that people are born dickheads...

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

This is just something that I wonder about sometimes. Are people just born that way? Is it because parents neglect to teach their children morals? Maybe some people just don't care about morals? Are there more reasons for lacking morals besides these?

Well it depends on how you wish to view the topic .... I'm a non-cognitivist, so I believe perscriptions can have ethically universal propositions. Point is that it depends on how you decide to see the problem from a philosophical and meta-ethical perspective.

For example. There is a thing (as put forward by Kant) the Categorical Imperative. A universal moral compass inherent to all 'right-thinking idividuals'. It's born of the apriori, and as such awakens as one develops.

To understand the concept of synthetic and analytic apriori it's best you look it up. But essentially the apriori is inherent knowledge to the person that cannot be quantified or measured. It's inherently felt. Inherent rules that one knows at birth, but may take time to develop as the ego and the self are explored through experience.

"I occupy a place in space and time." is one.

Now a categorical imperative would be (and no it's got nothing to do with religion, just using it as an example) ..."Thou shall not kill"

Now then you caould ask why a person does kill then if we have this categorical imperative. Well the reason being is because of this.

1: "Thou shall not kill."

2: "But if I kill this guy I will save ten more."

So what you have is a justification for murder. Now why is this important? Because it represents the acknowledgment of the categorical imperative beyond anything other than appeasement of possible guilt. Not because your parents said murdering another is bad. Not because society taught you this. No .. its your own brain coming up with these justifications to break your inbuilt moral compass.

Essentially when you justify breaking a categorical imperative you are saying this (albeit you might not beable to describe this thought in words due to it's inherent nature.).

"Thou shall not kill ... but I must kill to save my friends. I can justify why I kill but I cannot justify that everybody kills."

The reason being is because it's quite simple ... albeit we canot measure the physical effect of this sentiment, we can't even picture the details of it, but we can imagine a world where people everywhere killed with reckless abandon .... we automatically recognise this would be a horrible world and therefore we cannot justify everybody gets to murder another.

Sop in a round about way of saying things .... you have people and crooks like us, who have morals built into us because we are 'right thinking individuals' ... crooks that feel guilty about what they do, but justify it because of poverty ... and we have psychotics who don't feel a thing when they perform an ill or base action because they lack an inbuilt moral compass like the rest of us.

If you're really interested in moral philosophy The Metaphysics of Morals by kant is easy enough, albeit you makyu have to look up terminology ocassionally.

Mill's utilitarianism is possibly the easiest barring his intellectual - physical pleasures cnundrum.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Well people gain their morals from how they were raised and eventually what they see in the world around them. I guess it could be possible for someone to be raised in such a fashion that they didn't develop morals, but it would be pretty hard. The thing is everyone has a different set of morals. Some people's moral sense gives a definite answer to each situation they encounter. Others are much more vague and context-sensitive. Some people's morals are strict and others' are flexible. The only truly amoral people would be sociopaths, psychopaths, and people who just aren't right in the head. But our morals are definitely a result of our environment. Some are directly taught and others are learned, but they are all because of our surroundings.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Because one can survival in the real world without them? Morals come after food,clothing and a place to rest your head not to mention in most relationships. But I am thinking fairness>morals as morals is more an absolute path where as fairness is what you try to do when you are not surviving.

Morality is highly overrated being fair with what you got is something a tad more human I think.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

.... but they are all because of our surrounds.

That's debateable. Afterall, children who are abused as children or people who grew up in rough neighbourhoods don't automatically become crooks.

Nor do people who watch gangster movies, horror flicks, and play violent video games will be murderers.

 

[lucky_sharm]

The way I see morals are how a person justifies the actions that they take. So it's kind of like PaulH's post, I guess. If, lets say, person A is beating up another person just for fun or to show off to his friends, then to me that would be despicable because person A is hurting someone who is innocent for no good reason and doesn't reasonably justify his or her actions. And yet, I would applaud person B for beating up another person who wronged person B in a significant way because person B is beating up someone who is guilty of sin. Both person A and B are doing the wrong thing except that person B arguably justifies the wrong doing that he or she committed.

 

[Nukey]

I can't help but feel that this video might actually clear up somethings.


As for my thoughts, no one lacks morals, everyone has different ones. This could be both good or bad.

 

[Da Chi]

Everyone has morals. They might be a different code than yours though. I've been friends with some shady people, while some of their actions seem immoral to my behavior, to them it's normal.
And of course vice-versa.
Example my friend has lied to a girl because he wanted to sleep with her. But in turn she lied to him. That was his justification. I think it's wrong but he doesn't
Alternatively I've told girls before that all I want is some action and thats it. He says thats rude and disrespectful, I don't because it's simple honesty.

You all might think I'm a monster or a jerk but I find nothing wrong with it.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

.... but they are all because of our surrounds.

That's debateable. Afterall, children who are abused as children or people who grew up in rough neighbourhoods don't automatically become crooks.

Nor do people who watch gangster movies, horror flicks, and play violent video games will be murderers.

I didn't say that people mimic their surrounds all the time. Yes, poorer areas do tend to produce more crime. But some people who are raised in that condition say "No! I refuse to live like this! I'm going to rise above my horrible conditions and be someone better!" Did they turn out to be like their surrounds? No. Did their surrounds influence who they became? Yes.

Its no surprise that teens often rebel against their parents and/or authority figures. They decide that rather than become like those before them they are going to be different. This happens every generation or so. 50's? Comformity. 60's? Counter-culture. See where I'm getting at?

 

[Hisshiss]

This is just something that I wonder about sometimes. Are people just born that way? Is it because parents neglect to teach their children morals? Maybe some people just don't care about morals? Are there more reasons for lacking morals besides these?

It's more likely that you just don't understand their sense of morals. its best not to try and judge other people for the "Kind of person" they are, because were almost always wrong.

Just because you don't think someone is a good person doesn't mean your right.

I'm not judging anyone. I just want to hear people's thoughts on this.

Maybe the question was a bit too general. Maybe a hypothetical situation might help more. Perhaps a situation that involves people, the actions that they take, and how they justify their actions or something like that. I just need to think of one. If someone could help me out with this then that would nice.

Fair enough, I mean granted I met alot of people back when I was in high school who were just downright rotten to the core jackasses. But I think people who seem "Immoral" are usually just trying to look that way cus they think it looks cool not to give a shit about other human beings. Its generally a good idea to just ignore them XD..I used to know this kid who couldn't open his mouth without cussing 40 times, insulting america, woman, christians, children, other cultures..you get the idea, and this particular kid was a moron so .

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Morales arose as a rift between the empathetic and apathetic. And as a rift between the logical and impulsive.

Empathy is the ability to observe and understand the emotions of others. (For those who don't know.)

Here's an idea.

Your friend is working as a cashier in a gas station. One day, a man breaks into the gas station and shoots your friend. However, the man who shot your friend was homeless and was desperately in need of money for food.

Empathetic/Impulsive: You are distraught over the loss of your friend and want the man punished severely. The man cost you a friend, someone who is basically family and the murderer doesn't deserve freedom.

Empathetic/Logical: The loss of your friend hits you hard, but you understand the man's plight and suggest a light, but strong punishment. Your friend will be missed, but you pity the man and punish his poor judgement, but you do so feeling sorry for him.

Apathetic/Impulsive: The loss strikes you personally. You want a swift and decisive punishment. The man is a murderer and mustn't get away from this simply because the jury feels sorry for him.

Apathetic/Logical: You'll take time to mourn the loss of your friend, but you'll look at the man's motives, and probably conclude that the man had many more options than armed robbery. You'll calmly give the man a Life Sentence with a chance for bail.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

.... but they are all because of our surrounds.

That's debateable. Afterall, children who are abused as children or people who grew up in rough neighbourhoods don't automatically become crooks.

Nor do people who watch gangster movies, horror flicks, and play violent video games will be murderers.

I didn't say that people mimic their surrounds all the time. Yes, poorer areas do tend to produce more crime. But some people who are raised in that condition say "No! I refuse to live like this! I'm going to rise above my horrible conditions and be someone better!" Did they turn out to be like their surrounds? No. Did their surrounds influence who they became? Yes.

Its no surprise that teens often rebel against their parents and/or authority figures. They decide that rather than become like those before them they are going to be different. This happens every generation or so. 50's? Comformity. 60's? Counter-culture. See where I'm getting at?

I guess so ... but I think it's a bit cold and clinical to draw everything up to culture. I mean the big thing that is being ignored here is that all humans (barring psychotics and crazies) have the capacity to do good. At the same time they all know how they can be good people.

you don't need to see a good act before you can emulate.

For example you don't need to see someone whose lost be greeted by a complete stranger willing to give up their time in order to help the lost tourist out, before you can emulate that behaviour naturally.

It's not like ... "oh ... what that guy did was good .. I've just learnt that now. I should try to do the same again in the future".

Being a good person doesn't require validation by others because we all know instinctually how we could be better people without religion, or society, or parents, or environment telling us "this is a good thing".

You feel it. You can't explain why, but you have a compulsion to help them out. this is an endemic feeling amongst people. Sure you can justify why you won't help the person whose lost out .. "I'm running late", "I don't feel 100%", "i'm tired and I just want to go home, have a drink and watch TV".

(edit)But even those justifications require an acknowledgement that in a better world you would help them out and be a better person than you are. Unfortunately we have to live in reality ... and reality dictates to us that being a bleeding heart will only leave you dead and buried along the course of life.

No matter how badly you want to help a group of homeless people out, the bitter truth is that as a Man you can only do so much. So I guess its all about that balancing act ... how to be a good person without self sacrifice (for that too is a categorical imperative ... the (protection of oneself: --- yes it does pose problems with the conundrum of self sacrifice for a friend ... and why it feels so noble and honourable despite a violation of the categorical imperative ... who said philosophy was perfect? )

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip-

I guess so ... but I think it's a bit cold and clinical to draw everything up to culture. I mean the big thing that is being ignored here is that all humans (barring psychotics and crazies) have the capacity to do good. At the same time they all know how they can be good people.

you don't need to see a good act before you can emulate.

For example you don't need to see someone whose lost be greeted by a complete stranger willing to give up their time in order to help the lost tourist out, before you can emulate that behaviour naturally.

It's not like ... "oh ... what that guy did was good .. I've just learnt that now. I should try to do the same again in the future".

Being a good person doesn't require validation by others because we all know instinctually how we could be better people without religion, or society, or parents, or environment telling us "this is a good thing".

You feel it. You can't explain why, but you have a compulsion to help them out. this is an endemic feeling amongst people. Sure you can justify why you won't help the person whose lost out .. "I'm running late", "I don't feel 100%", "i'm tired and I just want to go home, have a drink and watch TV".

(edit)But even those justifications require an acknowledgement that in a better world you would help them out and be a better person than you are. Unfortunately we have to live in reality ... and reality dictates to us that being a bleeding heart will only leave you dead and buried along the course of life.

No matter how badly you want to help a group of homeless people out, the bitter truth is that as a Man you can only do so much. So I guess its all about that balancing act ... how to be a good person without self sacrifice (for that too is a categorical imperative ... the (protection of oneself: --- yes it does pose problems with the conundrum of self sacrifice for a friend ... and why it feels so noble and honourable despite a violation of the categorical imperative ... who said philosophy was perfect? )

Well now I can see how we disagree and that we will probably continue to disagree (not that that's bad, I can see now we just have two different viewpoints). You believe that everyone is born with an innate ability to tell good from evil and to do good (or at least that's what I'm getting from your post). I don't.

I believe that "good" is entirely subjective and that people aren't born with any sense of "good" in them. They learn what is "good" and "right" from the they are raised in.

Like I said earlier they can deviate from it, but they will probably at least base their sense of "right and wrong" off of what they learned growing up. They learn that it is "good" to be nice to other people and to respect them. They learn that you shouldn't hurt or steal things from other people because it is "wrong". They don't need to see every instance of doing "good" before they can get the general idea of how to act "right".

Perhaps humans are born with certain inclinations; such as wanting to be around other humans, looking for a mate, eating, sleeping, whatever. But I consider that as all instincts and "the nature of the beast". Certain animals are herd creatures, while others know instinctively to migrate during certain seasons. Its not that its right or wrong, its just what they do. Humans probably have behavioral patterns like this as well, but I believe that overall we learn our morals from whatever culture we're raised in.

I can guess that you'll probably still hold to you views after reading this post, and I see nothing wrong with that, but I'm just putting forth my ideas on how people's morality is created. I'm more of a believer in nurture while, if my guess is correct, you believe more in nature.

(I find that you getting the Cleric for the D&D class quiz and me getting the Wizard strangely fitting)