This video on experiments done by Yale researchers point to the high probability that humans are born with an inherent moral compass.
This point is in contrast to theists claims of a stone tablet of moral codes issued from God via his messengers.
With a neural circuit of moral impulses humanity could develop and establish a morality-ethics framework by themselves collectively and need not have to rely on a God.
It’s not really in contrast to what theists are saying. They (often) say that morality comes from God and is embedded in person but as children grow up, they become confused about what is right and wrong. They are led astray by temptations. These confused adults start acting in ways which are against their own divine natures and which are harmful to them. The stone tablets are a means to clarify what is good and right and put people back onto the good path.
No more than without such a neural circuit. After all, why are those impulses moral? That is, why call them moral? Consider:
[size=95]“What the sun is in the domain of the sensual world, that is the idea of the good, which Plato in his later works designates as God, in the domain of true being. As light and heat radiate from the sun, so truth and being radiate from the idea of the good, and as the sensual eye of man is at the same time brought forth by and adequate to the light of the sun, so that he can see what appears in this light, so the spiritual eye of man is both engendered by and adequate to the idea of the good, so that he can know [erkennen] what is in truth.
Modern philosophy calls this spiritual faculty of knowledge ‘reason’, and adheres to the doctrine that reason is able to know what is solely because reason is in accord with that light of truth in which we are able to know all that is. Christian metaphysics calls this light the lumen naturale, the natural light, in contradistinction to the lumen supranaturale, which is also called the lumen fidei [light of faith], namely the light of eschatological revelation. The term lumen is ambiguous. Lumen in Latin does not just mean ‘the light’ but also ‘the eye’. […] For philosophy the ambiguity of lumen means the following: the seat of the lumen naturale is the human faculty of knowledge. It rests on the inborn ideas which give reason the faculty of knowing the world the way it is in truth. But these ideas could, as Descartes establishes, just as well be a deception. They could just as well force us to know [or: cognize] the world the way it is not. We could well have been created by an evil spirit which has created us as a creature fallen prey to deception. The truth of the inborn ideas, and with that the lumen naturale, is ensured only if it is proven that the hypothesis of an evil God is unthinkable. As long as we do not transcend the bounds of the human faculty of knowledge, the only unquestionable thing is that we think. If, over and above that, we wish to ensure that what we think is true, we have to assure ourselves of the knowledge of God.” (Georg Picht, Nietzsche, page 217, my translation.)[/size]
Maybe " moral-compass " is a misnomer. Yes, most humans are born with the capacity for compassion, altruism and so on, but so what? Humans are also born with the capacity for aggressiveness, brutality and so on…which characteristics ought we to value the more? ( See " Is-Ought Gap ").
If humans could collectively decide on their innate morality, they would have done so by now.
Indeed, survival of fittest demands different actions in different circumstances. Sometimes from a purely Darwinian perspective, your best chance to survive is to kill. Sometimes, your best chance to survive is to co-operate. Sometimes, your best chance to survive is to hide or look the other way. I don’t see any “moral code” in Darwinism, but a mish-mash of strategies for survival depending on the circumstances.
Seems like one of those silly arguments. After thousands of years of breeding mostly those with at least some moral encoding, the human race indicates that newborns have some moral encoding.
=D>
If you were to ask any of those newborns what their morals were, could they tell you? Not being terribly astute, perhaps someone needs to write it out on paper or stone for you. Oh but then that would make it dogma, wouldn’t it.
I actually don’t believe that John. I believe there are heuristic laws for behavior which lead to optimal survival outcomes, which include suicide or being pacifist.
In Darwinian terms, the name of the game is survival and reproduction. But, the great panoply of life makes sure that it’s never easy - and the whole wide collective group of life is always changing and adapting to make it that much harder. Now, when survival is the name of the game, the only score is “do you survive?” and “do you reproduce?” and “do your progeny survive?” Doesn’t matter all that much how you do - it only matters that you do. And obviously, with that much going on the best strategy is multiple strategies - and hence the utter mish-mash of rational survival strategies running the gauntlet from murder to benign co-operation.
The name of the game is survival? Men look at the world, with scientifically proven higher spatial IQ’s than women, see 7 billion psychopaths on earth and say “checkmate” and they kill themselves, often in their teens… probably the dude who would have cured AIDS already committed suicide. What their game theory is, from the surreal experience of being born in a species of 7 billion psychopaths, is that they will be resurrected from a species of non-psychopaths, if not, it’s nothing at all, and sure as hell of a lot better than talking to psychopaths all day that just cause PTSD,
Kids adopt and are shaped by the influence around them. Even while in the womb they are influenced. I wouldn’t say born with a sense of morals. We’re born neutral and can spiral anyway based on what is around us, what people have faced, etc.
While I don’t believe in God, I wouldn’t consider children being born with moral concepts a proof that God doesn’t exist.
To clarify my own position, I think its rather silly to attribute this sort of behavior to morality and not the most simple form of rationality.
To clarify, this wasn’t the position of phyllo, but their interpretation of another position.
This is also a sort of overly complex and verbose of a process that most likely goes the exact opposite direction. Without clear grasps on complex social issues like property, sex, bigotry, and without a solid grasp of consequence, it would be extremely rational to treat others with good faith, to share and assist. If we are talking about the puppet example, of course the kids chose the puppet who didn’t trample all over the other puppet’s fun. That is the obvious choice in almost every rational case.
That video hardly shows anything. Babies that age aren’t really aware of what is going on as much as they can/will be at a bit older of an age. I’d say those stuffed animals are suited to what their preferences are regardless of what they’re doing. For all anyone knows, they pick the “mean” animal because they like the way it looks or color of it’s shirt more.
No, Moses explained the will of God. The will of God is that you be like God. Jesus explained that God is loving. That’s morality in the form of God’s law.
