Do we have an instinct about 'right and wrong' ?

carol a

A friend of mine in England contends that people must be taught what's 'right and wrong' as children. That humans would not know these of their own accord.... i.e. by instinct.



I tend to disagree. I think if a person were raised by a dog alone in the forest, a dog who provided him nourishment and shelter as if he were a puppy, that he 'could' arrive at a system of right and wrong as he grew up, without being taught morals by human parents. That by virtue of his intellect, he 'could' come to understand kindness, fairness, mercy, not killing wantonly, not stealing.



Don't primates like lowland gorillas have social systems that could include the virtues mentioned above? Or am I totally off-base on all this?



What do you guys think?



(And yes, I know I'm naive.)

fellowship

This Book is a must read concerning this issue



Fellowship

carol a

Quote:

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

This Book is a must read concerning this issue



Fellowship

Thank you for the book recommendation.



But what do YOU think?

fellowship

Quote:

Originally posted by Carol A

Thank you for the book recommendation.



But what do YOU think?

I am sorry, I believe we are hardwired with the knowledge of the two... (right and wrong)



Fellows

kickaha

I think animals have innate senses of pleasure/pain, and oddly enough instincts seem to promote these in many ways.



Actions which are 'wrong' in communal animal societies are generally those that lead to pain - ie, lack of resources for survival, ousting from a pack which makes life harder, or just plain getting your ass whomped.



Of course, cats play with prey in ways that make my stomach go funky and I think of as just plain pain-producing with no good effect.



So... in human society, our communal responses are probably quite rooted in basic animal instinct of cooperation. And since most of what we call 'ethics' involves communal interaction, and our responsibilities to a larger society, I'd say that much of morality is innate. However, this only is ethics when it's for the good of the individual. Doing the 'right thing' in the *absence* of such personal gain is, I think, a learned response of human society. (But then, one could argue that around and around as well.)



Bottom line: who knows?

tht

Humanity has evolved traits (varying per individual) that are benificial for the group. Right and wrong are a culturally developed set of behaviors, or perhaps I should say the expression of those evolved traits can take a variety of forms, some of which can be contradictory. In such a case, right and wrong is taught or learned as part of growing up in a specific culture.



I guessing I'm defining things differently We haved "hard-wired" tendencies for some things, but the way those tendencies are expressed depends on the social system. And of course, right-and-wrong varies depending on social system.

buonrotto

Sociopathic behavior, being so exceptional, is really proof of this innate sense of right and wrong. I think the pleasure/pain principle is more than just a purely selfish mechanism. As an innately social creature, mankind's idea and sense of pleasure/pain is still of course, serving the self, but is driven more (not entirely) by the society.

ganondorf

"right and wrong" are relative.



we are hard wired with psychological and biological tendencies which work best for the survival of the self and the species. how you relate this to "right and wrong" varies from person to person.



"right and wrong" are defined by groups in their own self interest. for instance, we define murder as wrong because the members of this society do not themselves want to be murdered, and it is in our self interest. this is a more blatant example.

buonrotto

To a point. Our world is complex, and what serves one right best doesn't always serve another best. People don't and can't consider all the consequences of their actions. Right and wrong are relative to the one's perspective, but in that view, there is a distinction between right and wrong too. Sometimes I feel the concept of relative right and wrong, excuses the person's perspective, point of view, from the "equation" if you will. The perspective you construct is part of how we decide right and wrong, and how you construct it has a lot to do with how you choose right or wrong. In other words, how do you define the group? How do you define its interests? It's up to the same scrutiny.



I would also contend that there's difference between bad and wrong, and good and right.



I don't think I'm explaining myself well. I'm tired. :we need a yawn smiley:

brussell

Perhaps it's not instinctual, but rational. Kids are mean - if a kid wants a toy, he take it. Does he care if that means the kid who is playing with it now loses it? Of course not. It's not until kids develop the cognitive skills to reason about consequences that they begin to act morally.

buonrotto

But it's like people's ability to walk. They're not born with it, but everyone who has the physical ability does it, learns it. This is why the whole nature/nurture debate is a red herring. They're part of the same construct. We are social beings and we have nurturing relationships with our kin. We're born with abilities, we teach them, we learn them and we apply them and we pick up on some things more than others, more basic skills like walking and discerning right vs. wrong. We interact and learn and it's inherent to us.



It's not like before Mesopotamia we dragged our tushies on the pavement and payed crab soccer our whole lives.

aquafire

Quote:

Originally posted by Carol A

I think if a person were raised by a dog alone in the forest, a dog who provided him nourishment and shelter as if he were a puppy, that he 'could' arrive at a system of right and wrong as he grew up, without being taught morals by human parents.

Golden rules for humans raised by Doggy Wog.



No fighting over bones.



No biting the paw that feeds you.



All noses to be kept wet.



Sniffing bottoms is vital for friendship sake.

ganondorf

i don't define right and wrong, though. i don't believe they exist as constants. so by saying that i am not excusing myself from constructing an opinion. that is my opinion.

buonrotto

There's certainly leeway and wiggle room, and yes, it does depend on your perspective to a fair degree. That's what I call scruples though. Scruples are to trivia what morals are to facts. There is a sort of lowest common denominator on what is acceptable or just in any circumstance. at some very fundamental level, all cultures share some common coda of acceptable behavior. It's very, very basic, but most of us are lucky enough never to have to deal at that level.

carol a

After posting my first message, I started remembering the tribe in New Guinea (or somewhere) that probably killed and ate Michael Rockefeller some years ago.



A French film crew searched out the tribe to see if they could discover what had happened to him.



The tribe members were headhunters, AND were high on some kind of hallucinogen. I got very nervous watching this documentary, because it was clear that the tribesmen were highly unpredictable, not friendly, and liable to do just about anything at any moment. The French got nervous too and left quickly. I shiver just thinking about it.



I wonder if that tribe has any virtues that we would consider similar to our own. They eat the brains of their enemy to absorb his courage, apparently; and then shrink the head.



Would people like that have concepts of mercy, kindness, fairness, not killing randomly, not stealing?



I remember from Ken Burns' mini-series about Lewis and Clark that most of the Native American tribes they encountered were perfectly civil and fair-dealing; but one tribe turned out to be liars, cheats, thieves and murderers. Can't remember which one, but the expedition was forced to use their cannon to ward off attack from this group that had pretended to be friendly.



I wonder how they got to be so under-handed, whereas the other tribes were all basically honorable and straightforward, iirc. Why would they be so different from all the others?

carol a

Quote:

Originally posted by Aquafire

Golden rules for humans raised by Doggy Wog.



No fighting over bones.



No biting the paw that feeds you.



All noses to be kept wet.



Sniffing bottoms is vital for friendship sake.

dmband0026

I'm reading a book that deals with this subject right now. It's called The Case for Faith. By Lee Strobel, great read if you ever get a chance to pick it up, although I don't know too many on AI who are really the religious type (except for fellows). I agree with the book which says something along the lines of: our sense of moral principal (right and wrong) are given to us by The Creator. So I believe that we are made with it, as fellows said, it's hardwired.

brussell

Quote:

Originally posted by BuonRotto

But it's like people's ability to walk. They're not born with it, but everyone who has the physical ability does it, learns it. This is why the whole nature/nurture debate is a red herring. They're part of the same construct. We are social beings and we have nurturing relationships with our kin. We're born with abilities, we teach them, we learn them and we apply them and we pick up on some things more than others, more basic skills like walking and discerning right vs. wrong. We interact and learn and it's inherent to us.



It's not like before Mesopotamia we dragged our tushies on the pavement and payed crab soccer our whole lives.

Right, but I would say that reason is what is innate, not morality, and that morality is an emergent property of reason. I'm not even particularly sure I agree with an evolutionary perspective on morality. It's so much easier to think of behaviors that we would consider to be immoral being naturally selected than behaviors that are considered moral. Men raping women, murdering their rivals, stealing resources, etc. etc. I'm not sure I buy the idea that there's all that much evolutionary pressure to be nice.



But with reason, you understand that if you don't like it happening to you, someone else probably won't like it if you do it to them. And so you'll have more problems if you pursue aggressive or immoral strategies than if you just act nice. Life is a prisoner's dilemma game, and it's just not rational to always behave aggressively.



Nature/nurture is a red herring? Wow. There are a whole lot of people studying genomes and twins and finding out all kinds of fascinating things who will be quite surprised when you tell them that.

gspotter

Do you know the story of Kaspar Hauser, a boy that was raised in complete isolation?

rageous

Right and wrong are learned. We could make an endless list of things considered wrong by today's society that were perfectly acceptable in the past. Or things that are thought of as acceptable, or "right", in today's world that would have been heavily looked down upon in the past. Hell, we could make a giant list of things considered right and wrong in today's world right now:



Abortion

Animal Rights

Genetic Experimentation

Gay Marriage

Capital Punishment

Inter-racial Marriage

Single Parenting

Human Cloning

Drugs

Pre-marital sex

War... and so on



Good and bad feelings about things are much more likely to be biologically predisposed as they have more to do with intuition than learned social behavior. But good and bad do not equate to right and wrong.

aquafire

Quote:

Originally posted by Carol A

After posting my first message, I started remembering the tribe in New Guinea (or somewhere) that probably killed and ate Michael Rockefeller some years ago.

That gives a whole new meaning to the words...



" Eat the rich "

Quote:

" I remember from Ken Burns' mini-series about Lewis and Clark that most of the Native American tribes they encountered were perfectly civil and fair-dealing; but one tribe turned out to be liars, cheats, thieves and murderers. Can't remember which one, but the expedition was forced to use their cannon to ward off attack from this group that had pretended to be friendly.



I wonder how they got to be so under-handed, whereas the other tribes were all basically honorable and straightforward, iirc. Why would they be so different from all the others? "

Recent genetic evidence links them to modern Lawyers, Politicians & Used Car dealers.



Aqua