Do you think morality is a natural, inherited genetic trait, or something that must be taught for it to exist?

[1732]

Do you think morality is a natural, inherited genetic trait, or something that must be taught for it to exist?

[EddieJ1566]

You have to be carefully taught. (See "South Pacific")

[YOUIDIOT6729]

i think it's quite natural. if there weren't morals back in the days when humans could barely communicate they probably would have killed their mates, children etc. they inherently knew it was wrong because it would have inhibited the survival of the species. now we are more evolved however we still know it is wrong, but for emotional, social reasons etc. as well as plain old respect for human life.

[Andymcj78atheist5354]

I think self interest is a natural human trait and humans learn at a young age that if you treat others morally they are likely to treat you likewise. It's the result of social conditioning.

[IamMadeofJelly]

as long as you're not damaged in some way, I think that we can work out morality on our own.

[Piper8270]

A combination of all three. Some morals seem almost intrinsic, while others are definitely societal.

[TJ6722]

there are three kinds of morals1. morals defined by societye.g. washing hands before dinner 2. morals given by God that hold true no matter what you believee.g. the holocaust was a horrible act3.morels are a kind of mushroom

[trevan2046352]

I'll argue that certain moral elements are genetically wired for species survival, while most of the finer points are societally constructed - if not culture specific.1. 'Murder'Any species that kills others of its own kind is reducing its survivability in an unstable system. (Genetic).As a species, we generally make a distinction between an 'Us' and a 'Them' based on race, location, religion, etc. Eventually we've decided that killing a peer is different than killing an 'Other' and are more willing wage wars than kill many of our own. (Fine-tuning by Society)Either way, we seem to know that killing _one_ person is undesirable and - to most people examining most situations - wrong. 2. 'Theft'Something like 75% of modern legal systems revolves around property. If 'fair' distribution of resources were innate, we wouldn't need so much formalization. (Societal)3. Pair-bonding, marriageDefinitions of marriage are diverse across cultures. Genetically, males of just about every species are more likely to court multiple females than the opposite - but there are some human cultures where (for various reasons) females have several 'husbands.'Regardless of what reasons the society defines its marriage rules with, they basically amount to a formalization of an arrangement that supports the maximum number of healthy offspring based on the environment the people live in.Multiple-wife scenarios tend to happen when men expected to be the workers and are paid enough money or goods to support a large family. Multiple-husband cultures are more common with scarce resources, as this scenario limits the number of pregnancies and gives each newborn better odds of surviving long enough to reproduce.I can keep adding edits, but what I'm going for is that the ability to form an understanding of morality is innate as well as some species-survival and individual-genetics-survival tactics, but that society draws the sharp edges on what would otherwise be huge expanses of 'gray area.'

[Mikey4328]

we, as social animals, are born with the ability for cooperation, ethics, empathy, etc (tho a few suck at it)but the term "morals" has many definitions and variables according to your particular culture. its not a great example for a "genetic traits" question

[Grazie4272]

It certainly requires no teaching from a Middle Eastern religion.Just look at that part of the world now!