Are we born….Good?

Are we born….Good? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 6:54:14 PM)
New research as reported HERE seems to show babies as young as three months know the difference between good and bad and given a choice will choose good. Otherwise humans are born good. Does it seem strange to anyone else that this would be true. I would think if Darwin and natural selection were to be true then bad would be the safest choice rather than good. Otherwise as in nature and natural selection the fittest is the survivor… not the one who would share and make a moral selection. I do not see morality being a survival technique in nature…so why is it instilled in humans from birth. Why do you think…if the research is valid…this would be? Butch

DomKen -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 7:21:09 PM)
Human's are social animals. Our survival has always been oriented towards survival as part of the group. So "moral" behavior is behavior that benefits the social group so it does provide a fitness benefit and will be selected for..

Tkman117 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 7:25:22 PM)
Maybe morality isn't a is a survival technique by nature, but cooperation is in many animals since they realize that when others of their kind succeed they also succeed. Plus negativity is never a good thing, people don't inherently want to make a decision which will be bad for them or others. Negativity doesn't feel good, even if it benefits one person over another, there will still be guilt, and what biological reasoning exists there is likely the idea of passing on genes. An animal who is sociable and can achieve their standing among a pack of their fellow kind will be more likely to find a mate than one that is selfish and fends for themselves. Animals like that only last so long, and don't usually succeed to pass on their genes, which in my opinion is pretty logical. If evolution favoured animals that are more sociable, more "good" in regards to the impacts on themselves and others, then it is entirely possible to state that we are born good. As charlie chaplain said in the great dictator; "we want to live by each others happiness - not by each others misery"

epiphiny43 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 7:34:18 PM)
There are dozens of examples in human and animal biology where individual survival is sacrificed for group/genetic/family survival, to the benefit of the group and species. If a relative survives when a warrior sacrifices himself, the common genes survive. If the warrior and the relative die, the gene dies. Genes are selected by Darwinian selection, not individuals. The postulates in post #3 assume (quite incorrectly, if history is to be acknowledged) fully socialized individuals. Sociopaths are far too common to make any assumptions of universal socialization, just look around. And it's quite obvious that environmental factors (Ice addiction being the most notable?) are very corrosive to existing socialization.

Calentra -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 7:39:21 PM)
It is not the bad that survive, as we can see, through greed, and anger, and fear, we are warring and continually killing eachother. Now good does not necessarily mean weak, but to share, to live for others, this is the only way to save the race as a whole. The difference between us and anmials (darwin) is that we have consciousness and an advanced means of communication. That changes everything

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:14:47 PM)
Ken I can't see where being moral would having anything to do with socialization...after all the Hitler's of this world used society to further their desires and we seem to go from one Hitler to another. Yet overall we as humans are good even when the powerful, which should be the dominant type as it is in all of nature, fail... because... of our very goodness and innate, evidentially, morality. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:17:24 PM)
But in nature it is not the "good" animal that survives ... it is the strong. It is survival of the fittest not the moral. It seems that only humans are moral from birth... we are special in that trait. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:24:42 PM)
Again why would morality give an advantage just because of our ability to communicate. We could just as easily NOT be born moral and have a civilization where the strong always dominate and constantly take advantage of the weak and have the same cognitive abilities. Just me but I do not see an advantage of one behavior over the other...both could work just as well... It would be a different world but still work just as well...In fact if we matched the rest of nature then being good would be a disadvantage. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:43:41 PM)
Notice how man always seems to organize himself AND his religion to match a set of rules and guides that are moral. These guides will not provide shelter...food... protection...they will not enable the formation of societies or give an advantage to a society based on morality over one based on strength. This is not a technique that would ensure or give advantage to one group over another from the beginning and over time become innate. If this were a successful survival trait then would not other animals be born with morality? Of course perhaps other animals are born moral and we have just not researched this or figured out how to measure it. Butch

slavekate80 -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:46:28 PM)
We're genetically programmed for propagating our own genes. This leads to a mix of natural tendencies, some of which are very selfish and could be considered bad in many cultures, and some of which appear altruistic and "good." There are multiple ways to increase the chance of your genes getting passed on to another generation - destruction of rivals, investing time and energy into raising the young members of your family, stealing resources, cooperating to ensure group survival. Not only do YOU have your genes, but so do your relatives and to a lesser extent other close group members, and we're naturally inclined to increase our own DNA copying not just by living and reproducing, but also helping others, especially relatives, do the same.

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 8:52:46 PM)
You are correct in everything you said... now how would being moral provide a distinct advantage so powerful as to become innately part of our nature. Destruction of rivals... nothing to do with morals Time in raising young... no morality needed there stealing resources... certainly not moral Cooperating... no morality needed for that. Helping is the same as cooperating...and again morality is not needed for that. Of your examples none would require morality and in fact some would be opposite of moral. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 9:11:28 PM)
I have always had faith in the belief that man was basically good and now science is seemingly proving it. Rather than survival techniques why could it not be that our soul, or what makes us sentient , if you prefer, is predisposed to be moral. Perhaps it is just a previously unknown law of the universe when it comes to awareness. Not so far fetched...we do not know how or why the laws of the universe were written the way they were... this could just be another. Yea I know the above will invite the anti religious into the conversation but understand I am not specially claiming a God created this morality but perhaps it is just the law and nature of life. Butch

JeffBC -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/13/2014 10:37:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub New research as reported HERE seems to show babies as young as three months know the difference between good and bad and given a choice will choose good. Otherwise humans are born good. I find the assertions of what is "good" and "bad" and "moral" to be rather arbitrary. I see this more as balance between selfish & selfless which is sort of mandatory for any social species to have. You're guestimates about what natural selection would "choose" are not well aligned with actual research. Chimps, for instance, have been very clearly demonstrated to have a sense of fair play. Doesn't that make sense when you are part of some social group? In the succinct words of David Weber, "for if my claws guard not your back, whose claws shall guard mine?"

MasterJimmi -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 2:24:42 AM)
Most humans eat dismembered corpses on a daily basis without thinking about how the animal was treated and that the animal probably would have preferred to live. Even when they are told about how animals are mistreated they continue to buy dismembered corpses and thereby supporting mass murder. No we are not born good! We are born with both good and evil tendencies.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 2:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJimmi (Emphasis by DaddySatyr) Most humans eat dismembered corpses on a daily basis without thinking about how the animal was treated and that the animal probably would have preferred to live. Even when they are told about how animals are mistreated they continue to buy dismembered corpses and thereby supporting mass murder. No we are not born good! We are born with both good and evil tendencies. Two thoughts come to mind: 1) YUM! 2) As it should be.

evesgrden -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 3:26:41 AM)
FR We are born to survive, multiply and in advanced cases help our offspring survive. Anything above and beyond that comes from abundance. A well fed lion doesn't hunt. Nobody steals leaves that have fallen on your lawn in the fall. The concept of good and bad can pretty much only occur within the concept of limited resources.

Moonhead -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 4:41:08 AM)
FR: Almost all human behaviour is learned rather than instinctive, so whatever three year olds do isn't really very useful as a guideline. It's a bit like arguing that labradors are useless as guide dogs because you've seen a puppy that isn't house trained yet. [:D]

MasterJimmi -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 4:54:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead FR: Almost all human behaviour is learned rather than instinctive, so whatever three year olds do isn't really very useful as a guideline. It's a bit like arguing that labradors are useless as guide dogs because you've seen a puppy that isn't house trained yet. [:D] The babies were only three months old. Not three years.

farglebargle -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 5:41:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub New research as reported HERE seems to show babies as young as three months know the difference between good and bad and given a choice will choose good. Otherwise humans are born good. Does it seem strange to anyone else that this would be true. I would think if Darwin and natural selection were to be true then bad would be the safest choice rather than good. Otherwise as in nature and natural selection the fittest is the survivor… not the one who would share and make a moral selection. I do not see morality being a survival technique in nature…so why is it instilled in humans from birth. Why do you think…if the research is valid…this would be? Butch Simple. Cooperation has a higher adaptive value than being a lonely douchebag.

vincentML -> RE: Are we born….Good? (2/14/2014 6:08:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But in nature it is not the "good" animal that survives ... it is the strong. It is survival of the fittest not the moral. It seems that only humans are moral from birth... we are special in that trait. Butch Do not confuse 'strong' with 'adapted.' They are not necessarily the same thing. The fastest zebra on the African plain may be the 'fittest' for survival.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875