Originally posted by The Omega
AN impossibility. My mum would've had to be there, and been there long enough for her to teach me the basic survival skills...
Read the whole post. Thats why I said:
Originally posted by Alliance
Since no child can survive independantly from infancy, we're never going to get a concrete answer.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are cases where infants survived without human guidance, are there no?
Originally posted by Alliance
Read the whole post. Thats why I said:<><><>
Not that I am aware of. You have to get some sort of nourismnet as a child, you can't hunt for yourself, you can't even eat solid foods as an infant. If you're exposed at birth, I can't imagine a scenario where you're going to die without outside human interference.
You might be right, although I think their are cases where a little bit older children survived without human guidance, I'm not sure how old they were though.
But I don't think such a test is necessary to decide which position is most likely right.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You might be right, although I think their are cases where a little bit older children survived without human guidance, I'm not sure how old they were though.But I don't think such a test is necessary to decide which position is most likely right.
Originally posted by Eis
Because we are taught from a young age that hurting other people is bad.
TO me, there is something wrong about it. I feel compassion for thie position of pain and I'm usually compelled to help. Maybe its learned, but animals (like us) exibit natural defenses and become agressive in respone to certain stressors. THose behaviors are somewhat innate.
Then how would you test it then?
Originally posted by Alliance
TO me, there is something wrong about it. I feel compassion for thie position of pain and I'm usually compelled to help. Maybe its learned, but animals (like us) exibit natural defenses and become agressive in respone to certain stressors. THose behaviors are somewhat innate.Then how would you test it then?
i believe that the only thing that can POSSIBLY be mystical in nature in a human is love, hate and despair and pain. other things like morality etc are products of your enviornment. think about the soldiers in darfur etc. ALL of them rape and murder people of the different or same sex without fail and without stopping. they have forgotten morality as most people think of it and do not feal anything close to guilt {in their current life, when they are surrounded by people of the mindset} when they continuously do such horrible acts. if the bases of morality can change so easily while staying WITH humans for a small time{compared to your entire life} and can easily be acuired or given up then surely it is the society and not the individual mind that has morality set up so strongly.
I agree with the statement that they are learned behaviors. The problem is that the environment is the teacher. Whether it be a parent scolding or some other consequence, it is learned. Given the hypothetical naive subject raised in a solitary situation, each action will result in some consequent reaction. This reaction, or consequence, will either increase or decrease the probability that the given action will occur. If the subject decides that doing something results in a negative consequence, and then lives in such a way as to prevent the negative outcome, has he learned a moral?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
think about the soldiers in darfur etc. ALL of them rape and murder people of the different or same sex without fail and without stopping. they have forgotten morality as most people think of it and do not feal anything close to guilt {in their current life, when they are surrounded by people of the mindset} when they continuously do such horrible acts. if the bases of morality can change so easily while staying WITH humans for a small time{compared to your entire life} and can easily be acuired or given up then surely it is the society and not the individual mind that has morality set up so strongly.
If what you say is true, then how is their morality "wrong" as it is all societal determenation anyway. Therefore, since its all societal reletavism, you can't really condemn them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But you will have some sort of morality...I mean morality is not just interaction between humans...it's towards animals...and things...and most of all towards oneself...so everyone has an own morality....that doesn't mean that you have to consider their morals....moral.
Perhaps you are right in that aspect, but the morality will be minimum.
Any respect you may have towards another animal will be our desire to be social which is inate, and not learned.
But most people are taught thier morals when they are young by parents, whether the morals be negative or positive or neutral, however, every individual has the power to reject such teachings or beleive in them 100% or reject and keep some here and some there.
I still think that without other human beings to interact with, we have a much harder time developing our morality.
Religious people have thier morality, due in most part to thier religion. I am not arguing on the validity of thier morality, just on the fact that they had the influence. I strongly beleive our morality depends more on our influences.
Is it possible that every individual has a unique sense of morality possibly due to our genetics, birth sign, mental health, etc. ? Yes, ofcourse. But I think one is only sure of his or her own morality when exposed to other people, allowing a comparison, contrasting, and eventual validifying of one's own morality.
I disagree with the statement that morals are learned. Like somebody else said already, I believe that certain morals (ie, hurting other people is generally wrong) are key to the survival of the species.
Other things don't seem to make much sense from a biological viewpoint, but are probably not learned, either. For example, Theodore Roosevelt once famously refused to shoot a bear cub. Roosevelt was an avid hunter. His decision doesn't make sense biologically, since the bear is obviously a different species. However, I doubt very much that his mother ever pulled him aside and said, "Son, shooting bear cubs is wrong" (especially since he was a hunting type). He just FELT that it was wrong, and if you'd asked him why, he likely wouldn't have been able to tell you.
In fact, there's a name for that.................. A conscience. That's where a lot of our ideas of right and wrong come from—and I personally don't believe that something we'd simply been told could embed itself that firmly in our psyches.
As far as the original post, I certainly don't believe that atheists have no morals. But an awful lot of people do seem to think that morals are equivalent to religion.
Btw, I don't think there are any well-documented cases of infants surviving completely without other humans. There have been cases, though, of parents who simply locked their children up and did nothing but give them food and water into the child's adolescence. Needless to say, the resulting children can't express themselves very well, and there was a girl in one such case who couldn't ever learn to talk, because her brain had physically deteriorated. But that's another thread....
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are cases where infants survived without human guidance, are there no?
Do you know of any? Newborn humans are completely and utterly helpless. I do not know at what age a human child would be able to survive on its own on some remote island, but certainly not from birth...
Originally posted by The Omega
Do you know of any? Newborn humans are completely and utterly helpless. I do not know at what age a human child would be able to survive on its own on some remote island, but certainly not from birth...
Well, there are a few cases of feral children I believe, it is rather rare though and often not tracable, so no, I don't have any evidence for that.
And obviously alone on the island it has no chance, but there are cases where they are isolated from humans but taken care of (Kaspar Hauser) or raised by animals (Oxana Malaya)
Romulus and Remus are obviously fictional though, like Mowgli or Tarzan.
Small children, yes. Newborns, no. And as I said, a lot of the cases of so-called feral children are by no means well-documented.
Even if a child could survive away from humans from the time it was born, we would have a lot of difficulty gauging how "moral" it was, what with the brain-deterioration that's been known to occur in cases of extreme isolation.
I disagree with the statement that morals are learned. Like somebody else said already, I believe that certain morals (ie, hurting other people is generally wrong) are key to the survival of the species.
So do I..to an extant. But why do SO many people lack the beleif that hurting another person is wrong? You have no idea how many people i have spoken to on KMC forums alone, who have argued that there is nothing right or wrong about hurting another person, even though i strongly beleive that there is something wrong with hurting another person..........
I do think that morality is innate, and therefore exists, but i still beleive that your surroundings can drastically ALTER your morality, OR that positive influences can solidify your own morality.
Other things don't seem to make much sense from a biological viewpoint, but are probably not learned, either. For example, Theodore Roosevelt once famously refused to shoot a bear cub. Roosevelt was an avid hunter. His decision doesn't make sense biologically, since the bear is obviously a different species. However, I doubt very much that his mother ever pulled him aside and said, "Son, shooting bear cubs is wrong" (especially since he was a hunting type). He just FELT that it was wrong, and if you'd asked him why, he likely wouldn't have been able to tell you.
I beleive you, and I also beleive that there are many people who have this common, almost instinctual morality. But why do others lack it ? That's what i need to know.
In fact, there's a name for that.................. A conscience. That's where a lot of our ideas of right and wrong come from—and I personally don't believe that something we'd simply been told could embed itself that firmly in our psyches.
Oh no? Look up the musicians "Prussian Blue"...two cute little girls who play music.....only one twist....they play hate music.
They are young gorgeous girls....but they are also insanely hateful and racist. There mother teaches them everything they beleive, and they beleive her almost 100%
Just do me a favor, look em up, and then tell me that our morals are not determined by outside influences.......
As far as the original post, I certainly don't believe that atheists have no morals. But an awful lot of people do seem to think that morals are equivalent to religion.
Religion is many different things, other than just a set of moral guidelines. I don't think you need to be religious to have a good sense of morality, morality all depends on the individual, and his/her interactive experiences with other people.
Btw, I don't think there are any well-documented cases of infants surviving completely without other humans.
Well actually its been proven that if an infant does not recieve the touch of another human being, it would most likely die. Look it up. Perhaps this point is self defeating for me, since without interaction with others, you'd most likely be dead, much less lack morality.
I do beleive that morality is innate, but its also learned. Racism....most likely taught, although hateful thoughts are natural to most individuals.
Let me tell u sumthing interesting:
When I was younger I was taught that being a homosexual was probably the worst thing imaginable. I didn't like gay people when i was younger, and i thought it was perfectly okay to dislike a gay person, and that there was nothing "mean" about it until I was in like fkn sophomor year of high school.
Today....I'm bisexual. I always was.....yet i was programmed to beleive that there was something wrong with that. It took me both personal exploration and interaction with more positive peers to realize that there was NOTHING wrong with being homo or bi, and EVERYTHING wrong with hating a person for being so.