I would like to start a discussion based on morals and social influence, so two questions.

-Are moral principals solely based off of social influences such as religion and government?

-Are humans programmed with a certain set of morals? Or are they based off of the way we are raised?

-Are humans "evil" or "bad" by nature? Or is there some sort of balance?


I don't want any retardation in this thread and refrain from insulting each others beliefs. Debating is encouraged but keep it on a mature, professional level.

I believe that humans aren't programmed at birth with morals. The world around them sets it for them. From my point of view, the immediate world around him will infulence a person's morals. But I do not think they can be only soley based on social influences, religion or government. Their own views could play a part in it, but I suppose that is almost the same.

Evil and bad are just words that could describe someone against your own morals, since others could be seen as evil but to themselves are viewed as good.

Quote from ErrorBlender

I believe that humans aren't programmed at birth with morals. The world around them sets it for them. From my point of view, the immediate world around him will infulence a person's morals. But I do not think they can be only soley based on social influences, religion or government. Their own views could play a part in it, but I suppose that is almost the same.

Evil and bad are just words that could describe someone against your own morals, since others could be seen as evil but to themselves are viewed as good.

According to Christianity, humans are evil by nature. I was raised in a Christian home and I believed that.

However, the more I look around, it seems to be solely based off of parental and role models influences. If a child is raised in a house where drinking is perfectly acceptable, most likely, he will grow up to be the same. However, if the same child is raised to believe that drinking is wrong and immoral, there will be a much different outcome.

In ancient societies the amount of people you killed in battle determined your status and your rank in many cases. Killing was a perfectly normal thing and not wrong at all in their eyes! In fact, it was praised if you killed your enemy in battle! Hell, we still do it today!

(in advanced, I have the utmost respect for the U.S. Military. I am not disrespecting them in any way, in fact, I may join the army after I finish high school. I am saying this to make a point.)

Soldiers are sent out to carry out an objective given to them by any means necessary. In most cases, they need to kill to accomplish their goal. They are awarded medals and respected for going out and killing people. In other words, we are worshiping murderers! So is killing someone immoral?

Wiki definition- Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Morality is something that is learnt, or at least that is what I believe (If you want to know more look at the nature vs nurture debate). Raise a child deprived of social interaction, it is unlikely that it will know what it is right or wrong. On this planet, it can be said that humans are the only organisms who have morality, however there is a possibility that something resembling morality can be taught to a different organism. For instance a dog. You can condition it to distinguish between good and bad behavior through reward and punishment, however it is likely the dog does not understand why the action results in a certain outcome.

So is this morality? The dog can distinguish between behavior that is right and wrong, but the only reason behind this is so it can gain reward, or avoid a consequence. I like to think that for morality to exist there must be some sort of empathy involved.

I don't like it how some people simply believe that humans are either only evil or good. It is more then likely in a grey area. With that said, a person can be leaning to more to one side then the other, but that is completely subjective. People may be greedy, selfish and violent, but they can also be capable of good. For instance, I man who kills other people for money and ignores the hobo sitting on the sidewalk is often considered to be bad. But if he does so to obtain money to run a small orphanage, then what is he?

The question is what makes a person moral, and whether one action can override another? Different people will come up with different answers. However I believe that society follows majority rules.

One last question you can ponder about is whether there is something that is considered as universally good or bad.

Simply put, morality is a complex subject as it is not objective. Hence, you are not likely to get a definite answer. And there is always a possibility that you will end up with more questions. [Please note that no research was done and these are merely brain droppings]

Quote from Cruel

I don't want any retardation in this thread and refrain from insulting each others beliefs. Debating is encouraged but keep it on a mature, professional level.

Yeah. Moving this over to the proper place.

Morals are all relative, so it's foolish to cling to them. Whether or not something is right or wrong is situation-dependent, and all the people teaching "oh this is good" and "oh this is evil" (religious leaders, teachers, parents, or otherwise) are stupid. Will an (unnecessary) action harm somebody else? Then it's immoral.

Morality at its core boils down to "don't be a dick". All other morals are just an overcomplicated way of extending this idea. In nature, this doesn't need to be said at all; animals attack only for food or self-defence from predators, and have no desire whatsoever to be dicks to anyone or anything. The same would be the true with humans if we were in our natural state also.

Unfortunately we aren't in our natural state. We live in a society that twists people to become goal-oriented and possessive (greedy). Everyone has been brought up to work towards their own gain (ie. everyone is bred to be a huge dick). However we are still part of a society, which means that people who overstep their boundaries will be shunned. It's this that makes "morality" suddenly an issue. People want what they want, and the only thing stopping them from trampling over everyone in their path is the idea that others might look down on them (or beat them up, or arrest them, or murder them, or whatever) for being such a dick.

As Scarecrow said, morality is entirely dependent on the situation. Killing a person is often considered immoral, but killing a person who would be going around killing others isn't, this goes to show that the morality doesn't have much to do with the action but all to do with the situation. It is also relative to how you were raised, and in what kind of society you live in.
As for good and bad, that is something completely dependent on the person, do you think Hitler believed he was doing something bad?
Morals are a hugely flawed tool to solve problems. In a perfect society nothing would be considered moral, or immoral since there would be no need. Everyone would act with compassion and good will for the benefit of all. However we do not live in such a society, so this broken tool is the best we've got, for now at least.

Quote from Gunnii

Morals are a hugely flawed tool to solve problems. In a perfect society nothing would be considered moral, or immoral since there would be no need. Everyone would act with compassion and good will for the benefit of all. However we do not live in such a society, so this broken tool is the best we've got, for now at least.

^yeah this

i can go in to detail as to how to rectify this but it's largely unrelated to the topic of the debate, so i won't go there.

Morals are basically the rules set by humans to control the interactions between each other. Now, some of these "morals" are based on instinct. For example, it is moral not to steal. Why would it be like that? When you steal, you are basically taking away the work another individual put into his own survival, and humans and all animals by instinct are selfish, in the meaning that we don't usually expect someone to benefit without any work from what we put work into.

Now, this is a basic moral, and with time, as the human population grew, interactions became more complex, social statuses where defined, therefore more morals where needed to help keep things in balance, where not all these moral where based on instinct, but more on logic, and even defy instinct; this is exactly what makes humans a unique species.

But morals also change with changing cultures, societies, and times. For example, 200 years ago, it wasn't morally accepted to for people in western societies to have sex before marriage, and with reasons (although this is hugely based on religion, which implemented morals that already resided in humans). But today it is a very normal thing, because things have changed. People are more open, less attached to religion, and there's protection, where reproduction can be controlled, and disease prevented. But in other societies (mine for example) it is not morally accepted to do this. People are more attached to religious beliefs which define premarital sex as not moral, and again there are reasons for that.

So in the end morals are and always will be ever changing, and yet some might stay thee same. It's all about the point of view you carry and how your society works.

Alright, this might take a minute:

Look at another society, I'll say Japan (don't burn me if this is alittle politically incorrect). The majority of children there are taught to respect their parents and act good in public so they don't make total fools out of their family and/or themselves. Those, are morals. I'm sure that there are still bratty kids in Japan, but we are talking about the majority (Or what I think is the majority atleast.)

Look at the US. Before I start this, I just want to state that I love my country whole heartedly, but I am not afraid to critique it. Kids are always throwing tantrums, teenagers totally disrespect their parents who provide and love them even through all the shit that this kid puts on a plate and asks to be chewed. There are certainly alot of good kids, but I can almost guarantee that the next time you walk into a toy store or something that there will be some kid freaking out or on the verge of a breakdown.

To bring this all together, different societies provide different standards. At this point in the US's lifespan, the bar is set pretty low in my eyes. In most other societies, the bar is set atleast 3 times higher.

I don't think that you are born with them, and I think it is purely the bar set by those around you and those you respect/admire.