No such thing as innate moral code to any organism.

[Excubis]

There is the assumption by many that morality is innate to an individual organism beyond those driven by biological need(desire) to procreate. This was shown not true through many years of study of captive animals released into the wild, it was by large accepted at one time animal behaviors were entirely instinctual, we now know this is not so. Up until roughly 50 years ago releasing rehabilitated social and non social animals back into their natural environment had little to no success. We did not have any success until we realized majority of an animals behaviors for interaction with others of their species was learned. We now have success with animals bread in captivity but released in the wild as long as human interaction is kept to a minimum and/or provide an environment like that of their natural environment/behavioral interactions.

This means morality or ethics are not innate to an organism but courting displays/ behaviors driven by biology are for most.

Humans and why we fit the same paradigm. All those that display such immoral behaviors have either mental dysfunctions due to abnormal brain chemistry(mental illness) or a learned developmental behavioral issues due to physical/emotional trauma(abuse). All serial killers have believed in god and majority were raised by religious fundamentalist that hindered a personal development. Mass murders as well have much past trauma's of either abuse at home or exclusion from peers for their individual displays of self expression(not all just a primarily summary for youth mass murderers).

Do you agree if not please indicate reason for or against, what evidence is there that morality, knowing what is right and wrong is innate?

[Anomaly]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

There is the assumption by many that morality is innate to an individual organism beyond those driven by biological need(desire) to procreate. This was shown not true through many years of study of captive animals released into the wild, it was by large accepted at one time animal behaviors were entirely instinctual, we now know this is not so.

I have always believed that the processing of moral content is peculiar to human beings. You appear to extend this to others by your use of the term "organisms". Is this correct?

Also how would you support the statement that we now know that the behavior of higher animals is not entirely instinctive? That some animal behavior is based on social norms learned within their communities is itself not evidence that animals comprehend and practice moral reasoning and behavior.

Maybe at the root of this is: what is your definition of morality?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

There is the assumption by many that morality is innate to an individual organism beyond those driven by biological need(desire) to procreate. This was shown not true through many years of study of captive animals released into the wild, it was by large accepted at one time animal behaviors were entirely instinctual, we now know this is not so.

I have always believed that the processing of moral content is peculiar to human beings. You appear to extend this to others by your use of the term "organisms". Is this correct?

Also how would you support the statement that we now know that the behavior of higher animals is not entirely instinctive? That some animal behavior is based on social norms learned within their communities is itself not evidence that animals comprehend and practice moral reasoning and behavior.

Maybe at the root of this is: what is your definition of morality?

Nice question very intriguing.

Yes I apply morality to all organisms, in a sense since I see it as a evolutionary component.

Due to mating statistics of captive animals released into the wild and survivability with in that specific species collective(group, herd, ect..) if there is one the second would apply. We have much more success with captive bred animals when reared by a former wild parent, if we rescue young in the wild and apply such techniques as using a puppet of same animal to interact and simulate behaviors of said animal throughout their captivity the success of those far exceed those that reared(raised) by any other means. This is applied throughout all social animals now and some the rate is even equal to wild reared offspring. Otters is one such success.

http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_10/Iss ... l_2015.pdf
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dallan/n ... line23.htm

These may be difficult to draw evidence from but RSG (Reintroduction Specialist Group) has free book contain 52 case studies of techniques used across various species.

http://www.iucnsscrsg.org/index.php?opt ... Itemid=587

Now moral reasoning is different entirely yet animals do display characteristics of such, one example "feral children" children reared(raised) by wild animals.

Definition of morality from google and I agree completely:

mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralədē/
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
plural noun: moralities
"a bourgeois morality"
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
"behind all the arguments lies the issue of the morality of the possession of nuclear weapons"

Basically a system of values that allows us to distinguish right and wrong and usually manifests in a individual human as a conscious,.

[Anomaly]

[Replying to Excubis]
It's not clear to me what point you want to make exactly. You seem to be trying to make the case that animals, like humans, experience moral thinking, reasoning and judgments. If so, neither your post nor the links seem to me to have much of anything to do with supporting such a thesis, much less providing evidence that morality is a byproduct of evolution.

Also, there is scant evidence on the particulars of those extremely rare cases of animals allegedly "raising" children to corroborate the notion that the animals in such cases participated in anything like moral behavior.

[Excubis]

[Replying to Excubis]
It's not clear to me what point you want to make exactly. You seem to be trying to make the case that animals, like humans, experience moral thinking, reasoning and judgments. If so, neither your post nor the links seem to me to have much of anything to do with supporting such a thesis, much less providing evidence that morality is a byproduct of evolution.

Also, there is scant evidence on the particulars of those extremely rare cases of animals allegedly "raising" children to corroborate the notion that the animals in such cases participated in anything like moral behavior.

My point is that good/bad is learnt behaviors developed by learning or recongizing over time through social interaction and is not innate except in some cases for acceptable mating behaviours.

As far as feral children and allegedly well you are incorrect it has happened. Yes rarely but it has whether an person wants to accept it or not. Google it see how many case studies there are in google scholar it occurs even today.

Reasoning is sometthing entirely different than morality, reasoning or moral reasoning is not a satem learned it relies on comparisons and to question what one has learnned. Reasoning is internal were morality is developed by external learning. Many animals will never change a learned behavior that is why success rates vary in released ones since many do not rhave Reasoning to question thir learned behaviors.

I find it interesting so many want to define what morality is, we know what it is just not the entirety of the mechanism therein. Just like evolution, gravity, ecad...... Now throw in our ability to reason and well the mechanisms drastically cchange. If I was actually putting down a thesis a few paragraphs would not suffice. This is a opinion presented with my own subjective view, if you do not see it so be it but points you pose against are just disargeements to my interpatation of.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

Morality may not necessarily be innate, but I think there comes a time for humans at least where there is knowledge of it. If you know that you are going to cause harm to others solely for your own enjoyment, and you know that you yourself would suffer greatly if the same was done to you, then you understand morality and are choosing to be immoral.

I don't know the extent of these thoughts that animals can possess, but humans definitely can and do often possess them.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

Morality may not necessarily be innate, but I think there comes a time for humans at least where there is knowledge of it. If you know that you are going to cause harm to others solely for your own enjoyment, and you know that you yourself would suffer greatly if the same was done to you, then you understand morality and are choosing to be immoral.

I don't know the extent of these thoughts that animals can possess, but humans definitely can and do often possess them.

It appears that you are talking about Kant's intrinsic value, which I supposedly am too dim to understand, but that is another thread. This comes from the premise that morality does not come from a theistic code. This premise leaves one no basis for morality, apart from personal preference. As far as I understand, to resolve this ontological problem, empathy is raised to the level of an immutable characteristic of humanity. In this way, modern philosophers seek to have it both ways. They can write off absolutes while having an immutable standard. However, the problem with "intrinsic value" is in determining the particulars. Without an absolute standard, or at least absolute premises, how does one determine what is and is not an "intrinsic value", and, as used in economics. what is the "intrinsic value" of such a value.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Excubis]

Do you agree if not please indicate reason for or against, what evidence is there that morality, knowing what is right and wrong is innate?

It's difficult to pigeonhole nature inot man's need to categorize everything. There does seem to be a sense of right & wrong among many animals, but does that mean it's "moral' how humanity sees it? I don't think so personally. Morallity seems, to me at least, to be a human construct. As such, we can't honestly attribut it to the animal world.
So for animals, there is no morality.
For humans, there is. BUT... it varies from person to person, from time to time and from location to location and any combination of these.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

You speak in a highly philosophical manner and I have trouble understanding what you mean in laymen's terms. Consider me a laymen I guess.

What do you mean when you say there's no basis for the morality I just described apart from personal preference?

You also said they can write off absolutes while having an immutable standard. What exactly do you mean by this? What absolutes are written off?

As for the intrinsic value in having an intrinsic value of empathy, I believe its intrinsic value is that it will lead you to happiness. But also, if God exists and desires empathy, then the intrinsic value is also that God will reward and not punish you for seeking the path of empathy to gain happiness.

[Miles]

There is no such thing as innate moral code to any organism.

I agree. The sense of right and wrong, and the conclusion that people should strive for the right rather than the wrong comes from either outside sources or one's sense of empathy for others. So, as I see the greater question here, is empathy innate? It seems to be, and not only among humans. Chimps have certainly displayed it as well as dolphins and elephants.