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?

[bluethread]

[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.

Sorry, when I addressed these issues on another thread I was basically told that my views were not worthy of consideration, because it was presumed that I did not understand modern philosophical concepts. Let me address you as I normally do.

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

Basing morality on empathy is to rely on personal preference. The golden rule is a summary, not a complete moral code. In order to determine the details of the specific code, one has to know what one would be willing to have done unto oneself. For example, I would not wish to associate with a sadist who follows the golden rule.

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?

Well, theoretically all absolutes. However, in practice the subjectivist does act as if there is a best course of action, at least for a given situation. So, for each individual course of action, the subjectivist is presuming an absolute with regard to that course of action, or is deriving that best course from other factors that they consider to be authoritative.

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.

Empathy can not be intrinsic, because it requires an evaluation. Empathy has value only if that value can be determined by an individual. That value therefore, is not in the concept of empathy, but in the importance of empathy to a given individual. Empathy may be an innate characteristic, which is debatable, but there must be agreement regarding what one should expect to have done unto oneself. When you speak of empathy leading to happiness, you are placing a value on happiness and then deriving the value of empathy from that based on useful value, not intrinsic value. This then requires one to determine the value of happiness. If empathy had intrinsic value, it would not matter whether it led to happiness or not.

[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.

First moral reasoning is subjective(unless reasons are shared) moral acts are objective. The reason is personal the act is observable by others. They are not the same so 'if' you see them as the same no evidence would show you anything. Animals have moral acts(behaviors) objectively in their collective which are by large learned through observations over time(life). If this was not true the different techniques for releasing captive animals into the wild would not lend to their success or failure.

Feral children are well documented whether you accept it or not does not matter. It is not up to me to prove anything to you that is in reality real. Yes it is rare but has happened even today.

http://www.akgmag.com/article/Feral_Chi ... entury.htm

I could post many academic case studies but you don't believe yet reality does not need a belief to be so ever at all.

[Artie]

[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.

It is self evident. Behavior that increases chances of survival is automatically selected for by evolution and natural selection. When vampire bats with a surplus of food share their food with starving roost mates it's because this behavior increases everybody's chances of survival including their own so the behavior is selected for. The vampire bats would behave in the same way even if humans hadn't come along and started talking about "morality" and "right and wrong".