catent
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,045
- Reaction score
- 8,627
If morality isn’t inherent then it would never be exhibited.
Your argument is that morality doesn’t exist in animals (humans included) until it’s learned. Learned from whom? If it’s not inherent in humans then where did they get it from.
Morality is secondary to survival instinct. The wolf doesn’t attack because he likes to, he attacks to survive. Domesticated animals are not limited to survival instincts because they feel safety. Humans raise morality to another level because they have the intellect to understand acting morally is best for all.
Your argument is that living things only act immorally because they have to (i.e., survival)? One only needs to read the news poorly on a semi-daily basis to realize that living things (especially humans) act immorally when under no physical threat, all the time.
I can assure you that if morality was as instinctual as eating, the world would be a much better place and we wouldn't have robust philosophical and religious texts attempting to teach people how to behave morally.
If morality is a survival instinct, what then is the reason why so many living things act in a way that would be deemed immoral, very often? Why are there different philosophical and religious texts that posit different versions of morality?
Why do we have to discipline children? Why do we teach children certain values and principles as they grow up? If these traits were inherent, all we'd need to do is provide their basic survival needs and they're automatically behave morally, and yet this is not the case.
Last edited: