Would you describe a dog as capable of being evil? Or a cat? Or a chimpanzee? Most likely you could not. We humans belong to the taxonomic kingdom of Animalia and are therefore animals. Our species has evolved from animals that looked and acted more like the modern chimpanzee than we do. So at what point did we go from being creatures of instinct do developing the concept of morality? A great deal of literature has been written about morality, examples of which can be located in fiction and non-fiction as well as in scientific, theological and philosophical fields. Specific examples include the bible, as well as the writings of Plato (c. 424-348 BCE), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and John Steinbeck (1902-1968). Morality is a trait that is developed as a result of practical material situations and experience as exemplified in The Grapes of Wrath, challenged by St. Matthew, but reinforced in the writings of Plato; we humans are born morally neutral. John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath tells the story of the Joad family as they travel from Oklahoma to California. The story has some very realistic examples of people learning lessons in morality, whether they realize it or not, as well as the values of being moral. Steinbeck wrote: The families learned what rights must be observed—the right of privacy in the tent; the right to keep the past black hidden in the heart; the right to talk and to listen; the right to refuse help or to accept, to offer help or to decline it; the right of son to court and daughter to be courted; the right of the hungry to be fed; the rights of the pregnant and the sick to transcend all other rights (Steinbeck 194). He wrote that families learned about these rights, meaning at one point they did not ... ... middle of paper ... ...elop morals as a result of practical material situations and experience as described in The Grapes of Wrath and confirmed by the ideas of Plato. We humans evolved from creatures of pure instinct into something that craved a sense of order; the concept of morality is likely a byproduct of this. Ultimately it is more likely that we born morally neutral as opposed to good or evil. We were born creatures of instinct, but we have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. This is entirely due to cultural upbringing as well as experience and practical material situations. Works Cited Plato. The Allegory of the Cave. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. 9th e. Boston: Bedford, 2013. Print. Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York: Viking, 1939. Print. St. Matthew. “The Sermon on the Mount”. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. 9th e. Boston: Bedford, 2013. Print.
Throughout the past centuries, the concept of instinctive morality has been debated back and forth. One philosophy with a strong viewpoint on this subject is Puritanism, because they believe that since the beginning of the world, people have been born sinners. Puritans felt that Adam and Eve’s temptation by Satan had cursed all of humanity to be born evil. A few decades later, Deists shifted their ideas away from religion and believed that every person could choose whether they were good or bad. Then, Transcendental ideas began the thought that humans were born innately good, and that God and Satan had nothing to do with people’s morality. Throughout the major literary philosophies in the United States, one can see how the innate character of a human progresses from being evil to being innately good.
In his Allegory Plato shows us how a man ascends from the darkness of a cave to the light of the outside world. In this ascent Plato’s man passes through four distinct stages of cognition: from imagination, to belief, understanding, and finally knowledge.
Well now that you understand what comes from subjective morality, let's look into objective. Objective morality is the view on life that there are rules in regards to morality, about a person's behavior. There are 2 ways you can come about these moral rules; religiously or scientifically. Let's first look at morals from a religious point of view. More specifically Christianity. The purpose of Christianity is to follow the teachings of Jesus, and obey what He says. Within this belief system God is ultimately good. And to be good you must become more like God. What are Gods attributes? Goodness, righteous hate, justice, knowledge, love, rationality, mercy, speech, truthfulness, and wisdom. We can see that if a person did these things we have a perfectly good person. Let's now take a step back. Addressing what evolution, and science has to say about objective morality. The ironic thing is one of the things evolutionists and Christians can agree on. That morality isn't subjective. As for the moment there is a developing theory on humans containing a moral gene. Previously within evolution it was always assumed parents and religious practices taught right from wrong. This was more of a subjective view. As of the last decade or so there has been new developments on digging deeper into where truly morality comes from. There have been multiple primatologists and biologists supposing a theory that morals have originated from our ancestors, and have been evolving over time. Do to the social behaviors of apes and other species. The apes showing empathy, and having essential mammal group behaviors. It translates into simplistic moral behaviors of apes. Nicholas Wade, a writer on psychological maters for The New York Times, spoke on such matters "Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution." Wade
The first interpretation of the hypothesis that morality has evolved is that some components of our moral sense evolved. This hypothesis is the least controversial of the three interpretations. This is because it is the only one that has any real sort of evidence that I can see. That evidence comes in the form of phylogenetic evidence. Scientists have been able to determine the primates exhibit some of the same emotions that humans have. Dr. Machery specifically reference a setting where one primate had more desirable food than the other and envy or jealously was exhibited by the primate with the less desirable food. This evidence means that emotions were passed down from a common ancestor before humans evolved.
Whether or not humans are instinctively good or evil has been a much talked about debate for many years and is known as an unanswerable question. Determinists, such as Thomas Hobbs, have come to the conclusion that humans are naturally evil and it is within our basic instincts to be greedy, selfish and otherwise drawn to chaos. Hobbs states that “our true nature arises in times of strife and it is within us, when threatened, to self preserve.” I on the other hand disagree with this famous philosophers take on human nature. In this short essay, I will argue that human beings are born with the instinct to be good and to love one another, as well as to be loved.
Morals are developed from the moment we are born to the moment we die, and are cultivated by what we see, hear, and do within our lives, but more importantly by the people we meet. In the world there are all manner of things for us to bear witness to, whether it be the beauty of birth or the gritty horror that is war, in either case men and women are shaped and changed by these events whether it be good or bad. The greek philosopher Aristotle is quoted as saying, “And to say what makes good morals vs what are bad ones is completely based on self, for no two people have the same upbringing, class, or position in life, for how is a slave who has known nothing but the brutality of his/her master to understand under what morals, owned by their
First, for humans to evolve spiritually, it must go from an inferior stare to a superior state. Second, for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a state of interiority. Thirdly, an inferior state includes a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Fourth, therefore for humanity to evolve spiritually there must be a time when there is both moral and natural evil. Before going into detail, I will define some terms. Moral evil is the type of evil caused by intentional action or inaction in some cases. They include but aren’t limited to lying, killing, theft, and other injustices. Natural evil can be defined as an evil that occurs as consequences of nature such as diseases, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. An inferior state is state of lower quality and a lesser, more mediocre version of something. A superior state is a state of better quality and enhancement. In this case, the superior state is the result of evolving spiritually and developing virtues to reach a more enlightened state.
In this paper I will defend David Hume’s Moral Sense Theory, which states that like sight and hearing, morals are a perceptive sense derived from our emotional responses. Since morals are derived from our emotional responses rather than reason, morals are not objective. Moreover, the emotional basis of morality is empirically proven in recent studies in psychology, areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most active while making a moral judgment. My argument will be in two parts, first that morals are response-dependent, meaning that while reason is still a contributing factor to our moral judgments, they are produced primarily by our emotional responses, and finally that each individual has a moral sense.
Our brain controls our body, because of our brains, we are able to tell qualitative differences between colours, tastes of food, our fears, and what brings us happiness(citation). In addition, the concept of what is right and what is wrong is controlled by our brains, which means that it’s truly an illusion that differs from person to person. The same concept can be applied to acts like sexual assault and murder. What makes something like these terrible acts wrong for the majority of the population and not just a distasteful act. To explain further, what a person considers distasteful versus what a person thinks is right or wrong is just a personal illusion that you personally apply to other’s. This makes me question where our moral judgements originate from, or could they just be figments of our imagination? The reason for this is simple, moral judgements are not physical objects and they do not have a mass. The only explanation that I think is reasonable comes from Steven Pinker’s “The Moral Instinct”. The explanation is that “Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others”(Pinker,
I will begin with Kant, as he was the first to develop his theory of morality. Kant published the Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals in 1785. Kant’s entire hypothesis of morality revolved around the basis of us being motivated by the logic of obligation and having a moral duty to oblige and uphold as good beings. Kant believed that our moral actions were the result of reasoning and ones moral worth was dependent upon motive, not the end or the consequences resulting from ones actions. As rational beings we are expected to act and behave accordingly for the sake of the moral good, but with practical reason. This then results in universal morality according to Kant. This was all defined under Kant’s categorical imperative. These imperatives are things that one “ought” to do according to Kant. Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral.
In book seven of ‘The Republic’, Plato presents possibly one of the most prominent metaphors in Western philosophy to date titled ‘Allegory of the Cave’.
Historically people from various societies and cultures have struggled to define, characterize, and set the parameters of good and evil. Albert Einstein said, “God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.” (Goodreads.com) A lot of people believe that evil is not inherent; it is nurtured. What if we are all really born evil and we have to be taught to be good? From early childhood, people are taught to adhere to guidelines that identify good or bad behavior. Unfortunately, no amount of guidance and moral teaching can prevent people from abusing power and proliferating evil deeds in a community. Good judgment can easily become overcome by temptation. The lack of empathy also allows people to do despicable things to others. Nonetheless, the definition of evil is dependent on what a community perceives is good. The topic of good versus evil has been examined extensively in history books, literature and world religions.
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.
The source of origin is the human mind. As the construct of morality is created from inside the mind, it can be subjective.