Are Morals Learnt Or Innate Behaviors?

[Rocky]

Are morals learnt or innate behaviors? I'm interested in wondering what the actualized community thinks of this

[Donald]

Jonathan Haidt has some brilliant topics on this . He uses the metaphor of the tiny rider in a very big elephant or as Hume puts it : " Reason is the servant of our passions" . In other words people use reason to justify gut feeling.  When it comes to innate behaviours concerning moral , we must assume that Locke was right ( wich I believe is not the case ) .

" You cannot study the mind while ignoring culture " 

That's true because when it comes to moral West and East have so many different views. One is more individualistic , being concerned in only the harm-fairness logistics , but the other has a whole different web of  moral behaviour  ( considering  society more important than the individual ) and so on . 

Society shapes your world view , therefore your moral behaviour.

 

[Salaam]

Morals can be learned and unlearned, although at their core they are derived from structural realities that are necessary for certain degrees of health.

Morals, right, wrong, good, evil all stem from differentiating how different actions effect the shape, integrity, or health of a being.

It's actually quite interesting.

Have you ever seen a tree twisted in a certain way that brings about a reaction of it being creepy?  Horror can often be attributed to things just being twisted degrees beyond what we feel to be their "assumed" shape. That's why gnarled trees can look creepy and also why it's compounded in the dark for some people (the dark "blurs" the lines even more). All "monsters" are just things twisted to some degree or another from some contrasting shape we deem as "baseline normal". Like freddy kruger or that weird japanese girl who climbs out of wells or whatever. Take a shape, a man, a little girl, twist it a bit, and it triggers those kinds of feels.

 

 

[Isle of View]

Morals are a set of rules of a specific group on how to behave to be acceptable.

It's all about right and wrong as a common denominator of this specific group.

Morals change through time, therefore they're not innate. 

 

~Chris

 

[Henri]

Ken Wilber came up with the idea of a basic moral intuition—the idea that everyone has a general intuition of morality, but each person has to actually bring it into practice and make it relevant in one's own unique context. "The intuition is given; the unpacking is our moral dilemma, always," says Ken Wilber. This unpacking is really where the rubber hits the road. And, it is a social process, an interpersonal reckoning, where we together work out the fine details of a morality for our moment. What might have been the right thing to do yesterday may not apply to today's consciousness, culture and context. And so, what is the right thing to do? And where do we engage? There is so much need, at so many different scales, and so many intricacies to this field of work, so much shadow work remaining to do, so much self-inquiry still held at bay, and yet, all the while, regions of our world continue to rage with need or silently suffer. We can't turn away. But where and how exactly do we turn toward?

Wilber also suggests that this all begins with a recognition that each and every being is an expression of spirit. And that that very recognition brings us to consider, how shall we treat others who are also expressions of spirit? This moral interest begins there, and extends to other beings, to cultures and to the systems we live in. Far beyond religious dogma and prior to mental reasoning, this moral inclination lies deep within us all.

[Isle of View]

@Henri

I think ethics is the consideration of what is the right thing to do. It's somehow very personal and very contextual. Also the level of spiritual maturity, education and position can have its say what decision the person will take. But that's ethics.

Moral at the other hand, from my perspective, is a group-thing. And it changes. Things like gay-merriage would be unthinkable 25 years ago. Or women in churches wearing no head covering. 

But it's all a play with words, he calls "moral inclination" what I would call "ethics".

Morals in my view are very much a part of any group (each group having their own set of preferred "beliefs" of what is right or wrong). Someone who is out of the box of the group can be still ethical (and therefore take into consideration the moral rules of the group), but would also go beyond the rules if he sees that the rules are not beneficial to the greatest good (like it was totally "morally" inacceptable in middle ages to own a bible, but Martin Luther saw that it is very detrimental to the population).

The distinction is, that moral rules can be taught parrotlike (this is good, this is bad), but ethics can not.

The above is of course my take on it. :-)

 

Kind regards, 
Chris

 

BTW. The book: The Sociopath Next Door has interesting passages about ethics, conscience and... spirituality (which the latter was a surprise for me). 

Edited May 12, 2016 by Isle of View

[cly]

I think morals are an instinct, I think our instincts as humans have evolved as our intelligence has evolved..

I think people memorize rules or beliefs and follow them, yeah, but I think basic morals are more instinct than learned at this stage in human evolution...(you may be taught not to kill, and believe it is wrong, but then kill in fear for your own life..in self defense, just acting instinctively.)

This topic has similar components to the topic I wrote at an earlier time, called instinct vs intelligence.  

[charlie2dogs]

On 5/12/2016 at 1:07 PM, Salaam said:

Morals can be learned and unlearned, although at their core they are derived from structural realities that are necessary for certain degrees of health.

Morals, right, wrong, good, evil all stem from differentiating how different actions effect the shape, integrity, or health of a being.

It's actually quite interesting.

Have you ever seen a tree twisted in a certain way that brings about a reaction of it being creepy?  Horror can often be attributed to things just being twisted degrees beyond what we feel to be their "assumed" shape. That's why gnarled trees can look creepy and also why it's compounded in the dark for some people (the dark "blurs" the lines even more). All "monsters" are just things twisted to some degree or another from some contrasting shape we deem as "baseline normal". Like freddy kruger or that weird japanese girl who climbs out of wells or whatever. Take a shape, a man, a little girl, twist it a bit, and it triggers those kinds of feels.

 

 

so what it sounds like you are saying is that man's own thought process can be his worst enemy.

[Salaam]

On 5/14/2016 at 9:08 AM, charlie2dogs said:

so what it sounds like you are saying is that man's own thought process can be his worst enemy.

I get why you might feel that way, but nah thoughts are just another thing to balance and take care of. The stuff I wrote about in the post you quoted talks about reactions that happen way before thought even initializes.

Our bodies react to different shapes and forms and have internalized certain base level shapes that have chemistries and emotional associations that we consider "healthy" or "safe". When we encounter shapes that lie outside those bounds our bodies react a certain way. The problem is those reactions are blasts of chemical and hormonal cascades that are not nuanced, measured, or all that context specific. Our bodies have yet to evolve to the point where such automatic reactions hold the nuance of a measured chemical response, so we have to become capable enough to handle the wash of the chemical cascade and resultant emotion, while applying tension to slow that snap reaction, in order to gain that nuance and specificity.

For example I've done work that's required me to activate chemical cascades from my pituitary gland and the mental associations derived from contrasting with that chemical composition would be considered quite "horrifying", but it's no biggie to me. I know how to balance and calm it all, so it processes correctly, harmonizes, and allows me to gain the nuance, my body would be unable to discover without my assistance.

[charlie2dogs]

17 hours ago, Salaam said:

I get why you might feel that way, but nah thoughts are just another thing to balance and take care of. The stuff I wrote about in the post you quoted talks about reactions that happen way before thought even initializes.

Our bodies react to different shapes and forms and have internalized certain base level shapes that have chemistries and emotional associations that we consider "healthy" or "safe". When we encounter shapes that lie outside those bounds our bodies react a certain way. The problem is those reactions are blasts of chemical and hormonal cascades that are not nuanced, measured, or all that context specific. Our bodies have yet to evolve to the point where such automatic reactions hold the nuance of a measured chemical response, so we have to become capable enough to handle the wash of the chemical cascade and resultant emotion, while applying tension to slow that snap reaction, in order to gain that nuance and specificity.

For example I've done work that's required me to activate chemical cascades from my pituitary gland and the mental associations derived from contrasting with that chemical composition would be considered quite "horrifying", but it's no biggie to me. I know how to balance and calm it all, so it processes correctly, harmonizes, and allows me to gain the nuance, my body would be unable to discover without my assistance.

I am trying to understand your logic, but one thing stands out to me, you are coming with a scientific explanation about thought, but no where in your statement is the term consciousness used.  In your mind, where does consciousness play into thought, the actions of the physical body, and the reactions of the physical body.

As for myself and my life experience, science and scientist have not touched what i have experienced, what i am and deal with is that, consciousness is the ground of all being, and all things proceed from consciousness itself,  this is my living experience, I have yet to hear a single scientist define and explain consciousness from a living experience, its always by some scientific view held by scientist in their fields. I am not attempting to put down what you are saying, but after my experience with my own consciousness for many years, what you are trying to tell me sounds foreign to me, and doesnt even touch my life experience of self realization.  Thanks for the reply.

[Salaam]

4 hours ago, charlie2dogs said:

I am trying to understand your logic, but one thing stands out to me, you are coming with a scientific explanation about thought, but no where in your statement is the term consciousness used.  In your mind, where does consciousness play into thought, the actions of the physical body, and the reactions of the physical body.

As for myself and my life experience, science and scientist have not touched what i have experienced, what i am and deal with is that, consciousness is the ground of all being, and all things proceed from consciousness itself,  this is my living experience, I have yet to hear a single scientist define and explain consciousness from a living experience, its always by some scientific view held by scientist in their fields. I am not attempting to put down what you are saying, but after my experience with my own consciousness for many years, what you are trying to tell me sounds foreign to me, and doesnt even touch my life experience of self realization.  Thanks for the reply.

Ah, well all this stuff I'm relating to you may sound scientific, but it comes from first hand-experience and practical application through my consciousness/awareness. I've expanded and differentiated my awareness after many, many years of tending and it's very sensitive and coherent when looking both inwards and outwards.

So, I can feel the physical build-up within my body, while at the same time feeling my emotions that create that by-product, while also feeling the pull and shift of pressures arising from both, plus the way my thoughts form from that cascade in conjunction with the context of my focus, and how it shifts and changes as these new additions build and move forward.

All this stuff is happening at the same time as thought and has different ignition points before and after, because they are both influenced by thought and generate and influence lines of thought themselves. It's an inter-connected system with many facets, that I've been mapping for years, because I can see and feel it all happening and parse it out in real time, catching split second changes.

Much like a baseball player with fastballs or a boxer with punches, I've trained myself to be able to slow down my perception of incredibly fast things, so I can differentiate and populate all the different things going on behind thought and have the ability to manage and balance them all. I can actually slow down my perception of time consciously now, although it has to be done subtly and incrementally otherwise the stress is too much for my heart. 

That's why I thought it was so strange that you would consider our thought process to be "man's worst enemy" because I handle and see so many things that occur behind it, that thinking isn't a problem for me. The thinking mind or the narrating/organizing facet of who I am, is just one thing of many that I'm managing and working with.

 

[charlie2dogs]

1 minute ago, Salaam said:

Ah, well all this stuff I'm relating to you may sound scientific, but it comes from first hand-experience and practical application through my consciousness/awareness. I've expanded and differentiated my awareness after many, many years of tending and it's very sensitive and coherent when looking both inwards and outwards.

So, I can feel the physical build-up within my body, while at the same time feeling my emotions that create that by-product, while also feeling the pull and shift of pressures arising from both, plus the way my thoughts form from that cascade in conjunction with the context of my focus, and how it shifts and changes as these new additions build and move forward.

All this stuff is happening at the same time as thought and has different ignition points before and after, because they are both influenced by thought and generate and influence lines of thought themselves. It's an inter-connected system with many facets, that I've been mapping for years, because I can see and feel it all happening and parse it out in real time, catching split second changes.

Much like a baseball player with fastballs or a boxer with punches, I've trained myself to be able to slow down my perception of incredibly fast things, so I can differentiate and populate all the different things going on behind thought and have the ability to manage and balance them all. I can actually slow down my perception of time consciously now, although it has to be done subtly and incrementally otherwise the stress is too much for my heart. 

That's why I thought it was so strange that you would consider our thought process to be "man's worst enemy" because I handle and see so many things that occur behind it, that thinking isn't a problem for me. The thinking mind or the narrating/organizing facet of who I am, is just one thing of many that I'm managing and working with.

 

my intention was to point out that the thinking process of the humanity identity is the problem, now i can see where the thought process as the human identity created a lot of consequences, pain and misery for me and others but i could not see that functioning as the human identity.

[Salaam]

2 minutes ago, charlie2dogs said:

my intention was to point out that the thinking process of the humanity identity is the problem, now i can see where the thought process as the human identity created a lot of consequences, pain and misery for me and others but i could not see that functioning as the human identity.

Well regardless of identity, the problem isn't any single system, whether the thought process system or somatosensory system. The problem is when all these different systems are out of balance and expressed out of context.

For instance fear and pain can be beautiful things. I have fears that are precious to me, that I'm thankful for because they are tied to the things I care about, that make me more sensitive and deliberate. A little pain during sex feels amazing and I enjoy the aches I feel for the people I care for. I don't view and react to fear and pain in isolation, but take the time to find the nuance and context that show me something different and more expansive. 

Everything is connected and no single thing happens in isolation. It's about how everything mixes together and plays off each other. You don't discard a system, because you don't like the way it's expressing in it's current mix. No, you shift the mix and change the chemistry, moving towards more harmony, inclusion, and balance. All the while, being humble and realistic, knowing your limitations so that you can develop them and expand them into what they could potentially become. Rather than deluding ourselves with false certainties that sever our sensitivity from the potential for more. 

[Harry]

On 13/05/2016 at 1:51 AM, cly said:

I think morals are an instinct, I think our instincts as humans have evolved as our intelligence has evolved..

I think people memorize rules or beliefs and follow them, yeah, but I think basic morals are more instinct than learned at this stage in human evolution...(you may be taught not to kill, and believe it is wrong, but then kill in fear for your own life..in self defense, just acting instinctively.)

This topic has similar components to the topic I wrote at an earlier time, called instinct vs intelligence.  

I agree with you here. Most of our morality seems to be derived from basic instincts about what is right and wrong.

I've also found that these instincts are flawed in a number of ways.

For example, I have a intuitive feeling of wrongness in my belly at the idea of homosexuality—as do many others. Of course, under examination this intuition reveals itself as wrong. 

In order to examine morals moving forward we should ask a simple question,

"What can we do to maximise the well-being (or minimise the suffering) of all conscious creatures?"

[Enirus]

Personally I interpret morals and mortality as a gauge of our actions but not something we possess. However this is no such thing as a moral truth or absolute, only common moral beliefs. What is commonly believed to be morally good to people are what actions produce "good" outcomes to society overall. But most of these "good" behaviors are discovered at childhood then developed further.

I do believe that some behaviors that are believed to be good are innate though, or at least the desire to do good. As a social/tribal species our own welfare and survival depends on that of the people surrounding us, so of course our brain would create a happy response from the happiness of others to reinforce behavior that ensures mutual benefit.

(I may be confusing ethics and morals)

Edited June 1, 2016 by Enirus
Forgot something