The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Are we born with moral; gain through time; or not born with morals at all?why? Are Morals in DNA?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
intenzfrost has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 540 times Debate No: 105806
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




First off, obviously there are exceptions to everything/anything, period; to close that argument, science is the pursue of truth.
Temporary truth is best definition.
- Whom ever wishes to leave an input please know of what your input consists of, childish rabbles based on your current knowledge will be challenged heavily here so I ask one prepare themselves beforehand.
I will break down questions to simplify, or perhaps complicate, topic.

So I ask, is Everyone Born with Morals;? if so.....? if not....?

By "morals' I mean "Consciously making Rational decisions, based on right or wrong"
By "consciously" I mean "concluding right/wrong action; cause and effect then proceeding with conscious decision regardless of conscious mental debate.
By "rational" I mean " universal common sense, in order to calculate result to conclude decision before action"
By "right or wrong" I mean "Sincerely-discerning if action about to be conducted
is concluded to the best of our conscious and rational ability to sincerely-discern what is measure to be taken correct.
Note: Right or wrong. Is it not a fact, just because majority of crowd, if not all crowd conclude for (topic/ decision) to be "right" doesn't make it "correct". Another example, following your heart doesn't make it right thing to do. To "feel" something is right is an illusion of what is right.
By "everyone" I mean " everyone, worldwide; excluding complicated exceptions, and exceptions concerning with mental disabilities.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
MORALITY (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.
CONSCIOUSNESS is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.
RATIONALITY is the quality or state of being rational: based on or agreeable to reason.[1][2] Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy,[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science.

When we are born (normal condition) with ability to breath, see, hear, touch( they are not taught to us) how do babies know they must eat(hungry) how do babies know sucking on tits will feed them?,( How do we learn sucking action to withdraw milk,
?Can we just say simply say we are born with all these or some certain "abilities" to live.its almost like we are born with instructions to not survive but live.?

-I shall insert my input here, we are born with morals, simple proof to validate possibility, its a fact we are born with certain abilities to live. so why not morals as a mental, or spiritual ability.?

As we develop our minds begin to comprehend causes and effects, for example (fake cry to get what baby wants)
logically speaking, in "Fake crying scenario" the first time
babies do this , is it a conscious action? rational?
*Note there are exceptions*
*Note some babies exaggerate more than others" in fake crying scenario *
Is there even a first time?
I will say yes!
Whether or not a baby full comprehends causes and effects, to a certain degree, even if its a very small comprehension, I will tell you this
We gain comprehension from else where before first scenario that in which we fake cry to get what we want.
or we gain first comprehension of cause and effect From first time we fake cry.

Now this goes two ways, either we cry and get what we want or we cry and don't get what we want.
Either way are we conscious at all?
I Would say yes
because afterwards we, get what we want and now know it works to get desired results.
*note desired result will be integrated to young mind as a "good" thing
or we don't get what we want so we adjust accordingly, like cry louder, throw fit etc. doesn't matter there must be some type of awareness there.
*note "wrong action is reason why we didn't get desired result .
After further development it would only make sense we become proficient with consciousness and rationality; naturally of course.
so if we can conclude this.
along with consciousness and rationality there must be some type of sense of "right and wrong"
no matter how small.
no matter proficiency

Now we get to this point
-we have a sense of right and wrong before we are taught in greater depth right and wrong
-we are developing a sense of right and wrong then are taught in greater depth right or wrong.
-we have natural sense of right and wrong, are not taught in depth but develop further sense of right or wrong through time and experience.

From here scenarios branch possibilities but note that complicated scenarios
in which one is raised with bad intentions from bad sources, will conflict with inner sense of right or wrong until inner senses are forced to be over written. so on and so forth.

There is a study in which science has successfully proven humans have genetic markers, example groups of murderers, thieves, liars, etc.. all murderers have genetic marker in same place. thieves also have genetic marker in different location but thieves have them in same places. Etc..
also the study proves these genetic markers can be past down from generation to generation, so just because a murder genetic marker is past down, if child inherits these, they are more vulnerable to conduct a murder in their life .

So it is very likely we are born with morals genetically.

Moving forward,
I ask you individually!
how can you explain right from wrong?
now answer again the question having these variables:
Discerning-sincerely right from wrong requires, one to try to see all perspectives, besides your own, logic, reason, rationality, feelings, then concluding in a unbiased manner. correct?
So are we or are we not born with moral code?
I have shown why it is possible, logically and rationality
so I ask what are those common morals?
1 we can agree on murder is wrong
2 not to steal
3 debate existence of a God
Almost sounds like something ive read were THE TORAH engraved into our heart or soul?
well evidence shows that technically can be possible.
Galatiyim Galatians 5:22-26
Yirmeyahu Jeremiah 31:33
Tehillim Psalms 37:30-31

So maybe Torah is written in us and are born with us , until we or other corrupt and take that away or delude or overwrite.

Leaving religion out, if not Torah then what else can our inner moral code we are born with be?


First of all, your definition of "right or wrong" is actually the definition of "deciding what is right or wrong". We can't define "right or wrong" because there is no universal "right or wrong". What's right and what's wrong is only determined by humans and humans determine that with their evolutionary traits such as affection and selfishness.

We all are born with all these abilities because humans needed them to survive and pass on their genes; Babies that don't know how to suck on a tit will die of starvation back then. Being born with the abilities to live is universally across all life, even to a single E.coli bacterium. We aren't born with morals because it isn't a mental or spiritual ability of ours; it is a product of our highly complicated brain. As social organisms, humans developed a large variety of traits that allow us to work together most efficiently to avoid getting wiped off the gene pool. One of the most important of said traits would be the ability to empathize and cooperate with each other and these traits would be the basis of what we call morals.

Imagine you are a caveman and your mom just got murdered by someone from the same tribe. Your mom was old and weak and is basically a burden to everyone in the tribe during a harsh winter. The murderer just did what's the most rational and logical and gave everyone a better chance at survival. Your mom was probably going to die in a couple years anyway and there are children in the tribes. The only reason why it would be wrong is because of your attachment to your mother resulted from the traits we evolved to become efficient social organisms. Would you sacrifice the one you love the most in exchange for the lives of two strangers? To the families of the two other stranger, choosing to sacrifice is the right choice but to you (most likely) it is the wrong choice. My point is, "right and wrong" aka morals is so subjective that we can't really be born with one set of them. We are so heavily influenced by our surroundings that what we taught basically determines our moral. Who is to say slavery is wrong if everyone in the whole world use slavery and are taught they are morally good?

Your mention of the study doesn't mean we are born with morals genetically, but with traits that determine our morals like I mentioned. They murder and steal because they have lower empathy and other traits that other humans have. They weighted their self interest over other people, and to them, they are right.

You mentioned how "just because majority of crowd, if not all crowd conclude for (topic/ decision) to be "right" doesn't make it "correct"", but that's exactly how it is. There is no objective "right or wrong". If most humans aren't evolved to feel negative emotions when killing other humans or if they aren't taught that it is wrong, there would be no reason why it is wrong. In fact, even the morals of individuals differs and contradicts each other all the time. I can't agree that murder and stealing is wrong. Sometimes it is necessary. Is it morally right to leave your family to die by not murdering someone threatening their well being or stealing so you can feed them? You kill or steal for them because you want to feel the happiness of being with them just as a serial murderer wants to feel the thrill of killing. What makes you and a serial killer different in that scenario? What if the one you steal from also have to feed his family? The world isn't as nice a place for there to be objective morals.

You mentioned The Torah, a religious book which is written by humans. Why do you think The Torah is engraved into us rather than us engraving what we believe into it? We wrote the Torah based on what the writers think are right which are based on their evolved traits. Our moral code is simply instincts that allowed us to cooperate and survive since ancient times.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
"physical contructutal law" and the laws of" termodynamics" results in evolution, not moral..
Posted by Mike_10-4 2 years ago
Stanford"s position on "morality" transcends humans to also exist among "non-human animals" ( According to Stanford, it would seem "morality" and "code of conduct" are two different manifestations of the same concept. That is, in forming a group, the objective of morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life of the group. Also, the genesis of a code of conduct is a function of the "Golden Rule" which is an outgrowth of "unalienable Rights," which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law (a recent discovery in thermodynamics
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Posted by intenzfrost 2 years ago
ooooo I see where your coming from, ok
well you are correct, yes but you misunderstood me
or perhaps I didn't explain well.
what I "named" I concluded based on what those Morals would be as a WHOLE.
if we try to name them, what would be your conclusion?
Posted by canis 2 years ago
You will not be able to "name" a "moral" that is not just an idea...
Posted by intenzfrost 2 years ago
not me Children towards children. in general.
what is your source of your information? you make no sense .
like you said "
"I can say with 100% certainty that morals are only ideas"
explain how you can have complete certainty that morals are ONLY IDEAS?
did you even type that with much thought?
Morality means -Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad BEHAVIOR.
its own definition proves your statement wrong.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Why would any instinct tell you to kill children ?
Anyway a few hundred years ago children where the first "to go" when food was short. (instinct), Not moral..
Posted by intenzfrost 2 years ago

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics " rights and wrongs " ethicality " virtue " goodness " good behavior " righteousness " rectitude " uprightness " morals " principles " honesty " [more]
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society:
"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"

I agree to an certain degree, what if morals were a lot more pure in earlier times but have been deluded through generations, so yes they can change according to time. but there can be a instinct of morality,
if not there would be a lot more child murderers, no?
Posted by canis 2 years ago
I can say with 100% certainty that morals are only ideas..Ideas can and will change.. Behavior we can not change is in our DNA. So it is not moral but instinct..
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.