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

Is morality biological or is cultural conditioning or some combination of two?

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
mjchavez798 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: 11/28/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 105355
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Scientists have found that morality is hard wired into the brain.

most people think that morality comes from religion which is why Americans don't vote for atheists and so on.

So, the problem is that morality may be a consequence of both nature and culture, but if you look at the world around us we seem to be divided along religious and ethnic lines.

That raises the question: If we all have the capacity to empathize with complete strangers, then why does that capacity get overwritten by culture.



I, Like the user who commented don't know whether this is a debate or conversation so here are my thoughts and I will wait for a reply. Thanks.

I think that it is pretty clear that that "morality" is something both hardwired into the brain and also influenced by culture. if you look to other species other then ourselves you will find them doing things what we would call "moral". such as sharks and the pilot fish. Somewhere in there genes the shark knows to do good by the pilot fish. for the shark offers protection from predators and the pilot fish offers a parasite free existence as it feeds.

In human history it was also important to do good by thy neighbor (for reasons other that religion). When we lived in smaller more close knit groups and colonies it was imperative to be kind or helpful to each other within that colony.

I would find it very fortuitous for you to be generous with your goods and faithful to your promises. I would imagine in a small group if you were known to not share food in time of need or not to pull your own weight when in times of trouble, you would not be well liked or helped in your time of need or trouble. In addition the growth and prosperity of your colony would be important for survival of your own culture and tribe or colony.

Now if you take this way of life spread over hundreds and thousands of years I can see how being moral is actually "Natural Selection". If being good to one another in within your own tribe will increase YOUR chances of reproduction and survival then I would be inclined to believe that it is hardwired.

Now this may be the reason why you might give your change to a homeless man or child on the street knowing full well you may never see them again, in our history we have been hardwired that if you help "X" in his/her time of need "X" will help you in yours, whether you realize it or not.

Now to answer your question.

I feel your question is actually quite easy,its a learned behavior. the same way when a baby is born in India he or she will learn Indian as there language just as easy as a child in china will learn Chinese as there language. The child shows no favor to either language and learns them equally as easy. In my experience the cultural divides are also a learned behavior. If you look at the parents of most radical (insert culture or religion here) they will share the same beliefs as the child. This goes for religion, language politics and so on. I feel it would be extraordinary to find and Chinese speaking child with Indian speaking parents just as it would be improbable to find Christian children with Muslim parents. Again these are learned behaviors that are no fault of your own.
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
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
If you need a "source" for morality..What is morality then ?
Posted by Ockham 2 years ago
You should both be citing more sources.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
Anyway.."culture" means nothing to biology..
Posted by canis 2 years ago
If it was 100% cultural..YOU would have no moral...If it was 100% biological..YOU would have no moral..
if it was 100% cultural..YOU would have the ultimate moral if 100% of the surrounding culture agreed with YOU..If it was 100% biological. YOU would have the ultimate moral if 100% of YOU agreed with YOU.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 2 years ago
What is this debate even supposed to be about? This seems more like a discussion than a debate.
This debate has 4 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.