• Yes. Not only in humans but all complex species who have intelligence, usually are social, and often are predators

    • Wolf and Wolves
    Collective Moral Instincts

    My definition of morality in a species is not some curtesy or traditional advantage offered to another as a show of proper normalized behavior with others from this family, or a conscious show of how consciously we show respect to others.

    It is about an inherent moral code that is only seen and recognized when a situation comes up unexpectedly; and the instinctive reaction to that unexpected reaction by the one surprised that shows his morality to a particular unexpected situation.

    Morality or moral codes (established morality) show the level of characteristics known already attributed to that person or a species whole; it is usually expected because each individual or group is pre-classified by others with their expectations of morality or moral code from multiple actions in this area already know by multiple generations of that species or multiple actions already exhibited by that individual over multiple generations or previous actions by the individual.

    Morality may be a personal attribute but it is also a social attribute; especially when judged by another.

    Exercised moral behavior is a reaction to an action. This is instantaneous or instinctive and usually expected; especially of a group.

    A good solid set of morals determine the ability of a group to be able to survive against nature and is needed to be consistent within the group for the group to survive internally against nature.

    Moral behavior in a group is consistent with how a group reacts internally with each other.

    There is no doubt in my mind that a group with a moral code that insures fairness of play, honest assessment, and a predictable reaction from each individual in that group, to protect that group, when needed by those in the group to help ensure long-term survival of that species.
    This is normally shown in social species; both predator and prey.

    An example of a moral code in a species less complex than a human; let's say a wolf, or wolves; each wolf in a pack (6 - 8) knows inherently to be both patient and not selfish. The use this inherent moral code in order to hunt most efficiently.

    Every wolf within a pack has a role and they are expected to live up to [and be held accountable for] their responsibility within the pack.

    There is evidence that wolves have knowledge [strategy] of proper prey management. Wolves are patient of themselves and of one another.
    They’re focused on their objectives.
    They respect each other’s role and depend that each individual in the pack will live up to their defined responsibilities.

  • Yes: A Moral Gene? O https://blogs.Scientificamerican.Com/science-sushi/a-moral-gene/ • I have read this article and it quickly led me to the following:

     Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments
    o http://journals.Plos.Org/plosone/article?Id=10.1371/journal.Pone.0025148
    • This is some detailed specialized stuff; talks about genes and carrier genes in test subjects and their natural instinctive reactions to moral behavior in such scenarios as “would you risk one innocent live to save many’ or ‘would you prefer to not risk any life to save others… and may more questions asked of subjects in the study after taking genetic samples of each subject being tested.

  • Garyyouree@gmail.Com of course its genetic; its the moral code inherent in our species

    A Species Divided Together
    Our Parasitic Twin
    I know how this Corporatocracy started; and how it will end. I know when it started, what fraction of our species started it, and the part they might (have) play(ed) in our full evolution and our consciousness,

    They are a part of the crooked branch which grew from the only surviving branch of our evolutionary tree. They are a choking branch now causing a drag on our species.

    They are our parasitic twin; a small fraction of humanity mutually exclusive of the other. They have helped us grow as a species whole; in their parasitic adaptive skills to survive off the same resources we all need, but they take nearly all, and give nothing but pain, suffering, and the fear of pain and suffering – that is their only means to survival and short-term success (profits)

    They cannot survive without us; yet we would now thrive without them.
    There may have been a times when our solar system, or galaxy, was unattainable. Their competitiveness helped then so we would not create a utopia too early without something to adapt towards

    Ten thousand years ago, at the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution, there was only our host planet’s nature to explore and dominate. Their ancient survival instinct, which was necessary when we were still prey, is now an extension we call capitalism; now unnecessary and a huge impediment on the forward adaptations needed if we are to survive.

    This moral code is our humanity; that which we use to define our species. It is the empathy, love, and our conscience, that ensured our survival by working together for the group; each giving of their abilities to the needs of the group. Without this we would have never survived those first 300,000 years in hunter-gatherer groups.

    The psychopath adapted; he infiltrated our groups and mimicked our emotions. He fed himself on our resources at our effort, while he did nothing to provide.
    He was clever and adapted well; for a parasite.

    They cannot survive without us. A parasite needs a host.

    The ten thousand years following the first great species changing technology, since we as predators used our hands we evolved as prey, to manipulate nature, the Agricultural Revolution, creating the first owners; the psychopath parasite thrived.

    Perhaps they have thrived with a vengeance; after 300,000 years of being shunned by the moral majority; they took full advantage by ignoring that moral code necessary for long-term survival. Now they create and profit off every form of human suffering, and have for 10,000 years.

    We have full advantage and we have precedent; long-term survival is only possible through efficiency and a moral code. There are 300,000 years vs 10,000; how much longer will they be able to sustain their means of destruction to survive?

    There will be no symbiosis between man and his parasitic twin. Good-Evil, Efficient-inefficient, Moral-Immoral; are mutually exclusive.

  • Morality is genetic to a point.

    Morality is a mixture of nature and nurture. Aspects of morality, such as manners, are taught. Personality and basic compassion is genetic and part of personality. Some people have mental illness, such as sociopaths, that leave them without morality. No amount of teaching morals will fix this, so some morality can't be taught.

  • Its empathy limbic system / emotional cognitive prefrontal cortex and limbic system

    There is not one place in the genetic engineering of the brain any more than only one part that allows us to turn sound waves in into electric signals we understand in the brain as hearing. Likewise moral development is a presses that starts and increases as when the brain developes but also is effected by external stimulus.

  • The origins of morality are genetic.

    Before we were able to pass our experiences to future generations, allowing them to survive in a collective memory that we now call "culture", we probably already had some instincts guiding us in making "moral" choices. Back then, not having any real culture yet, this instinctive morality was all that we had. So, considering that instincts are genetic, I'd say genetics played an important sole in determining human morality (in the most generic sense, including all variations present in all cultures).
    I think the genetic side is that which differentiates our morality from that of other species (since they have moral codes too).

  • is a component

    Thoughts (I'm going to steal that person's stuff!) are really born from 'hardware'....nerve cells, chemical neurotransmitters, etc. - therefore genetics are as likely player in this area as any other. Now that we are learning of the "plasticity" or changeability of the brain - the environment and external factors can play a role. But to say that genetics has no input into a person's moral behavior seems...naive.

  • I think it probably is.

    Our brains obviously have a lot to do with how we think. There are some ideas we seem to have prior to experience, which means they are hardwired into the brain. A sense of fairness is one of those things, and children are born with it. Fairness only makes sense under morality. Since the genes determine the kind of brain people have, and the brain causes people to believe in fairness, and fairness is part of morality, it follows that morality is genetic.

  • NO: Morality is not genetic

    I do believe that people have genetic predispositions, but morality is something that is cultivated by how we are raised, the moral standards of our peers, instructions in school and various other avenues bringing information that we can use in our character development. We are products of all the information that has been presented to us. If we did an experiment on twins and placed each of these siblings in drastically different controlled environments, their level of integrity would be at different levels, contingent upon essential needs being met and the ideals being promoted.

  • No its not

    If morality is subjective then it would be based on how society views what is right and wrong. If this is the case then how can we condemn someones actions, should we say your not following societies moral code but the individual could say 'so' and this statement might look tiny in comparison they both have similar levels of substance or even more so.

  • Morality needs to be Objective

    If Morality is genetic, then that would imply cultural relativism plays a part. If CR plays a part that would mean Morality is subjective. Issues then arise with basic concepts such as Moral Progression. i.e. Slavery was acceptable for the majority of history. Currently we find it immoral, but if morality is influenced via genetics then we'll soon find Slavery to be acceptable once more. This is morally wrong. Slavery is objectively wrong even if our forefathers owned or didn't own slaves. Genetics and culture may influence our ability to understand, comprehend, and accept why treating people like objects is wrong, but Morality itself is a truth beyond our genetic makeup.

  • It May Be Influenced But No

    Sure our brains have a lot to do with how we think. But think of this, the messages we hear from those around us our whole lives are essentially physical reactions going through our eyes and ears and transmitting into electrical signals that then interact with the brain. So, a gene may lead to a certain set of moral beliefs under one set of circumstances and another under another set and this may change through the course of a person's life. The order of events would also be important. It's not either genetics or environment, genetics and environment interact together. And then there's choice, if you make a concerted mental effort to try to understand and adopt a certain type of morality you will start paying more attention to those influences both presently and stored in your memory that go along with that morality. Perhaps, some are beyond our control. I could never adopt a 'morality' that supports evicting thousands from their homeland to build a military base (Chagossians, look it up), but I know my morality has changed throughout my life and it certainly was not a passive process, I took a role in actively thinking about it.

  • No

    We don't live in the time of Edgar Rice Burrough where the idea of Man as the Superior Being is still a valid theory. In his books, Tarzan learns to read and speak on his own, is capable of seeing the difference between right and wrong and becomes the lord of the Jungle without the help of any outside force or other humans.
    Unfortunately, history shows us that this is simply not a possibility. A lone human cannot survive for very long and we would definitely not have reached the point we are at without the help of our fellow humans. When humans band together, we need to collectively look out for the best of as many as possible, which is why we have laws. As abstract as they may be now, at their core laws were created to enforce a functioning society where each individual is capable of expressing themselves to the full extent of what that culture and state allows. Naturally, this differs between how a nation is run, but laws like the prohibition of wanton murder and theft are so basic that they can be found in any lawbook.

  • Morality is developed, not genetic.

    Morality is not something that is existent at birth. A baby does not know right from wrong. Morality can be developed in different ways. It can be taught by a mother or father. It can be developed through experiences throughout life that change perspective. It can be developed through the influence of other people.

  • Morality has nothing to do with genetics.

    Morality is a learned trait and it comes from the environment. Morality is first learned in the body of the mother, then seen from actions of parents, and later absorbed in social environments such as school and work. The most important factor would be the family impact between the ages of 0 and 10 years old. If one can teach their child by example, America would have more moral people.

  • No morality is not genetic

    Morals are learned and unlearned. My father may have good moral standing in society and my mother may not have been raised the same way. I never knew my father. he never taught me to be like him. I was raised by my mother, and I am just like her. I grew up doing the right thing but i can change that.

  • No, to a degree

    I do believe that genes are a cause of people feeling certain ways. For example, mental health problems run in families (genetic). However, the behavior of people with certain feelings is done under free will. Alcoholism is considered a genetic problem. But the alcoholic can chose whether to drink or not. This is where genetics do not play a role.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.