i was curious as to everyone's views on the issue of nature vs. nurture is social and moral life, that is if the moral codes and social standards a person has are based primarily on natural evolutionary process (they were born with them) or that they are taught through observation and conditioning.
I think it is all the above. Evolution gave us the ability to understand the results of our actions. It also gave us punishment for feeling guilt, and pleasure for being communal. Our parents teach us what communities expect, and that if we don't obey these rules we will be punished. Our thought of right and wrong is based on what society will let us get away with, and how guilty it will make us feel. Finally, we get enough information that we can judge for ourselves what others will think and how we will feel. When we can predict this, we understand what is right and wrong.
if society is what teaches us right and wrong, then there would be no natural guilt. so that theory doesn't seem to hold water, if the standard of what causes guilt is the going ogainst of moral conduct whether in thought or in deed.
What do you mean, natural guilt? What do we feel guilty for that scoiety doesn't forwn upon? I think the environment or society you're brought up in has a big impact. I mean, if we had inbuilt programming not to kill or whatever, how is it that some cannibals, mass-murderers etc do so without a problem?
Genetic tendencies cannot be manifested without specific environmental influences. At the same time, environmental influences cannot have an effect without genetic material on which to work.
If we base our lives on what others will judge us, then our life will be limited. Parents have taught us what's right and wrong, but the definition of right and wrong changes with time. I think in terms of what works and what doesn't. The funny thing is that what many people think is right doesn't actually work given what we want the world to be. It is natural for us to love and be loved, but it is nurture that had caused all the problems in the world with all the wars and starvations, because what we think is "right" doesn't work, and what actually works we think it's "wrong". Things like providing the basics of life to the poor, we can remove hunger right now if we wanted to, but we won't becuase we think if we give to the poor we will not have enough.
I would assume that one's social values are primarily nuture rather than nature. Nature may give you some basic likes and dislikes of sensory stimuli; that is you like green beans but can not stand peas. Nuture however gives you your views based on thought and experience which are how you view society as a whole and philosophy of life.
People don't seem to realise that nurture IS nature for mammals. Without nurture mammals are incomplete. They have evolved to rely on being raised and taught how to live in order to survive. I would still say mammals run entirely on instincts, the only minor difference is some of their instincts are engrained after birth instead of before. With humans they are almost clean slates at birth, you can see that by how utterly helpless and simple a newborn human baby is. But we are predisposed to certain types of nurturing. All human babies are not exactly the same by any stretch of the imagination. Two different babies could be raised exactly the same and they won't turn out the same. So clean slate isn't entirely correct. It is very complex, the best way I can think of to describe it(which admittedly is rather poor) is the humans brain comes out as a sponge, but a sponge that is better at absorbing some things more than others, and this varies from person to person. We are all born with different sponges. Thats the best analogy I can come up with, sorry. Obviously its more complex than that. But its not far off. Murderers for example are born to be murderers, but if their parents don't raise them in the particular way that is needed if you want to produce an adult murderer they could end up being a perfect member of society and never murder anyone. By the same token a baby could be raised in such a way that would produce a murderer had that baby been predisposed to becoming a murderer but if thats not the sponge he has then he won't become a murderer, he'll probably just grow up to hate his parents. Certain people simply can not learn certain things, if their sponge doesn't happen to absorb that liquid thats all there is to it. This goes for every little thing. I was predisposed at birth to make this post, and raised in such a way that assisted me in doing so. Or maybe I was predisposed to make a different post but my upbringing was botched and I made this one instead. But it would have been closer to this post than linus's post no matter how I was raised. Complicated, I find it alot easier to understand than explain.
To hazard a guess, I'd have to say that the environment has a lot to do with it. All animals who raise their young (including humans) learn from their society and from the general environment that they are brought up in and there are some variances which occur in all species where these feelings of nurture are not present. For example, as Dr Lou said some people are born to be murderers and he's right, but not all. Society has a lot to do with the homicidal tendencies of some in society while others are just born with such tendencies in place. For example, some serial killers have had families and children they nurtured and cared for yet they would go out and kill others for pleasure. The notion of nurture is usually taught from birth. We imitate our parents in how they treated us and cared for us as babies and onwards. The animal kingdom is the same. Chimpanzees for example are taught by their mothers how to care for their own young and this is basically imprinted on the brain as it is with most in the animal kingdom. This is usually witnessed in most mammals. Having said this however, we also witness many in society who have parents who abuse their children, yet when many of these children grow up and have families of their own, they do not abuse their own children in the same way. Again I'd have to guess that the general society has taught these individuals in how to care for and nurture their own children. While others who have been abused will and do abuse their own offspring. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nature, or your genes sets the range- max and min of certain behaviors. For example, your genes determine the range of your IQ, but it is the nurture, the environment you grow up in, that eventually determines where you end up in that pre-determined range. Or so I've heard. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
humans have come to a point in evolution where they dont need to rely on genetics as much. Since we are the creators, we mold and shape our own future. We are at the ultimate level of evolution. But as far as nature versus nurtue--both have an effect on who we become. Genetics gives us frame work, nuture makes up the rest. Example--genetics might give someone a disposition to a high or low IQ, nurture then dictates how the pathways of neurons will form, and these in turn allows us to think a certian way.
Morality and social standards are human constructs. The place in which you live will have standards of behaviour based upon preceding events and inhabitants. Your opinions of, and adherance to these standards is based largely on conditioning and the choices you make in your life (nurture). Although, the caveat is that if you are born a psychopath for example (nature), you may be physically unable to comprehend, let alone adhere to the standards in your society. Global moral values (those present in every culture) may have a real physical and evolutionary justification.
If you really want to get the full answer to this debate read the book "Nature via Nurture" (i forget the authour). It states that one cannot be without the other. Excellent read IMO.
