Is Morality Natural?

Man is born with a sinful nature making him to be not moral and in can be proven in a child when he lies and does not tell the truth. Why did the child lie? Because the sinful nature and not the moral nature is not structured in man. It was at one time.

Sara Sota, I can add to your verse...John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Another verse would be....Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." And last one just to name a few: John 15:5 "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what maybe known about God is palin to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

I firmly disagree. The killing a baby hypothetical is a classic moral argument. You are faced with a choice, act by killing the child or fail to act and the soldiers kill you, the others AND the infant. The child is dead either way, the only difference is whether you killed him/her or the soldiers. The way the hypothetical works is by limiting your options. Its not meant to be a real situation, its meant to test your moral rationalization.

I firmly disagree. The killing a baby hypothetical is a classic moral argument. You are faced with a choice, act by killing the child or fail to act and the soldiers kill you, the others AND the infant. The child is dead either way, the only difference is whether you killed him/her or the soldiers. The way the hypothetical works is by limiting your options. Its not meant to be a real situation, its meant to test your moral rationalization.

These questions force us to assume that the answer only belongs to one category. However, life is never that simple- we can't just lump actions together with the two labels of 'right' and 'wrong'. It is much too vague- almost all actions have elements of both 'right' and 'wrong' and a lot of other adjectives.

Did scientists considered that humans had been already "somehow" trained with principles, which had giving
them the basis of judgement affecting also their emotions? Should morality be natural, how come every new
born comes up demanding and yelling for his tired mom to pay immediate attention to him? And after years of becoming the center of attraction, they "naturally" become strong in keeping being # ONE, the magic number
of a self-centered? And so home as school become centers of re-scheduling priorities for the little brat. There
is where humans get moral classes! Basic morals were never a product o humans!!!

This is a stupid test! What a waste of time and resources. These questions are dumb. Why kill the baby? Find a way to make it stop crying duh! With all the tech we have nowadays you can see heat images from outer space, so you could detect where people were anyways. For the terminally ill dude, look if you put his organs in people who already have problems, they're going to get sick with whatever the terminally ill dude had anyways. Doctors don't transplant from sick patients like that. For fat lady, if fatty got into the cave fatty can get out of the cave, she fit in, so she'll be able to fit out. And the boat, duh, tie all folks to the boat put on life jackets speed it up and refuse to let anyone die. Determination is the key to succeding at anything you do. This test is just common sense, not rocket science, or even moral question. The day to day things we do, how we act, how we are percieved, what we say and do, is what morals are. Morals are taught by our parents and grandparents and people around us. Some people had better parents than other's that taught them better, some their parents didn't teach them at all, parents set the example for the children to follow. So let that be a wake up call to the parents out there. Not this waste of space article!!

So, I think there is a logical sense of what is good for the majority over the one, but I think in general there is a lot to be left to society. There is a lot of moral relativism as we are seeing more and more things that were wrong all of the sudden become acceptable. I think that we as human have natural tendencies which are wrong, and I do believe that there is a Right, meaning a true, right set of code universal and not up for vote or opinion. This is why I believe Scriptures and prophets are so important. Times change but right and wrong doesn't. And even if we as a society veer from what is right and proper the consequences of doing wrong won't change. There are reasons why depression and broken homes are plaguing our society. We have changed.

Morality outside of God - or at least a supreme being makes no sense. Who decides what is right and what is wrong outside of a supreme being. As a Christian I belive that God is the giver of all good things and has given us a framework to live within. It is based on putting others first - wanting the best for them. Within my frame of reference we believe that Christ willing sacrificed himself for the good of everyone. You can't say that 'you don't kill' because it is the right thing to do outside of God. The question has to be asked 'why?' who makes the rules? We have a bad habit of thinking that North American culture deams what is right and wrong. In cannibal cultures you could eat your enemy but is was wrong to eat someone in your own community. I have always enjoyed the type of case studies that the article talks about because it presses the boundaries of what I am willing to do. People always try to make exceptions to the rules in order to get out of making the tough choice. What if you must make a decision to give up a life? Are you telling me that there are no such situations? I guess the question is - who are you willing to lay down your life for? Your wife, your child, a stranger????

There IS one simple, natural pattern at the base of all moral actions, which reflects directly the pattern neccesary to sustain biological life. Morality is definitely nature-driven, and I've spent over ten years of my life as a philosopher developing a moral code we can all agree on, precisely because we live by it already.

The time has come for us to become aware of, as JFK said, "our most basic common link", and expand this moral link to encompass the full range of human action. If we don't, we're in for a new dark age. America, don't let this happen! Visit me at MoralArmor dot com; listen for the many radio spots I've been doing and will continue to do. We need to stop hoping for one decent leader, but develop a leader in every life.

YOUR empowerment is all that can save us: the fairest distribution of moral awareness. Join me and we can save this country with an almost instant moral clarity based on nature itself; I guarantee it.

Yes it predates Chirst, but not God. Evolutionarily speaking there is really very little room for morality as survival is each for himself, look out for number one. Knowledge comes from somewhere. The real question is WHY is there good and evil. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival is all, and many people believe that there is no such thing as evil, just a point of view.

Most people regardless of belief system though, as this article points out, have a relatively agreeable idea of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behavior. Morality exists; good and evil exist the question isn't if but why.

This article is a waste of the paper it was written on. All these "what if" statements. Ok, lets kill an innocent baby, like there is no other way to get the baby not to cry. Duh, find a way to make the baby stop crying, and with all the technology they'd probably find them using heat finding tech. For the boat tie all the folks on it to it, speed up, and find all the people. Refuse to let one fall off the boat and I'm sure they would be ok. Why would you want to give a sick person's organs to someone else, that persons jacked up organs would infect and kill the three people, so they'd be worse off than they would before. Doctors won't take organs from a terminally ill person any how. Duh! And as for the fat woman getting stuck in the door, fatty got in the cave so fatty should be able to get out of the cave. This test is not rocket science its just common sense, it has nothing to do with good or evil, right or wrong. Its just good judgement.

Morality is not natural because it will differ from person to person. Although they see a set 'pattern' to what people say for that questionaire, most people taking it are already in a specific group. (those well off enough to own pcs and have access to large forum that is the world wide web) Morality is taught, it is something we learn by example throughout our lives. If a person raises their child with the mindset that stealing is the norm and said child never sees or hears anything to counteract that then it will be perfectly moral for them to steal. Same with murder and other vices. Tabula rasa, a blank slate.

Let me propose a different question to test your morality far more than those 'practical' questons would. If you're one of the only two people on a crashing plane and you have a parachute, do you give the parachute away and sacrifice yourself or do you beeline to the door and save yourself? Some of us would and some of us wouldn't, some would think it's immoral to condemn the other to death when you could avert it, but some would think if only one of you can live why shouldn't it be you if you have the parachute to begin with? The fact that each view can differ should indicate there is no outright 'moral-lawbook' so the argument that there must is 'moral-lawgiver' is moot. (PS: While not an athiest, I do not believe in religion. Just if you think I'm being biased)