Morality Is An Important Component Of A Human Being Because

The articles “Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’” and “Is Morality Innate and Universal?” support the idea of a universal moral code across all human cultures.

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

Wade’s article offers the idea that morality is that the the core of creation of social norms and that in order for humans to get along their selfishness must be limited (Wade, 2007). The works of Dr. Haidt are discussed and how they believe that morality is motivated by two separate mental systems. The first system are what he calls moral intuition, which are based on emotional behaviours that evolved before the evolvement of language (Wade, 2007). The second mental system of morality is moral judgement, which is where people are able to tell the difference why something is right or wrong (Wade, 2007). This relates to the idea of reciprocity, this explains why people choose to either help someone or refuse based on their moral judgements of the situation. Dr. Haidt uses the moral response to disgust in order to understand what actions take place in people making judgements about what the person is doing (Wade, 2007). When disgust is elicited by someone, about a particular situation both moral intuition and moral judgement are at play in order to make assumptions of whether the person is “good” or “bad”; and morally right or wrong (Wade, 2007). This connects to his view of

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

According to Hobbes the state of nature leads to a war of all against all. What Hobbes refers to when he discusses the state of nature is a state in which there are no civil powers. To reach his conclusion about how the world would be in the state of nature, Hobbes first explains what human nature is and then explains the relationship between man and civil government.

Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: religion, culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual's morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect

It gives us tribalism, it gives us genocide, war, and politics. But it also gives us heroism, altruism, and sainthood.” I agree with Professor Haidt that morality binds us together in groups and effects human interactions with good and bad outcomes. I also agree with him that humans are born with foundation for their

The link between morality and human nature has been a progressive reoccurring theme since ancient times (Prinz, 2008). Moral development is a characteristic of a person’s general development that transpires over the course of a lifetime. Moral development is derived by a wide variety of cultural and demographic factors that appear to influence morally relevant actions. Turiel (2006) defined morality as an individuals “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Individuals’ moral judgments are frequently considered to be a product of culturally specific controls that provide a framework for behavioral motivations that are sensitive to the effects of gender, education, religion and politics (Banerjee, Huebner & Hauser, 2010). While several approaches have been utilized to examine the interaction of multivariate contributors to fundamental moral differences such as: disputes about family life, sexuality, social fairness, and so on, research has suggested that ideological considerations have provided a potent and diverse explanation for the polarization of contrasting views (Weber & Federico, 2013).

Although reason and sentiments work together towards moral judgement, the ultimate source of moral judgement is sentiments. According to Hume, an individual acts according to their feelings, and not with reason. As stated in Section 1 of An Enquiry

Thomas Hobbes’ view on a state of nature was that it was a state of war. Everyone would live in a constant state of fear and that morality did not exist. He found it to be a very “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” place (Greenstine,2017). In this state of nature, political authority is artificial and human beings lack government in a natural condition. “The desires, passions, and actions are not immoral or unjust” (Greenstine,2017). It is basically every man for himself. There is unlimited freedom for human beings to do whatever they

The concept of morality plays an important role in human society. Through the discovery of what, exactly, determines that which is “good” and that which is “bad”, humans develop mechanisms that determine how they respond to or judge any given situation. What remains a mystery, however, is what, exactly, is the basis of morals. It is commonly believed that morals are learned through lived experiences, as well as, from those who act as each person’s individual caretaker(s). Even though these factors do play a significant role in determining morality, these factors alone neither create nor determine a person’s moral compass. In Paul Bloom’s work, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, we are introduced to the idea that morality, while partly learned, is something that is ingrained in humans from birth. Through multiple studies, performed both by Bloom as well as other psychologists, it is revealed that not only are babies able to perceive what is right and what is wrong, but also, from birth, babies are instilled with the innate knowledge of empathizing, valuing fairness and status, and valuing those who look similar versus those who look different. In spite of previous ideas, Bloom proves that babies are smarter than previously thought, while simultaneously recognizing the shortcomings of this “elementary” form of morality. Bloom’s finding prove to be revolutionary, in that they allow for the examination of different social structures, their shortcomings, and what

Life in the state of nature described by Hobbes is that natural law forced people to seek peace for their own protection and safety. Not until more civil times was that nature more of a nature of war. Life in a state of nature would never be smooth. In chapter 14 line 19 Hobbes states, “And consequently it is a command or general rule of reason that every man ought to seek 20 peace, as far as he has any hope of obtaining it; and that when he can’t obtain it he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.” For instance, say two neighbors had something that the other may need or would like. In order to keep the peace they would have no choice but to come to some kind of agreement or truce to comply with one another. Unfortunately without a law or some force neither of the neighbors could be completely sure the agreement would stay arranged. So, each person is left uneasy and is forced by the natural instinct of getting before your had and breaking the truce while gaining that ground before the other neighbor does. In that same chapter Hobbes also says, “ For as long as every man maintains his right to anything he likes, all men are in the condition of

His view of people could be seen almost as Darwinistic although he quickly makes the distinction that in the state of nature all men are equal, whether strong or intelligent. Locke on the other hand sees humans as social beings who can function rationally even without the structure of a government or authority to keep them in place. That is because Locke believed that even when people are in a lawless place, they still have an innate conscience that distinguished from right and wrong, this contrasts Hobbes’s claim humans are only moral when they are no longer in a state of nature. This means that humans are not the wild savages that Hobbes paints them to be in the state of Nature and Locke cites real life scenarios of man in the State of Nature to bolster his claims unlick Hobbes whose arguments act more like a though experiment rather than scientific ideas due to his lack of