• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Are humans born with their own set of values?

Wolfmans_BrothEr

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
903
I wrote a paper a few months ago about whether were born with our own set of right and wrong, or is it something we learn over time. For instance are we born knowing that killing someone is wrong?

Personally I argue no, I think our brains are a blank slate and we obtain information over time. When you look at the past plenty of people did things which today seem ludacris, but back then no one thought twice about it

The reason I'm asking is because I've heard people who have conflicting views, I guess due to religion. It's the first time I've ventured into this area on this site, and I wanted to see what the enlightened minds at bluelight have to say on the subject
 
Even with a very minimal amount of philosophical schooling, I know that this is the basic epistemological question of nature vs nurture.

I have to side with Mr. Locke: we emerge from the womb as a virtually blank slate, and we learn from our environment what is, and what is right and what is wrong.
 
Some diseases and conditions have basis in genetics. Schizophrenia is an example, and it clearly can have an impact to a person's values and beliefs.

Do you guys really think that you can form the character of a newborn child in a way you want? Not just give an impact, but totally create it from scratch? Like, make a child religious, or gay; make him obidient or rebelious?

I don't think so. Some part of a person's character is predefined before birth, and character have impact on values and beliefs.
 
I am basing my answer solely on my personal experience.

My four children had personalities when they were born. They were not blank slates. I raised them the same, taught them all the same, fed them all the same, treated them all the same, but with each child, by the time they were nine months old, their individual personalities were happening TO me, not because of me. When I became a mother the fourth time, I had become convinced that they were hardwired from the minute that swimming jizz wriggled inside an egg, the personality was already in the DNA.
 
Personality and a value system are 2 different things.

Our values and beliefs are molded by societies norms. How about 90 years ago when women weren't seen as credible human beings, or when it was accepted to own a person and whip them all day

You mean to tell me your kids are born with the knowledge of what's right and wrong? What do we need parents for then? If thats the case how can you explain some of the idiotic things children do


Do you guys really think that you can form the character of a newborn child in a way you want? Not just give an impact, but totally create it from scratch? Like, make a child religious, or gay; make him obidient or rebelious? .

Uh yeah. It's called brainwashing. Anyone can do it if they shut their child off from all outside influence, hitler convinced children that he was god and killing Jews was the righteous path

Or how about afghani and iraqi children who've been bred to kill Americans, who fimly believe that killing Americans gets you grace in the eyes of Allah, and any death which involves killing Americans gives them a ticket straight to heaven

I could go on all day

Why do you think a lot of children have the same character traits as their parents? Because that's what they've grown up learning to do
 
Last edited:
I think the answer to this question is pretty simple when looked at in a practical way: take two children-- one born in America, and the other born in Papua New Guinea. The American baby eventually learns that killing and eating people is wrong. On the other hand, we know of tribes in New Guinea that still practice ritual murder/cannibalism-- these tribes have been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and they still believe that killing and eating people is acceptable. Only now that these previously undiscovered people are being exposed to Christian missionaries and 'civilized culture' are they beginning to convert to a 'less savage' way of life.

If ethics were ingrained from birth, we wouldn't have un-remorseful serial killers.

I'm sure my logic is shit, as I'm not trained in the use of actual logic, but that's my opinion. :)
 
Uh yeah. It's called brainwashing.
Lol :-D
Well, some part of environmental influence is indeed branwashing. But for defining another part(music, books...) I wouldn't use this word.

Anyone can do it if they shut their child off from all outside influence
Not really sure. I think that certain aspects of human psyche is given from birth, like predisposition to altruism/egotism or predisposition to the imperative "Killing people from our tribe is bad, killing other people is ok". Convincing an average person(child or adult - doesn't matter) that killing enemies is alright(especially in defendance) is much easier task than persuading a person that killing in general is a good idea.

Well maybe you can make a child to believe in what you want, but I think you should "break" him by using some technics.

In short, while I think that no beliefs or values are given from births, I suppose that some beliefs are more likely to be accepted and some are less.

Why do you think a lot of children have the same character traits as their parents? Because that's what they've grown up learning to do
IMO, there are two reasons:
1) Children share genes with biological parents, which itself implies similarity.
2) Children are usually grown by biological parents, so they spend a lot of time together. Bu I also take into account that gene similarity => high chances of having similar beliefs. ;)

The American baby eventually learns that killing and eating people is wrong
Hm... :) I would try human meat, though I would prefer "artificial meat growing" rather than actual killing of somebody. But I'm not american.
(I should check if there is a thread on this topic).
 
Even with a very minimal amount of philosophical schooling, I know that this is the basic epistemological question of nature vs nurture.

I have to side with Mr. Locke: we emerge from the womb as a virtually blank slate, and we learn from our environment what is, and what is right and what is wrong.

Ahhh yes, this is true, but this is also the problem!

We are all born as a clean slate, true to nature itself. In other words, we are born Buddhas. The problem then, lies in the conditioned world around us, as they steer us away from our own divine natures, and nurture is to conform to society. It is to be understood that this entire physical world is Maya, or illusion, full of illusive people and misconceptions about the truth. Let us not seek any answers outside of ourselves, for that is more conditioning. THEE truth is to be found within and only within. This is the teaching of the Buddha.

Why must we seek within? because this the way of non attachment and renunciation, of which is utmost necessary for enlightenment and self realization. This is even described in the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, or, the very essence of yoga itself, which goes:

"Now the discipline of yoga.
Yoga is the cessation of the mind.
then the witness is established in itself.
IN THE OTHER STATES, THE MIND IS IDENTIFIED WITH THE MODIFICATIONS OF THE MIND.
the modifications of the mind are five, they are: right knowledge, wrong knowledge, imagination, memory and sleep."

So you can see, it is only from this non attached, renunciation of everything but the self that allows us to peer into who we really are. this is because otherwise, as we are chasing after all other things, we arent identifying our true selves, but rather the modifications or the different unpure conditions of ourselves.

I believe this is very important to understand, as it may give one insight into the nature of the maya around us. If we cannot understand this fact, than we are seeking an endless means for satisfying our hunger for truth.

An example of this fact may be found in this quote " we cannot see ourselves in running water, only in still water can we find our reflection"

How is this relevant? Well, if we can understand that the world IS maya, than why would we believe in someone elses judgements over our own. I believe that WE IN FACT ARE BORN WITH A NATURAL SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG! this is because we are expansions of god himself, and god even resides in our hearts as the supreme personality, just so he may steer us in the right direction. If ever you are lost, look within and follow your heart.

Here lies a summary of some of the ideas ive had after coming out of some deep transcendental meditation:

"Only the right way will reap reward, for everything else is wrong. Doing something wrong can become habitual, and the wrong way only leads to suffering. Every human is born with a natural sense of right and wrong, it is written into our flesh like our animal instincts. The right way is called the right way because it is the road to peace-it is the righteous path. To understand this, you must also understand that only at the time of the situation can you decide whether the choice is right or wrong. You cannot look at any other situation anywhere else because it will never be the same situation as yours at that present time, however similar it may be. You must also think about your decision in a calm, relaxed manner, and trust yourself. No good decision was ever made in a panic or rush, so relax. The answer to your problem lies within yourself. By projecting your attention outward when trying to find the solution to your problem, you are only giving yourself more things to look at which probably aren’t even relevant. The origin of your problem is found within and thats also where the answer must be sought."
 
Last edited:
But how much of this information is relevant or how much of it REALLY matters? I say that the information we acquire over time, for the most part, is very irrelevant when it comes to cosmic principles and truths. This is because we arent concerning ourselves with god, or what happens after death, as we inquire on a million different impermanent truths of existence.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says that it is only natural for the human being to make inquiries because it is our cognition that distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. We are born as humans to inquire on the ultimate truths of reality, and until we do this, we arent much better than cats or dogs. Most of the information of which we acquire arent relevant to cosmic principles or truths, as they dont help us understand god or what happens after death. The information of which we usually acquire is only there to help satisfy our thirst for sensuous pleasures; to get around faster and to live more comfortably. He says there are four primary activities of the animal world: Mating, eating, sleeping and defending. Until we take to the path of true inquiry, we are no better than cats or dogs, but not just inquiring on anything, we must inquire on the absolute! A dog gets around on four legs, and we get around on four wheels, and we think this is advancement. This is not advancement. Advancement in accord to the Vedic philosophy, as the vedic philosophy understands the eternal soul and the fact of reincarnation, is that everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory and stupid if it doesnt lead one to god or the divinity within. This is because The Vedic philosophy isnt concerned with the material world, only transcending it through wisdom, love and compassion.

I do not mean to sound like a preacher or anything, but i am so, so what? :)
 
I thought that the idea of the mind at birth as a tabula rasa had been fairly well discredited. It seems obvious to me that we have instincts that are not acquired. As far as morality goes, I think that it's probably a social construct to some extenct, but some of it is innate. Babies seem to know that pain is bad.
 
^hehe - babies arent scared of the dark either ~

i think we are born with a sense of judgment or instinct rather, which mostly dictates to us what is seen or believed to be of value - we change our minds about things and put up a front, but at the end of the day these interests are usually related in a fundamental way. being able to notice the similarities in our personal "ventures", and to put them together, is where i feel our core-values are truly established to the point we see our true potential, and the same in others.


allium:
Do you guys really think that you can form the character of a newborn child in a way you want? Not just give an impact, but totally create it from scratch? Like, make a child religious, or gay; make him obidient or rebelious?

lmao(go now son, and make me rich!) -
in a perfect world, or not?!?, this would be the case.
 
Last edited:
Babies seem to know that pain is bad.

Pain is the body's natural reaction when something is wrong with it, to tell the brain you need to pay attention to a certain area. No one needs to teach us whether or not pain is bad since it's meant to be bad. Pain is part of the senses, not values

Knowing that pain is bad and knowing that stealing is bad are 2 different things
 
Pain is the body's natural reaction when something is wrong with it, to tell the brain you need to pay attention to a certain area. No one needs to teach us whether or not pain is bad since it's meant to be bad. Pain is part of the senses, not values

Knowing that pain is bad and knowing that stealing is bad are 2 different things

was going to say that... :|
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Nociception is a sense, pain is a quale, but to deem something bad is unquestionably to make a value judgment. Most people like to differentiate between "moral good" and "other good"- for instance, giving to charity is good in a moral way, but this delicious sandwich is supposedly good in some other way. I think that this distinction is a fiction. You cannot separate value from morality, they are one and the same. When we say that stealing is bad and that pain is bad, what is the difference in the properties we are attributing them? Of both, we mean "I do not want that".
 
Ahhh, I was happy that somebody finally used the words tabula rasa . Indeed, I think that it is impossible to polarise the classic "nature v nurture" debate. Must it be one or the other? Why force ourselves into a false dichotomy like this.

If you take a child and provide for him the essentials for life - food, warmth, hygiene - but nothing else, what will he likely become? He will be little more than an organism devoid of speech - a bare animal.

Our environment reinforces and punishes our behaviours - we get beaten for stealing, raped for wearing short skirts and the like. Without the auspices of our environmental contingencies we are little more than an animal - amoral.

I think we do have some 'instinct' - although to say that they are coded into a binary right and wrong is an oversimplification. Right and wrong are only two facets of a many jewel.

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years."

- John B. Watson
 
I disagree. Nociception is a sense, pain is a quale, but to deem something bad is unquestionably to make a value judgment. Most people like to differentiate between "moral good" and "other good"- for instance, giving to charity is good in a moral way, but this delicious sandwich is supposedly good in some other way. I think that this distinction is a fiction. You cannot separate value from morality, they are one and the same. When we say that stealing is bad and that pain is bad, what is the difference in the properties we are attributing them? Of both, we mean "I do not want that".

I think the biggest difference is that one is a choice. No one tells us whether pain hurts or not, we just know b.c that's how our bodies work. when a child steals something and is reprimanded for it, most people would feel some sort of mental remorse. Our values/morals are something that's mental, when something like pain is a physical sensation.

In my eyes thats the same as saying cotton is soft...is that a value? I don't think so, I think it's just the bodies senses

The body was designed so that pain would disturb the natural flow of things, to cause the body to draw attention to whatever's wrong with it. If we didn't have this natural sense of pain you'd have people dying all the time from things like blood loss or infections or w.e
 
Last edited:
I don't think that pain is physical. The nerve impulses are certainly physical, but the feeling exists only in the mind. You could observe all the electrical impulses and synapse firings on a monitor, but you would not know what it is like to feel pain. In the same way, I would argue that colour and flavour are not physical. Anyway, that's beside the point.

In my eyes thats the same as saying cotton is soft...is that a value? I don't think so, I think it's just the bodies senses
No, it's not a value, and I don't think it's the same. To say that a pinprick is painful is analogous to saying that cotton is soft; but to say that pain is bad is to go beyond that. The first two are descriptive, but the value judgment is normative. Pain is not even necessarily judged as bad- some people derive sexual pleasure from pain, and there is the saying amongst athletes that "pain is weakness leaving the body".
If we didn't have this natural sense of pain you'd have people dying all the time from things like blood loss or infections or w.e
If we did not have an innate sense of morality, then you'd have people dying all the time because of murder and the genetic defects caused by inbreeding.
 
Value systems fail because they become dogmatic. Why look to any values, values are just what they give us to live by, so that we may stay true to some ideal as the "perfect citizen". This is a problem because in the process of doing so, we lose ourselves. If we lose ourselves, weve lost it all. Yes values do seem important, but I think even more important than somebody elses imposed order or way of life, is to find our own way of life, true to direct experience, guided by the wisdom of the heart and the love for god, however we may take Him to be.

Here is a video i think explains it better than i can and it included images too so you may develop a better understanding. Its a speech from Terence Mckenna.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nobody+is+smarter+than+you+are&aq=f
 
^hmm, i going to have to watch that, this evening.

-----
seems recognizing and respecting an others set of values as their own is maybe equally or sometimes more important; an imperious teacher i feel, is also seeing how others values honestly reflect upon us, and what our reaction might say about us.
 
Top