Idea Of Morals And Values example essay topic

Excerpt from "The Immorality of Morals and the Future of Amorality" Most authors seem to promote one or the other of two functions for morality, internal cohesion and external threat. However morality served both equally well. In Darwinism, Dominance and Democracy by Somit and Peterson, the authors state, 'Humans are social primates, closely (almost embarrassingly) akin genetically to the chimpanzees and only slightly less so to the gorillas. Working over at least 10 million years, natural selection has endowed the social primates with a predisposition (to understate the matter) for hierarchical social structures.

That is, they invariably form groups, troops, tribes, and societies characterized by marked differences in individual status in terms of dominance and submission, command and obedience, and by unequal access to many of the good things of life. This form of morality then serves inclusive fitness; it is there for one reason, to improve the survivability of the tribe. SOMIT AND PETERSON later state, 'Indoctrinability, then, together with dominance, hierarchy, and obedience, is one of the innate behavioral capacities and characteristics of our species. As might be expected, in most instances indoctrinability serves to support and reinforce these generally authoritarian tendencies. Under other and fairly special conditions, though, indoctrinability provides a window of opportunity for the acceptance of democratic ideas and of political actions that, if successful, lead to the establishment of a democratic polity. ' And later, 'From a neo-Darwinian perspective, individual selection for indoctrinability in a language-capable species makes sound evolutionary sense.

When individuals accept the same values, conflict and violence will be diminished, resulting in a more stable society. From the vantage point of the conforming individual, relative order and tranquility, in turn, are likely to result in greater reproductive success and, hence, inclusive fitness. ' The idea of morals and values are one of the most debated topics in the world of critical thinking. Life times can be spent philosophizing about the morality of our human race and the shared "innate" values. Hence forth this excerpt which talks directly (as well as indirectly) about the genealogy of values and morals in a society of humans comparatively to that of nature.

There are many ideas brought forth from this paragraph, most stemming from the doctor of the Natural Selection, Charles Darwin. The basis of Darwin's studies stem from change over a long period of time for the betterment of a group or species. Darwin's studies that mostly of physiological changes revert to development of needed traits for the increased survival of a group. Included in this survival or fitness is the mental capacitity for which we choose to use are selected and evolved skills. This choice is, where over time, nature and science provide a more sure truth of what right is (continual survival of a group) versus wrong (extinction or death).

Although the arguments of the above article use doctrine of science to approach the idea of showing morality as "provided by nature", but, I choose to, through philosophical means prove an alternative source for our value system or hierarchy. Three of my favorite philosophers will help me serve my point on this topic. Plato argued that humans are born with innate thoughts. Being Innate meant that inner knowledge or thoughts had been obtained without the aid of empirical senses.

Plato was convinced that people were born with knowledge but needed poking and prodding from life to uncover the actual knowledge. John Locke argued that humans are born "tabula rasa" or blank slate. Locke argued that we gain knowledge through experience and imprinted our brain. This was proved by and experiment done in the early 90's. A doctor asked a blind man to grab a cylinder, and a square and feel them and identify the characteristics of each. The doctor then performed a procedure that allowed the man to see.

Upon the arrival of his new sense the doctor held the square and the cylinder in front of the man and asked him to identify each object. Could he do it? The answer is no, his brain had never experienced this sense and was unable to carry over the feel of a square with that of sight of a square. So what did we learn? That we cannot, in fact, be born with any sort of value or common knowledge.

Applying this idea towards God is where we can really start to have some fun. If we have no innate thoughts then were did the idea of God come from? Locke argued that our "mind" learned from experience. But, how would one experience God without having known of him first?

Enter Descartes. He used this idea (kind of) to explain the existence of God. "I think therefore I am". Descartes powerful argument being clear and simple was that we have no empirical experience of God, only his name and artistic impression. He felt that being innate gave people the ability to know God because empirically you cannot learn about God but still know of Him. If I can think about God, then, he must exist.

Now back to morals, I believe that there has to be a higher authority to which we can way our values against to discover what is right and wrong. If we didn't have an outside hierarchy, then we would have had no way of establishing common or "known" values; which have bee agreed upon many times in our class. Take Hitler for example; if Hitler's experiences led him to believe that eradication of the Jewish community was moral, then were are we as a scientific community able to say that his experience was wrong in telling him that murder is un moral? The only answer would be God. The innateness of God only goes to show that common values are in existence, but the choice to listen to them follows that of survival of the fittest.