Can human moral behaviour be taught?

[Alun]

It is prima facie clear that different people have different predispositions to behave altruistically and empathetically. Likewise, it is clear that animals are capable of altruism, and some other 'higher order' animals clearly display empathy.

This is not, in my view, relevant to morality. Acting morally means pursuing a goal that you view to have moral weight, i.e. to act for moral reasons. If there are moral reasons, then they are communicable and motivating. It seems reasonable to presume that a person's sensitivity to moral reasons may be, like empathy, both innately variegated and modified by environmental cues, but I do not think any psychological research has convincing evidence on this subject. Therefore, again, I do not think there is convincing evidence that moral virtue is either innately determined or environmentally determined.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

[Belinda]

Since moral behaviour is applicable only to animals acting in concert with others and animals usually have rules that apply only to their own species, there is no such thing as moral behaviour which is unrelated to socialised beings.

Feral children who have been reared by some other species have learned the morals of wolves or apes, whichever applies. Moral behaviour does not exist unless it is learned from significant others.
_________________
Socialist

[Eveready]

Belinda said

[Intuitiv3infid3l]

It can be learned. That is what religion did. But now the cat is out of the hat. Therefore it must be enforced with force, until we can return to psychological manipulation in which it is learned again. The only way you can get someone to act moral is to threaten their self interest. This is how we are structured... there is no other way.

[Eveready]

[Belinda]

I would like to revise my 'moral behaviour does not exist unless it is learned from significant others'.

I wish to replace it with 'moral behaviour is a product of learning from significant others (such as parents,foster parents, teachers, peers),plus a brain which is substantially whole and undamaged so that the social abilities that are peculiar to social animals can be actualised'.

If one or both of the factors are missing because of disease, or neglectt by parents, etc, the moral behaviour will be absent to some degree according to which learning or which part of the brain is damaged.

The evidence for the brain's wholeness as a necessary precursor to moral behaviour is illustrated by the tragic story of Phineas Gage which is enlarged upon by neurologist Antonio Damasio. The evidence for learning as a necessary precursor for moral behaviour is amply present in the records of criminality which statistically correllate learning deprivation at some stage in the life of the criminal, usually childhood, with criminality.
_________________
Socialist

[wanabe]

Eveready,
How about this, morality is innate, and we can also learn to be more moral.(Some people are naturally good boxers. Others can box, and become good with practice.)

Technically though, more people are murdering every day as a natural consequence of their being more people every day . Anyone can get pissed off and kill someone: it's a fact- all I'm stating is a possibility. I'm not saying all people are murders, I'm saying they could be. I'm not conflating all other people with murderers.

The only way the argument is 'read herring' is because you don't want to debate about it because you can't. Please don't pretend I'm going off topic, because you haven't carefully read what I've posted.
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[Idigress]

Could you clarify your question? When you say teach, are you asking if parents could impose their morals on their children? Parents could certainly teach a child what they hold to be moral, but since morals themselves are subjective, a child will learn to form their own morality. Because no matter how moral or virtuous the parent is, the child will eventually witness the parent behaving hypocritically, which then forces the child to make the decision to either accept or reject the parent’s professed moral values.

So what we are taught isn't necessarily what we learn.

[Eveready]

Idigress my question is clarified in my opening post,
Moral behaviour can`t be taught and instilled in human beings.

Idigress

[Idigress]

[Eveready]

Idigress I think we agree! I am not suggesting one can`t mask their innate drives or nature or adapt to suit their circumstance. However the innate drives are still below the surface lying dormant ready to use when opportunity presents itself. The majority of humans have what I will term a natural balance, they are not extreme one way or the other, then there are those who are. Thus moral or amoral behaviour can`t be taught. Society as a whole know balance is what nature is, any imbalances in human nature and animal nature require addressing by the group. An unbalanced rampaging lion would get short shrift from the rest of the pride should he start eating and killing their cubs, likewise in humans.

[Meleagar]

You can teach a monkey how to act; you can't teach it to have morals. Humans with free will intrinsically apprehend morality; those without free will only consider it a contrived instruction set of how to act for whatever purpose one thinks it is for.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

[Idigress]

If man or animal makes the effort to mask or adapt its nature, it must be reasoned that it has learned it would be more beneficial to its survival to do so. And if innate drives are below the surface—held in check by something we have learned, whether it be because the group has intimidated or shamed us, we have been taught a moral lesson. This is why I asked you to clarify your question. Behavior is a response to external stimulus; we learn what works for us, what pleasures us, what satisfies us, etc. Moral behavior is a learned response, so without doubt it can be taught. Now if you are questioning true altruistic motives behind moral behavior and doubt the existence of a moral absolute, then I do agree with you.

[prodygi]

In my opinion moral behavior must be taught. Not meaning it must be taught in a school or by another human. It can be taught by nature, by evolution, by the environment, etc.

I think the fact that babies and idiots proves that we are born with moral knowledge. Also the way morality differs from culture to culture.

I agree it feels as if we were never actually taught how to tell the difference between right and wrong, between moral and immoral, that we have always just felt it. But that just show's how good a teacher evolution, nature, culture etc. is. And how powerful our subconscious is at picking up the things that we need to know to survive in our culture, to be a part of our society, not an outcast. That is probably evolution's doing. The one's that couldn't pick up on the cultures mores would become an outcast and probably wouldn't have any offspring. So after a time most of the ones that couldn't just unconsciously learn died off.
_________________
He so buried himself in his books that he spent the nights...and the days...[reading]; and so, from little sleep and much reading, his brains dried up and he lost his wits. ~~~Don Quixote