- 03 May 2014 02:55
#14400550
Today I wrote this, I'm sharing it here:
Is Morality the Result of Nature or Nurture?
Among philosophers, perhaps no topic is more widely explored and debated than the issue of morality. It is a subject of the utmost importance for the proper function of any society, past, present, or future. It is also one of the most difficult ones to tackle. Although morals had been developing in their own natural way prior to great thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle, it wasn’t until their emergence that humanity had been able to gain a comprehensive grip on the foundations of moral behaviors and actions. Socrates was a prodigy, influencing many great thinkers and laying the foundation for moral philosophy. He was the teacher of Plato, who was in turn, the teacher of Aristotle. It was Aristotle who went on to write the comprehensive work on ethics, entitled Nicomachean Ethics. It is widely considered his greatest and most influential work, greatly impacting all moral philosophy to come.
The concept of happiness is one that concerns all of us. It might seem obvious to us today that the pursuit of happiness plays a very important role in the moral and ethical decisions we make, but to the ancient world, this was not known. For Aristotle, it was an astonishing realization that the desire to be happy is what drives people to make moral decisions. In Book I of Nicomachaen Ethics by Aristotle, chapter 7, paragraph 3, he says about happiness: “Now such a thing (as) happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reasons, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy.” Is this truly the case? In the early development of moral thinking, this had to be the case, for there was no other way. What else could primitive people understand other than the pleasures of the flesh? So then, is the pursuit of happiness really what drives morality? Or is morality based upon actions that are driven by self-sacrifice?
The question of nature versus nurture has been brought up again and again, not just in philosophical discussions but also in science, sociology, and psychology. Explaining human and animal behavior has been the goal for many analytical thinkers. Nature refers to that which is based on instinct. It is predetermined at birth and is internalized by the information that is contained in the DNA. Nurture is the way in which an individual is brought up and made accustomed to their surrounding environment. It comes from external factors and it is constantly being influenced. I believe that both nature and nurture play important roles in the development of morality. I found an online source that agrees with this viewpoint, though the author is not known. Retrieved from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture, the author writes, “In recent years, both types of factors have come to be recognized as playing interacting roles in development. So several modern psychologists consider the question naïve and representing an outdated state of knowledge”. Indeed, it would be unwise for anyone to say that morality is derived totally from one source. So really, the more precise question to ask would be, which of the two (nature or nurture), plays a more important role in the development of morality.
When arguing from the side of nature, an unavoidable and politically incorrect notion will inevitably be brought into the discussion, as I think it should be, since it is an important piece of the puzzle. I am referring to race. More specifically however, I think that instead of using the word race, it would be more accurate to use ethnicity. Both, however, roughly have the same meaning. It is a question of biology. Do genes play a role in the development of morality? There is no question as to the role that genes play when it comes to physical characteristics, but how is one to take this a step further and show that genetics are also a source of morality? Surely no one would say that there is any single gene that is responsible for moral behavior. What about groups of genes? Could it be argued that certain physical characteristics are more desirable for good moral behavior than others? One example that can be offered is the example of identical twins. It turns out that identical twins separated at birth, growing up in totally different environments, are actually much closer in personality than they are to those in the environment they are living in - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture.
Continuing onward from the point of view of genetics, psychology professor Thomas J. Bouchard writes, “Individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors.” An important point that is raised that needs to be mentioned is that there is a difference between studies conducted amongst children and studies conducted amongst adults. As we would expect, children are much more malleable than adults, and as such, IQ tests for children tend to suggest that it is the environment that they are brought up which primarily comes into play when it comes to how well they score on IQ tests. But, once children grow and mature into adults, Bouchard and others point out that it is largely genetic information that is the prime factor at play for the same intelligence tests. Streaming from the source mentioned above, http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture is a very informative video that presents this information. That information can be found here:. Based on this information, it is my opinion that heredity and genetics play a VERY important role in determining human personality. By no means am I saying that environment is not a factor, for that would be absurd, but there seems to be a large amount of evidence from professionals that give better reasons to think that it is nature, rather than nurture that determines human personality, which in turn determines human morality.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason aired a fantastic lecture hosted by Dr. Andy Thomson in which he explains the root of morality from a naturalistic point of view. His approach is to study the mind and to find which areas light up or are stimulated when moral questions are asked. According to him, children at very young ages have a sense of morality hard-wired into them. This seems to suggest that morality is more a product of nature rather than nurture. He always says, “Psychopathy has a real genetic basis to it”. The idea that “right” and “wrong” were clear-cut knowable truths passed down from God were ultimately rejected in favor of a more naturalistic point of view.
From the standpoint of Darwinian evolution, it would seem that it is nature that determines our morality. It is a scientifically proven fact that human beings share a common ancestor with every other organism on Earth. All we have to do is examine the ways in which other life forms go about their day-to-day lives to get an idea of the basis for our own ways of living. Charles Darwin was the first to put forth the idea that moral values are actually sexual in nature, meaning that qualities such as kindness and altruism had a sexual attraction to them, and were therefore morally desirable. At one point there were no civilized societies, only primitive bands of cave dwellers fighting for survival. We can suspect that human beings were once very animalistic in nature and exhibited nothing at all that could be considered moral in today’s day and age. Wikipedia states on the morality of animals, “Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile.” Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality. Darwinian Evolution is a painstakingly long, complex, and laborious process in which both genes and environment are constantly mixing, migrating, and intertwining. Perhaps the wisest summary of the evolutionary process as it pertains to morality is that morality is based both upon genetics and environment, and that there cannot possibly exist one without the other. Genes influence environment, and likewise, environment influences genes. It is definitely a combination of both in order to produce the first civilizations that led to human morality.
The environment in which a person is brought up is extremely important in determining how they develop, what they learn to value, and how they learn to interact with other human beings. Jonathan D. Rockoff reports that new studies are dividing people into two separate categories: orchids and dandelions. The “orchid” refers to those individuals who respond strongly to the environment in which they are brought up. Under very poor conditions, the orchid will suffer and wilt. However, under very supportive conditions the orchid develops to the opposite extreme: it flourishes with great success. The second type of human personality is referred to as the dandelion. A dandelion is a person who is not much affected by their environment, rather their health and behavior is primarily determined by what’s inside. It can easily be argued that those who are brought up in a nurtured environment built on love and kindness will be much more likely to grow up and treat others in the same way. On the other side of the coin, those who are neglected and raised in a harsh, cruel environment will not develop a moral foundation in their childhood.
Greg Miller wrote an academic article about the roots of morality, and one such finding was that moral decisions for most people are done automatically without thinking. They are based on emotions rather than logic. He goes on to say, “This automaticity has led some researchers to suggest that the human brain has built-in moral instincts.” In Miller’s article “The Roots of Morality”, he puts forth two main schools of thought when it comes to moral decision- making. The first comes from philosopher David Hume, who argues that moral decisions are based primarily on emotions. The other moral philosopher who differs in his approach to solving the problem is Immanuel Kant, who suggests that moral judgments should be made based on purely logic and reasoning. Both emotions and logic come into play when it comes to morality, and I hold the opinion that as humanity becomes more and more advanced in its moral thinking, we will be able to best utilize both schools of thought. The best example of moral philosophy that I can think of comes from Spock, the Vulcan on the classic show Star Trek from the 60’s. Spock hides his emotions deep within himself, but when it comes to moral dilemmas, he applies the greatest logic possible, but still retains an element of human emotion. For the greatest moral outlook on the world, I believe everyone should watch and study the conundrums faced by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, and follow their approach to solving complicated moral issues.
Kimberly Powell offers some evidence that environment (nurture) largely determines human traits. Though her research is limited and incomplete, she makes some references to the experts. The first one is John Watson, who made the extraordinary claim, “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.” Watson never performed such an experiment, so I believe his claim is unfounded. However, to be fair, one such researcher did perform an experiment using pigeons. Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner raised a flock of pigeons, completely in his control, and was able to bring them up to do things that they never would have been able to do in the wild. He taught them to dance and to play tennis. If such an experiment can be conducted with animals, it is plausible that a similar experiment could also be done with humans. However, it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen, since performing human experiments is highly unethical and totally illegal. Powell’s article does not offer much more than suggestions and speculations about the role nurture plays for an individual’s behavior and morality. I therefore do not consider it to be a very strong source.
Wikipedia’s article on The Evolution of Morality offers perhaps the most fair, impartial, and factual perspective on the subject. Whether morality is a result of nature or nurture is split between experts. Some experts believe that morality is primarily a social construct, while others believe it is based more upon biology and instinct. We have to bear in mind that we humans are cousins of chimpanzees, and that in order to better understand our own behavior, it helps to study other primates, since they are our closest ancestors biologically. Firstly, chimpanzees, like humans, have large brains, opposable thumbs, the ability to use tools, and a primitive sense of visual, symbolic communication. Upon studying their social behavior, researchers have found that like humans, they exhibit characteristics such as compassion, self-awareness, diplomacy, leadership, community, and altruism. To me, this seems to suggest that morality is more a result of the natural development of evolution than it is a result of environment. Even less plausible is the idea that morality is passed down from a higher supernatural source, for if this is true it is very difficult to explain why the beasts of the Earth also have a loose foundation for moral thinking. Morality is an ongoing evolutionary process, and is more advanced in the higher forms of life.
In describing two different camps of thinkers when it comes to the debate of nature vs. nurture, Saul McLeod creates two different labels. Those who adhere to the position that it is primarily nature that determines human characteristics are known as nativists. Those who adhere to the opposite position, that it is environment that determines how human beings are shaped, are known as empiricists.
Throughout history and across civilizations, people have consistently turned to religion as a way of explaining morality. There is much that can be said about this topic that simply cannot be left out. First, I’d like to turn to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins and present how he answers this common question that is raised to him with regard to morality. Dawkins lectures at Randolph-Macon Women’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia, on tour to promote one of his latest books. At the end of his presentation the audience asked him questions. The 8-minute clip can be viewed here:. In response to the religious people who believe that morality comes from God, Richard points that surely this cannot be the case, since there are many examples of moral commands within the Bible and other Holy Books that people in today’s day and age do not subscribe to. One such example would be the command by God to stone homosexuals to death. Another example is the condoning of slavery. Dawkins rightfully points out that in fact no one gets their morality from religious scripture, and that to the extent that they do reference the holy book, they pick and choose what they like to believe in, instead of obeying the entire word. He argues that all civilized people get their morality from the same place and it is only after this morality is recognized that people then turn to the holy book to try to reinforce such moral views. Richard Dawkins is an Oxford Professor and a professional zoologist who is a strong proponent of Darwinian Evolution and I find him to be a highly valuable source. His arguments make very logical sense to me and I find myself in complete agreement with them. The evolutionary point of view that explains morality is a process that is natural, rather than supernatural.
In another religious moral discussion, Sam Harris (atheist) squares off against William Lane Craig (Christian apologist). The 2-hour debate can be viewed here:. Craig’s main argument can summarized as follows: There must be an objective lawgiver to provide humanity with some codified moral laws or else no act or behavior could ever said to be objectively morally wrong. Harris responds by saying that a supernatural lawgiver is not needed to provide objective morality to humans, and that science has the capacity to provide answer to moral questions.
Based on the evidence I have researched, I want to first and foremost that it is a certainly that BOTH nature and nurture are very important factors when determining human morality. That being said, I have found that based up the sources I have looked into, there seems to be a larger amount of evidence and reasoning to suggest that the root of human morality is nature. To reiterate, nature again refers to genes passed down in a hereditary fashion. The effect that genetics has on human behavior, personality, and ultimately moral judgments, is tremendous. According to Dr. Jared Taylor, the debate on whether genes or environment determines human personality is coming to a close, with the consensus of experts leaning towards nature as the more important of the two factors. Before I started this research paper, I was actually expecting find more arguments and evidence coming from nurture, but to my surprise, this was not the case. I have greater reasons to believe that it is nature, not nurture, which determines human morality. However, I want to also make clear that nurture is also extremely important. That is where I stand on the matter; now the moral philosophers can continue to debate the issue for as long as they live. I hope everyone explores the issue more, and most importantly, I hope that people can engage the topic with healthy, peaceful discourse and with an open mind.
Works Cited
1. Aristotle. 350 BCE. Nichomachean Ethics. (Books I-X). Ancient Greece.
2. University of Notre Dame (Producer). (2011, April 7). Is the Foundation of
Morality Natural or Supernatural? William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris.
Retrieved from
3. Powell, Kimberly. (October 2013) Nature vs. Nurture – Are we Really Born that
Way? Retrieved from
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticge ... urture.htm
4. Nature vs. Nurture. Retrieved from
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture
5. Wikipedia. Evolution of Morality. (November 2013, last date of modification).
Retrieved March 14, 2014 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
6. McCabe, Joseph. (1926). The Human Origin of Morals: Little Blue Book No. 1061. E.
Haldeman-Julius (Ed.). Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius Company.
7. Miller, Greg. (May 2008). The Roots of Morality. Science, 320(5877), 734-737.
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
8. The Richard Dawkins Foundation (Producer). (2009 October 15). Atheist Alliance
International Conference. ‘Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?’ by
Dr. Andy Thomson. Retrieved from
9. CSPAN (Producer). (2006, October 23). Richard Dawkins on the Source of
Morality. Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia. The God Delusion. Retrieved from
10. Rockoff, Jonathan D. (2013, September 16). Nature vs. Nurture. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2234671374
11. Mcleod, Saul. (2007). Nature Nurture in Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html
12. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality. Germany.
13. Collins, Nick. (2012, June 12). Nature vs. Nurture: Outcome Depends on Where you
Live. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... -live.html
14. Stewart-Williams, Steve. (2010, May 2). Did Morality Evolve? Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... ity-evolve
Is Morality the Result of Nature or Nurture?
Among philosophers, perhaps no topic is more widely explored and debated than the issue of morality. It is a subject of the utmost importance for the proper function of any society, past, present, or future. It is also one of the most difficult ones to tackle. Although morals had been developing in their own natural way prior to great thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle, it wasn’t until their emergence that humanity had been able to gain a comprehensive grip on the foundations of moral behaviors and actions. Socrates was a prodigy, influencing many great thinkers and laying the foundation for moral philosophy. He was the teacher of Plato, who was in turn, the teacher of Aristotle. It was Aristotle who went on to write the comprehensive work on ethics, entitled Nicomachean Ethics. It is widely considered his greatest and most influential work, greatly impacting all moral philosophy to come.
The concept of happiness is one that concerns all of us. It might seem obvious to us today that the pursuit of happiness plays a very important role in the moral and ethical decisions we make, but to the ancient world, this was not known. For Aristotle, it was an astonishing realization that the desire to be happy is what drives people to make moral decisions. In Book I of Nicomachaen Ethics by Aristotle, chapter 7, paragraph 3, he says about happiness: “Now such a thing (as) happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reasons, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy.” Is this truly the case? In the early development of moral thinking, this had to be the case, for there was no other way. What else could primitive people understand other than the pleasures of the flesh? So then, is the pursuit of happiness really what drives morality? Or is morality based upon actions that are driven by self-sacrifice?
The question of nature versus nurture has been brought up again and again, not just in philosophical discussions but also in science, sociology, and psychology. Explaining human and animal behavior has been the goal for many analytical thinkers. Nature refers to that which is based on instinct. It is predetermined at birth and is internalized by the information that is contained in the DNA. Nurture is the way in which an individual is brought up and made accustomed to their surrounding environment. It comes from external factors and it is constantly being influenced. I believe that both nature and nurture play important roles in the development of morality. I found an online source that agrees with this viewpoint, though the author is not known. Retrieved from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture, the author writes, “In recent years, both types of factors have come to be recognized as playing interacting roles in development. So several modern psychologists consider the question naïve and representing an outdated state of knowledge”. Indeed, it would be unwise for anyone to say that morality is derived totally from one source. So really, the more precise question to ask would be, which of the two (nature or nurture), plays a more important role in the development of morality.
When arguing from the side of nature, an unavoidable and politically incorrect notion will inevitably be brought into the discussion, as I think it should be, since it is an important piece of the puzzle. I am referring to race. More specifically however, I think that instead of using the word race, it would be more accurate to use ethnicity. Both, however, roughly have the same meaning. It is a question of biology. Do genes play a role in the development of morality? There is no question as to the role that genes play when it comes to physical characteristics, but how is one to take this a step further and show that genetics are also a source of morality? Surely no one would say that there is any single gene that is responsible for moral behavior. What about groups of genes? Could it be argued that certain physical characteristics are more desirable for good moral behavior than others? One example that can be offered is the example of identical twins. It turns out that identical twins separated at birth, growing up in totally different environments, are actually much closer in personality than they are to those in the environment they are living in - http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture.
Continuing onward from the point of view of genetics, psychology professor Thomas J. Bouchard writes, “Individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors.” An important point that is raised that needs to be mentioned is that there is a difference between studies conducted amongst children and studies conducted amongst adults. As we would expect, children are much more malleable than adults, and as such, IQ tests for children tend to suggest that it is the environment that they are brought up which primarily comes into play when it comes to how well they score on IQ tests. But, once children grow and mature into adults, Bouchard and others point out that it is largely genetic information that is the prime factor at play for the same intelligence tests. Streaming from the source mentioned above, http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture is a very informative video that presents this information. That information can be found here:
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason aired a fantastic lecture hosted by Dr. Andy Thomson in which he explains the root of morality from a naturalistic point of view. His approach is to study the mind and to find which areas light up or are stimulated when moral questions are asked. According to him, children at very young ages have a sense of morality hard-wired into them. This seems to suggest that morality is more a product of nature rather than nurture. He always says, “Psychopathy has a real genetic basis to it”. The idea that “right” and “wrong” were clear-cut knowable truths passed down from God were ultimately rejected in favor of a more naturalistic point of view.
From the standpoint of Darwinian evolution, it would seem that it is nature that determines our morality. It is a scientifically proven fact that human beings share a common ancestor with every other organism on Earth. All we have to do is examine the ways in which other life forms go about their day-to-day lives to get an idea of the basis for our own ways of living. Charles Darwin was the first to put forth the idea that moral values are actually sexual in nature, meaning that qualities such as kindness and altruism had a sexual attraction to them, and were therefore morally desirable. At one point there were no civilized societies, only primitive bands of cave dwellers fighting for survival. We can suspect that human beings were once very animalistic in nature and exhibited nothing at all that could be considered moral in today’s day and age. Wikipedia states on the morality of animals, “Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile.” Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality. Darwinian Evolution is a painstakingly long, complex, and laborious process in which both genes and environment are constantly mixing, migrating, and intertwining. Perhaps the wisest summary of the evolutionary process as it pertains to morality is that morality is based both upon genetics and environment, and that there cannot possibly exist one without the other. Genes influence environment, and likewise, environment influences genes. It is definitely a combination of both in order to produce the first civilizations that led to human morality.
The environment in which a person is brought up is extremely important in determining how they develop, what they learn to value, and how they learn to interact with other human beings. Jonathan D. Rockoff reports that new studies are dividing people into two separate categories: orchids and dandelions. The “orchid” refers to those individuals who respond strongly to the environment in which they are brought up. Under very poor conditions, the orchid will suffer and wilt. However, under very supportive conditions the orchid develops to the opposite extreme: it flourishes with great success. The second type of human personality is referred to as the dandelion. A dandelion is a person who is not much affected by their environment, rather their health and behavior is primarily determined by what’s inside. It can easily be argued that those who are brought up in a nurtured environment built on love and kindness will be much more likely to grow up and treat others in the same way. On the other side of the coin, those who are neglected and raised in a harsh, cruel environment will not develop a moral foundation in their childhood.
Greg Miller wrote an academic article about the roots of morality, and one such finding was that moral decisions for most people are done automatically without thinking. They are based on emotions rather than logic. He goes on to say, “This automaticity has led some researchers to suggest that the human brain has built-in moral instincts.” In Miller’s article “The Roots of Morality”, he puts forth two main schools of thought when it comes to moral decision- making. The first comes from philosopher David Hume, who argues that moral decisions are based primarily on emotions. The other moral philosopher who differs in his approach to solving the problem is Immanuel Kant, who suggests that moral judgments should be made based on purely logic and reasoning. Both emotions and logic come into play when it comes to morality, and I hold the opinion that as humanity becomes more and more advanced in its moral thinking, we will be able to best utilize both schools of thought. The best example of moral philosophy that I can think of comes from Spock, the Vulcan on the classic show Star Trek from the 60’s. Spock hides his emotions deep within himself, but when it comes to moral dilemmas, he applies the greatest logic possible, but still retains an element of human emotion. For the greatest moral outlook on the world, I believe everyone should watch and study the conundrums faced by the crew of the Starship Enterprise, and follow their approach to solving complicated moral issues.
Kimberly Powell offers some evidence that environment (nurture) largely determines human traits. Though her research is limited and incomplete, she makes some references to the experts. The first one is John Watson, who made the extraordinary claim, “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.” Watson never performed such an experiment, so I believe his claim is unfounded. However, to be fair, one such researcher did perform an experiment using pigeons. Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner raised a flock of pigeons, completely in his control, and was able to bring them up to do things that they never would have been able to do in the wild. He taught them to dance and to play tennis. If such an experiment can be conducted with animals, it is plausible that a similar experiment could also be done with humans. However, it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen, since performing human experiments is highly unethical and totally illegal. Powell’s article does not offer much more than suggestions and speculations about the role nurture plays for an individual’s behavior and morality. I therefore do not consider it to be a very strong source.
Wikipedia’s article on The Evolution of Morality offers perhaps the most fair, impartial, and factual perspective on the subject. Whether morality is a result of nature or nurture is split between experts. Some experts believe that morality is primarily a social construct, while others believe it is based more upon biology and instinct. We have to bear in mind that we humans are cousins of chimpanzees, and that in order to better understand our own behavior, it helps to study other primates, since they are our closest ancestors biologically. Firstly, chimpanzees, like humans, have large brains, opposable thumbs, the ability to use tools, and a primitive sense of visual, symbolic communication. Upon studying their social behavior, researchers have found that like humans, they exhibit characteristics such as compassion, self-awareness, diplomacy, leadership, community, and altruism. To me, this seems to suggest that morality is more a result of the natural development of evolution than it is a result of environment. Even less plausible is the idea that morality is passed down from a higher supernatural source, for if this is true it is very difficult to explain why the beasts of the Earth also have a loose foundation for moral thinking. Morality is an ongoing evolutionary process, and is more advanced in the higher forms of life.
In describing two different camps of thinkers when it comes to the debate of nature vs. nurture, Saul McLeod creates two different labels. Those who adhere to the position that it is primarily nature that determines human characteristics are known as nativists. Those who adhere to the opposite position, that it is environment that determines how human beings are shaped, are known as empiricists.
Throughout history and across civilizations, people have consistently turned to religion as a way of explaining morality. There is much that can be said about this topic that simply cannot be left out. First, I’d like to turn to prominent atheist Richard Dawkins and present how he answers this common question that is raised to him with regard to morality. Dawkins lectures at Randolph-Macon Women’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia, on tour to promote one of his latest books. At the end of his presentation the audience asked him questions. The 8-minute clip can be viewed here:
In another religious moral discussion, Sam Harris (atheist) squares off against William Lane Craig (Christian apologist). The 2-hour debate can be viewed here:
Based on the evidence I have researched, I want to first and foremost that it is a certainly that BOTH nature and nurture are very important factors when determining human morality. That being said, I have found that based up the sources I have looked into, there seems to be a larger amount of evidence and reasoning to suggest that the root of human morality is nature. To reiterate, nature again refers to genes passed down in a hereditary fashion. The effect that genetics has on human behavior, personality, and ultimately moral judgments, is tremendous. According to Dr. Jared Taylor, the debate on whether genes or environment determines human personality is coming to a close, with the consensus of experts leaning towards nature as the more important of the two factors. Before I started this research paper, I was actually expecting find more arguments and evidence coming from nurture, but to my surprise, this was not the case. I have greater reasons to believe that it is nature, not nurture, which determines human morality. However, I want to also make clear that nurture is also extremely important. That is where I stand on the matter; now the moral philosophers can continue to debate the issue for as long as they live. I hope everyone explores the issue more, and most importantly, I hope that people can engage the topic with healthy, peaceful discourse and with an open mind.
Works Cited
1. Aristotle. 350 BCE. Nichomachean Ethics. (Books I-X). Ancient Greece.
2. University of Notre Dame (Producer). (2011, April 7). Is the Foundation of
Morality Natural or Supernatural? William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris.
Retrieved from
3. Powell, Kimberly. (October 2013) Nature vs. Nurture – Are we Really Born that
Way? Retrieved from
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticge ... urture.htm
4. Nature vs. Nurture. Retrieved from
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nature_vs_Nurture
5. Wikipedia. Evolution of Morality. (November 2013, last date of modification).
Retrieved March 14, 2014 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
6. McCabe, Joseph. (1926). The Human Origin of Morals: Little Blue Book No. 1061. E.
Haldeman-Julius (Ed.). Girard, Kansas: Haldeman-Julius Company.
7. Miller, Greg. (May 2008). The Roots of Morality. Science, 320(5877), 734-737.
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
8. The Richard Dawkins Foundation (Producer). (2009 October 15). Atheist Alliance
International Conference. ‘Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?’ by
Dr. Andy Thomson. Retrieved from
9. CSPAN (Producer). (2006, October 23). Richard Dawkins on the Source of
Morality. Randolph-Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia. The God Delusion. Retrieved from
10. Rockoff, Jonathan D. (2013, September 16). Nature vs. Nurture. The Wall Street
Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2234671374
11. Mcleod, Saul. (2007). Nature Nurture in Psychology. Retrieved from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html
12. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morality. Germany.
13. Collins, Nick. (2012, June 12). Nature vs. Nurture: Outcome Depends on Where you
Live. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... -live.html
14. Stewart-Williams, Steve. (2010, May 2). Did Morality Evolve? Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... ity-evolve
. Can evolution breed better communities? National Public Radio (transcript). Retrieved December 09, 2013 from 
- By KurtFF8
- By Rich
- By litwin
- By JohnRawls