[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

They recognize it as wrong, because they have been implanted with a moral conscience from their creator.

there is no evidence of this. the evidence in fact points towards the opposite. children do horrible things to each other, not because they are sick or evil, but because they have not yet formed a moral conscience.

We are not just the, "Rest of the animal kingdom." We are unique and are all implanted with the natural law, animals act through instinct.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html3month...AgCain.4h.html

I don't agree, and your study doesn't really support your argument in any meaningful way, for several reasons.

1. it is about 7-10 year olds. At this age some kids have started to form a moral conscience.

2. It is bad science: the study depends on the chlldren's opinions of whether or not they know right from wrong?

3. The study confuses "safe" with "moral." The example is of a child saying he knew when he was 3, or 5, that playing with matches was 'bad.' By itself, playing with matches is not immoral, it is unsafe.

4. Continuing above, does a child know that destruction of property is considered immoral? Most likely, no. Children know that playing with matches is 'bad' because they are repeating what their parents have told them. Very few children understand the moral implications of playing with matches and why showing a reckless disregard for the property and safety of others is considered immoral.

Even a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer knew what he was doing was wrong

"I hated no one. I knew I was sick or evil or both. Now I believe I was sick. The doctors have told me about my sickness, and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused... Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me from my sins... I ask for no consideration."

Jeffrey Dahmer

And other serial killers have gone to the grave showing no remorse, still feeling justified in their actions. Your example is 1. unscientific; one person doesn't prove anything and 2. biased; Dahmer obviously believes in God and Christ, so he is predisposed to agreeing with you.

[Three Gun Fish]

Citing Dahmer as a paragon of religion = Bad Idea Jeans (TM)

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

there is no evidence of this. the evidence in fact points towards the opposite. children do horrible things to each other, not because they are sick or evil, but because they have not yet formed a moral conscience.

Yes very young children cannot discern the concept of lying fully until they become older, from round about the age of seven we reach the age of reason. Meaning we can discern moral matters better, but each of us still has a moral compass. A lot of times we know when we have done something wrong, whether we like to admit it or not.

Originally Posted by Abortionfacts.com

In a study of teenage abortion patients, half suffered a worsening of psychosocial functioning within 7 months after the abortion. The immediate impact appeared to be greatest on the patients who were under 17 years of age and for those with previous psychosocial problems. Symptoms included: self-reproach, depression, social regression, withdrawal, obsession with need to become pregnant again, and hasty marriages.

Source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/

Originally Posted by AmericanSpectator

In other words, it is not just "at risk" or emotionally unstable women who suffer adversely from abortion, but "healthy" women, too.

Originally Posted by AmericanSpectator

European Journal of Public Health found that the suicide rate among women who had abortions was six times higher than that of women who had given birth in the previous year.

Originally Posted by AmericanSpectator

researchers found that having an abortion as a young woman increased the risk of a variety of mental health problems, including depression and suicidal tendencies, by 35 percent compared to those young women who continued with their pregnancies.

Source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9315

Also look at any study on the psychological effects on soldiers who have witnessed killings or killed someone themselves.

[Yojimbo.]

Originally Posted by Hagakure

Wow, just wow. I'm terrible at telling whether or not that was sarcasm. But cold as the absence of heat? That just blew my mind. In a bad way.

From a scientific standpoint, cold is defined as the absence of heat.

To the TS, if you believe good and evil exists innately, they are two sides of the same coin. How can you define evil without a concept of good? And vice versa. Without "heads" there is no "tails".

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Jerome, your links only prove that the given subjects currently have a concept of conscience/morality. It doesn't pertain to the debate on whether humans are born with morals/conscience. You think because children of ages 7-10 know the difference between right and wrong, they must have been born with the concept? How is that a logical conclusion? Children must LEARN these concepts.

As for as a psychological effect on soldiers who have witnessed killing, of course! They were raised that way. Not born with it. They were ingrained with a particular sense of propriety. I know you can't fathom a scenario where people do not consider killing to be immoral but there have been such societies. If you teach a child certain things at a young age they will become 100% ingrained in the child FOR LIFE. The only way to change them is years of therapy. Your sources are irrelevant to the point you are making and do not support your claims.

Even your Dahmer quote does not support your position - "I hated no one. I knew I was sick or evil or both. Now I believe I was sick. The doctors have told me about my sickness, and now I have some peace. I know how much harm I have caused... Thank God there will be no more harm that I can do. I believe that only the Lord Jesus Christ can save me from my sins... I ask for no consideration."

You see? As I have stated before (and you have ignored before) Dahmer suffered from anti-social personality disorder. It's a psychological disorder. It was developed as a result of trauma experienced during the formative years (0-7). The very same years when a sense of right and wrong is required to be instilled into a child. Are you noticing a common thread here? It's that humans behave based on a combination of inherited instinct and learned behavior (again, learned during the formative years). This is basic psychology. But, I suspect you will continue to ignore my arguments.

[AJax]

Feb 2008 lecture by Bill Craig at Georgia Institute of Technology.
(with student Q&A at the end of the lecture)

MP3 Lecture:
http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/604

This covers a lot of what this thread is talking about, and argues that objective moral values do exist. I encourage anyone who holds the negative stance listen to the arguments.

If you hesitate to listen to this, keep in mind that you will learn interesting facts such as that male great white sharks rape the female sharks.

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

Jerome, your links only prove that the given subjects currently have a concept of conscience/morality. It doesn't pertain to the debate on whether humans are born with morals/conscience. You think because children of ages 7-10 know the difference between right and wrong, they must have been born with the concept? How is that a logical conclusion? Children must LEARN these concepts.

Yes it does, because abortion is socially acceptable among many people, it is legal in many countries. So why would evidence suggest that women who have had abortions are more prone to psychological problems?

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

As for as a psychological effect on soldiers who have witnessed killing, of course! They were raised that way. Not born with it. They were ingrained with a particular sense of propriety. I know you can't fathom a scenario where people do not consider killing to be immoral but there have been such societies. If you teach a child certain things at a young age they will become 100% ingrained in the child FOR LIFE. The only way to change them is years of therapy. Your sources are irrelevant to the point you are making and do not support your claims.

I can fathom many scenarios where it would be acceptable to kill. I believe there is cause for just wars, and in the case of self defence it may be acceptable to kill.

Here is a link to an evolutionary biologist who believes morality is innately built into each one of us.

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may...ew-marc-hauser

[Estral]

Everyone is good until they do something evil

[Tiger_vs_Mantis]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Yes it does, because abortion is socially acceptable among many people, it is legal in many countries. So why would evidence suggest that women who have had abortions are more prone to psychological problems?

I am not convinced, but let's pretend that the evidence is compelling that women who have had abortions are more prone to psychological problems. This doesn't imply anything about the morality of abortion. People are traumatized by many actions, moral and otherwise. People are traumatized by euthanizing animals, people are traumatized by giving up their children for adoption. neither of these is considered immoral. In fact, people are traumatized by natural childbirth, and by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Any of these could leave a person more prone to psychological problems. you've heard of Post-Partum Depression, right?

Here is a link to an evolutionary biologist who believes morality is innately built into each one of us.

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may...ew-marc-hauser

he's not an evolutionary biologist,he's a psychologist, and the difference shows: he doesn't really back up his claims with any compelling evidence. Studies show that many people have the same answers to moral questions. So what? Many people think it's wrong to kill, does that prove our morality is innate?

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

I am not convinced, but let's pretend that the evidence is compelling that women who have had abortions are more prone to psychological problems. This doesn't imply anything about the morality of abortion. People are traumatized by many actions, moral and otherwise. People are traumatized by euthanizing animals, people are traumatized by giving up their children for adoption. neither of these is considered immoral. In fact, people are traumatized by natural childbirth, and by carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Any of these could leave a person more prone to psychological problems. you've heard of Post-Partum Depression, right?

The degree of the psychological effects on women who have had abortions are much worse than people who have had their animals put down, or people who have put their children up for adoption. One report found that women are six times as ikely to commit suicide if they have had an abortion.

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

he's not an evolutionary biologist,he's a psychologist, and the difference shows: he doesn't really back up his claims with any compelling evidence. Studies show that many people have the same answers to moral questions. So what? Many people think it's wrong to kill, does that prove our morality is innate?

Read the link again.

Originally Posted by Discover

Was it a rational decision learned in childhood, or was it—as Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser claims—based on instincts encoded in our brains by evolution?