are humans born with a conscience?

[everblack]

There are actually two points to be argued here. I have searched this but then again im not 100% so here it goes.

Firstly are we as humans born with an understanding of right and wrong? If isolated would we feel guilt if we were brought back into society and killed people? This then leads on to the secong point do we need religion to have morals?

If every1 agrees on a single point then i will play devils advocate to keep this a debate. If something similar to this has already been done please leave a note so admins can close it. It doesnt hurt to tread lightly :)

[Ishikawa_Masahiro]

I've said this for a long time...religion is not needed any longer (like bed time fairy tales for 4 year olds when they grow up) it was far long ago in roman times when our world was still somewhat "young" but it has become less relevant to us because we have "grown up" and become wise beyond that......well some of us at least. We developed diverse cultures, laws, and morals as a society, and that keep us in check...

...example china and russia have the largest population of athiests or agnostics in the world and they do fine.

[Ollson]

I'm not sure, but i think that if you isolate someone until they're like 20, and then let them "free" and they kill someone, they wouldn't feel bad.
Because morals and such is tought by our parents, maybe not in words, but their behaviour and such.
Which is then put into our brains "filter" and sticks with us for most of our lives.

We do not need religion for morals.
I believe that religion was created by the "leaders" of some old country to control their people.
By saying that if you don't do as they say, you'll go to hell and burn for eternity (by "as they say" i mean the "leaders" because their supposed to be the gods representatives).
But now, there's really no need for religion.

[Wolfman Walt]

I've said this for a long time...religion is not needed any longer (like bed time fairy tales for 4 year olds when they grow up) it was far long ago in roman times when our world was still somewhat "young" but it has become less relevant to us because we have "grown up" and become wise beyond that......well some of us at least. We developed diverse cultures, laws, and morals as a society, and that keep us in check...
...example china and russia have the largest population of athiests or agnostics in the world and they do fine.

Define fine as if I remember right, China has alot of human rights problems goin on right now and lets not get into what Russia's atheist government did to people who believed in religion.

Not to turn this into a religion thead or anything, but I am getting kinda sick and tired of everyone treating religion as if it's some sort of bad thing and frankly it's offensive. You can have your own opinion on religion, you can think it's stupid, but don't try to demean people for their beliefs.

Religion is just as neccesary as atheism, besides just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're not religious. Technically bhuddism is an atheist religion along with a variety of other religions. Atheism just means you don't believe in a god, it doesn't mean you're areligious.

BACK ON TOPIC, as while religion may be related to the topic, it is not the topic at hand. It depends on the point of view you wish to have. If you're a believer in natural law, you believe that there is a naturally defined good and evil and does not even need religion. If you're more a utalitarian, then there is no explicit good and evil, and such terms are determined by society.

[Elocin]

No, I don't believe we have consciences when we're born.

When you think about it, when raising a child or something, and he/she's one or two, it's blatant that the child doesn't have a complete understanding of right and wrong. For the sake that, the child will hit, knock stuff over, and they're just curious about the world, but when the child will hit another it's up to the parent to tell the child that it's wrong to hit. The parent, just like training a dog (don't really want to use this analogy), has to condition the child on what is right and what is wrong.

Also, when you think about it, there are cases of 4 or 5-year-olds shooting people because they got a hold of a gun. I'm sure that the child didn't mean to shoot the person, but the child just doesn't know any better, so the court deems that as such and doesn't charge the child with murder.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but there was a case in France about an 11-year-old boy who they found in the wild and uncivilized. As much as people tried to civilize him (especially teach him language), it didn't really go anywhere. Sure, they taught him some things, but he was still a feral child.

For religion... well, it's a good basis for laws of what's right and wrong. When you think about it, stemming back from the 10 commandments and the Book of the Dead, many of those are the basis for modern laws (with quite a few tweaks). If there wasn't a central religion and people did what they want, I can imagine that we'd still be fighting over land and killing others as we please. I can't exactly say how religion first came about. It's possible that waaay back when, we started developing emotions (neanderthals and cro-magnons actually gave flowers to the deceased) is when we began to decide that we care about others and it'd be sad to see them go. It's possible that one day a person developed a religion of central unity and made laws to ensure that unity of the civilization. I'm really just speculating here, but it does make sense to me.

So, in short, I think religion is a good representation of teaching morals to people and if there wasn't religion (as in no one ever thought of Christianity or a set of gods) we wouldn't have the same morals or laws as we do now.

[Ollson]

@Wolfman Walt, atheism isn't just that you don't believe in god.
Atheism is denying the existance of god.
That it's not even a possibility.

@Elocin, i actually think that the morals and such would be pretty much the same if religion never existed.
Because i think that religion (and the rules in religions) were created by man, so those rules must be thought up by people.
Which means that those morals are naturally in us humans.

[brolijc]

Ollson: If we lock somebody up till he reaches 20. My guess is that person will definetely become a brutal killer, because the person has such hatred inside him, hatred that had been haunting him for the past 20 years, he would most probably vent them all on people when he gets out. Imagine if we are locked up before we even remember our 1st memory, and only got released when we are 20. The loneiness we have is what made us evil. We will not want to be lonely when we come to the outside world, and killing is the solution to us. When we make friends, and that friend goes out with another group of people, we will kill them. Fear can be a powerful weapon

in regards to what Elocin said. Did the 11 year-old-boy attack the people? or tried to kill them? if no then he must have conscience. if yes then my guess is he thinks that the people are dangerous and might bring danger to him.

I believe we are born with a conscience, but it is not strong yet. Thats why people has to teach us morals and stuffs, what is right and what is wrong. If not kids will go out killing.

As for kids killing people with guns, my guess is they were curious. Curious to find out what happens when they shoot a gun, or probably they watch a show or something and tried to copy it because it looked cool.

Religions can be useful in a sense. But I believe its not for the end for us if there aren't any religions. If not then explain free thinkers.

I believed that many religions started when a human ages ago knew whats right and wrong, and decided that killing and fighting isn't gonna bring humans anywhere. Thus started giving this knowledge to people. Look at the similarity between many religions, it all teaches us some morals. Perharps someone from each race that time came up with these morals but at different timeline.

[Wolfman Walt]

@Wolfman Walt, atheism isn't just that you don't believe in god. Atheism is denying the existance of god.
That it's not even a possibility.

No, that's antitheism. Atheism is the distinct lack of belief in a diety or deities. Get your definition right before you try to correct me.

[Ollson]

@brolijc, i don't think he would have hatred in him because he would have no idea that you could live in any other way.
He'd think that it was normal to live like that.
Although the loneliness would probably drive him insane.

@Wolfman Walt, i just directly translated the dictionary (from swedish).
Which says: "Åskådning som förnekar existensen av en gudom."
Which directly translated means: "An opinion that denies the existence of a deity".
And below that it says: "synonym: gudförnekelse"
Which means: "Synonym: Deity denial"

[subhuman_77]

I consider myself an Agnostic. I don't deny the existents of God nor do I believe in it. Just so u knows...
But I'll get on the topic.
Yes and No, We need religion to have morals.
In the past Religion was the ultimate power and devotion for people. Even more powerful than any world power, that’s where we doctrine our self to the 10 commandments (or w/e you religion might have) and learned to live with morals. Now take in consideration that those times were a lot rougher. I guess in a way we were considered "primitive" compared to today's society.

From my point of view this generation is losing the control the church had over us. But this doesn't mean we don't learn to live with morals.
It's only natural we don't do something that we wouldn't like someone to do to us. It’s for our sake of survival; you treat other people with the same respect you want back from them.
Not only that but church isn't the only place we learn our morals too. We learn from our family members, school or even just obseving other people reactions.
Btw Ollson is right. atheism is not believing in the existing of god. AT ALL

[brolijc]

@brolijc, i don't think he would have hatred in him because he would have no idea that you could live in any other way.
He'd think that it was normal to live like that.
Although the loneliness would probably drive him insane.

@Wolfman Walt, i just directly translated the dictionary (from swedish).
Which says: "Åskådning som förnekar existensen av en gudom."
Which directly translated means: "An opinion that denies the existence of a deity".
And below that it says: "synonym: gudförnekelse"
Which means: "Synonym: Deity denial"

not exactly. lets say he is locked up in a cell. the people gonna have to give him food in order for him to survive. and he can't possibly be able to survive till 20 without even getting in contact with humans. lets say he fell sick, he must have someone to tend to him, its impossible to live to 20 with nothing in your cell, except food which is passed to you. and also i added the loneliness thingy at the last part because i was trying to say he got the hatred from the loneliness

[Ollson]

not exactly. lets say he is locked up in a cell. the people gonna have to give him food in order for him to survive. and he can't possibly be able to survive till 20 without even getting in contact with humans. lets say he fell sick, he must have someone to tend to him, its impossible to live to 20 with nothing in your cell, except food which is passed to you. and also i added the loneliness thingy at the last part because i was trying to say he got the hatred from the loneliness

Well, they could just send everything down an elevator.
And have like signs that shows with pictures what to do with the food and stuff.
Although that probably wouldn't work.
And i don't think that loneliness produces hatred.
It just makes you mentally unstable so you could snap for nothing.
And since you wouldn't know what's right and what's wrong, you'd probably kill who ever angers you.

[everblack]

ok let me put this down then.

A christian man does not cheat on his taxes because he believes as a rule and out of religious discipline that he must obey the law of the land.

We have an athiest he does not cheat because...?

tell me if he did not have religion what would be his driving force. what tells him he has to be good, or has to sin?

religion seems to be the most powerful motive. Society sends out mixed messages and the parents guidance depends on the parent. religion seems to be the only constant that provides a set amount of morales t everyone who chooses to follow that particular faith. The level of extremity taken as a result of this faith is up to the user, as seen with suicide bombers.

[brolijc]

Well, they could just send everything down an elevator.
And have like signs that shows with pictures what to do with the food and stuff.
Although that probably wouldn't work.
And i don't think that loneliness produces hatred.
It just makes you mentally unstable so you could snap for nothing.
And since you wouldn't know what's right and what's wrong, you'd probably kill who ever angers you.

then how about when he fall sick? and i don't think pictures actually work. but its smart of you to think of an elevator, that slipped past my mind lol

[everblack]

sorry 4 the double post but i just noticed this.
Originally Posted by brolijc
not exactly. lets say he is locked up in a cell. the people gonna have to give him food in order for him to survive. and he can't possibly be able to survive till 20 without even getting in contact with humans. lets say he fell sick, he must have someone to tend to him, its impossible to live to 20 with nothing in your cell, except food which is passed to you. and also i added the loneliness thingy at the last part because i was trying to say he got the hatred from the loneliness

we are not talking about if a human was physically kept away from humans and stuff. We re discussing the human mind. If a human did not come in to contact at all witha a human would he/she still have a conscience. We are not going 2 debate wether the person will survive or not cos this is not an experiment and we dont care about the imaginary human's body.

[Ollson]

@brolijc, yea, the pictures wouldn't work.
But what if they showed him video's of another person doing what he is supposed to do (eat, shower, take medicin and so on) in an identical environment.
He wouldn't be in contact with any other people and he'd learn what to do.

@everblack, does it really matter if the person that isn't in contact with anyone else is in a room or anywhere else?
The effect will still be the same.
If he killed someone he liked because he got angry.
He'd probably get sad.
But he wouldn't have known that he did something wrong.

[subhuman_77]

If a human did not come in to contact at all witha a human would he/she still have a conscience.
In my opinion he wouldn't to certain point. For example he wouldn't have any remorse on stealing bread for his hunger. Now in terms of killing another human being is very different. Its nature that you don't kill your same specie.

"If he killed someone he liked because he got angry.
He'd probably get sad.
But he wouldn't have known that he did something wrong."
Killing is ALOOOT heavier than just learning to shower and eat.
Like a i said before is instinc he would know right away killing is wrong./ (or after the killing hehe)

[brolijc]

no. you have to consider everything. you say we aren't talking whether the person lives or not. then thats something impossible, and i wouldn't want to discuss that unless i'm debating something fictionous. but then if you insists on that. then of course, without any human contact he won't have any conscience. but as what subhuman_77 had said. "Now in terms of killing another human being is very different. Its nature that you don't kill your same species."

how would the people know what illness he caught to give him instructions?

[Ollson]

I actually don't think that you instinctively know that murder is wrong.
I think that's something you learn by observing other people (or that they directly tell you).
So i don't think that he would see anything different between stealing a piece of bread to eat or killing someone cause he got angry.

how would the people know what illness he caught to give him instructions?

A dart in the neck perhaps.
And then examine him when he's unconscious.

[Neve]

/moved to informal debates

To debate this point, you have to differentiate between a moral code and a conscience. A moral code is entirely down to your environment, while a conscience is not. It is the job of their parents, teachers, possibly their church to give children moral code, but in the end, it is down to their personality whether they obey that moral code or not, which is what a conscience is.

Separated twin studies of over 100,000 twins show 70% of your personality can be attributed directly to your genes, while 30% is attributed to your experiences. I believe that most human beings are born with a conscience, but without a moral code.

Thus I would say that 70% of your conscience is already fully formed when you are born, and 30% of it can be attributed to your environment.

[Wolfman Walt]

Btw Ollson is right. atheism is not believing in the existing of god. AT ALL

And what the hell does "Disbelief" mean? Oh wait, that means you don't believe it exists. There's a difference between disbelief and actively saying they don't exist AKA denial.

First off Ollson, go look at an american dictionary. If I wanted a translation on the word, I'd have consulted a translater. On the other hand, there's plenty of good sources on the topic, like say.....these

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Now look at say......this
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antitheism

Atheism is what I say because Antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are antitheists. So please get it right folks.

[Ollson]

Wolfman Walt, why are you getting all worked up over this?
Don't blame me, blame the creators of the dictionary.
I simply quoted it.
And this topic isn't about atheism so why continue talking about it?

itsovernow, i actually don't think that those studies are accurate.
Because where ever those twins were brought up, the society and those who raise them would still have the same basic morals of right and wrong.
The only way to truly find out is to raise someone without any human contact and no indication of what's right and what's wrong.

[Wolfman Walt]

Wolfman Walt, why are you getting all worked up over this?
Don't blame me, blame the creators of the dictionary.
I simply quoted it.
And this topic isn't about atheism so why continue talking about it?

What makes you think I was getting worked up. I blame you for trying to correct me when you were wrong, you're trying to translate a swedish dictionary, and excuse me for saying this - I don't trust that. You continued to talk about it, I simply responded.

[Neve]

I lay blame on neither side here, but I ask both sides to bring the debate back on topic. Continuing to argue off topic after this post may result in a warning.

[M-50]

I believe that humans are born with a conscience but it is up to them/the parents to help fine tune it to decide completely whether something is right or wrong.

[everblack]

Are you saying that after a human child is born and develops a knowledge of how to do basic human tasks, but hypothetically has not had contact with another human and has not been told right from wrong, can feel remorse after killing someone? They will instantly recognise that what they have done is wrong? They will tink to themselves "This person is a fellow human being and therefore i shouldnt have killed them as i havent taken into account their feelings." I think a conscience is formed from an enviroment and was started as a way to control people by creating rules. If we hadnt created rules then we would not need a conscience or most likely have one.

[M-50]

Are you saying that after a human child is born and develops a knowledge of how to do basic human tasks,
No I am not saying that, I am saying that they are born with a basic level of conscience. If what you are saying is true then you are saying that babies know how to talk basically, read basic and understand basic, run basic, walk basic.

but hypothetically has not had contact with another human and has not been told right from wrong, can feel remorse after killing someone? They will instantly recognise that what they have done is wrong?
Yes they will but only after they have developed their conscience, no baby is born complete. They all need to learn how to talk, read, walk, run.

[everblack]

i said hypothetically. We are not debating about how a human grows and matures, those are unwanted factors in this. We just want to kno would this person automatically kno it was wrong to kill ad steal and hurt? How would that child know? humans only have a natural will to survive and even that is limited to crying for help. everything else is learnt.

[Ollson]

I can't see how someone who haven't been in contact with any other living creature would know that killing someone is wrong.
Our current way of thinking isn't instinct.
It's been developed for thousands of years.
Humans are animals.
And look at the animals, they fight and kill eachother all the time.
Without being tought otherwise, we'd do the same thing.
If a young child does something wrong, they don't feel bad or get sad until they see that we get angry or sad.
That's when they realize that they've done something wrong.
If someone had been without contact of any other living creature and then killed someone.
They would most likely get sad about the fact that the one they killed doesn't react.
They wouldn't understand what death is and they wouldn't understand that they did something wrong.
Therefor, they won't think that they did something bad.

[Neve]

@ Ollson - Most of your points are irrelevant. It's nothing to do with knowing or not knowing whether something is wrong or right. Moral code and conscience are completely different things. Your moral code is what tells you right from wrong. Your conscience is what tells you whether or not to obey your moral code. If you don't know killing is wrong, and you kill someone, that's a lack in moral code rather than in conscience. On the other hand, if you kill someone and you do know it's wrong, that's a lack in conscience. What the question here is, is do people naturally obey or disobey the moral code laid down before them, or does that inclination to obey or disobey moral code come from your environment? In my opinion, it is 70% genetics - which I have provided studies to prove, carried out by qualified scientists.

[chiking1]

If you know what you've done is wrong, then you will naturally feel bad.
How do you know what is right or what is wrong if you haven't learned it before? If you were never taught anything about right or wrong, you wouldn't know, therefore, extremely unlikely that you feel guilt. Also, some people do not feel as much guilt, so they would do things that are worst (e.g. my friends like to egg cars, but I never join them).
Also, religion was first made so that the people with power could stay there. At one point in history, the priests of churches were seen as superior, and with almost equal power to the kings. Religion allowed them to frighten people, and prevent rebelions, even when things were unjust.

[subhuman_77]

Here's something related...
This girl who was raised by dogs!!:eek13:
http://ebaumsworld.com/2006/09/dog-kid.html
:lol What do u think

[shadow_of_89]

Humans are borned with a natural predisposition to learn....but if they are not placed in a society(human environment) later they will not be able to comprehend words and superior knowledge and thoughts......so i think humans are born limited and develop their conscience by molding it through years

[dragoneyes001]

There are actually two points to be argued here. I have searched this but then again im not 100% so here it goes.
Firstly are we as humans born with an understanding of right and wrong? If isolated would we feel guilt if we were brought back into society and killed people? This then leads on to the secong point do we need religion to have morals?
If every1 agrees on a single point then i will play devils advocate to keep this a debate. If something similar to this has already been done please leave a note so admins can close it. It doesnt hurt to tread lightly :)

for your first question:

NO humans do not feel remorse for killing if they are never taught to.

it is not an instinctive trait in humans and consciousness does not include morality by default.

the childhood years are when humans are taught social right and wrong this will vary depending on the teacher.
remove all teaching and killing will have no impact on the subjects psyche.
its actually instinctive to kill since we are mammals and have for as long as humans existed hunted for food. only later did we settle and start to farm and become social.

religion is not a necessity society can function without religion there are other ways to have social order without religion being the rule maker.

[subhuman_77]

for your first question:
NO humans do not feel remorse for killing if they are never taught to.
it is not an instinctive trait in humans and consciousness does not include morality by default.
the childhood years are when humans are taught social right and wrong this will vary depending on the teacher.
remove all teaching and killing will have no impact on the subjects psyche.
its actually instinctive to kill since we are mammals and have for as long as humans existed hunted for food. only later did we settle and start to farm and become social.
religion is not a necessity society can function without religion there are other ways to have social order without religion being the rule maker.

No human would feel remorse after killing another animal for his own hunger.Now if you are talking about a human killing another human being then i strongly desagree with u. As u said it is "instinc", Instinc to not kill another of our own kind./
Religion might not be the only way to create social order. But is sure is an extremely Strong Method to abdicate society to follow orders.
This reminded me of a song by subhumans that go:
"Die for a cause Religion is fear
Fear of the threat Of something unreal
Abdicate the way You really feel..."
Very true.

[dragoneyes001]

No human would feel remorse after killing another animal for his own hunger.Now if you are talking about a human killing another human being then i strongly desagree with u. As u said it is "instinc", Instinc to not kill another of our own kind./
Religion might not be the only way to create social order. But is sure is an extremely Strong Method to abdicate society to follow orders.
This reminded me of a song by subhumans that go:
"Die for a cause Religion is fear
Fear of the threat Of something unreal
Abdicate the way You really feel..."
Very true.


your most definitly wrong on the count of killing humans.

with no education whatsoever to feel remorse a human has no instinctual behaviour to feel remorse for killing any species including humans we are taught to differentiate between animals and humans.

[subhuman_77]

Human beings are not natural killers; very, very few ever learn to enjoy murder or torture. Human beings are sufficiently docile that can be taught to kill, to support killing, or to consent to killing on the command of an alpha male, Leaving themselves from responsibility for the act. Our original sin is not murderousness — it is obedience.

[dragoneyes001]

Human beings are not natural killers; very, very few ever learn to enjoy murder or torture. Human beings However, are sufficiently docile that many can be taught to kill, to support killing, or to consent to killing on the command of an alpha male, Leaving themselves from responsibility for the act. Our original sin is not murderousness — it is obedience.


we are natural killers we don't need to learn to kill we only need to learn how to kill without getting killed trying.

all forms of restraint by humans is taught.

with no education at all we have no restraints that includes no moral objections no restrainst from killing and no remorse for killing.

it all has to be learned the human child has no morals whatsoever to begin with. they are as likely to kill themselves as to do anything else they are nothing more than a blank plate that needs food and has to deficate when full.
as the sences of the child start to develope so does its understanding of the world around it but some things that are instinctive are self preservation this will manifest itself after the child has passed its dependancy stage even though the child has a form of it already even then (they cry to be fed...etc...) once the child reaches a level of independance without any education to curb the childs behavior they can and will kill without remorse because they are not taught to have remorse.

[subhuman_77]

I don't think one is born with a blank mind; learning to kill is not the only thing you’re going to think about in your life. You develop a conscience and start thinking by your own, conscience fills your head with wonders and hundreds of question. To murder a person you need to be patience and observe him/her (to not be killed), just like hunting an animal, when observing a human being you realize it’s your own kind, observing them is going to cause curiosity for the distinguish way they act and behave. Causing to question your differences. Leaving you the choice if this ok or not.

[dragoneyes001]

I don't think one is born with a blank mind; learning to kill is not the only thing you’re going to think about in your life. You develop a conscience and start thinking by your own, conscience fills your head with wonders and hundreds of question. To murder a person you need to be patience and observe him/her (to not be killed), just like hunting an animal, when observing a human being you realize it’s your own kind, observing them is going to cause curiosity for the distinguish way they act and behave. Causing to question your differences. Leaving you the choice if this ok or not.

your trying to imply your opinion as fact.

what you posted above is your speculation of a hypothetical situation.

needless to say we are born without even the knowledge to feed ourselves we have the instinct to cry for attention and to be fed or if we are uncomfortable. a newborn child has no knowledge that is not implied to it.

they don't know how to talk walk or do pretty much anything other than instinctual muscle movement breath, pump blood, cry, eat, excrete and get less uncomfortable. otherwise a new born is completely dependant for any needs including education.

without someone telling them that there is a difference between animals and humans there will be no reason for them to differentiate between the two.

looking the same will not suddenly create the emotion of remorse because they have killed a human it only exists in people who have learned remorse.

if you don't believe me try going to a few African countries where the kids are recruited to the militias at 7-8 years old and trained for years to follow orders to kill those kids at 15-16 are the most dangerous killers because they can kill without any remorse they do not think twice before carrying out orders to murder or torture others and have been known to be the most brutal murderers in those militias. its well known among the military's that youngsters before they are educated otherwise don't know restraint when it comes to human life if used early enough they can be made into the most unfeeling killers for an army.

[thousand sakuras]

well...heres what i think in terms of science (i am still a devoted catholic). theres a part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex. it holds memories and keys to distinguishing things. when you do something "bad" chances are youll remember it everyday. when you do this, you feel bad because it was a bad deed. and you feel guilt. guilt wants to make you solve this and apologize of fess up. some people just ignore it. but that would continue the guilt.

[Mighty Aramir]

It really depends on a lot of factors, in psicology, there is something called "perception", what it states is that people ALWAYS have a different way of thought one from another, even tough we might have grown under the same religion our personal experiences , formation, and toughts makes us different from everyone else. I was raised as a catholic, but as time passed by, I started questioning myself the bases , principles and morals of this blind faith i was following, so i decided to study, to learn more about the different cultures, and therefore about different religions. I came to know that ALL religions have very similar things, or ideas. The ten commandements for example can be found troughtout history in different manners. While I started this "research", all of my family shocked and even brought me to counseling(???), what this showed me, is that faith is a way of mind control, the strongest actually. If you can make someone believe fervently enough in your cause, they will, no they will probably, they WILL follow you into the gates of hell if necessary. So i told myself, in order to advance in life you must have knowledge, knowledge IS power, and religion banned the peolple from toughts ootside their religious bubble, so I told Myself, Atheist! No matter what happens, I WANT TO LEARN! And religion is nothing but a burden for this task.

[The Messenger]

Conscience is not a default thing. Humans arent born with a standardized right or wrong conscience. Ever heard of news that a 3 year old kid killed his 4 months old younger sister just becoz he is jealous? Tell me where is his conscience in that?

If a kid were raised by something not human, then he/she would not share the same idealism with ours. That person may look at the world completely opposite from ours.

[Sal1981]

Children are not born with ex nihilio brain functions. There are some rudimentary functions in children that are there to develop the childs brain and thus the motor functions, social skills, conceptualization, actualization and lastly abstraction. After that come higher brain functions, like language.

Humans, as well as animals learn a lot on their own. It's not like we become inactive coma patients without stimuli from other humans, but it's certainly necessary for normal development. But this will mostly enter into the field of expertise on child psychology and neurology.

[toxxin]

It's interesting Dragoneyes how you keep saying that humans have no remorse for killing unless taught to. Well that raises another question then, who taught the teachers?

I disagree with your statement saying that we're taught to feel remorse. You can tell someone its wrong to drink beer. That will not make the person feel bad for drinking beer. We feel remorse because even though killing, mainly animals, is in our nature, we ARE a social species. You may say that this socializing came only later, but humans have always been a social species, which dates back to the caveman days.

[The Messenger]

It's interesting Dragoneyes how you keep saying that humans have no remorse for killing unless taught to. Well that raises another question then, who taught the teachers?

Who taught the teachers? Then the teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's blah blah blah. No! The fact is that if you are told that killing is inappropriate then it will lead to morality based on facts.

We all know that if you KILL something then that thing will cease to exist! Making it useless. It also depends on the thing you kill. If you kill a cockroach, a rat or even your alarm clock it does little effect to your overall conscience. Your conscience will only strike at its hardest if you are to kill something living, complex and important. One example would be killing a person. Killing a person would create the fact that he/she will cease to exist, but its different this time since a person is a human being... with a mind and a soul. This greatly affects the Christians since it is a written command by God not to take away another man's life - that my friend is one of the spark that combusts your conscience.

[toxxin]

Messenger you missed the point. The "who taught the teachers" remark was to make the statement that a consious isn't something that is taught, it is something that we as humans have always posessed.

Furthermore, your statement regarding morality based on facts doesn't make sense. Morality is composed of typically 3 main components; society influence, personal beliefs, and religion. You are half right by saying your conscience is at its hardest when you kill a living complex thing.....in reality its in effect when you kill something important to you, or something you love. If you have a strong love for animals, it would be against your morals to kill them. Generally speaking, people have a common love for mankind, making it hard for many to take another persons life.

Back on subject here, I do believe that humans are born with a conscience, its how it developes over time that makes it what it is.

[toxxin]

Messenger you raise an interesting point, but if we were to take this concept, a baby is also born unable to walk, but that doesn't mean its legs are nonexistant. But I do see where you are going with this, I suppose its all relative.

[everblack]

cant believe that this is still around. Well anyways, lets think of it like this. Humans are animals. Is it possible that a conscience is part of an animal instinct but the influences of other people are what helps are conscience to extend to other animals or we have a natural instinct to preserve whatever is useful to us or is beautiful in our eyes. Killing a million blue bottle flies would not weigh on many peoples conscience, which basically means that we are born with a conscience as part of our genetic coding. FACT (not really)

[paige_]

uhm..

point 1) i personally think all of us are born with a conscience, it's up to us how educate that understanding of right and wrong.

point 2) we don't need religion to have morals. All we need is belief. Even those who have no religion - heathens, they call them, have their own morals. Atheist have their own morals. And there are people who call themselves Christians and could still have no morals..

that's it.. enough said

[VampyreLord]

I've had to delete several spam posts here, and now I'm angry. Read the Rules, and nobody gets flayed alive and fed to rabid dogs.

[Jay3205]

I don't think a human is born with a conscience. Humans aren't born with any innate knowledge; this is why children must be taught what is right and what's wrong. As an earlier poster said, people don't have remorse for killing unless taught to. Where did this teacher learn this? From another teacher or through experience.

If person A kills a hundred people, he has no reason to feel remorse. However, if person A has a friend who is killed, he will associate death with negativity and be "taught" that killing = death = bad. A person is not born with this knowledge any more than a person is born with innate knowledge of a language.

[paige_]

I don't think a human is born with a conscience. Humans aren't born with any innate knowledge; this is why children must be taught what is right and what's wrong. As an earlier poster said, people don't have remorse for killing unless taught to. Where did this teacher learn this? From another teacher or through experience.
If person A kills a hundred people, he has no reason to feel remorse. However, if person A has a friend who is killed, he will associate death with negativity and be "taught" that killing = death = bad. A person is not born with this knowledge any more than a person is born with innate knowledge of a language.
you have a point. But where does conscience spring from? Does it spring from knowledge? If that is so, then it would mean that we possess knowledge from the time we were born. But knowledge is learned. Conscience doesn't spring from knowledge. It is unlocked by knowledge. Knowledge is a key, it depends on what we shall unlock. When we are born, we potentially have that conscience. It is like a locked crest needed to be opened with knowledge as we learn it.

[Jay3205]

you have a point. But where does conscience spring from? Does it spring from knowledge? If that is so, then it would mean that we possess knowledge from the time we were born. But knowledge is learned. Conscience doesn't spring from knowledge. It is unlocked by knowledge. Knowledge is a key, it depends on what we shall unlock. When we are born, we potentially have that conscience. It is like a locked crest needed to be opened with knowledge as we learn it. By saying conscience is "unlocked", you are implying that humans already have it which really isn't proving anything. If a child is brought up in complete isolation and only has contact with a robot that feeds him and gives him toys, would the child feel remorse killing the first person he comes across or destroying the robot? He has no reason to feel remorse for killing the person since there is no connection between them. However, the robot is associated with something good, so there would be remorse in destroying it.

Even though humans are social, this could largely be due to curiosity and the need (for survival) of other people. Humans don't have the innate knowledge of language or walking. Just looking alike may be enough to cause humans to take a liking to each other out of curiosity, but this is pretty different than having inborn knowledge saying killing another human is bad. If a person is isolated his entire life, he wouldn't even know other humans existed..

[Ichigo1543]

By saying conscience is "unlocked", you are implying that humans already have it which really isn't proving anything. If a child is brought up in complete isolation and only has contact with a robot that feeds him and gives him toys, would the child feel remorse killing the first person he comes across or destroying the robot? He has no reason to feel remorse for killing the person since there is no connection between them. However, the robot is associated with something good, so there would be remorse in destroying it.
Even though humans are social, this could largely be due to curiosity and the need (for survival) of other people. Humans don't have the innate knowledge of language or walking. Just looking alike may be enough to cause humans to take a liking to each other out of curiosity, but this is pretty different than having inborn knowledge saying killing another human is bad. If a person is isolated his entire life, he wouldn't even know other humans existed..
I believe a conscience is not unlocked, but that it is learned. in my case I tried to steal a candy bar from a store when I was 5. I had no idea this was wrong. When I found out I felt horrible. this was one of many experiences I had personally when i was young. I would assume that a conscience comes from experiences that a child has when they are growing up. it is also possible for the child to have a "negitive conscience" as i call it. the child recieves posivtive feedback for negitive actions. this gives the child the idea that the action is good and that it can be done anytime. I think this is the way a conscience is learned.

[Monkey_man]

i have to say no i mean i think we have a certine thing that kinda imprints that killing is wrong if you are raised thinking achohol is wrongs you probly won't become a druk because you were raised to think it is wrong but you might have aa beer or two because you bowed down to the pure persure and like if you were araised that murder was good you might just think hey my parents never said anything about it

[dragoneyes001]

It's interesting Dragoneyes how you keep saying that humans have no remorse for killing unless taught to. Well that raises another question then, who taught the teachers?
I disagree with your statement saying that we're taught to feel remorse. You can tell someone its wrong to drink beer. That will not make the person feel bad for drinking beer. We feel remorse because even though killing, mainly animals, is in our nature, we ARE a social species. You may say that this socializing came only later, but humans have always been a social species, which dates back to the caveman days.

your wrong about the beer! if the person who brought you up from infancy (your mother) repeatedly denounced beer as being wrong [ and i don't mean telling you your too young to drink] depending on your personal respect for your mothers word you will believe beer is wrong.

to put all your arguments to rest there is plenty of proof that a sapian left without any support will simply die because we are totaly dependent for the first part of our lives.

that is your first teacher! you learn right from DAY ONE things like touch smell
and sound you learn to recognize the one who is keeping you alive and will become dependent on what they teach you.

you ask who taught the teachers? the people before them because morals are a social belief [its a group mentality] a simple example are monkeys a group of monkeys will exile any monkey that goes around randomly killing other monkeys out of self preservation [true instinct] yet its perfectly normal for an alpha male to slaughter the young monkeys born of another male if he wants to mate the mother and the group wont do anything to stop him.

humans were the same way back when we were still nomadic we had no distinction for murder if it wasn't a threat to the group. killings like infantside would be ignored all together. I'd go as far as saying that we probably had killings during attempts to become alpha and there would be no reason for remorse because the fight was accepted as a common group issue [if beta male and alpha happened to be closely matched and neither backed down who-ever won would not be remorseful of a death since they didn't know or even think it was killing]

you'll probably say that monkey groups today show many signs of remorse when a young dies, problem with that is the monkeys today have had thousands of years of predecessors to build up that social behavior.
as do humans the biggest problem with your theory is the word "murder" its meaning could only exist if there exists a language and humans have existed long before language did.

all social morals are a development/evolution over the thousands of years humans have been in existence "murder" and remorse for it only became a group issue after humans started to settle into farming groups where multiple nomadic groups co-existed together some groups did not develop rules and ceased to exist or disbanding while others either through the rule of an alpha or group leaders implemented them for self preservation. as the groups aged and expanded the rules varied and expanded as well depending on the groups wants and needs.

a human child is an empty vessel at birth they have only the most basic instincts of self preservation, morals do not exist they have to be taught to the child.

[sto67]

conscience is a byproduct of one's psychology.

people go by basic premise of reward and punishment. those who are rewarded for doing good deeds or punished for bad will feel guilty if they do something bad because they know that they won't be rewarded for it. hence a "good" conscience develops

if somebody was encouraged and praised for doing "bad" things from birth, then they will feel bad for doing the "right" thing. this is because they receive their social attention and encouragement whenever they do something "bad".

so therefore the conscience is a construct created and labelled by ourselves through our psychology.

[Riw]

I agree with the previous poster. Also, as a child grows up, he/she usually internalizes those reward dependence / harm avoidance -based morals and developes rational basis for them.

However, I also believe that humans innately have something that could precede conscience, something that has developed in us, as a species, during the course of evolution. If you think about it, most mammal species don't just randomly attack and kill other members of their group, and it seems to be a widely accepted fact that animals, at least, don't have conscience. Obviously they still have some innate mechanism for socialization, though, that may be required to survive in hostile world.

Now, I propose that human being also have an unconscious inclination towards not hurting others - at least those who care for them. Kids raised by animals may be aggressive, but in a defensive way and more so fearful (if memory serves me right; I could dig up some cases to verify this, though). Then, kids raised in isolation by other humans (it happens, too - children have been locked up for years and denied all contact to the outside world) don't act bitter - how could they, not knowing what has been done to them has been wrong - but instead shy and depressed.

Overall, I believe that morals develope, but that we are predisposed towards acquiring some of them. This kind of mechanism could also explain the initial development of morals - and conscience (although I'm not very sure that the latter actually has a meaning by itself). Then, it would also be possible that some people, for one reason or another, didn't have this disposition, and this might be one factor behind severe psychopathology, say, psychopathy. That, however, is pure speculation.

Religion, then - well, I'm not really sure about that. Even though nowadays religion might not be necessary in terms of acquiring morals, I believe that it initially has been. As stated above, people learn to separate right from wrong by reward and punishment - and what could be more frightening than wrath of god! And what sweeter reward than eternal glory in afterlife!

[M-50]

Humans are born with a conscience, just that some people listen to it while others do not. the ones that do do not usually get into trouble, the ones that do not tend to get into trouble. The conscience is refined over time.

[Jay3205]

I guess you could call it a "predisposition" to a conscience. It's natural to like anything that benefits you; in this case, a child who's taken care of will naturally grow attached to whoever is taking of it. Thus, it's natural to have the "moral" of not randomly killing whoever is caring for the child. Most people understand this because they'd be dead if nobody cared for them as a child.

After that, it's generally reward/punishment that determines what's "right and wrong".

[Rhea]

Essentially genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger, to use metaphor. This is the best way to explain behaviour and social mores.

When looking at a diverse range of societies across the owrld, each have varying social mores so what is seen as right and wrong is subjective. In some cultures it may not be wrong to hurt another person (eye for an eye) thus there would be no feeling of guilt. Children develop their social conscince through interaction with others, they mimic others around them and through symbolic play they learn social norms and mores. They learn what is right and wrong.

As for the whole religion issue, religion plays a very important role in the development of a social conscience. If you look at the laws in US for example the have developed from religious law laid down when these laws were founded. The is a religious foundation to these laws even ones as basic as monogamy have background.

My two cents..

[Artemis]

Your conscience, is based on what you think is right and wrong, right?

What we think is right and wrong is based on our ethics. Our ethics are based on the norm, and the norm is made by whom?

People! The fact that we judge if things are right and wrong is solely based on what others accept as right and wrong. If we're made with no one in the world except us, only what WE think is right will be right. And everything may be right.

We find murder is wrong because we accept that ending someone's life intentionally is evil and wrong. This concept on the fact that other's have told us that killing is wrong. If we killed so much, then maybe we would eventually realise that we're destroying someone's future and life and then we would think it's wrong.

So in summary, our conscience is made by what we accept is right and wrong. What we accept is based on what we've learned to accept. We learn this from others, because it is the norm.