Why do some people lack morals?

[Irony's Acolyte]

.... but they are all because of our surrounds.

That's debateable. Afterall, children who are abused as children or people who grew up in rough neighbourhoods don't automatically become crooks.

Nor do people who watch gangster movies, horror flicks, and play violent video games will be murderers.

I didn't say that people mimic their surrounds all the time. Yes, poorer areas do tend to produce more crime. But some people who are raised in that condition say "No! I refuse to live like this! I'm going to rise above my horrible conditions and be someone better!" Did they turn out to be like their surrounds? No. Did their surrounds influence who they became? Yes.

Its no surprise that teens often rebel against their parents and/or authority figures. They decide that rather than become like those before them they are going to be different. This happens every generation or so. 50's? Comformity. 60's? Counter-culture. See where I'm getting at?

 

[Hisshiss]

This is just something that I wonder about sometimes. Are people just born that way? Is it because parents neglect to teach their children morals? Maybe some people just don't care about morals? Are there more reasons for lacking morals besides these?

It's more likely that you just don't understand their sense of morals. its best not to try and judge other people for the "Kind of person" they are, because were almost always wrong.

Just because you don't think someone is a good person doesn't mean your right.

I'm not judging anyone. I just want to hear people's thoughts on this.

Maybe the question was a bit too general. Maybe a hypothetical situation might help more. Perhaps a situation that involves people, the actions that they take, and how they justify their actions or something like that. I just need to think of one. If someone could help me out with this then that would nice.

Fair enough, I mean granted I met alot of people back when I was in high school who were just downright rotten to the core jackasses. But I think people who seem "Immoral" are usually just trying to look that way cus they think it looks cool not to give a shit about other human beings. Its generally a good idea to just ignore them XD..I used to know this kid who couldn't open his mouth without cussing 40 times, insulting america, woman, christians, children, other cultures..you get the idea, and this particular kid was a moron so .

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Morales arose as a rift between the empathetic and apathetic. And as a rift between the logical and impulsive.

Empathy is the ability to observe and understand the emotions of others. (For those who don't know.)

Here's an idea.

Your friend is working as a cashier in a gas station. One day, a man breaks into the gas station and shoots your friend. However, the man who shot your friend was homeless and was desperately in need of money for food.

Empathetic/Impulsive: You are distraught over the loss of your friend and want the man punished severely. The man cost you a friend, someone who is basically family and the murderer doesn't deserve freedom.

Empathetic/Logical: The loss of your friend hits you hard, but you understand the man's plight and suggest a light, but strong punishment. Your friend will be missed, but you pity the man and punish his poor judgement, but you do so feeling sorry for him.

Apathetic/Impulsive: The loss strikes you personally. You want a swift and decisive punishment. The man is a murderer and mustn't get away from this simply because the jury feels sorry for him.

Apathetic/Logical: You'll take time to mourn the loss of your friend, but you'll look at the man's motives, and probably conclude that the man had many more options than armed robbery. You'll calmly give the man a Life Sentence with a chance for bail.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

.... but they are all because of our surrounds.

That's debateable. Afterall, children who are abused as children or people who grew up in rough neighbourhoods don't automatically become crooks.

Nor do people who watch gangster movies, horror flicks, and play violent video games will be murderers.

I didn't say that people mimic their surrounds all the time. Yes, poorer areas do tend to produce more crime. But some people who are raised in that condition say "No! I refuse to live like this! I'm going to rise above my horrible conditions and be someone better!" Did they turn out to be like their surrounds? No. Did their surrounds influence who they became? Yes.

Its no surprise that teens often rebel against their parents and/or authority figures. They decide that rather than become like those before them they are going to be different. This happens every generation or so. 50's? Comformity. 60's? Counter-culture. See where I'm getting at?

I guess so ... but I think it's a bit cold and clinical to draw everything up to culture. I mean the big thing that is being ignored here is that all humans (barring psychotics and crazies) have the capacity to do good. At the same time they all know how they can be good people.

you don't need to see a good act before you can emulate.

For example you don't need to see someone whose lost be greeted by a complete stranger willing to give up their time in order to help the lost tourist out, before you can emulate that behaviour naturally.

It's not like ... "oh ... what that guy did was good .. I've just learnt that now. I should try to do the same again in the future".

Being a good person doesn't require validation by others because we all know instinctually how we could be better people without religion, or society, or parents, or environment telling us "this is a good thing".

You feel it. You can't explain why, but you have a compulsion to help them out. this is an endemic feeling amongst people. Sure you can justify why you won't help the person whose lost out .. "I'm running late", "I don't feel 100%", "i'm tired and I just want to go home, have a drink and watch TV".

(edit)But even those justifications require an acknowledgement that in a better world you would help them out and be a better person than you are. Unfortunately we have to live in reality ... and reality dictates to us that being a bleeding heart will only leave you dead and buried along the course of life.

No matter how badly you want to help a group of homeless people out, the bitter truth is that as a Man you can only do so much. So I guess its all about that balancing act ... how to be a good person without self sacrifice (for that too is a categorical imperative ... the (protection of oneself: --- yes it does pose problems with the conundrum of self sacrifice for a friend ... and why it feels so noble and honourable despite a violation of the categorical imperative ... who said philosophy was perfect? )

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

-snip-

I guess so ... but I think it's a bit cold and clinical to draw everything up to culture. I mean the big thing that is being ignored here is that all humans (barring psychotics and crazies) have the capacity to do good. At the same time they all know how they can be good people.

you don't need to see a good act before you can emulate.

For example you don't need to see someone whose lost be greeted by a complete stranger willing to give up their time in order to help the lost tourist out, before you can emulate that behaviour naturally.

It's not like ... "oh ... what that guy did was good .. I've just learnt that now. I should try to do the same again in the future".

Being a good person doesn't require validation by others because we all know instinctually how we could be better people without religion, or society, or parents, or environment telling us "this is a good thing".

You feel it. You can't explain why, but you have a compulsion to help them out. this is an endemic feeling amongst people. Sure you can justify why you won't help the person whose lost out .. "I'm running late", "I don't feel 100%", "i'm tired and I just want to go home, have a drink and watch TV".

(edit)But even those justifications require an acknowledgement that in a better world you would help them out and be a better person than you are. Unfortunately we have to live in reality ... and reality dictates to us that being a bleeding heart will only leave you dead and buried along the course of life.

No matter how badly you want to help a group of homeless people out, the bitter truth is that as a Man you can only do so much. So I guess its all about that balancing act ... how to be a good person without self sacrifice (for that too is a categorical imperative ... the (protection of oneself: --- yes it does pose problems with the conundrum of self sacrifice for a friend ... and why it feels so noble and honourable despite a violation of the categorical imperative ... who said philosophy was perfect? )

Well now I can see how we disagree and that we will probably continue to disagree (not that that's bad, I can see now we just have two different viewpoints). You believe that everyone is born with an innate ability to tell good from evil and to do good (or at least that's what I'm getting from your post). I don't.

I believe that "good" is entirely subjective and that people aren't born with any sense of "good" in them. They learn what is "good" and "right" from the they are raised in.

Like I said earlier they can deviate from it, but they will probably at least base their sense of "right and wrong" off of what they learned growing up. They learn that it is "good" to be nice to other people and to respect them. They learn that you shouldn't hurt or steal things from other people because it is "wrong". They don't need to see every instance of doing "good" before they can get the general idea of how to act "right".

Perhaps humans are born with certain inclinations; such as wanting to be around other humans, looking for a mate, eating, sleeping, whatever. But I consider that as all instincts and "the nature of the beast". Certain animals are herd creatures, while others know instinctively to migrate during certain seasons. Its not that its right or wrong, its just what they do. Humans probably have behavioral patterns like this as well, but I believe that overall we learn our morals from whatever culture we're raised in.

I can guess that you'll probably still hold to you views after reading this post, and I see nothing wrong with that, but I'm just putting forth my ideas on how people's morality is created. I'm more of a believer in nurture while, if my guess is correct, you believe more in nature.

(I find that you getting the Cleric for the D&D class quiz and me getting the Wizard strangely fitting)

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well now I can see how we disagree and that we will probably continue to disagree (not that that's bad, I can see now we just have two different viewpoints). You believe that everyone is born with an innate ability to tell good from evil and to do good (or at least that's what I'm getting from your post). I don't.

I believe that "good" is entirely subjective and that people aren't born with any sense of "good" in them. They learn what is "good" and "right" from the they are raised in.

Like I said earlier they can deviate from it, but they will probably at least base their sense of "right and wrong" off of what they learned growing up. They learn that it is "good" to be nice to other people and to respect them. They learn that you shouldn't hurt or steal things from other people because it is "wrong". They don't need to see every instance of doing "good" before they can get the general idea of how to act "right".

Perhaps humans are born with certain inclinations; such as wanting to be around other humans, looking for a mate, eating, sleeping, whatever. But I consider that as all instincts and "the nature of the beast". Certain animals are herd creatures, while others know instinctively to migrate during certain seasons. Its not that its right or wrong, its just what they do. Humans probably have behavioral patterns like this as well, but I believe that overall we learn our morals from whatever culture we're raised in.

I can guess that you'll probably still hold to you views after reading this post, and I see nothing wrong with that, but I'm just putting forth my ideas on how people's morality is created. I'm more of a believer in nurture while, if my guess is correct, you believe more in nature.

(I find that you getting the Cleric for the D&D class quiz and me getting the Wizard strangely fitting)

Well your point is the otherside of the fence ... but yeah, effectively I'm of the nature side of things. Universal perscriptivism and the categorical imperative ^_^

There is no real asnwer ... no matter how much philosophers will argue. The Categorical imperative has problems. For example .. it's a categorical imperative that you protect yourself and family, because a world where nobody prtected themselves and their family would be an ugly world.

But at the same time why is it that when we see a supreme act of self sacrifice (like the private leaping onto the grenade before it kills his sargeant) we feel touched by the nobility of that action without reservation.

Typically we shouldn't feel that way under the 'Murder!? Boo!! Charity?! Yay!' template that sums up (albeit somewhat childishly) the Categorical imperative and part of what's in Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (which has it;s own problems, of which stipulates that good must be felt to be good ... but why is it a good action is often one that will make you feel crappy regardless?)

On the D&D thing typically I'm a druid n.n I like roleplaying foxes and wolves ^_^ It gives me the ability to nip other pc's shoes and chew on their stuff whilst pretending I can't understand rply ^_^

 

[WhoaItsBrett]

Nobody "lacks" morals.
Their morals just differ to yours.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Because some of us prefer to reject the social constructs around us and only obey the law because breaking it is to our detriment (jail time and so forth).

 

[superbatranger]

The way I see it, no one is born bad. They're raised to distinguish right from wrong, but sometimes something happens that changes that. This event could be anything. Over time, they forget about their old morals which leads to new morals. Morals that may not fit in the standards of society.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Some people just see morals as boring, therefore refusing to have any. I know someone who would prove my point quite well.