Human Morality Essay Example for Free

Human Morality try onA common question passim history has always been well-nigh humanity morality. Be ingest of our higher intellection capacity, we argon hardwired to adapt and refine our basic instincts to survive therefore, it is obvious this question would be disputed throughout time. Are humanness innately good, bad, or plainly unbiassed? The position that any one aroundbody wee-wees may be derived from any number of ideas, be them philosophical thoughts or scientific inquiries.This essay asserts that morality is innate, and uses both scientific studies and ideas from philosophers to support this argument. Man is essentially good, and the opposite ways mountain are nurturedfrom social influences to parental influencescreates the large spectrum and variety of behavior that may not be deemed good or moral. The pickup Smithsonian published an article named Born to Be Mild in January of 2013 on morality in young children. This article wrote about a few different studies done on children by troika different experimenters.In one of the studies titled Spontaneous Altruism by Chimpanzees and Young Children, Felix Warneken tested the morality of humans through young babies (because they nurture had littler to no socialization) and also tested morality of chimpanzees, the closest sex act to humans. In this admit, 18-month-old toddlers were tested to look out if they would protagonist others in need by retrieving a dropped item that an adult struggled for. In almost all instances, the child returned the item. Warneken stated, Helping at that age is not something thats been trained, and the children come to help without trace or without being rewarded (Tucker 39).Not only did the toddlers help people in need, they also helped without social cues (such as the distress someone in need has). Many toddlers in the experiment Warneken created helped retrieve a washbasin that had fallen off a table next to an adult and the adult failed to realiz e something was amiss. When Warneken tested the chimpanzees to see if they would return the homogeneous answers, he tested chimpanzees that were nursery-raised and semi-wild chimps. Both tests displayed the same results as the tests on the toddlerschimpanzees were willing to help both humans and other chimps in need with no reward for themselves (Tucker 39-41).The fact that most of the toddlers and human relatives, the chimpanzees, helped others in need both with and without social cues strongly points to the idea that human morality is innate. A consequence study highlighted in the Smithsonian article was a reproduction of a previous study from the mid-2000s. The original study was an animated presentation shown to six to ten month old babies in one group and three month old babies in a second. The animated presentation consisted of a red circle attempt to climb a hill. In one instance, a triangle helped the circle climb, and in another, a square(a) knocked the circle down.When the square and triangle were presented to the older group of babies, almost all babies chose the helping triangle oer the hindering square. For the younger group, the researchers tracked the eye movement of the babies to either the triangle or square, because the babies could not physically grab the object. In the reproduction, done by another experimenter, the results were the same. Once again, evidence suggests that because babies seem so virtuously good, humans are innately good, and it is the nurture we receive as we are socialized into this culture that may cause some people to seem morally corrupt (Tucker 38-39).It should be noted that because the reproduction provided the same results as the original study, an even stronger case was created for the idea of innate human morality. The messages that Machiavelli gives in The Qualities of the Prince may cause one to believe that humans are innately evil because through The Qualities of the Prince, Machiavelli details how to be cu nning, take control, and maintain control as a ruler of a province. His teachings seem to create humans as greedy people, hungry for more.This is actually very incorrect. Machiavelli clearly states, it is necessary for a princeto learn how to not be good (42). I emphasize that Machiavelli wrote a man must learn to not be good. single can assume from this that Machiavelli is saying man is at least in some degree, wholesome and moral. by and by all, humans were never meant to civilize and evolve. We are, in true form, animals that have an instinct to survive. Ruling and gaining power is a man-made idea.Opponents to the idea that humans are moral might suggest that if ruling is man-made, evil is already within us because we created the concept of ruling others however, if man were truly evil, he would not take finish up as a heavy offense, and would kill others in his way to get what he wants instead of sightly gaining control. The examples of rulers that Machiavelli writes help to reiterate this point. These men were not born thinking of war and control. They were raised and socialized to run low and gain power.Steinbeck and the messages he delivers in The Grapes of Wrath also point to the idea that human morality is innate. The seed often writes of the distinct line of those with, and those withoutin other words, the owners and the migrants or farmers. Steinbeck makes a point to write about how close-knit the migrants are in many instances. Steinbeck writes I lost my land is changedto We lost our land. , I have a little food plus I have none. is We have a little food (151) the twenty families became one family (193) and when a baby dies a pile of silver coins grew at the entry flap (195).All of these quotes show the goodness in others, to do something for someone in need. This is all in contrast to the owners, which on multiple different pages Steinbeck writes how disconnected they are from the land, and the quality of owning freezes you forever into I ( Steinbeck 152). These owners are so encompassed by the material culture around them, by the greed and the blanketed reality that they cannot see with a moral compass anymore. Of course they have one, for at one point they might have been wish the farmers, caring for others and instituted into the we group.Proponents for human neutrality might show that the owners were never at any point good, that they were neutral and socialized into the owning culture, unlike the farming culture. This is not the case, however, through a passage that Steinbeck wrote very early in The Grapes of Wrath, which said, Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were crisp because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold (31). This insinuates that in all types of owners, there is a moral compass.Even in the coldest owners, deep within them, they observe the idea t hat the work they do is wrong. Because the owners know what is wrong, they know the opposite as wellwhat is right. If the owners were not innately good, their views on what is right or wrong would be skewed by their societal influences. While people will never give up the argument of human morality, it is a safe bet to argue that humans are innately good. We possess the ability to help spontaneously and without reward, as shown in the scientific studies, and we understand what is right and wrong.Our societal influences and the way we were raised affects if we will channel our morality or go against it, as shown by Machiavelli in The Qualities of the Prince and by Steinbeck in The Grapes of Wrath. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Qualities of the Prince. A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee Jacobus. eighth e. Boston Bedford, 2010. Print. Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath. New York Penguin, 1939. Print. Tucker, Abigail. Born to Be Mild. Smithsonian Jan. 2013 35-41, 76-77. Print.