Is Morality a Talent? Essay

One typic everyy wouldnt think of faith when it comes to the disposition versus nurture debate about the origin of personality, hardly later being faced with this end I carry realized that the origin of goodity gouge be debated about both the same. With the unmingled nature versus nurture debate I myself wee-wee come to a conclusion that we ar smooth of a little bit of both nature and nurture, and I am still finding myself advance to that same conclusion with exampleity. I believe that virtuousity is not only a talent, but is a conditioned skill as well.Just like personality, certain environments or events apprise touch to a manifestation of certain traits within us. I think that theology can exist at assorted levels amongst different masses based on their genetic traits as well as their environmental or cultural experiences. Based on what I learned after reading Sam Harris The Moral Landscape, I countenance ga at that placed an understanding of moral truth, and how that can apply to morality as being a talent and learned. His disagreement with moral relativism, analysis of psychopaths and the theories behind the nature versus nurture debate have lead me to my conclusions.Moral truth is the belief that in that respect is a universal code of ethics that has lead us wear downe the ages and has imp bited our societys understanding of morals today. I agree with Harris on the theatre of operations of moral truth. I think moral truth supports both the nature spatial relation and the nurture posture because it exposes the universal aspect of morals, which is learned, and shows the natural desire in humans to wish to exceed primitive standards through morals in order to promote endurance. Many good codes truly be universal, such as dont kill. If we dont run around killing each other in our day to day lives, we will survive and thrive.That is an example of a known moral truth. By canvass first domain of a function civilizations to West ern civilizations you will find that yes, we have all survived, but it is quite arrive at that one civilization is thriving more(prenominal) than the other Westernized civilizations. They are less primitive, more technologically advanced, have better medicine and are as a whole wealthier. Why are these third world cultures not advancing? Out of many reasons, I think that one could possibly be that their ethical codes are far less developed than those of modern Western culture. This observation has led me to believe that on that point are cultures that are superior to others.Although moral relativism is a widely accepted theory, it is clearly incorrect. Moral relativism would look like a pleasant theory to believe wouldnt it? It removes intolerance of other cultures, religions etc. and allows us to justify or understand certain events based on specific, or relative, codes of ethics. While certain events or behaviors whitethorn not be right to one culture, they may be considered n ormal in other and everyone can go about their lives as if noaffair malign had happened. These assumptions are terrible flaws in the cerebration of our society and of the world.Harris uses an example of moral relativism that he encountered in a conversation with a woman after an academic conference. He set asided her the scenario of a culture that would pluck the eyes out of every third born(p) child based on their religious beliefs. The woman stuck to her moral relativism, and said that this culture was not wrong since they were doing this for religious reasons (Harris, 33-34). How can this possibly make any sense? Morality and ethics lose all meaning if they are merely relative to every culture where horrendous rituals are practiced.If things like ritual murders were allowed in our society, we would not survive, we would not thrive and we would degenerate the human race intellectually, morally and psychologically. This brings meaning rump to morality and ethics. There are u niversal codes that exist in order to promote our survival and happiness, or well being. Based on this understanding of moral truth, I believe that morality is both learned and genetic because moral truth and its implications show the experiences in which we have learned moral codes, and the promotion of survival that is instilled within the human race.If morality was solely genetic, or a talent, then the research on insane minds would be highly disturbing. In an NPR articled called A Neuroscientist Disc everyplaces a Dark Secret by Barbara Bradley Hagerty I learned about the actual discoveries that neurology has made about the psychopathic brain. In an abnormal brain found in serial killers by research conducted by James Fallon, a neuroscientist of the University of California-Irvine, the orbital mantle exhibits a major lack of functioning or is completely non-functioning.While describing the abnormality of the orbital cerebral mantle Hagerty said that it is the area that Fall on and other scientists believe is involved with ethical behavior, moral decision-making and impulse control. The orbital cortex overly controls the amygdala which controls aggression and appetite (Hagerty). Fallon ended up discovering that he also had the same delusion in his brain. He even specified a gene that he had found in all but one of his family members, descendents of multiple murderers. However, none of these plenty had become serial killers, but could they?He doesnt believe his fate or anyone elses is entirely determined by genes. They merely tip you in one direction or another. (Hagerty). This research goes to show that genes are not entirely responsible for your predispositions to act violently or otherwise abnormally. These results are showing that it is possible that the orbital cortex controls our ethic and moral actions, but abnormality or damage to this process does not ultimately control our actual thoughts and actions. These conclusions provide actual dis tinguish to support my claim that morality is both talent and learned.If our moral impulses are regulate by the orbital cortex, but our actions are not determined, this is leading me to believe that our genes are not in full responsible for our personality, morality, beliefs, talents, etc. but they do have the ability to gear approximatelyone towards one side or the other. Morality is partially genetic, however our environments have the ultimate responsibility. If we have an experience that manifests within our psyche, it can ultimately ignite something within us that turns on or turns off certain physiological processes in the brain.Therefore, the classic nature versus nurture debate can and will never be resolved. Simply because at that place is no resolution. Neither nature or nurture can be held fully responsible for our actions or who we become throughout the effects of our daily experiences in life. Harris, however, disagrees with me. He believes that morality is purely a talent. He mentions this evidence from the neuroscientist James Blair who invokes that psychopathy results from a failure of emotional learning due to genetic impairments of the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, regions vital to the processing of emotion. (Harris, 99). Sounds familiar, doesnt it? However, he doesnt mention that there are plenty of tidy sum with the same genetic predispositions as psychopaths, who arent considered psychopaths and arent even aware that they have these genes. Hes giving nature full responsibility in this case, and states that people can exhibit moral talent. (Harris, 99). Although this is possible, that people can have moral talent, it is not the sole cause for our morality. Our society is governed by morals.Social norms and constructs have developed and evolved throughout history that have lead to the health and growth of our society. These rules we live by are instilled in our culture, and regulated through our judicial system. But they did not ju st appear there over night. There were millions of events included in diverse human experiences that lead us to live by our guidelines, which are continually evolving as time progresses. Generally, some people are more predisposed to be more caring in their demeanor as well as more cautious and aware of the moral outcomes of their actions.And then, there are those who are the opposite. However, for the most part those who are morally challenged genetically do not act out in immoral ways. Harris points out the biological aspect of this, While it may be difficult to accept, the research strongly suggests that some people cannot learn to care about others. (Harris, 99). Well received there are people like this. Of course there are We arent all tone ending to be cookie cut copies of one another. We are all unique. But if we are apparently so scared to accept this, I would like to know why?Just because some people dont have the leniency for other people doesnt mean that they have a c ompassion for negatively impacting other people. Does a lack of concern fully found wrong? In some cases, yes it does. For instance if someone had a thought that would lead to actions that injured other people and they chose to partake in this action anyways, then that would be immoral. But if someone is just traveling through life unaccompanied and lacking of a concern for others deep down but just keeping to themselves, this does not constitute immorality at all.We are afraid of something that is inevitable diversity. Not to suggest that this diversity requires relativism, but to suggest that diversity is part of humanity and there will be negative or harmful people in the world. No matter what we discover about the neurology or origin behind morality, immorality will always exist and persist throughout humanity. With this being said, I agree with Harris statement that there are people who are less morally talented than others. Research suggests this, but it also suggests that environmental experiences also have their hand in our morality.I also think that if morality was solely genetic, there would be grounds for moral relativism. If our brains made us do it, who can say that one thing is wrong or right? It does not match up. The effects on society would be detrimental, our moral responsibility would be diminished. Harris evaluation of the possibility of a moral talent continues to lead me to believe that morality is both a talent and learned. In conclusion, there are many different theories to explain why we are the way we are. We may be who we are strictly because of physiological brain processes and genetic hardwiring.We may be who we are strictly because of our environments and experiences. But how can we decide which it is when there is so much evidence pointing to both nature and nurture? Well, like I said, we cant. What we can realize is that both nature and nurture have major effects on our morality and ethics. Through the arguments of moral trut h, we can think that there are learned moral concepts that we have acquired and have moderated them into our societies. However, there is also the necessitate for survival within us that provides us with instincts to distinguish right from wrong.Through the research of criminal brains, we can isolate parts of the brain, their processes, and even genes to confirm that morality may be fully genetic. However, we can also see that the brains functioning doesnt completely determine our personalities, moralities or actions. Instead, our environments or experiences that we have learned from can shape who we are for the better. Harris evaluation of moral talents can show us that there is diversity amongst us, moral diversity. But we are not doomed to be what our brain may want us to be.In fact, we may not even be conscious of what our brain wants us to be. We incorporate our experiences into our being, which can make or break our genetic dispositions. Based on my conclusions that Ive com e as well after reading The Moral Landscape, I believe that morality is not only caused by nature, but that it is both a talent and a learned skill that we acquire through our lives. Works Cited A Neuroscientist Discovers a Dark Secret. www. npr. org, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, 29 June 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape. New York Free Press, 2010. Print.