Is moral value learned or inherited?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

There is a thread on Charavakas, I did not want to hijack it. This I-ness that is stressed in the Charavaka philosophy is dangerous to society.

I believe we are all born with a corrupted nature: a bias towards pleasing self, looking after self, defending self, choosing "my way". I never taught my children to tell a lie. I never taught my children to make excuses or to blame their brother. I never taught my children any of the wrong things children do - but they did them without any teaching. It was the natural thing to do, as it is with all children. When children are taught correct behaviour from a young age, chances are they will grow with a developed conscience which will guide their actions, but there is no guarantee they will always do the right thing. Why? Because they have an innate desire to please self. Why is it we see people who had an ideal childhood, with good training, turn to a life of crime? They were taught the right behaviour. For years they lived an ideal, respectable life, but then they changed. Why? Was it because they silenced their conscience and reverted to their innate desire to please self?

As long as a man blindly disregards the moral values of other persons, as long as he does not distinguish the positive value which inheres in truth, and the negative value which is proper to error, as long as he does not understand the value which inheres in the life of man, and the negative value attached to an injustice, will he be incapable of moral goodness. As long as he is only interested in the question of whether something is subjectively satisfying or not, whether it is agreeable to him or not, instead of asking whether it is something important, whether in itself it is beautiful, good, whether it should be for its own sake, in a word, whether it is something having a value he cannot be morally good.

Two men are, for example, witnesses of an injustice which is being inflicted upon a third person. The one who in every situation asks only whether something is agreeable to himself or not will not be concerned about it because he calculates that no personal damage to himself can result from the other's injury. The second man, on the contrary, is willing to take suffering upon himself rather than remain disinterested in the injustice which is about to be done to the third person. For the second man, the preponderant question is not whether something is agreeable to him or not, but whether it is important in itself. The one behaves morally well, the other one morally badly, because he indifferently by-passes the question of value.

Only the person who can see beyond his subjective horizon and who, free from pride and concupiscence, does not always ask, "what is satisfying for me?", but who leaving behind him all narrowness, abandons himself to that which is important in itself—the beautiful, the good—and subordinates himself to it, only he can become the bearer of moral values. The capacity to grasp values, to affirm them, and to respond to them, is the foundation for realizing the moral values of man.

 

[renuka]

I dont think morals are learned or inherited...its just that humans makes choices and wise man called those choices morals.

When I was young I was taught right from wrong but deep down inside I found such thinking to a certain extent Judgemental.

I still remember when I was young as a teen..I smiled at a woman who was the small town sex worker..she smiled at me so I smiled at her.
I knew what she worked as but all I thought is if a person smiled at me..I should return the smile cos a smile is just a smile and deep down I felt sad for her cos she had an alcoholic husband who used to beat her up and she had children to feed and had to do this job to make ends meet.

Well that gesture of mine did not go too well with my mum who blew her top for smiling at a sex worker! I was nagged almost the whole day!LOL

But that did not change my perception..I knew that a smile is only a smile.

I did not want to see her(the sex worker) as a bad person but sadly everyone only looked at her as a bad person.

I know deep down inside parents want the best for us but sometimes too much display of Holier than Thou attitude might make a child curious to know the forbidden..now that can lead to the real hard core moral decay.

I still remember lots of things during my childhood that I had seen like some superstition practiced by my family which made me wonder whatever happened to logic.

My father used to believe that no payment should be made after sunset and I remember a person had come to the house to collect the monthly payment for newspaper and my dad told him to only come in the day time.

I remember my dad telling me that any payment after sun set is not good luck and money will leave your hand..which I asked him "in that case when you are depriving another his rightful money even for a few hours ..how does that do any good to his family"..thank god after that my dad did not believe in all those anymore.

So you see I feel each one of us eventually think the way we are wired and I wonder how much is actually inherited or learnt.

Most people are inherently self centred but they do not admit it.

It is very evident that most people are only concerned about their own families or community.

I remember long back a few years ago some Porn email was circulated and there was this pic of a girl from a certain Indian community who had posed nude and all those people from her community were really upset and these were the same people who did not mind seeing any other nude pic!LOL

So you see it is becos of the feeling of love and attachment for own community that they felt that moral decay had set in but if it was any other community girl posing nude it was Ok and they would have watched the pic and enjoyed it.

So frankly speaking everything in this world revolves around one's own vested interest..the only 100% selfless person that had walked this Earth was Karna and the day he died..selflessness also died.

So just imagine..lesser mortals like the rest of us?? Where do we stand??

Are we really all that moral??

 

[sangom]

< snipped >
Where do we stand??

Are we really all that moral??

Smt. Renuka,

I liked the entire post of yours, but have quoted only the last two lines to reduce the length of this post.

I think, first of all, that there is no constant thing such as "moral" or "immoral" in this world. These are essentially man-made constructs, and, as Yudhishtira answered the Yaksha, धर्मस्य तत्वं निहितं गुहायाम् । महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः ॥ (dharmasya tatvaṃ nihitaṃ guhāyām | mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ||). If dharma & adharma are difficult to establish, so are moral and immoral.

pāñcāli could marry five men (brothers) at one go and even today such polyandry is practised, reportedly, among some tribes in the Himalayan region; for them it is perfectly moral whereas, under the Indian Law, it is immoral and punishable.

Some 100 years ago, it was perfectly moral for a brahmin/high-caste hindu to have his accompanying servant shout so that a low-caste person would not come near and polute the high caste person, but with one stroke of the constitutional pen, so to say, we have made such a practice today as punishable and heinous offence.

Hence, much of what is moral or immoral depends on the society in which we live. These are learnt and these are practised by imitating the elders and the other mahājanās of the time. Beyond these, it is my personal belief that every person is guided and controlled by the Karmas, for the experience of the results of which, each birth takes place; it can very well happen that parents who were highly moral according to the societal norms of their life-time, have children who turn out to be highly immoral and cause immense grief to the parents because of that. This is also caused by the karma of both the (highly moral) parents and of the child/children themselves.

Human beings live essentially because of the feeling of "I" and "mine" which gets embedded into their conscience because of their physical bodies. Hence, as long as this physical body continues to exist - even in a highly decrepit stage, but the operating principle of life still somehow, functioning within it - these "I" & "mine" feelings will continue to assert. Thus the Charvaka doctrine of "sukhaṃ jīvet, bhasmībhūtasya dehasya punarāgamanaṃ kutaḥ" is the highest and truest operating philosophy but the so-called "good & moral" religions have necessarily to paint it black since the charvaka darsana did not call for god, priesthood and so on.

To sum up, moral values are to be learned and these keep changing with the times.

 

[vgane]

To sum up, moral values are to be learned and these keep changing with the times.

Dear Shri Sangom,

Morality is nothing but code of conduct..Does morality change with times....For example telling the truth is moral..Can any one say that being honest is immoral....It is just a plain yes or no...Who brought in the relativity...It is we, the humans who brought that scale, where in we started saying that we can lie to a judge or lie to save some body's skin...But how is it practically implemented...We actually tell a lie to save our own skin

Let us take murder...It is a heinous act...Can anyone say that committing murder is morality..Even those who commit murder for retribution or revenge know that it is wrong...In order to understand the extent of punishment the judge looks at circumstances and purpose of the act...So murder itself got a scale...But the act per se is immoral..It cannot change with times

Morality does not change by changing rules..It is we the humans who show our moral depravity when we amend rules of morality suiting the circumstances

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Morality is nothing but code of conduct..Does morality change with times....For example telling the truth is moral..Can any one say that being honest is immoral....It is just a plain yes or no...Who brought in the relativity...It is we, the humans who brought that scale, where in we started saying that we can lie to a judge or lie to save some body's skin...But how is it practically implemented...We actually tell a lie to save our own skin

Let us take murder...It is a heinous act...Can anyone say that committing murder is morality..Even those who commit murder for retribution or revenge know that it is wrong...In order to understand the extent of punishment the judge looks at circumstances and purpose of the act...So murder itself got a scale...But the act per se is immoral..It cannot change with times

Morality does not change by changing rules..It is we the humans who show our moral depravity when we amend rules of morality suiting the circumstances

Dear Sir,

You are only talking about speaking the Truth and murder..Ok how about situations like this.

Remember Parasaramuni taking the boat ride with Sathyavathi..he did not even marry her and she conceived Veda Vyasa..now you tell me is that Moral or Immoral to commit just one act of sexual intercourse without getting married just for the sake of using Sathyavathi to beget Veda Vysa.

Can that act be considered immoral?? Yes or No?



Morals do change from time to time..remember in Mahabharat Yudhisthira would comment that the age of Kali is fast approaching cos he saw a woman displaying immoral behavior all becos she was standing on the road and talking to a man.

These days women and men talk all the time..on the road, at work, in the bus and even online here in Forum males and female reply each others post..so is this immoral?? Yes or No?


Since Yes and No are the only 2 options as you said when it comes to Morals..kindly do answer my questions.

It has to be Yes or No only..please do not look at the circumstances and give it a scale or escape on technical grounds.

 

[Raji Ram]

One of the Tamil sayings is 'iLamaiyil kal' which means that we should learn when we are young. Moral values are to be cultivated

in children by their parents. It is also true that some children learn to be good after seeing the not-so-good parents! I have seen

the sons of fighting parents become very loving husbands when they get married. So moral value is inherited and learned!

 

[vgane]

Dear Sir,

You are only talking about speaking the Truth and murder..Ok how about situations like this.

Remember Parasaramuni taking the boat ride with Sathyavathi..he did not even marry her and she conceived Veda Vyasa..now you tell me is that Moral or Immoral to commit just one act of sexual intercourse just for the sake of using Sathyavathi to beget Veda Vysa...

Can that act be considered immoral?? Yes or No?



Morals do change from time to time..remember in Mahabharat Yudhisthira would comment that the age of Kali is fast approaching cos he saw a woman displaying immoral behavior all becos she was standing on the road and talking to a man.

These days women and men talk all the time..on the road, at work, in the bus and even online here in Forum males and female reply each others post..so is this immoral?? Yes or No?


Since Yes and No are the only 2 options as you said when it comes to Morals..kindly do answer my questions.

It has to be Yes or No only..please do not look at the circumstances and give it a scale or escape on technical grounds.

Dear Doctor,

Whatever is universal truth they cannot be changed by a dictum or diktat..Probably we can create a list of such universal truths..It is like the sun shall rise only in the East..It cannot be changed..Truth, pure love, non violence etc shall not change with times

There are other aspects of life as mentioned by you..We can call them as Practices or way of life like men and women should not speak to each other or the copulation for conceiving Veda Vyasa...These change with times

Hope this clarifies your query

 

[Raji Ram]

........ Morals do change from time to time..remember in Mahabharat Yudhisthira would comment that the age of Kali is fast approaching cos he saw a woman displaying immoral behavior all becos she was standing on the road and talking to a man.......

Oh dear!

Yudhi comments like that after having a common wife with this brothers! Strange indeed!

 

[renuka]

There are other aspects of life as mentioned by you..We can call them as Practices or way of life like men and women should not speak to each other or the copulation for conceiving Veda Vyasa...These change with times

Hope this clarifies your query

So that means you agree that human behavior and what constitutes moral or immoral changes with times.

Thank you..I shall rest my case!LOL

 

[vgane]

So that means you agree that human behavior and what constitutes moral or immoral changes with times.

Thank you..I shall rest my case!LOL

I was trying to differentiate universal morality from practices, that some call as morality, which changes with times

 

[renuka]

I was trying to differentiate universal morality from practices, that some call as morality, which changes with times

Dear Sir,

What constitutes Morality??

Morality is action or inaction in reaction to a situation.

 

[vgane]

Let us start with Universal values or universal morality are things that will stand the test of time and shall transcend history..They are eternal & immortal

The following is not an exhaustive list..It includes the Oriental & Occidental

1. To seek the truth
2. To seek justice
3. Being humble
4. To act as per one's conscience
5. Avoid greed & jealousy
6. Accept responsibility for one's behavior
7. Being respectful to others
8. Caring for others. Being tolerant and forgiving
9. Do not cheat /steal/abuse others
10. Do the Duty without expecting fruits
11. Adore God/ Respect for Supreme being higher than oneself
12. Respect for environment
13. Respect for cultures
14. Self discipline
15. Respect for tradition

 

[sangom]

I was trying to differentiate universal morality from practices, that some call as morality, which changes with times

According to me, the only universal and unchanging moral is what Jesus Christ is reported to have said, viz.,

And as ye would that men should do to you, so do ye to them likewise.

This is so because, in reality, this world is a great and wonderful stage and all of us are mere actors and the best that we can do is to cooperate with each other and make the drama a success. But Man behaves very differently because he is misled by his ego and religions. Abolish the religions and adhere to Christ's advice; this world will definitely improve and become a heaven.

All the rest of the moral codes are subject to change.

 

[prasad1]

Many researchers have focused on how children’s behaviour is shaped by their observations of role-models in the world around them, including peers, figures in the media, and other people besides their parents. In fact, researchers have often demonstrated that other people’s positive and negative behaviours can be imitated by children. There is good evidence that children’s prosocial behaviour (e.g., sharing, helping, caring) can be increased by observing models who show such behaviours themselves.


In a similar way, seeing others behave in antisocial ways could potentially encourage negative behaviours. In one famous series of experiments in the 1960s, for example, Albert Bandura demonstrated that children who observed an adult behaving aggressively towards an inflatable toy doll were more likely to reproduce that aggressive behaviour themselves. This link between what you see around you and what you do yourself underpins many of the concerns people have about violence on television, although this remains a controversial topic in both public and academic debate.


If children do learn patterns of moral behaviour from others, is it reasonable to assume that the way they think about moral situations is also influenced by social factors? Some evidence for this is found in cross-cultural studies of children’s reasoning about moral dilemmas.
In fact, research over the last few decades has shown that making sense of children’s moral development can sometimes be very hard precisely because so many factors are involved. Often, children’s actions don’t fall neatly in line with their thinking, because their ability to regulate their own behaviour is limited at younger ages. In other words, children have to have the self-control to stop themselves from doing something forbidden, as well as an understanding of the rule itself.


Also, feelings such as guilt, sympathy, shame, and pity can all play a role in everyday situations involving moral choices, and research shows that children’s experience and understanding of these complex emotions changes as they get older.


Thus, when children are deciding whether or not to tell a lie, obey a dubious instruction, or help someone in distress, their behaviour will depend not just on adults’ instructions and prohibitions, nor simply on their ability to reason about the rules involved. It will also relate to their ability to control their own behaviour, their memories of what happened to them and to others in the past, and the way the situation is making them feel.

Moral behaviour - OpenLearn - Open University

Moral code is subject to change, but that does not mean you should not have a base line at the present time.
It may not rain everyday in rainy season, but you do need to have the umbrella for the days it does.

 

[Nara]

....For example telling the truth is moral..Can any one say that being honest is immoral....It is just a plain yes or no...Who brought in the relativity..

...[snip].....

Let us take murder...It is a heinous act...Can anyone say that committing murder is morality..

vgane, I don't think the examples you have cited above are as clear cut as you seem to imply. You say truth and honesty are moral, yes they are moral, most of the time, but are they moral in the absolute sense? I submit the answer is no. I will give some examples.

Let us take the case of Ann Frank. The Dutch family lied to the Nazis to protect her and her family. Their lies are now celebrated as most moral all over the world.

You may have heard of the "underground railroad" in the U.S., a network of safe-houses for escaping slaves to rest, eat, and move on north. The family living in these safe-houses were quite dishonest with their neighbors, but their dishonesty is now considered supremely moral.

Let us take another extreme case. Some senior officers plotted to murder Hitler, they did not succeed, had they did, they would have committed murder. Would anybody deem that murder as immoral?

Our own Thiruvalluvar has declared that outright lies is as moral as truth if these lies produce good without causing any harm to anyone.

The point is, these are not as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting.

Let us start with Universal values or universal morality are things that will stand the test of time and shall transcend history..They are eternal & immortal

The following is not an exhaustive list..It includes the Oriental & Occidental

11. Adore God/ Respect for Supreme being higher than oneself
13. Respect for cultures
15. Respect for tradition

Quite clearly #11, 13, and 15 simply cannot qualify as moral values at all, let alone eternal & immortal moral values. You may value them quite highly, and that is fine. Even a vast majority may believe in them, and that is fine too. There may be many benefits to derive from believing in these, but when it comes to what is moral, let alone eternal & immortal, they are at best neutral, neither moral nor immoral.

The rest of them are mere code of conduct that would promote the well being of a society. These are good principles to live by. However, if we unpack each one of them we will see that they are merely man made rules -- good rules to live by for sure -- nevertheless man made rules, nothing eternal or immortal.

What is moral is something that humans have been grappling with for thousands of years. We can't even agree on a simple definition of it. So, it is not wise to imprison the concept into a list of bullet points.

thanks ...

 

[tks]

I tend to agree large part of Post #15 (Sri Nara) and post #2 (Dr Renu)

Words like Morals are usually used to make judgement against a person or group based on some local norms.

Universal "Morals" do not exist which is why in 'Hinduism as a way of life" there are not ANY commandments.

The one statement that comes close to a commandment is ' Ahimsa Paramo Dharma'

अहिंसा परमो धर्मः
धर्म हिंसा तथीव च

In the last part the statement is that violence may be needed to minimize overall injury..


Violence was advocated by Sri Krishna in the epic story of Mahabharatha directing Arjuna to kill his own revered teacher, his grandfather and his friends and cousins.

Having said the above there are universal principles that do not require any human being to be educated in any scriptures. We are built with those traits if only we listen to ourselves without interference by our ego.

In creation/manifestation opposites exist. In fact there cannot be a definition of a chaste person without existence of those engaged in all kinds of sexual activity including those engaged in prostitution. Sri Vivekananda in one of his lectures brings out this point extremely well.

Most moral codes deal with *promoting so called 'good' and ignoring/denouncing the bad* both of which (good & bad) depend on the norms of a team/society/country/religion etc

The universal principles referred to here are those that go *beyond* the good and bad found in this Universe.

One example is our often undiscovered ability to have unconditional compassion and love for all beings (and this 'love' does not have an opposite and cannot be confused with love normally found in common usage .... like 'brotherly love' in this forum ... sorry could not help having a chuckle here .. it is noted here for purely fun)

Those universal traits do not need articulation and judgement.

In short moral are like laws made by human mind to have local order within a society or family or group. These are only inherited and taught

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Mostly inherited, cultured by circumstances and moderated by wisdom. If a person is acclaimed for his morality every one of his friends and even distant relatives will pat their own back. If it is opposite, blame the genes. Circumstances make a man and some people might not have been influenced by them. It is a search by one and also by others.

 

[prasad1]

Do you think IF a human child is raised by Chimps (Tarzan type), will that person will have human values? I do not think so.
If a person believes that he knows all, and he alone knows what is right and wrong, would he could he be a moral person to be in a society?
If a person is strong, and thinks he can dominate others for ever, would he be just? That is like being Hiranyakashpu and expect them to be caring about others? If you live in a society, you do have to deal with them. As Mr. Sangom said we have to treat others like you want to be treated.

If one size fits all is the solution, and everybody is for themselves, we will have chaos.

There are something legal but immoral, but everything moral is legal.

Yes moral and legal are both local, but accepted in that community.

 

[renuka]

Do you think IF a human child is raised by Chimps (Tarzan type), will that person will have human values? I do not think so.

Dear Prasad ji,

For all you know the person might have super human values..the closer a person is to nature the better they are in human values.

The so called civilized person is desire ridden and that causes decline in human values.

Have you ever spoken to people who live in the jungle?? the simple tribals that have not much been exposed to the outside world? I have dealt with them during my stint in rural part of Malaysia.

They are very simple at heart and selfless.

I read an article in my monthly Sanskrit magazine where an experiment was conducted on some tribal children in Africa.

A huge plate full of fruits was placed on a table and these children were told to run to the table and the person who touches the fruit plate first wins all the fruits.

Ok the little kids..looked at each other for a while..then all held hands and walked towards the table and then made a circle around the table (while still holding hands) and then all of them simultaneously touched the fruit plate.

They said that if only one person touches the plate..only one will have all the fruits..by this way where everyone touches the plate..all of them have fruits everyone is a winner and there is no loser.

I was just thinking..simple tribals kids display so much love for each other..just imagine if this experiment was done with the so called civilized kids!LOL

I can imagine..the parents themselves coaching the kids how to prepare for the up coming event..tell the kids how to make the opponent fall..then the parents themselves would start fighting with each other and keep bragging that their kid is the winner..and the winner would eat all the fruits himself!LOL

So you see as far as I know the Apes did a good job in bringing up Tarzan.

Wasn't Tarzan a lovable character full of compassion and love??

 

[tks]

Dear Prasad ji,

For all you know the person might have super human values..the closer a person is to nature the better they are in human values.

The so called civilized person is desire ridden and that causes decline in human values.

Have you ever spoken to people who live in the jungle?? the simple tribals that have not much been exposed to the outside world?

They are very simple at heart and quite selfless.

I read an article in my monthly Sanskrit magazine where an experiment was conducted on some tribal children in Africa.

A huge plate full of fruits was placed on a table and these children were told to run to the table and the person who touches the fruit plate first wins all the fruits.

Ok the little kids..looked at each other for a while..then all held hands and walked towards the table and then made a circle around the table (while still holding hands) and then all of them simultaneously touched the fruit plate.

They said that if only one person touches the plate..only one will have all the fruits..by this way where everyone touches the plate..all of them have fruits everyone is a winner and there is no loser.

I was just thinking..simple tribals kids display so much love for each other..just imagine if this experiment was done with the so called civilized kids!LOL

I can imagine..the parents themselves coaching the kids how to prepare for the up coming event..tell the kids how to make the opponent fall..then they parents themselves would start fighting with each other and the winner would eat all the fruits himself!LOL

So you see as far as I know the Apes did a good job in bringing up Tarzan.

Wasn't Tarzan a lovable character full of compassion and love??

An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African tribe.

He put a basket full of fruits near a tree and told the kids that who ever got there first ​

wins the sweet fruits. ​

When he told them to run, they all took each others hands and ran together, ​

then all sat together enjoying their treats. ​

When he asked them, why they had run like that as one could have had all the ​

fruits for himself, they said:​

''UBUNTU, how can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?''

'UBUNTU' in the Xhosa culture means: ​

"I am, because we are"

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

Yup this is the article I read in the magazine..the same pics too...but the one I read mentioned that the fruits were put on a plate.

 

[renuka]

There is slight difference between using our Viveka(Discrimination) to know right from wrong and being Judgmental.

This explains well..

​

[TABLE="width: 660"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 20"][/TD]
[TD="width: 420"]Dear Friend
Many of us get tangled up on the difference between discrimination and judgment. We want to avoid being judgmental, but sometimes it's hard to know how to make decisions without being judgmental. Is what that person is doing or saying okay? Should I try to do something to correct a certain person or situation? Don't we have to make judgments sometimes?

During lunch at the Retreat today (the day I'm writing this), some of us began to discuss this topic. From that discussion, I realized that if you are feeling a lot of angst, you're probably in the land of judgment.

Discrimination happens without anger, hate, or other disruptive emotions. Discrimination is awareness and clarity about what is going on, and making the best decisions for our own spiritual well-being and the well-being of others in regard to those circumstances.

Swami Kriyananda gave a helpful analogy. He said that in a courtroom guilt or innocence must be decided by the jury. The jury discriminates about what happened. Then the judge assigns punishment for that as needed. To know that what is happening is inappropriate can be useful discrimination. To wish a person ill for doing that action becomes judgment.

Much better than trying to decide if what someone else is doing is good or bad is to send them Love and Light, no matter what. In that Light, judgment can throw no shadow. And our own consciousness stays in a higher place where we can be more discriminating.



Happy Holidays,
Timothy
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[prasad1]

Dear Prasad ji,

For all you know the person might have super human values..the closer a person is to nature the better they are in human values.
My caparison of an isolated human to the mythical character Tarzan was not for Tarzan's values, but for upbringing. The apes did not speak in English like the the Tarzan story.
9 children raised by animals: Ukrainian dog girl | MNN - Mother Nature Network
The so called civilized person is desire ridden and that causes decline in human values.
The uncivilized person has less desires because he is ignorant. Now a days of DISH TV the so called village people are seething with anger because of unfulfilled desires. Anything that is born has desires. Even a plant will want water, sunlight and some nourishment.

Have you ever spoken to people who live in the jungle?? the simple tribals that have not much been exposed to the outside world? I have dealt with them during my stint in rural part of Malaysia.

I have lived among tribal some 50 years ago, and they were simple and their desires were also simple (or so I thought). This time I went to visit some simple folks in a small town, they had all grand desires, including owning a car.

They are very simple at heart and selfless.

You are talking of people without power. I met a Tribal elder (The local BIGBOSS), he was not selfless. He was planning to run for the state election. He does not know to read and write, but he is going to be a force come next election.

I read an article in my monthly Sanskrit magazine where an experiment was conducted on some tribal children in Africa.

A huge plate full of fruits was placed on a table and these children were told to run to the table and the person who touches the fruit plate first wins all the fruits.

Ok the little kids..looked at each other for a while..then all held hands and walked towards the table and then made a circle around the table (while still holding hands) and then all of them simultaneously touched the fruit plate.

They said that if only one person touches the plate..only one will have all the fruits..by this way where everyone touches the plate..all of them have fruits everyone is a winner and there is no loser.

I was just thinking..simple tribals kids display so much love for each other..just imagine if this experiment was done with the so called civilized kids!LOL

I can imagine..the parents themselves coaching the kids how to prepare for the up coming event..tell the kids how to make the opponent fall..then the parents themselves would start fighting with each other and keep bragging that their kid is the winner..and the winner would eat all the fruits himself!LOL

So you see as far as I know the Apes did a good job in bringing up Tarzan.

Wasn't Tarzan a lovable character full of compassion and love??

Though animals may not possess moral behavior, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their behaviors for group living to be worthwhile. Typical examples of behavioral modification can be found in the societies ants, bees and termites. Ant colonies may possess millions of individuals. E. O. Wilson argues that the single most important factor that leads to the success of ant colonies is the existence of a sterile worker caste.

[video=youtube;KTPkmH4hWCs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTPkmH4hWCs[/video]

What we know of animals is very little.

When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually. Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for research on the origins of human behavior. These findings come at a time when many anthropologists argue for scavenging rather than hunting as a way of life for early human ancestors. Research into the hunting ecology of wild chimpanzees may therefore shed new light on the current debate about the origins of human behavior.

Tarzan created by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Burroughs created an extreme example of a noble savage figure largely unalloyed with character flaws or faults. He is described as being Caucasian, extremely athletic, tall, handsome, and tanned, with grey eyes and long black hair. Emotionally, he is courageous, loyal, and steadfast. He is intelligent and learns new languages easily. He is presented as behaving ethically in most situations, except when seeking vengeance under the motivation of grief, as when his ape mother Kala is killed in Tarzan of the Apes, or when he believes Jane has been murdered in Tarzan the Untamed. He is deeply in love with his wife and totally devoted to her; in numerous situations where other women express their attraction to him, Tarzan politely but firmly declines their attentions. When presented with a situation where a weaker individual or party is being preyed upon by a stronger foe, Tarzan invariably takes the side of the weaker party. In dealing with other men, Tarzan is firm and forceful. With male friends, he is reserved but deeply loyal and generous. As a host, he is likewise, generous, and gracious. As a leader, he commands devoted loyalty.


In keeping with these noble characteristics, Tarzan's philosophy embraces an extreme form of "return to nature". Although he is able to pass within society as a civilized individual, he prefers to "strip off the thin veneer of civilization", as Burroughs often puts it. His preferred dress is a knife and a loincloth of animal hide, his preferred abode is any convenient tree branch when he desires to sleep, and his favored food is raw meat, killed by himself; even better if he is able to bury it a week so that putrefaction has had a chance to tenderize it a bit.

Sometimes in the movies they show the apes as Chimpanzee and sometime the gorillas, I suppose they were confused.

 

[prasad1]

An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African tribe.

He put a basket full of fruits near a tree and told the kids that who ever got there first

wins the sweet fruits.

When he told them to run, they all took each others hands and ran together,

then all sat together enjoying their treats.

When he asked them, why they had run like that as one could have had all the

fruits for himself, they said:

''UBUNTU, how can one of us be happy if all the other ones are sad?''

'UBUNTU' in the Xhosa culture means:

"I am, because we are"

​

Again it is all in interpretation. Their action may have been purely motivated by gaining advantage. A dominant individual may try to hoards all the food for themselves, but tomorrow others will join and prevent that from happening. So it may not be only moral thing to share, but for self preservation.

Animals adopt varied foraging tactics in order to survive. Kleptoparasitism, where animals attempt to steal food already discovered by others, is very common among animal species. In this situation, depending on the ecological conditions, challenged animals might defend, share, or even retreat and leave their food to the challenger. A key determinant of the likely behavior is the nature of the food itself. If food is discovered in divisible clumps, it can be divided between animals in a number of ways. Alternatively, food items may be essentially indivisible, so that sharing is impossible and either the attacker or the defender must retain control of all of the food.

In particular, if food availability is limited, the sharing process does not greatly reduce the short-term consumption rate of food and food defense has a high cost and/or a low probability of success, then the use of the food sharing strategy is beneficial.

When should animals share food? Game theory applied to kleptoparasitic populations with food sharing

 

[tbs]

hi
see the moral value in USA....learned or inherited?

'Theft of power' lands electric-car driver in jail - U.S. News