My comment which was deleted, was as follows to the best of my recollection.
We do have an inborn moral sense and that inborn moral sense is based on Neural Myelination passed on through cellular memory. Now they have already found cellular memory in animals, a sheep dog that has never shepherded sheep is put with sheep and with little to know coaching he is moving them about like a pro within 30 minutes having awoken his cellular memory.
The way I word this is repeated thoughts and actions creates Neural Myelination which is passed on to future generations in the form of cellular memory. When I first came up with this concept my Organic Computer Theory on which my psychological models are based on, it had not yet been proven to exist in humans but experiments suggested it.
Many of you don’t know that Noam Chomsky is famous for falsifying the tabula rasa of Skinner and the behaviorists. This made sweeping changes in the kind of research that was being done in certain scientific fields. One such study found that French babies cry in French and German babies cry in German.
In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments?Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th centuryclassical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment seems too poor, variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which otherwise would remain merely speculative.
One implication of Noam Chomsky’s innatism, if correct, is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker. The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions.
If we do indeed have an innate morality as is suggested by Atheists and Richard Dawkins to suggest that we don’t need religion or some manner of Moral influence exerted on us, then ask yourself this, Where did our morality come from? It came from cellular memory passed on to us by our ancestors who were exerting on themselves a moral influence. So what was that moral influence?
People that were raised in Democracy presuppose Democracy, and people that were raised for thousands of years under tyranny presuppose the goodness of tyranny.
The Atheist suggestion, without understanding psychology or human behavior, is that we should just let everybody follow their natural instincts. What every person’s morality allows them to do is equal to what everybody else’s morality allows them to do. To paraphrase, Martin Heideggar, referencing Kierkegaard:
“The duty of the philosopher is to overturn the covert judgments of common reason.”
Louis Figo asks the question:
“Does caring behavior necessarily imply a moral sensibility?”
In a way, yes. To use my philosophical calculus we have what I refer to as a plasticity of our sense of self, which means that we arbitrarily expand and retract our sense of self throughout the day and our lives, projecting sameness onto others for various reasons and retracting sameness from others. This is what causes our “caring” and our participation or lack of participation or outright hostility. Until we examine why we participate with what we participate with caring and participation are not valid indicators or morality.
Tyranny and democracy have always been hostile to one another and anti-thetical to one another. Why will some people participate with tyranny and coercive authority, while others participate with sapiential authority and the authority of reason? What happens when you grant equality between tyranny and democracy? To make Tyranny an equal citizen with Democracy, under the Authority of Reason, is not reasonable. It flies in the face of reason. Because of the nature of both mentalities, to make Democracy equal to Tyranny is to make Democracy the prey of Tyranny. . . Because they are not equal in essence they can never be equal in relationship.