That's interesting that Penn Jillete is associated with the Cato Institute. For whatever reason, I never imagined him as conservative...unless this is another Cato Institute that isn't the famous right-wing one.

Thanks for the mention, Norm!

Jillete is definitely a libertarian. I saw a recent program of his where he loves his guns and opposes any kind of gun control.

thanks

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in murder, rape, hatred, polygamy, theft, adultery, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Nothing would be wrong in a world with out God.

Yet the belief in god doesn't stop those believers from pataking in murder, rape, hatred, polygamy, theft, adultery, Jell-o.

Especially Jell-o!!! I've never been to a church picnic that didn't have Jell-o.

Cure4Pain opines,

"Nothing would be wrong in a world with out God."

Sigh. Where's that 'thumbs down' emoticon when I need it?

Let's look at it this way: -- In a Godless universe, would people think of things as 'wrong'?

Yes. Moral attitudes have very clear evolutionary advantages for a species like us (i.e. a social species that survives best in groups). Our attitudes towards food (either being attracted by something high in fat and sugars or being repelled by something bitter and rotten-looking) prompt us to take actions that further our species survival. Similarly, our attitudes towards the actions of ourselves and our fellow humans prompts us to take actions (praise and condemnation, reward and punishment) that tend to promote our survival as a species.

We tend to condemn and punish antisocial behavior like rape, murder and the like precisely because such behaviors are destructive to the social order that enables us to survive, and thus we have deeply inbuilt disgust for such behaviors. Given that we have evolved and are a social species, it would be shocking if we did not have moral attitudes and did not condemn antisocial behaviors.

Religion doesn't give us morality, it's used to justify the moralilty of the religous.

How else can it be explained that the discrimination of blacks once was condoned by the christian god but now with the same god and the same bible is considered bad? The only difference between these situations are the people. So surely it must be people who make morality and use religion to enforce it on others without alowing proper thought and discussion regarding the validity of the moral.

Penn's association with Cato is because of his being a libertarian, not a conservative. Libertarians are in fact 'liberals' in the Thomas Jefferson sense of the word.* Penn is on the good side, don't worry. His beliefs are largely akin to those held by the founders of your country and codified in its constitution.**

*A 'liberal' in the democrat sense, might propose a ban on 'hate speech' or censorship legislation etc. A libertarian - classic liberal - would never do so, but instead would violently oppose such things.

**I can't really get behind him on the gun thing. Guns are bad, but when they're as rife as they are in America its hard to see that banning them could help matters.

J.D. I think you are missing my point. There would be nothing to base clear distiction of right and wrong. Your post makes my point clearly. You don't see it as right or wrong. You see these things as "advantages for a species" or "antisocial behavior." So "Nothing would be wrong in a world without God" is a correct statement. Which makes me wonder why that statement is such a problem.

Hi Cure4pain (nice to see you, haven't seen a post of yours here in a spell)

I do not believe in God at all, I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe that when I die, that's it. So what I have is the here and now and I need to appreciate this very Earth that we live on, and not spend my time preparing myself for some Heaven. Where are we but here and now? I have morals and I believe in helping others for no personal gain. I just have compassion for people. Where did this compassion come from? I cannot tell you, but it did not come from a belief in God. Because I am an atheist, naturally all of my close friends are non believers too. They are all an incredibly generous, giving group of people. They will go out of their way to help the homeless or someone suffering and they are all active in various groups which provide aid to the needy or support the environment. They do these things because they care about people and they care about protecting our earth for future generations to enjoy. I care about people. I care about you C4P even though I have never met you and some others, I feel like we are sort of a little cyberspace family here. I have a soft spot for compassionate people which has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. In fact, I trust atheistis more because I know that their kindness is not based on some religion such as Christianity or Buddhism or any of the other hundred or more religions. The foundation for an atheist's beliefs is based on thinking and reasoning and always questioning. I can count on an atheist to have an open mind and to change their mind if you present to them their own logical fallicy. An atheist does not have to refer to his manual to know how to believe. He just uses logic and reasoning. But the atheists I know are not just robotic-like scientist types. The atheists that I know personally are generous folks, passionate, kindly and warm hearted.

Mariyn said, "Religion doesn't give us morality, it's used to justify the moralilty of the religous." ... This is how I feel about it too.

Peace Jo Ann

My mother loves me.

I feel good.

I feel good because she loves me.

I am good because I feel good

I feel good because I am good

My mother loves me because I am good.

My mother does not love me.

I feel bad.

I feel bad because she does not love me

I am bad because I feel bad

I feel bad because I am bad

I am bad because she does not love me

She does not love me because I am bad.

this is R.D. Laing, these are called "Knots". In the place of Mother insert God. Try not to get tangled up in blue.

Cure4Pain

So the secret to not being unhappy is to not have a word for it? Was Douglas Adams right?

C.

My question is then "What gives us morality?" And for now I will suspend my argument of "God" to hear other thoughts.

BookBoy: Your post falls short in the sense that a mother will always love her child even to the end. Look at Scott Peterson's parents. Same with God, he loves no matter what.

Cpt. Black: So the secret to not being unhappy is to not have a word for it? For some ignorance is bliss. Yes the progressive movement is trying hard to not have a word for it. Look at the fervid attempt to try to remove God from just about every public place. The argument is "it is not inclusive of all" or "it is offensive." Who here is genuinely offended by this? If I was in another country I would fully expect to see their religious symbols and not be offended by them. I don't care whether we have it or not on our money or pledge. But what does it hurt to have it? The desire seems to want to eliminate any trace of our American and Judeo Christian heritage. In a sense rewriting history for those who will come after us. Anyway..... It's good to be back. Check ya later.

Cure4Pain responds,

"I think you are missing my point. There would be nothing to base clear distiction of right and wrong. Your post makes my point clearly. You don't see it as right or wrong. You see these things as "advantages for a species" or "antisocial behavior." So "Nothing would be wrong in a world without God" is a correct statement. Which makes me wonder why that statement is such a problem."

On the contrary, you have missed my point. We think of things as right or wrong in the same way that we think of food as tasty or disgusting. Don't tell me I "don't see it as right or wrong" -- I have just as much moral outrage towards murder or rape as the next person.

The question is would people 'still' think of things as right and wrong if God didn't exist, and I think the answer is clearly yes: Why? Because the tendency to think about people's actions in terms of morality is built into us just as much as our tendency to think about food in terms of tastiness. That built in tendency is there because it is evolutionarily adaptive. You are confusing rational justification of one's moral judgments with a causal explanation for why we have moral judgments. The antisocial nature of murder (in conjunction with our evolution as social animals) is the cause of our moral sentiments, not the rational justification for them.

Similarly, bodily damage tends to hurt an individual's evolutionary fitness, hence we have a predisposition to avoid bodily harm -- a predisposition which manifests as a sensation of pain. Your comment above that I "don't see it as right or wrong...{I} see these things as 'advantages for a species'" is thus equivalent to the comment: "I wouldn't see my hand being chopped off as painful, I would only see it as 'bodily harm that disadvantages my evolutionary fitness'". Hopefully you will see the total absurdity of such a comment.

As for providing a basis for "clear distinctions" between right and wrong, moral-judgments have clear distinctions in essentially the same way that taste-judgments have clear distinctions. What's your basis for liking chocolate (I assume) and disliking dogshit (I assume)? Are the distinctions between these things not clear enough for you? Would you dislike chocolate and like dogshit if God didn't exist?

J.D. I am sure that we both feel the same way about rape and murder. But why would there be outrage over killing someone if it just antisocial? Where does this right and wrong come from? So are you saying we think moraly because it is built into us? Then why is there accountabiliy? Why do we hold people to a standard of morality? It seems to me we could then justify murder and rape as to being victim of our buillt in morality. I think God has alot to do with it. just my thoughts.

Cure4Pain responds, "I am sure that we both feel the same way about rape and murder. But why would there be outrage over killing someone if it just antisocial?"

My response: Again you are confusing the cause with the rational justification. The antisociability of murder is (one of the) cause(s) of the human prediliction to judge murder as wrong. But if you ask people to rationally justify their judgments they will come up with all sorts of things, many of which have nothing to do with antisociability (such as the justification "God told us not to").

Cure4Pain continues, "Where does this right and wrong come from?"

My response: Our moral sentiments 'come from' the same place that our dislike of pain and our like of sweet foods 'comes from'.

Cure4Pain continues, "So are you saying we think moraly because it is built into us?"

My response: Yes, the mental category of moral judgment appears to be built in, or at least the tendency for such a category. Like most things it requires certain kinds of stimulation to develop -- children who grow up without any human interaction seem to lack many qualities and abilities common to other people, perhaps including moral sentiment.

Cure4Pain continues, "Then why is there accountabiliy? Why do we hold people to a standard of morality? It seems to me we could then justify murder and rape as to being victim of our buillt in morality."

My response: Why do we hold people accountable? Because it works -- holding people accountable tends to change their behavior in desired ways (the tendency to do so promotes our evolutionary fitness). Note that this is a causal reason for our prediliction for holding people accountable, not a rational justification (though it could be).

Praise, rewards, condemnation, and punishment modify behavior. There are many reasons why this is so. One reason is that people tend to care about what others think of them: Just as we like to think we are sexually attractive, we also like to think that others percieve us as 'good'. So when someone tells us that what we are doing is wrong or that we are being 'bad', that can be as unpleasant as someone telling us that we are ugly or smelly. (Moral) Praise and condemnation appeal to our desire to be (morally) pleasing, and thus can affect our behavior just as readily as advertisements appealing to our desire to be sexually attractive.

Note also that there is a strong correlation between 1) people who we tend not to hold accountable and 2) people whose behavior cannot be changed by praise, reward, condemnation and punishment. For example, the insane do not usually respond to praise and such, and are not usually held accountable for their actions.

Cure4Pain,

Where morality comes from has always interested me too.

I have an old friend who is an atheist libertarian (bare-bones government) who I argue with about this all the time. Sometimes very frustrating, but always fun. I am a Christian liberal, so we are complete opposites.

What is kind of funny, is her arguments about people "doing good" is always done with inherently selfish reasons, reminds me of your argument in a way except that you believe in God. Her basic argument was: People do good for two reasons. To feel good about themselves or "rack up" brownie points to get into heaven (or whatever afterlife that person believes in).

I suppose there are people who try to rack up brownie points but I would guess that would only happen when it is convenient for them and not so much about living your morals. I don't know about you but if I do something that goes against what I believe I feel horrible until I correct it. Not because I'm trying to rack up "brownie points" but because it is important to me and whether I get brownie points is irrelevant.

I come from the viewpoint that people do good even if it is hard or inconvenient for them because it aligns with their morals. Why do people try to align their behavior with their morals instead of giving in to what is easy?

I think it all comes down to empathy and compassion. If you have that then "brownie points" don't matter. If you see a hungry child, do you give them bread to gain favor from God? Or do you simply give the child bread because you empathize with the child's hunger and want to help.

Morality is simply treating others like we would want to be treated. We all have free will and can choose how we interact with each other. Those choices are ours to make.

You said, "I think God has a lot to do with it." I'm not totally sure what you're saying? That our behavior and choices (good or bad) are God's responsibility and not ours? That morality is like "good vibes" we tap into by believing in God. I wish it were so easy. If it were so the world would be a much better place.

People can use their belief in their God(s) to do horrible things. The very religious Aztecs sacrificed people to appease their Gods. Is that moral? Is this God's fault?

Also, you posted earlier, to sum it up - how our country shouldn't worry too much about the freedom of religion clause in our bill of rights. You said the progressive movement is trying to get remove God from every public place. I am very devout but I do not believe the government should adopt a state mandated religion. I happen to live in an area that does not predominately share my religious beliefs. The idea that religion could come with the force of government is scary because government is not righteous and is governed by corrupt and sinful people. I prefer to keep religion in the church where it belongs. I do not want the government to enforce religion. I think it's a sneaky way to corrupt and co-opt religion. Then before you know it, some slimy politician would declare themselves divine and immune to the will of the people and defile religion in the process.

I would be upset if the progressives really wanted to get rid of God in public. But I know they do not. They just want people to be free to believe their own religious beliefs without the interference of government.

Have you ever seen Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" paintings? His favorite and most difficult to do was the "Freedom of Religion". Here's a link to the picture.

"Considering the many religions found in our country, choosing one pictorial representation of ALL was a monumental task. He hoped to avoid offending any denomination while depicting the idea of unrestricted religious practice. In his painting, Rockwell wanted to say: No person should be discriminated against, regardless of his or her religion or race."

To me that is the beauty of our country in a nutshell.

As far as fighting to have God in the pledge and on our money….

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say I’m wary of government (politicians really) mixing with religion!!! Of all the things to fight for!!! Throw a flag amendment in there and that pretty much sums up all what politicians will do for religion. Why? Because those things are nice safe little things they can point to and say how devout they are. (Remember what Jesus had to say about people like that.) But as far as really following the Gospel…well, maybe when hell freezes over. Personally, goodness and devoutness will “trickle up” from the people to government before it would EVER trickle down from government to the people. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their communities rather than wanting government to force us to toe the line.

Putting God on money? Linking mammon with God? Are you serious? Have you ever stopped and reflected on that idea? Somehow I don’t think God is amused by that.

And pledging allegiance to your country? Really? If you are devout, would you even want to declare allegiance? If your country asks you to do something that is against God do you still give you allegiance?

It’s interesting when religion is mixed with government those sacred beliefs are regurgitated and reinterpreted into flag pledges and God on money representing religion. To me it seems government is figuratively ripping out pages of the Bible to cover up their naked greed and corruptness and crooning,” Come on, worship the flag (country) and money. Support God, by going shopping.”

Hannah said,

"I have an old friend who is an atheist libertarian (bare-bones government) who I argue with about this all the time. Sometimes very frustrating, but always fun. I am a Christian liberal, so we are complete opposites.

What is kind of funny, is her arguments about people "doing good" is always done with inherently selfish reasons, reminds me of your argument in a way except that you believe in God. Her basic argument was: People do good for two reasons. To feel good about themselves {snip}."

My response: Your friend appears to be making the same mistake Cure4Pain made -- mixing up the cause of moral sentiment with the rational justification of moral sentiment. A 'selfish' genotype does not invariably produce a selfish phenotype (i.e. does not invariably produce an organism that is selfish). Evolution appears to have geared us (almost?) as much for altruism, compassion and charity as it did for greed, backstabbing and self-interest.

So while I might feel good to see my family, friends and community made more happy and prosperous through some action of mine, I do not do the action in order to feel good -- the consequence of feeling good is not the reason or justification for my act. Rather, I do the act because I want to see my family, friends and community made more happy and prosperous, because I like them and think they deserve such things.

Now, as it turns out, the propensity to like one's family, friends and community (and to do things to help them) actually tends to promote the reproductive success of one's genes. Hence the genes 'selfishly' code for such propensities. But a man is not his genes, and doesn't (necessarily) have a 'selfish' goal (such as reproductive success) in mind -- he is just a person who likes his family, friends and community and who wants to help them, with no thought about how it will affect his own personal interests.

J.D.

To make sure I get what you're saying....do you mean that morality or doing good all comes down to genes? That evolution compels us to act altruistically?

As a blanket statement for humanity, I would disagree. I think I could make a pretty good argument that behaving selfishly would more benefitical to survival. Sometimes doing good isn't always in our personal best interest. For example, during WWII in Germany there were families that hid Jews and helped them to escape. By doing this, they put their lives and their family in danger. If you're operating on biological survival, you'd think the instinct would be to protect yourself and you're family. Keep your head down, why not if the family is Christian and you have nothing to fear personally.

Yet people do these things. Strangers risk their lives for strangers. I think that people can rise above our selfish animalistic behaviors. But it takes courage and if compassion and altruism was hardwired into our genes then our world would be alot different without much effort.

Nature or nuture? Well, although I don't think we are all hard-wired with compassion, I do think that alot of our personality is genetic. Which is then affected by how we are raised by our family. I definately don't think how we are raised defines who we are though. The key, Ibelieve, is the choices we make. Sometimes that can be as simple as being a kid and thinking "When I'm a parent, I'll never hit my kids." My mother and my aunt as kids were both abused by my grandmother. Same experiences but very different people. My mother chose not to abuse me, she knew it was wrong. As far as my aunt, I'm just glad she never had children....

Hannah responds, "To make sure I get what you're saying....do you mean that morality or doing good all comes down to genes? That evolution compels us to act altruistically?"

My response: 'All' comes down to genes? No. But the very fact that we have the ability to judge things in terms of good and bad? That is almost certainly programmed into us by evolution, just as our ability to judge things in terms of spatial orientation or how tasty they are. Note that being able to categorize things and rank them does not mean that everyone will put the same things into the same categories or in the same ranks -- the fact that (virtually) everyone can arrange things by how tasty they are does not mean that everyone will like Haggis.

However, our genes do code for predilictions which under the right conditions will often grow up to be full blown character traits. For example, our genes produce the tendency to like fatty and sugary foods. This doesn't mean our genes compell us to like McDonald's or eat there every day, but they do create the tendency in us to like foods that are high in fat and sugar. The thing with tendencies is that they only tend to happen -- not always, but often enough.

Another thing you have to understand is that our genes do not do the thinking for us -- they cannot command us to do things like "When in Nazi Germany, hide Jews in your basement" or "go to the store and buy dinner". They can only set the general parameters of the machine that we make such decisions with -- our brain. What it appears to come down to is that our genes give us (tendencies for) various drives that all compete with each other.

For example, we have the drive to eat, the drive to sleep, the drive to copulate, and so on. These drives compete because we cannot eat, sleep, copulate and so on all at the same time. Each behavior is well suited to a particular place and time, but not all the time. So our drives fluctuate in relative 'strength' (as determined by the situation around us), with the 'strongest' drive or alliance of drives winning out at any one time and having control of our body (before once again the situation makes it inappropriate and it weakens to cede control to another drive or alliance of drives).

To some extent the relative 'strength' of our drives is set by our genes -- you cannot ignore sleep or hunger for too long. But in order for humans to be flexible and adaptible, the genes have to leave a lot to learning and the environment. Learning is a major factor in determining what drives will be given 'power' by a particular situation and which will have 'power' leached away from them. That is one big reason why people don't all act the same in the same situation -- different life experiences have created differences in how their various drives will compete with each other (and which one will win out).

Altruistic actions are the result of drives just as much as eating or sleeping. Altruistic acts help our genes propogate often enough that our genes have given us altruistic drives. Of course, selfish act also help our genes propogate, so we have selfish drives too. Which will win out in any given situation? Well that's going to be largely determined by life experiences and learning.

Hannah continues, "I think I could make a pretty good argument that behaving selfishly would more benefitical to survival"

Our genes don't 'care' about our survival. If they did we would be immortal, or at least would live a lot longer. Our genes 'care' about their propogation. We are just gene-carriers, to be discarded when and if doing so helps gene propogation. Sometimes, risks to the individual gene-carrier (or even sacrifice of the individual gene-carrier) for the sakes of other gene-carriers is a good thing for the propogation of the genes. This is why genes give us tendencies to positively value such sacrifices, and drives to take such risks.

J.D. I need some clarification. It seems as if in one point you say genes "give us the drives or the tendencies." Then you say that "genes have to leave a lot to learning and the environment." This next question is totaly sincere (it seems you know a lot more about this than I do) Are genes maliable once the life cycle for a person has started? I mean my understanding is that the genes "set the stage" (so to speak) for the life. Your last post, to me, sounded as if gene mutation occurs through out life. I really don't know what I'm talking about now. Just curious.

You say: Our genes don't 'care' about our survival. If they did we would be immortal, or at least would live a lot longer.

How do we know that we don't live too long as it is for our genes? They surely don't need us past 50 or so.

Cure4Pain responds, "I need some clarification. It seems as if in one point you say genes "give us the drives or the tendencies." Then you say that "genes have to leave a lot to learning and the environment.""

My response: Genes give us the outline of drives and broad perceptual categories, but cannot fill in very much in terms of specifics -- i.e. they cannot make us percieve Haggis as tasty, and cannot make us brush our teeth. The specifics are filled in by learning as we go about our life.

Cure4Pain continues, "This next question is totaly sincere (it seems you know a lot more about this than I do) Are genes maliable once the life cycle for a person has started? I mean my understanding is that the genes "set the stage" (so to speak) for the life. Your last post, to me, sounded as if gene mutation occurs through out life. I really don't know what I'm talking about now. Just curious."

My response: No our genes do not change during our life, except in the sense that DNA in individual cells sometimes mutates due to radiation and such.

Cure4Pain continues, "You say: Our genes don't 'care' about our survival. If they did we would be immortal, or at least would live a lot longer.

How do we know that we don't live too long as it is for our genes? They surely don't need us past 50 or so."

My response: First of all, even if there were no particular genetic benefit to gene-carriers living past child-bearing age, that doesn't mean evolution dictates that we all drop dead the moment after we can no longer reproduce. "Don't need any longer" does not mean "Needs to be gotten rid of right now".

Moreover, there are genetic benefits to older gene-carriers, particularly in a social species with long childhoods and largely helpless babies -- older people can take care of the children while the young adults are off getting food and reproducing. Also, they can pass on their accumulated store of learned knowledge, which is especially useful for a learning-intensive species like us.

I think Daniel Dennet was right when he said that Christians have a belief in belief.

But why wouldn't we be geneticly predisposed to drop off after child bearing age? It seems to me that the parent would be a threat to space and food supply for the new born. Genes don't care about a store of learned knowledge do they? There are alot of parents who don't pass this on. I don't know.... just questions. Yes Norm...I believe in this whole God and Jesus stuff....so what.... I care enough to engage and have those beliefs challenged on this blog and others with those who I don't see eye to eye. Obviously there are some very intelligent respectful(rare for liberals) posters here and that is why I choose to hang around here. In fact I have even conceded on occasion where I have been wrong. I don't think my belief has clouded my vision, but you may see it differently. Maybe I have to realize that this isn't a Christian Nation anymore and we are indeed moving into a brave new world where there is no tolerance for such things. This bothers me but not much. I know that we could have the 10 Commandments wall papered on every square inch of public space and it wouldn't make a difference. So I say "bring it on" if we're gonna do this then lets do it!!! Let's do it before my kids are old enough to know otherwise. Anyway.....that was off subject rambling....

Cure4Pain responds, "But why wouldn't we be geneticly predisposed to drop off after child bearing age? It seems to me that the parent would be a threat to space and food supply for the new born. Genes don't care about a store of learned knowledge do they? There are alot of parents who don't pass this on. I don't know.... just questions."

Me response: First off, "new born" humans are essentially helpless for the first several years of life, and need the support of adult humans to survive. So in that sense adults, whether of child-bearing age or not, are not only not a threat, they are a necessity.

Of course you are correct in saying that a community that is very short on food will probably be more burdened by the elderly (in the sense of evolutionary fitness) than a community composed only of young adults and their children. But it is not at all clear that when food is less incredibly scarce that the community-without-elders is more fit than the community-with-elders.

Genes do 'care' about stores of knowledge because it's far 'cheaper' to simply pass knowledge on than to have every generation have to rediscover it. In that sense, a community that passes on knowledge will tend to do better than a community that doesn't.

And yes, some parents don't seem to pass on very much (though if they've raised the child at all then they've passed on language, cultural norms, and much else). But that's the thing with tendencies -- they only tend to happen, and don't necessarily happen. Many parents and grandparents do indeed pass on knowledge to children and grandchildren.

Yes but isn't that based on the assumption that this is "experiential" knowledge will be passed on. Genes can in no way know or control whether or not that gets passed on. It's more of "chance." If genes are evolving to a more advanced state then it would seem to be a waste of time and energy. Does that make sense or am I totaly off?

Cure4Pain responds, "Yes but isn't that based on the assumption that this is "experiential" knowledge will be passed on. Genes can in no way know or control whether or not that gets passed on. It's more of "chance.""

No, genes cannot 'control' directly -- but they can code for tendencies and general characteristics. Humans are social animals, we tend to talk to each other, and tell each other about how the universe works (or how we think it works). We tell stories, give warnings, impart recipes and generally relate a million different kinds of information to each other in a million different ways.

Moreover, humans perhaps more than any other creature are profoundly good mimics. Children learn not only what we tell them, but also by mimicking people around them. So even if an old person actively tries to avoid telling children things, if he is around children and does things where they can see, he will be passing on information anyway.

Maybe my uneducated mind can not grasp this. You say:

Children learn not only what we tell them, but also by mimicking people around them. So even if an old person actively tries to avoid telling children things, if he is around children and does things where they can see, he will be passing on information anyway.

I would say that children even in infantcy stage have a sense of right and wrong that is not learned. A baby that has a toy, for example, and the toy is taken away, feels some sense of "wrongness" has happened and reacts by crying. They are not mimicking. You may say that this goes back to the whole genetic tendcy post. I guess I have yet to understand and don't expect you to waste more time or energy trying. Good posts none the less.

Cure4Pain,

By 'passing of information' I was talking more about information like "how to get food" and "how not to belch at the table after eating food". 'Information' like "ooh, you like chocolate" and "you hate it when people take your toys" are not transferred from person to person, they come from inside -- from our genetically sanctioned drives, desires, emotions, and perceptual categories.