Here's another one of my philosophical theories which, as far as I know, hasn't been duplicated by anyone else. There's a great debate in philosophy about whether or not man has an inherent (pre-installed, or innate) knowledge of what is moral, or whether we just made it up or learned it from an outside source such as nature or God. Until recently, I sided with the philosopher John Locke, who said that although we don't have any inherent knowledge, God has told us and given us the tools to discover what is right and wrong. Locke asserts that we are blank slates when we enter the world, and that the only way we can have knowledge and ideas is by reasoning, using our five senses, and reflection (observing how our own minds work).
The reason I no longer completely agree with Locke is because I thought of an idea that I think is inherent to everyone, even if someone were raised completely separate from other humans. Let me take that example and show you what I mean. Let's assume there's a child who was born in the jungle, we'll call him Bob, and for some reason his mother died and he was raised by animals. Now let's say that you wandered into this jungle and got lost and started to starve. Bob sees you and realizes that you're starving. Due to social instinct, Bob goes to the trouble of finding and preparing some food for you. However, when he brings you the food, let's say that for no reason at all you take it, throw it on the ground and grind it into the dirt. Now what do you suppose that Bob, who has never heard of morality, justice, or right and wrong, would do? He would probably be ticked.
I think that everyone, no matter where they come from, starts out thinking that kindness should be returned with kindness. Even if people say they don't believe it, if they say that we should take what we can get and not bother about where it comes from, I think their actions show otherwise. If we do something nice, we expect people to appreciate it; or, at the very least, not to show contempt for it.
This discovery may seem insignificant, but the desire to have kindness reciprocated is actually the basis for most of our social and moral laws. After all, it is only a small step from there to the famous command, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And from there, all sorts of theories can be deduced. Kant's Retributivism, and Bentham's Utilitarianism are both different interpretations of that command, when you think about it. So perhaps there is something to be said for inherent ideas after all, or at least for one. Maybe when Adam and Eve decided to chow down on the forbidden fruit, the human race was introduced to the concept of "Do as you would be done by." Maybe our ability to understand that is, in fact, the knowledge of good and evil.
S.D.G.
The reason I no longer completely agree with Locke is because I thought of an idea that I think is inherent to everyone, even if someone were raised completely separate from other humans. Let me take that example and show you what I mean. Let's assume there's a child who was born in the jungle, we'll call him Bob, and for some reason his mother died and he was raised by animals. Now let's say that you wandered into this jungle and got lost and started to starve. Bob sees you and realizes that you're starving. Due to social instinct, Bob goes to the trouble of finding and preparing some food for you. However, when he brings you the food, let's say that for no reason at all you take it, throw it on the ground and grind it into the dirt. Now what do you suppose that Bob, who has never heard of morality, justice, or right and wrong, would do? He would probably be ticked.
I think that everyone, no matter where they come from, starts out thinking that kindness should be returned with kindness. Even if people say they don't believe it, if they say that we should take what we can get and not bother about where it comes from, I think their actions show otherwise. If we do something nice, we expect people to appreciate it; or, at the very least, not to show contempt for it.
This discovery may seem insignificant, but the desire to have kindness reciprocated is actually the basis for most of our social and moral laws. After all, it is only a small step from there to the famous command, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And from there, all sorts of theories can be deduced. Kant's Retributivism, and Bentham's Utilitarianism are both different interpretations of that command, when you think about it. So perhaps there is something to be said for inherent ideas after all, or at least for one. Maybe when Adam and Eve decided to chow down on the forbidden fruit, the human race was introduced to the concept of "Do as you would be done by." Maybe our ability to understand that is, in fact, the knowledge of good and evil.
S.D.G.
