Mere Atheism- Indeterminacy and Morals

[whynaut]

I have just started reading Mere Christianity and I find CS Lewis' logic more or less sound, at least the beginning where he points to mankind's inherent morals as a proof of God. I will not go into detail (you should read the book for a more thorough explanation than my summary), but Lewis basically says that because humans know right from wrong then this knowledge must come from somewhere outside of humans. This inherent morality can be show not to be in accordance to something biological because there are times when the right thing to do is not pleasurable and may even harm us which goes against the primal reward/punishment motivations. Also that if we know things to be bad then there must be an inherent good by which we contrast that to. Though again, Lewis goes into argument with much more depth.

Anyway, I find the argument sound except for the fact that I disagree with his most basic tenant: I do not believe in right or wrong and nor do I believe that it is inherent to mankind. After that, the argument for a deity sort of collapses for me.

But here is my point. I have argued with many of the people in this guild against not just God, but against meaning in general. The atheists in this group consent that there is no God, but that there is an inherent right/wrong or otherwise a morality that is not merely subjective. What I do not understand is how both of these things can be true. The way I see it you can either have a God and meaning, or no God and meaninglessness. I am not sure how a person could justify that odd middle ground of an inherent values but no outside influence to set the standard of these values.

If morality does not lie with God then what does it lie with? If it lies with humans, then we all know that humans' minds (and even one human's mind) can vary widely. It goes to follow that if morality is based on humans then it could drastically change as well over time and therefore show itself to be transitory and meaningless.

If someone can, please explain to me how one can hold onto both inherent morality and a lack of a God.  

[dybo]

CS Lewis is an interesting author. Morality cannot be described as proof of God, because morality is not absolute. Humans are born with some sense of "right and wrong," insomuch as any creature is born with certain instincts of selfpreservation. Beyond that, morality mostly comes from nurture rather than nature: people who grow up in different societies and households often hold different things as moral/immoral.

And what do you mean by no right and wrong? That seems...vaguely impossible. I'd say right and wrong are subjective, but there is always the basic "right" (i.e. survival) and "wrong" (i.e. oblivion).  

[whynaut]

dybo

CS Lewis is an interesting author. Morality cannot be described as proof of God, because morality is not absolute. Humans are born with some sense of "right and wrong," insomuch as any creature is born with certain instincts of selfpreservation. Beyond that, morality mostly comes from nurture rather than nature: people who grow up in different societies and households often hold different things as moral/immoral.

And what do you mean by no right and wrong? That seems...vaguely impossible. I'd say right and wrong are subjective, but there is always the basic "right" (i.e. survival) and "wrong" (i.e. oblivion).

That is my point exactly. So how can we call ourselves moral if morality is subjective? If we had God, then we could say "what God says equals morality".

I am just saying I do not understand how atheists (like myself) can claim to have a higher moral standing without anything to 'peg' that standard to.  

[Oniko-inuki]

I don't think they mean to say that morality is objective, but that we have a capacity to recognize that something is moral. Especially so that which extends beyond the self, may in fact be detrimental to the self for the benefit of the greater community.

?? Maybe? I'm grasping at straws here.  

[Niniva]

I suppose I'll toss my hat in here, though there isn't much point beyond just discussion as you have already stated that your stance is that morality is not innate and therefore meaningless. If that is true than there really isn't much to talk about as far as morality goes other than to ask you a few questions.

1. If morality is not innate then why do we see similar types of moral views in every human society since it was evolved enough to comprehend rational though?

2. If Morality is not innate then there is no morality at all as you suggested, put similarly by the person underneath the first post: It is subjective and so you say therefore meaningless, but if that is the case then we have moral quandries.....why is that you yourself have murdered no one (assuming you haven't) or do not enjoy the idea of people taking that which belongs to you, or feel intrinsically threatened (even if it is instinctual) when your own life is threatened and desire to save it? Say it as whatever you will, but if your life was threatened you would have the same neurological and emotional responses as any other rational, thinking being, if that is so, then you must therefore believe yourself to have the right to live on, if there is no morality then there are no rights either and so your intrinsic response is therefore.......wrong? Self preservation is a form of morality is it not?

3. Mere Christianity is a strong proof for the existance of a Diety of some sort that is true.....at least the first five chapters anyway. But in those chapters it does assume (as you have said) that man is born with innate...or intrinsic....instinctual ideas of what is right vs what is wrong but I think you have defined them too rigidly. I think the idea of morality in an intrinsic sense is nothing more than the few "inalienable" rights that each man believes himself to have....IE: Life, Liberty (in the sense of freedom to think, not necessarily act), and property. Now explain to me how any of these "rights" (for lack of a more appropriate word) do not represent a moral code. Whenever your right...to think....is infringed upon, however that may be, you naturally deffend it. Whenever your right to life is infringed upon you deffend it....whenever your property is stepped upon or taken from you...you feel as though you should get it back....and I am not only speaking of posesions but the idea of "It's mine" itself applying to anything including your body, ideas, and what have you.


For the sake of discussion....if there is no morality then no one has any "right" to any of those things. Are you saying that people do not have the right to life? They do not have the right to think? Because it seems to me that the mere fact that they do it and cannot be stopped from doing it makes it that very "inallienable" right. This is not intended to become political so please leave the refrences to the constitution as accidental, for even that was built on a moral code...but a moral code that they thought ascribed to all people.

Anyway, answer those above if you like.  

[whynaut]

This post is a little different for me because I am not necessarily trying to push an agenda . This time I just want a legitimate explanation for my question above. "If inherent morality does not come from God, then where does it come from?"

Niniva, you point to this inner sense in humans that you feel transcends all (or rather, most) human cultures. While I am not sure I agree with that yet, let us hypothesize for a moment that you are right. Where does this sense come from?

What Oniko-inuki said about morality being a community thing possibly makes sense from a evolutionary standard, but does this mean that morality is biological? But then, why are so many people able to break from this apparent biological standard?

To me, the simple explanation for all these questions is that there is no inherent morality, but I want to know what you think.

As to Niniva's legitimate question to why I would feel wronged if something was taken from me, be it my life or my possessions, the answer is "I don't really know". I might be willing to chalk it up to conditioning just because these feelings that I have are only feelings. While I would likely feel bad about killing someone, there is no force inside of me that could physically stop me from killing anyone. Killing, as an action, is actually a very simple process. 'Pull Finger A onto Gun Trigger B'. If morality is supposed to be so innate, then shouldn't there be some sort of physical block that should prevent me from killing someone? Or am I missing the point about what morality is supposed to be?  

[Niniva]

whynaut

This post is a little different for me because I am not necessarily trying to push an agenda . This time I just want a legitimate explanation for my question above. "If inherent morality does not come from God, then where does it come from?"

Niniva, you point to this inner sense in humans that you feel transcends all (or rather, most) human cultures. While I am not sure I agree with that yet, let us hypothesize for a moment that you are right. Where does this sense come from?

After a long deliberation on this topic which lasted for some five years I have come to the conclusion that IF......IF there is an innate morality of some sort then there is only one place it could have come from that makes any sense at all. That place or thing...or being.....is God. I cannot concievably give you any answer other than that. That is of course assuming that there is some kind of innate morality.

Quote:

What Oniko-inuki said about morality being a community thing possibly makes sense from a evolutionary standard, but does this mean that morality is biological? But then, why are so many people able to break from this apparent biological standard?

To me, the simple explanation for all these questions is that there is no inherent morality, but I want to know what you think.

As to Niniva's legitimate question to why I would feel wronged if something was taken from me, be it my life or my possessions, the answer is "I don't really know". I might be willing to chalk it up to conditioning just because these feelings that I have are only feelings. While I would likely feel bad about killing someone, there is no force inside of me that could physically stop me from killing anyone. Killing, as an action, is actually a very simple process. 'Pull Finger A onto Gun Trigger B'. If morality is supposed to be so innate, then shouldn't there be some sort of physical block that should prevent me from killing someone? Or am I missing the point about what morality is supposed to be?

You are. In ethics we reffer to "morality" not with a singular term, but with something called the "moral will". In other words, in order for morality to even exist at all there must first be a will. Without a driving force, or the idea that you intended the action you did to occur or willed it into action then there can be no morality.

I cannot be blamed any more for those things which I had no control over then you can be for breathing or blinking. If I could not have stopped myself via some force that I am responsible for and can control then I am thereby not morally responsible for my actions. Therefore, the purely physical aspect of actions has nothing to do with morality. What morality has entirely to do with was 1) did you have the ability to not do what you did...2)If that is so then you consciously chose to do what you did by your own free will....3) you are responsible for the outcome of that action.

In essence morality and free will go hand in hand. It is almost as though you cannot have one without the other though libertarians ressemble something more like indetermanancy they still hold true to what is said above. Without the genuine ability to be able to conciously evaluate the situation and choose to do it....or not do it.....there is no morality.  

[whynaut]

Ok Niniva, that makes sense. Whether or not there truly is an innate morality, we both agree that if one were to exists it would have to come from God. While God can be described in many ways, I think were are both talking about some sort of transcending "force" (for lack of a better term) that we can assume is immutable and exists outside of anything physical, like biology or psychology, etc (because physicality is mutable). While Christians refer to this is God's will, other religions like Taoism make reference to "The Way" that would also serve this same process or transcending force. If you would like to add any addendum to this you are welcome.

And I get what you said about will and morality; that morality is choosing the "right" path over the wrong one because if we did not have the choice then would could not choose to be good. But that goes into a realm of metaphysics that I am not prepared to discuss. My initial question was where does morality come from if not God because nothing earthly seems to fit the bill for something that important. But sadly, I do not believe in a God and so I can only conclude that there is no inherent morality.
The simple "if 'A' then 'B'" argument goes like this for me:
If GOD then MORALITY
GOD is untrue
therefore MORALITY is untrue.
I suppose my initial question really was, "what could be replaced for 'A'/GOD?"
I know that C.S. Lewis came to his conclusion coming from the other way around i.e. "If MORALITY then GOD" but I have found far too much indeterminacy in both morality and god to be sure that either are true.  

[Niniva]

Quote:

Ok Niniva, that makes sense. Whether or not there truly is an innate morality, we both agree that if one were to exists it would have to come from God. While God can be described in many ways, I think were are both talking about some sort of transcending "force" (for lack of a better term) that we can assume is immutable and exists outside of anything physical, like biology or psychology, etc (because physicality is mutable). While Christians refer to this is God's will, other religions like Taoism make reference to "The Way" that would also serve this same process or transcending force. If you would like to add any addendum to this you are welcome.

This seems mostly true yes. Call it what you will, this "force" is intrinsically the same thing for most (if not in fact all) world religions. There is little to add to what you have said above.

Quote:

And I get what you said about will and morality; that morality is choosing the "right" path over the wrong one because if we did not have the choice then would could not choose to be good. But that goes into a realm of metaphysics that I am not prepared to discuss. My initial question was where does morality come from if not God because nothing earthly seems to fit the bill for something that important. But sadly, I do not believe in a God and so I can only conclude that there is no inherent morality.
The simple "if 'A' then 'B'" argument goes like this for me:
If GOD then MORALITY
GOD is untrue
therefore MORALITY is untrue.
I suppose my initial question really was, "what could be replaced for 'A'/GOD?"
I know that C.S. Lewis came to his conclusion coming from the other way around i.e. "If MORALITY then GOD" but I have found far too much indeterminacy in both morality and god to be sure that either are true.

Firstly like me state that it strikes me as odd that you would use an argument of causality and logical consistency since you have proclaimed in other threads as well as this one that you are an indeterminism and ascribe to chaos theory. If everything is chaos then your thought pattern here is askew and mumbling nonsense.

However if there are at least portions of reality which are a priory such as logic then your argument makes sense.

If P then Q....that is of course P = God and Q = Morality.

You are saying ~P so therefore ~Q correct? That is an inference you are not truly entitled to make. Based solely on the premises you have provided so you must add another.

1. If God then Morality.
2. There can be no morality without a God to set it in place
3. there is no God
4. Therefore by 2 & 3 there is also no innate morality

So if I am correct in my thinking you are asking if I can ascribe to this argument? What if God is not real? Can there be morality then?

According to this logical formula (assuming it is both valid and sound) then no. But is this logical formula BOTH valid AND sound? I think that many ethical philosophers would attack your #2 here and say that all morality is not innate and that some is set in place via nurture rather then human nature and thus there is SOME morality even if there is no God, even if is a social morality.

I personally think I would attack #3 and #4 on the grounds of historical consistency. Much like C.S. Lewis, when I sit down and watch the behavior of men, even men of different societies from different ages of the earth...and different ages of their own life, I see consistent patterns of behavior. "good" is a relative term and so I should shy away from it but there is a typical way man behaves, one of those ways....is that we behave as though we are free thinking and free willed individuals who believe ourselves to have certain rights.

You claim indeterminacy in God, and I can see how one might say that but do share with me some of your quams, perhaps I have asked the same questions a few times in the past. Because it would occur to me that most of the world's issues with a "God" existing are wrought out of a misrepresentation of what God might actually be.....namely speaking....an arrogance about what may or may not be known about God.

Before I stray too far from the mark here lets get back to morality and causality and determinacy vs indeterminacy. When you say "far too much indeterminacy in both morality and God" can you give me an example of what you mean by those things? I am not certain I understand what you are reffering to, which I'm sure is a fault of my own inability to view things objectively. Help me understand (if it is even possible) and perhaps I can present an argument that will be half convincing.  

[Oniko-inuki]

whynaut

What Oniko-inuki said about morality being a community thing possibly makes sense from a evolutionary standard, but does this mean that morality is biological? But then, why are so many people able to break from this apparent biological standard?

If it is a biological imperitive I think it would be along similar lines with our other social tendancies; a rather vague compulsion to act, but the specifics are decided by our conscious minds. Further, if it is something hardwired into our brains it could just a easily be rewritten by a faulty gene or screwed up brain chemistry, or simply be overwhelmed by other compulsions. I think this could easily account for the breaks from the standard.  

[Niniva]

Oniko-inuki

whynaut

What Oniko-inuki said about morality being a community thing possibly makes sense from a evolutionary standard, but does this mean that morality is biological? But then, why are so many people able to break from this apparent biological standard?

If it is a biological imperitive I think it would be along similar lines with our other social tendancies; a rather vague compulsion to act, but the specifics are decided by our conscious minds. Further, if it is something hardwired into our brains it could just a easily be rewritten by a faulty gene or screwed up brain chemistry, or simply be overwhelmed by other compulsions. I think this could easily account for the breaks from the standard.

Well that may be true but you're going to have to evaluate what a "concious mind" actually is. That is a topic of hot debate but essentially speaking there appears to be something rather non-biological about it, so if morality comes from that then you're not really stating it any differently than we are by saying it is innate since that concious mind is not a social standard...it is unique to every person, so if that is where it comes from then "compulsion to act" is still something non-biological and looks more innate then anything else.

I think there is something to be said for social morality but to say it is totally social is probably a mistake.  

[whynaut]

Niniva

When you say "far too much indeterminacy in both morality and God" can you give me an example of what you mean by those things?

I have been developing new views on Chaos (big C), and have decided that if everything was chaotic (small C), then that could be predicted and therefore not True Chaos. True Chaos would have to be where literally anything can happen including the possibility of exactly what we predict. But I digress.

I personally would disagree with philosophers if they claimed that morality comes from humans. If it did, I do not believe it would have the right to be called "morality". Morality, as I understand it, is hierarchical: there is good at the top, evil at the bottom, and degrees of both in between. This is a standard like a meter stick. That is how a person can claim that one decision is "better" than another because it is higher on the scale of morality. What constitutes morality would become meaningless if everyone in the world was carrying a different sized meter stick and claiming they could determine the "right" length of things. And yet, this is the world that I see.

I do not claim that God is "unjust" or "evil" because, as Lewis said, this would imply that there indeed was an inherent morality to judge God by. What I see is a world that is constantly moving in all directions at once. By pure chance, ideas get supported while other ideals wither and die. Humanity as a whole does not seem to be moving in any direction: not only do we make the same mistakes, but sometimes humanity moves backwards as well. Great civilizations collapse over night, and the smallest obscurest ideas can explode and become "truth". I am not saying that this is bad, but that it does not make any sense. And I have only been talking about human society so far.

At the "highest" level of any academic field we realize that we know nothing. While classical physics claims a rigidly defined universe, quantum physics not only describes a random universe the humans can never know, but that is physically unknowable. In literature, we start in realism where good and evil are clearly defined, but now we have postmodernist literature that talks humorously about human arrogance of believing we could accurately understand either. Simple terms like "up" becomes relative when we consider that in space there are no innate reference points and "up" is also "down". Even something as inescapable as time changes for the subject relative to their velocity, and twins could end up different ages at the speed of light.

And I could go on and on and on about similar observations of mine. To me, it seems that when you delve into something you eventually find that there are no answers and that the "rules" are inherently held up by nothing. Then when you try to live your live knowing that things are unknowable (as I once tried) "rules" then smack you in the face, which just makes things even more confusing.

If we were to imagine a world without God, where God did not exist, I cannot see how that world would be any different from the way it is right now. Just ideas and people bouncing off one another at random. If there was no God people could not all be evil, because as we agreed God defines good and evil. Without God, people would just do everything and anything all the time without inherent purpose or reason, and that is what they are doing now.  

[whynaut]

Niniva

Oniko-inuki

If it is a biological imperative I think it would be along similar lines with our other social tendencies; a rather vague compulsion to act, but the specifics are decided by our conscious minds. Further, if it is something hardwired into our brains it could just a easily be rewritten by a faulty gene or screwed up brain chemistry, or simply be overwhelmed by other compulsions. I think this could easily account for the breaks from the standard.

Well that may be true but you're going to have to evaluate what a "conscious mind" actually is. That is a topic of hot debate but essentially speaking there appears to be something rather non-biological about it, so if morality comes from that then you're not really stating it any differently than we are by saying it is innate since that conscious mind is not a social standard...it is unique to every person, so if that is where it comes from then "compulsion to act" is still something non-biological and looks more innate then anything else.

I think there is something to be said for social morality but to say it is totally social is probably a mistake.

If we imagine that morality comes from some sort of biology, in the brain perhaps, then it still raises a few questions that I hope you could answer for me:
Since individual biologies vary, then can morality vary from person to person and how much?
If it cannot and this morality sense in more or less standard in humans (like how two arms is standard and people with a lack are aberrations), then could morality have gone a different way in terms of evolution? Like how the primordial ooze evolved into humans, birds, insects, dogs, caribou, etc. could morality have developed radically differently?
If it could have, then can we still call this morality "innate" because "good" and "evil" would then be based off of biological chance rather than an immutable standard?  

[Niniva]

whynaut

Niniva

When you say "far too much indeterminacy in both morality and God" can you give me an example of what you mean by those things?

I have been developing new views on Chaos (big C), and have decided that if everything was chaotic (small C), then that could be predicted and therefore not True Chaos. True Chaos would have to be where literally anything can happen including the possibility of exactly what we predict. But I digress.

I personally would disagree with philosophers if they claimed that morality comes from humans. If it did, I do not believe it would have the right to be called "morality". Morality, as I understand it, is hierarchical: there is good at the top, evil at the bottom, and degrees of both in between. This is a standard like a meter stick. That is how a person can claim that one decision is "better" than another because it is higher on the scale of morality. What constitutes morality would become meaningless if everyone in the world was carrying a different sized meter stick and claiming they could determine the "right" length of things. And yet, this is the world that I see.

I do not claim that God is "unjust" or "evil" because, as Lewis said, this would imply that there indeed was an inherent morality to judge God by. What I see is a world that is constantly moving in all directions at once. By pure chance, ideas get supported while other ideals wither and die. Humanity as a whole does not seem to be moving in any direction: not only do we make the same mistakes, but sometimes humanity moves backwards as well. Great civilizations collapse over night, and the smallest obscurest ideas can explode and become "truth". I am not saying that this is bad, but that it does not make any sense. And I have only been talking about human society so far.

At the "highest" level of any academic field we realize that we know nothing. While classical physics claims a rigidly defined universe, quantum physics not only describes a random universe the humans can never know, but that is physically unknowable. In literature, we start in realism where good and evil are clearly defined, but now we have postmodernist literature that talks humorously about human arrogance of believing we could accurately understand either. Simple terms like "up" becomes relative when we consider that in space there are no innate reference points and "up" is also "down". Even something as inescapable as time changes for the subject relative to their velocity, and twins could end up different ages at the speed of light.

And I could go on and on and on about similar observations of mine. To me, it seems that when you delve into something you eventually find that there are no answers and that the "rules" are inherently held up by nothing. Then when you try to live your live knowing that things are unknowable (as I once tried) "rules" then smack you in the face, which just makes things even more confusing.

If we were to imagine a world without God, where God did not exist, I cannot see how that world would be any different from the way it is right now. Just ideas and people bouncing off one another at random. If there was no God people could not all be evil, because as we agreed God defines good and evil. Without God, people would just do everything and anything all the time without inherent purpose or reason, and that is what they are doing now.

Dealing with this first let me say that all those things have also occured to me, but if all is chaotic and random....then how did you deduce that?

Something must hold to be true, in this case logic. In the case of quantum physics it is mathematics. They do not call everything random, they do not say that up is down, they merely measure from an arbitrary perspective just as in the theory of relativity. There must be a point of observation in which you begin in order to measure. That does not suggest chaos, it suggests that the world operates predictably so long as you first know where to begin. Even in relativity there is a particular vantage point at which we base every other vantage point off of and that is the light cone. From that light cone we measure everything else as relative to each other.

You would find yourself hard pressed to find no pattern at all in human history either, in point of fact it all only speaks to thermodynamic's truth. The cycle of physics is much like the cycle of mankind. We build a great society which is eventually torn down by war and riches and other things that are very typical and very common, sex, money, lies, decietfulness, all of it tends to sway man's decisions and then eventually brings about ruin in every society. It follows a predictable pattern and always has.

By Hume's problem of induction we can then say of course we can't know the future, thats true, but we can predict it will occur and be quite right about.

What I see is causing you this grief appears to be a category error. You seem to think that we are claiming that english words for things like up, and down, and even words like five or ten....are accurate descriptions for things and that is how we truely see them, but that is not the case. "Up" is not truly always in a signular direction it just happens to be what we call it. "Down" is much like up, there is no real refferent for the word other than things that pertain to common speech so that we can speak to each other intelligently.

Just as the word "five" could very well have reffered to the number six should we have happened to have chosen it, it doesn't change the "actual" number of fingers I have, even if I call it six. Just as when I travel in say......"that" direction, it could very well be up, or down for that matter but calling it up or down does in no way change the fact that I am traveling in a particular direction.

So as it stands things are chaotic but only until you understand their essence or "actuallity" which typically pertains to one of two things, mathematics or logic. If you believe in chaos then there is no real coherency of thought, or words and what they refer to, or anything at all.  

[Niniva]

whynaut

Niniva

Oniko-inuki

If it is a biological imperative I think it would be along similar lines with our other social tendencies; a rather vague compulsion to act, but the specifics are decided by our conscious minds. Further, if it is something hardwired into our brains it could just a easily be rewritten by a faulty gene or screwed up brain chemistry, or simply be overwhelmed by other compulsions. I think this could easily account for the breaks from the standard.

Well that may be true but you're going to have to evaluate what a "conscious mind" actually is. That is a topic of hot debate but essentially speaking there appears to be something rather non-biological about it, so if morality comes from that then you're not really stating it any differently than we are by saying it is innate since that conscious mind is not a social standard...it is unique to every person, so if that is where it comes from then "compulsion to act" is still something non-biological and looks more innate then anything else.

I think there is something to be said for social morality but to say it is totally social is probably a mistake.

If we imagine that morality comes from some sort of biology, in the brain perhaps, then it still raises a few questions that I hope you could answer for me:
Since individual biologies vary, then can morality vary from person to person and how much?
If it cannot and this morality sense in more or less standard in humans (like how two arms is standard and people with a lack are aberrations), then could morality have gone a different way in terms of evolution? Like how the primordial ooze evolved into humans, birds, insects, dogs, caribou, etc. could morality have developed radically differently?
If it could have, then can we still call this morality "innate" because "good" and "evil" would then be based off of biological chance rather than an immutable standard?

In pondering these things I shall try and set aside any sort of personal beliefs on the matter and attempt even to remove my humanity from the conversation so that I can view things from the "could have been" form of David Lewis and his possible worlds.

IF.....morality were in fact purely biological then there first must be some system in the body that is normal for humanity (and most probably some other animals as well) that governs it.

That being said IF that is true, then the answer to your first question would be yes, but only as much as would allow them to function normalls much like your cardiovascular system can differ (some people have natural pulse rates in the 40's some in the 90's) and yet you are not absent from normal society or an "outlier". In other words we would see some sort of non chaotic pattern within a biological system such as the brain that is typical and we would certainly be able to tell when it was NOT typical as well.

As for Evolution, the way you put it...IF man evolved from that same primortial ooze could it have been that the "strongest" that survived were the thieves and murderers? I can imagine a world in which that is the case and so therefore it must be that it was indeed "possible" that it could have happened that way sure.

I believe we could call it innate much the same as we call you eye color innate. Just because it could have been different does not mean you were not born with that predisposition. If it is a standard that all humans "normally" have then there must be a reason for it. That must mean it was the trait that naturally won out, superiorly speaking....in other words the most "fit" thing for humans to evolve was for this particular brand of morality to be the one that won out over all the others. That is survival tactics, you do what you must in order to preserve the species and that may include things that are paradoxical to that very morality that you are attempting to preserve, but in the end the trait itself wins out over the others.

Could it have been different? Certainly. Even if it were not biological it "could" have been different but as Kantian Ethics suggest, one's actions should be dictated by a simple question: "What if all men did this?"

Based on a logical standard then this seems to be the most correct...which would indicate that since man began at a certain stage and thought this way we have emerged with the ideals we have and so therefore it must have been innate since every man would intrinsically come up with the same answer to the most difficult of moral questions.