Original Sin and...

[_SteelHead]

Returning to this idea ;). Is a new born baby amoral?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Returning to this idea ;). Is a new born baby amoral?

Well, under Mormon theology vis a vis the pre-Existence and War in Heaven, the child is either guilty (thus immoral), or born to temple-recommend holding Mormons and innocent (thus moral).

Regardless, if Elohim is all-knowing everyone is pre-ordained to immorality and a degree of salvation.

- Doc

[_ludwigm]

Even a cannibalistic society has definitions for when killing another human is an offense against the members of the society.

Starving Settlers in Jamestown Colony Resorted to Cannibalism
New archaeological evidence and forensic analysis reveals that a 14-year-old girl was cannibalized in desperation

(http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... 72161.html)

... the first human "moral" is survival...

... and seems to be a working system.

[_SteelHead]

Yeah, I saw that article earlier. What it didn't say is that there are two type of cannibalism. The kind where you eat those that have otherwise expired, and the kind where you help them to their demise. I would think such a determination in that particular case would be almost impossible to make.

But that in some societies it is perfectly fine to kill somebody and eat them, makes the taboo against killing less than "universal". Though the "us" vs "them" rule seems to apply.

To restate, through much of written history it was fine and acceptable to rape, kill, loot, & pillage as long as you didn't do it at home.

[_subgenius]

Returning to this idea ;). Is a new born baby amoral?

no. likely not possible.
amoral is a conscious state. It is an intentional disregard. Besides, even Darwin concluded that morality is intrinsic to human beings.
Besides, would you not remember being amoral?

Do you think a new born baby is born without a "sense" of humor?

[_subgenius]

Again sub, while you mis represent my position, which is in a nutshell "definitions of good and bad are not universal".

Prove otherwise. Provide one moral value that is universal to humanity.

"the first human "moral" is survival."
viewtopic.php?p=705420#p705420

certainly you must agree.....provided for the win!

BUMP for SteelHead might be unable to see all the posts

[Guest]

New born yes. (Yes born without a sense of humor) And though the capacity for humor is ingrained, what is deemed humorous is learned. My Brazilian wife hates English comedies like Monty Python. She just doesn't understand the humor. So a significant portion of a "sense of humor" is learned. Just as is morality. A newborn has the capacity to become moral, but as a new born is amoral, lacking the capacities inherent in the definition of moral.

The underpinnings for developing morality are present, but as morality varies from culture to culture, the full code is learned.

[_SteelHead]

Survival isn't a moral it is an instinct. I used it flippantly. For the fifth time.

Any way....

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... c=y&page=2

Where morality comes from is a really hard problem,” says Alison Gopnik, a developmental psychologist at the University of California at Berkeley. “There isn’t a moral module that is there innately. But the elements that underpin morality—altruism, sympathy for others, the understanding of other people’s goals—are in place much earlier than we thought, and clearly in place before children turn 2.”

Perhaps not intrinsic?

Other critics, meanwhile, fault the developmental philosophy behind the experiments. Babies may look like they’re endowed with robust social skills, these researchers argue, but actually they start from scratch with only senses and reflexes, and, largely through interaction with their mothers, learn about the social world in an astonishingly short period of time. “I don’t think they are born with knowledge,” says Jeremy Carpendale, a psychologist at Simon Fraser University. A toddler’s moral perspective, he says, is not a given.

And still other scientists think the baby studies underestimate the power of regional culture. Joe Henrich, a University of British Columbia psychologist, says qualities like altruism and moral logic cannot be exclusively genetic, as evinced by the wide variety of helping behaviors in hunter-gatherer and small-scale horticulturist groups across the world, especially compared with Western norms. Ideas of the public good and appropriate punishment, for instance, are not fixed across societies: Among the Matsigenka people of the Peruvian Amazon, where Henrich works, helping rarely occurs outside of the immediate household, if only because members of the tribe tend to live with relatives.

“There are biological effects that people think are genetic, but culture affects them,” he says, adding: “Culture changes your brain.” He points to variations in fMRI brain scans of people from diverse backgrounds.

[_subgenius]

So Adam clearly transgressed...sinned by disobeying a commandment from God....this is further reinforced by Adam (and Eve, and mankind) suffering the consequence of that transgression.

Not strictly true.

Some people believe Adam and Eve committed a serious sin when they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, latter-day scriptures help us understand that their Fall was a necessary step in the plan of life and a great blessing to all of us. Because of the Fall, we are blessed with physical bodies, the right to choose between good and evil, and the opportunity to gain eternal life. None of these privileges would have been ours had Adam and Eve remained in the garden.

http://www.LDS.org/manual/gospel-princi ... e?lang=eng

How can it be a transgression...sin...in the eyes of God when it was EXACTLY what God wanted to happen?
How can the phrase "suffering the consequences" be consistent with the phrase "None of these privileges"?
It seems you want to say we suffered as a result of the Fall, yet the Church portrays it as gaining privileges.

good point...so, the Mormon position is that the Atonement has no applicability to the "original sin" because that sin was necessary...and likely there was no sin at all?
see also Article of Faith #2
"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

So, is this how the apostate churches view this situation as well?

[_SteelHead]

"apostate churches"

I love how sub continuously uses loaded phrases.