Which feral child studies are you referring to? I'd genuinely love to read a well documented "feral child" study. Most of what I've read is largely based on myth and hearsay. Do you have a legitimate source?
Again, there's no reason to develop morality if one lives alone. Morality probably came about thousands of years ago when Caveman A noticed that Caveman B never hunted, gathered wood, and took all the food and had sex with all the women while Caveman A did the work - and boom, it hit him, that's not fair! Morality was probably born out of the same kind of efficient logic that perpetuates evolution. In my opinion, morality is a key component in the evolutionary success of humans. So, of course it's socially driven. But I don't understand why you think that nature cannot instill in us certain social predispositions / instincts / etc...?
Point well taken. Given your point that there's no
reason to develop morality if one lives alone, then the feral child hypothesis is moot. However, my point about vastly differing (and opposite) morals and mores in various cultures across the world still stand
s. If there is a universal morality instilled by nature, then some universal mores would come across in the study of various societies across the globe. And what I mean by morality here is something that humans do or refrain from doing that does not seem to make sense under a biological argument (this was the context in which I first discussed the concept). Specifically, back to the topic, my point is that there is nothing wrong with the intelligent subjugating the unintelligent if biology determines intelligence. Someone else implied that this statement was making a moral judgment when in fact, it wasn't. It was simply the logical conclusion.
I think that nature can instill within us a
capacity for society and culture but does not determine the aspects of that society/culture. That is, it gives us the ability to negotiate contracts with others without stipulating any rules to those contracts. So any conception of morality is not biological but rather a consequence of environmental conditions. That's why a wide spectrum of morals came to be. In environmental conditions where cooperation is essential, the contracts stipulate that a hefty penalty be dealt to those who steal or covet their neighbors' possessions. In environmental conditions where the benefits from stealing outweigh those from cooperation, the contracts stipulate a sort of "finders keepers" sort of policy. So social mores are not determined by biology even though the capacity for society is.
A) You can't ignore epigenetics lol. Just because we don't really understand much about it doesn't mean we should throw it out. Environment (nurture) affects the way our genes manifest (nature). So, like I originally claimed, you cannot separate the two.
B) How do you know nurture isn't pre-determined? How do you know we don't have a disposition to share, be kind, promote social harmony, etc...? Why are some people more aggressive / "hot-headed" than others? Why are females typically less aggressive than males? Are you saying our emotions are not controlled by physiologic mechanisms? Just because one doesn't manifest these traits (e.g. being born in isolation) doesn't mean that the predispositions are absent.
C) You claim that "most of your phenotypes are pre-determined." Really? Will someone that was starved throughout childhood look the same as their clone who was fed properly? Nature is not inseparable from environment.
D) What's the phenotype of one's brain?
E) Just because there is moral pluralism in the world doesn't mean that some sort of biological morality doesn't exist. For example, maybe it's just extremely easy to "overwrite" the biological, innate instincts with cultural ones?
Alright, one at a time.
A) I omitted epigenetics because epigenetics can only work with what is there. Genes are still set by birth - you just have more options than one. So, hypothetically, you could have a gene for brown eyes and a gene for green eyes active at different times in your life but there's no way you're gonna have blue eyes at any point in your life because that's simply not one of the options. I still don't think you understand the fundamental difference between an evolutionary outcome (nature) and nurture. This difference is well established in the evolutionary biology community. Say your genes predispose you to be polygamous (which, by dominant thought, they do). That doesn't mean that you have to be. Western society is an obvious example. Culture (nurture) has made us monogamous out here in the West even though our genes say otherwise.
B) I'm not saying that emotions are not controlled by physiological mechanisms but that they are not controlled by
evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution gave us the ability to adapt (a very very loose definition of intelligence now). Because of our ability to adapt, we can become aggressive or not aggressive based simply on the culture/environment we are raised in. Females may be less aggressive because society tells them that they should be "feminine." The key test is a twin study. Twins raised in different environments develop social skills differently. I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I don't know the literature on this subject as well as I should but one could easily find such studies.
C) Health and emaciation are not pre-determined while the general range of body size is. Asians are phenotypically shorter in stature and have smaller build compared to Caucasians. You ever see a non-blue-eyed baby from a blue-eyed couple? That's nature. We're not slaves to our genes. That's why there's nurture. Health and emaciation are determined by nurture. Of course, there's a spectrum and you could say that your genes have a role in everything but what I'm interested in isn't the 0.00001% that your genes contribute to some abstract phenotype but rather what the dominant influence is.
D) The brain is the result of many phenotypes. I'm not sure I understand your point here.
E) You could say that it's easy to overwrite the biological instincts but that just shows that the biological contribution is really really small and insignificant (unless you can prove that humans are really biased in one direction and it takes a significant amount of effort to alter that bias). By quantum mechanics, if you run at a wall, there is a small but finite chance that you'll get through to the other side. Now, that doesn't mean I'd ever recommend that anybody do that.
