I recognize a natural morality that is based upon expectations:

An adult or a group of adults co-living is expected to live independently, self-sufficiently, harmoniously and responsibly. Why would one want as a neighbor one who didn’t?

Parents are expected to prepare their children to do so. If not by their parents then by whom?

Natural morality suggests a Golden Rule, “Live with others harmoniously and responsibly”. To do to another what one will, personally or through others, without their consent is disharmonious. To do so intentionally is irresponsible.

There are several expressions of the Golden Rule. “Live and let live.” “Do to another as you’d want another to do to you.” “Don’t do to another what you would not want another do to you.”

The Golden Rules seem to be self-centered.

My opinion, of which I encourage challenge, is that "empathy" and "reciprocity" are behavioral conditioning. They are not natural.

In addition, one is said to have sufficient wherewithal if they are able to live independently and self-sufficiently in their civilization. Civilizations evolve. Those that don't stagnate. Some linger. Some die.

There is something else in play other than "empathy". I innately help others who are striving to help themself. I will offer to help a child if they seem to need it. I will offer to help "an old lady crossing the street". (I was a Boy Scoutmaster.)

@SunshineEast If you don’t accept that empathy and reciprocity are natural (i.e. part of an evolutionary process), how then were they acquired? Via a supernatural implant?

@p-nullifidian I recognize them as learned behavior. The first civilizations were nomadic tribes. By then, it was obvious that we are not created equal. Some had more whatevers than others. Sh*t happens even then. We innately seem to help others who strive to help themselves. At the time, the common objective was to survive. If one was unable to survive they perished. Food was limited. Knowledge was primitive. All one could do is to make the struggling person as comfortable as possible. Our innate behavior releases neurotransmitters that, in turn, release chemicals, e.g., dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, epinephrine and endorphins that influence feelings e.g., pleasure and anxiety. This behavior in this situation was ultimately labelled "empathy". I don't know about reciprocity. Your use of it is the first time I've encountered the word in this context.

As civilizations develop and become more populated, more people struggled with surviving. I can readily accept that learned men who came through to teach about living in civilizations, focused upon those needing help and the need for "empathy". And then there were the philosophers.

Watched the TV ads on the secondary stations today and count how many are geared to creating a feeling of empathy.

Consider:

“Give a man a fish; you feed him for the day. Teach a man to fish; you feed him for his lifetime.”
What do you do for a man who chooses not to learn or is unable to learn or to fish?
What do you do for a man who wants to learn but does not have the logistical means to do so?
One is expected to be the best that they can be. What if one’s best is not good enough?

What part does empathy play?

@SunshineEast Empathy, in and of itself, is not behavior. Empathy is a frame of reference, a way of thinking, an emotional state that may encourage certain behaviors.

Witnessing another striving to help themselves might just as easily promote feelings of competition as it would empathy. On the other hand, when another cooperates, rather than competes, for resources, empathy can grow. And witnessing another’s suffering is the true test as to the level of empathy present.

My point is very simple: empathy, along with reciprocity (sense of fairness), are found in other species, and are fundamental frames of reference or thinking processes that promote what we call morals. Yes, they are ‘learned behaviors,’ evolutionary survival is an excellent teacher, but as studies of infants has shown, unless we are sociopathic, we are born with them.

@p-nullifidian I find no basis upon which to assert that empathy and reciprocity are inherent behaviors.

In observing toddlers, they act naturally. They are self-centered. They have to be taught to be considerate of others. They have to be taught empathy. How often have you heard a parent ask their toddler, "How would you feel if Johnny did that to you?"

One has natural rights. There is a natural morality. One can hold whatever beliefs they will upon which to create a personal morality. A problem arises when one attempts to impose their morality upon others. I recognize that some clergy teach that one can do what they will if they sincerely believe that it is what their God wants of them.

@SunshineEast “I find no basis upon which to assert that empathy and reciprocity are inherent behaviors.”

The wonderful thing about science is that while we as individuals may not find the basis for a given premise, scientists and researchers are sometimes able to do the finding for us.
[www2.econ.iastate.edu]
[emory.edu]
[sciencefocus.com]
[scientificamerican.com]

@p-nullifidian Thanks.I will read them more closely. I glanced over them quickly. My knee jerk reaction is doubt. A toddler does not gain self-recognition until about age 3. I am guided by the following: knowledge is the learning, understanding and relating of facts. A fact is a thing that is readily observable (see for yourself) or unconditionally demonstrable (let me show you) that is perceived identically by all or is a hypothesis based upon inductive reasoning from facts. Self-recognition is readily demonstrable.

In the meantime, consider this:

From physics, passing a varying electromagnetic wave across a wire induces a current in the wire. Sending a vary current through a wire creates an expanding electromagnetic wave around it. Our memory operates on electrical signals, i.e., a brief current. Synapses are the “wires”.

Do we have three levels of memory: unconscious, subconscious and conscious? Conscious memory is induced by one’s directed mental activity. Subconscious memory is induced by one’s senses. It is the source of one’s intuition and creativity. Unconscious memory is induced by electromagnetic energy. It is the source of one’s predilections.

Some assert that they radiate electromagnetic energy to which others resonate.Some assert that they have had a telepathic experience.
We are each unique with inherent differences. Could it not be so for some?

At birth, a newborn has ~50 trillion synapses. By age 3, a child has ~1000 trillion before pruning. An adult has 500 trillion synapses. The size of a child’s neuron is ~25% of an adult’s.During the period between birth and self-recognition, what does a child learn consciously, capture subconsciously with their senses and have induced unconsciously by electromagnetic energy?

@p-nullifidian Fact: Our innate behavior releases neurotransmitters that, in turn, release chemicals, e.g., dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, epinephrine and endorphins that influence feelings e.g., pleasure and anxiety. I submit that everyone reacts to what gives them pleasure or anxiety beginning at birth. Just watch a newborn search out a nipple once it experiences it. The discovery of chemical neurotransmitters was reported in June, 2002. Thus, prior to 2002, any researcher studying human behavior was not aware of them.

Paul Bloom, in his article, "The Moral Life of Babies", did not recognize the physical stimuli a baby/toddler experiences and responds to.

From where does one's intuition come from? We readily accept that we have a conscious and subconscious mind. Memory of everything that we experience is captured and retained in our mind, I submit, in our subconscious mind. We see, hear, smell, feel, etc the exact same things. We perceive them differently, though, in our conscious mind based upon our past experiences and conditioning. Our intuition is a consequence of the deep learning process that is performed in our brain. We are learning more about the deep learning process in the work with artificial intelligence. How we react to a situation is a combination of conscious thought and intuition.

A newborn's brain begins capturing experiences soon after birth. We observe that it has started by the time it nurses the second time. The researcher seemed surprised by the cognitive ability of a baby. One only has to watch a baby toy with their Mother's nipple during nursing to recognize that there is something going on in their brain.

We are each unique with inherent and circumstantial differences. Unless we are identical twins born minutes apart, our circumstances are different. I have observed that in order for me to understand why another does some of the things that they do and how, I would have to live their life from birth. What does a baby/toddler learn looking out of its crib or play pen or as it crawls around the house. To push something away because it makes one anxious or to hug something that gives one pleasure is natural.

Bloom reasoned deductively from what he observed from his perspective and knowledge at the time.

In March of this year it was reported that the entire human genome has been decoded. I expect, in time, we will know if empathy and reciprocity is genetic. Until then, it is speculation.

My Framework in understanding the world in which we live is based upon facts, i.e., observations and inductive reasoning, no beliefs.

I submit that empathy cannot exist until a person recognize themself, until they know who the "you" refers in the question, "Would you like Johnny to do that to you?" Until then, it is all about neurotransmitters.

3 of the 4 articles you listed where of Bloom's research.

@SunshineEast I understand what you’re saying and agree with most, if not all, of it. But I’m trying to focus on something more basic: the building blocks of morality exist at birth.

Some of the studies to which I refer involve infants who are placed in front of puppet enactments designed to elicit emotions. Even before they have uttered their first word, it appears clear from the reaction of most of the babies that expectations regarding fairness and empathy, as well as other emotional states, are hardwired into their cerebrums. The infant subjects reacted negatively to unjust and inconsiderate outcomes, and positively to the opposite.

@p-nullifidian I find no basis upon which to assert that hard wiring. The closest is neurotransmitters.

In general, how does one define "fairness"? We are each unique. Some have more wherewithal than others. Is that "fair"? Should one feel empathetic for another who has less? It is the way that it is. It is the way of the natural world. It is the way it is intended to be. Civilizations based upon land ownership are created by those in positions of power and influence for their own benefit. Some believe that civilizations should exists for the citizenry. Some believe in the sanctity of life. That a life, in and of itself is important. (I recognize that one does not have to believe in a God in order to hold these beliefs.) There is nothing in the natural world that supports these beliefs. Just the opposite. The reproduction process is a "crap shoot". It is held in check by "survival of the fittest".

It is my opinion that we need to embrace the nature of the natural world and live life as fully as we can recognizing and accepting that some will live it more fully than others. Those who can have no responsibility to those who can't. It is what it is. It is what it is intended to be. To interfere with it creates problems.

We seem to address the characteristics of the problem and not the problem itself, namely, our interference.

@SunshineEast IMHO, I think you’re making this more complicated than it needs to be. Please watch this Ted talk by primate researcher Frans de Waal, whose research has opened my eyes, and let me know your thoughts? Peace.

@p-nullifidian Some animals have neurotransmitters that operate similar to humans.It would be reasonable to assume that they have similar impact on "pleasure" and "anxiety". They are the source of underlying feelings associated with an experience.

@p-nullifidian Morning thoughts.

We are born with the capability to feel pleasure and anxiety and sense pain, to intuitively recognize that A is different than B and with basic inductive reasoning skills on what is observed and experienced. We know that one does not have the concept of self until they are 2-3 years old. Thus, one is not born self-centered. Without the concept of self, there is no compassion for others. Some are more able to do this than others. We are each unique with inherent differences.

Are we good so far?

@p-nullifidian LiterateHiker shared the following with me:

"The Rhythm of Love- 40 Beats Per Minute

From “Women- An Intimate Geography” by Natalie Angier

Oxytocin has been called the love hormone and the bonding hormone. It’s a dopy, wishful phrase, and a bit reductionist. Still, Oxytocin may be a player in the sensation of love.

“Think of a breastfeeding woman,” Kirsten Uvnas-Moberg of the- Karolinska Institute in Sweden said. She studies nursing mothers, in whom oxytocin is high. “Oxytocin is stimulating her milk letdown- that much is familiar. But milk ejection is only part of the story. Oxytocin, in concert with other peptides, expands blood flow to the breast. The engorgement turns the breast warm, warmer than it’s ever been. Heat radiates from the nursing woman. She feeds the baby fluids and bathes the baby in warmth.

You know the right way to stroke someone.

“A mother does more than nurse and warm the baby. As she holds the baby, she strokes the infant to soothe it. ‘You know the right way to stroke somebody,” Uvnas-Moberg says. ‘You know what works and what doesn’t. If you do it like this, too fast, that doesn’t work either. But now, if you do this, if you stroke steadily and calmly, you know this is right, this is good and true.’ She strokes her arm rhythmically and as I watch, I feel vicariously stroked and soothed. ‘This rate is about forty strokes per minute. It is the same rate at which we stroke our pets.’ Oxytocin again enters the picture.

“A steady caress inveigles oxytocin secretion. The gentle rhythmic stroke is like the pulsing of a milk duct, like the rate at which the infant reflexively, rhythmically suckles at the breast. This is the rhythm of love: forty beats a minute.”

Orgasm is another rhythmic sensation.

“The rhythm of love. Orgasm is another rhythmic sensation, and it too clocks in at about forty to fifty throbs a minute, and the uterus contracts during orgasm as it does in giving birth. Oxytocin’s frequency; oxytocin’s handiwork.

“In one study, women were asked to masturbate to climax; and their blood levels of oxytocin were measured before and after orgasm. The concentration of oxytocin climbed slightly but measurably with climax, and the greater the increase, the more pleasurable the women reported their climax to be. While breastfeeding, some women say they feel almost orgasmic, their uterus pulsing along with their milk ducts, with the baby’s suckling mouth.”

The rhythm of love: 40 beats per minute. When giving a massage, my hands are slow and rhythmic, 40 strokes per minute. People groan with pleasure. When ... I divorced, I wanted one piece of furniture: the rocking chair in which I nursed Claire. The rhythm of love."

Genetically, one who is empathetic gains more pleasure in caring for another than others do. We observe it in many mothers, nurses and teachers. If a mother is not empathetic, I think that the likelihood is that she is conditioned not to be so from her earlier life experiences but it could be a consequence of genetic whatevers.

Learning about empathy starts on the first day of life when a newborn is brought to a breast to nurse. Men do not nurse their children.

We are conditioned to be compassionate. We are asked by elders, "Would you want Johnny or Mary to do that to you? We are enticed by rewards and punishments, e.g., "Live your life according to what I tell you and you'll be rewarded with eternal life" or "Go sit in the corner for what you just did to your sister or the family cat."

If "fairness" is about equitable treatment in the natural world: We are each unique. The process of conception is a "crap shoot". There will always be some who have more whatevers than others. It is what it is. It is natural. If it is about how one is treated by others, we have the ability to discern unequal treatment. It makes one anxious. One learns how to vent their anxiousness by observations of others. It is learned behavior.

I encourage push back on the above. I seek to learn.

What is reciprocity about? Where does it fit in?

@SunshineEast LiterateHiker is an amazing woman, in my humble opinion. However, in our discussion it seems you’re making things more complicated than necessary. All I’m trying to say is that the research conducted by Bloom, deWaal, et al provides evidence that the building blocks for moral thinking (which include empathy and reciprocity) exist in other mammals and are present in humans at birth.

@p-nullifidian I'm asserting that empathy has nothing to do with "moral thinking". I assert that all mammals starts learning about empathy with their first nursing experience. It is a learned behavior. It is a physical experience that gives pleasure.

As for compassion, that too is a learned behavior. It is taught, though. It requires the student to have achieved self-recognition. I don't know if animals have a sense of self. There is a natural morality for which the Golden Rule is, "Live with others harmoniously and responsibly." Parents are expected to prepare their children to do so. (If not by the parents then by whom?) To do so, they teach those actions that we label "compassion". It has nothing to do with moral thinking. It has to do with expectations. Natural morality is based upon expectations. Would that be what you mean by "reciprocity"?

I do not understand what "reciprocity" is in your context. What does it mean to you?

My approach is based upon observations and inductive reasoning. I suspect that the researchers have hypothesized and have designed experiments to seek to validate their hypothesis through deductive reasoning. We observe newborns, humans and animals, learning. I recognize that a newborn begins populating their subconscious memory from the moment of their first breath. A newborn has the ability for deep learning upon birth and to reason inductively with which they begin populating their conscious memory. They begin learning immediately. I suspect that all mammals can do the same. They learn from personal observations and experiences.

I watched the video. I question some of the conclusion that were drawn from the actions of the animals.Keep in mind that inductive versus a deductive reasoning is significantly different. My academic orientation is built upon axiomatic proofs in which the axioms are unquestionable truths and there is a rigorous logical approach to proving a hypothesis. What conclusion can one draw from animals raised in captivity? How much of how those animals reacted to the experiments were a consequence of what those animals observed and experience in captivity? How "empathetic" and "compassionate" where those who cared for them? What did the animals observe about the interactions between the caretakers themselves.

@p-nullifidian I keep in mind the following: To understand why another does what they do and how or needs and wants what they do, I would have to live their life from birth.

@p-nullifidian Since others read this thread, I think that it is important to recognize that one can believe, choose and do what they will. That is their natural right.

@SunshineEast Irrespective of other readers, I would never deny rights to others that I claim for myself.

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to religion and belief in a deity, I did not choose the belief, it chose me. When you’ve seen the man behind the curtain you realize you’ve been manipulated and you simply cannot unsee him. Having been exposed to the realities of the fabrication of religions throughout the world, I at last realized the simple fact that no human being on this planet has the capacity or knowledge to accurately and faithfully describe the attributes, if not the will, of a so-called supreme being.

@p-nullifidian I understand. I have a minister with whom I've been communicating for several years who shares your feelings. He will often tell me that he cannot "see" what I see because of his beliefs.