Because differences, biologically and socially, in individuals change a person to make them act differently, have different views, and that includes any type of perspective that is negative (hence being raised in a unstable violent environment can and does change a person and their views). Thus, morality is defined differently from person to person, however there are universal morals that are, if a person is brought up “psychologically nutured”, respect a real sense of morality. Therefore, people brought up in good situations DO universally accept specific morals. Which I have found never differ. However, people are raised differently, and some raised more absurdly than others, making different people have different opinions on what is right and wrong. But, a person, coming into enlightenment, can decifer a universal moral code, such as not killing or harming a living creature, do not do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you, etc. There are only a few simple universal moral codes that if all humans abided by we could all live in harmony. It is possible for a universal moral approach, in which nature does have programmed, ready to be attained, but there are too many dumb people in this world to realize it, so instead of acting on their biological “instincts” they act on their social “opinions.”

I was taught this in a lecture, read up on Criminology and Psychology, it explains the universal moral code that all people SHOULD know but some either ignore it or were raised to the point it would be impossible for them to know any other way.

And 2) Why are there some who are simply not moral in any sense of the idea?

^ As the above, biological mutations, diseases, anything different from a “healthy brain”, etc. and the social environment (social ties, institutions, peers, etc) affect an individual. Some people are raised to not have certain morals. Children, or humans in general are born with certain preobligations, certain biological pathways to take, but as the child grows life steps in and can easily deter someone from the path. It all depends on how you are raised, BUT the biological basis for certain things IS already in your brain.

Example… Humans are built with areas in the brain for language development, areas that change over time to allow certain phases of language development to occur. This phases also are meant for the various ages, usually between birth and 8 years old. However, it is known that just because a human is born with the ability to learn and understand language, does not mean that person will. If that child’s mother never spoke to that child, and never allowed that child to hear voices, that child would NOT develop understanding the concepts of linguistics.

Biology and Sociology go hand in hand, Biology is there first, Sociology affects what the individual does with it.

P.P.S
Occam was a Franciscan friar!

The Western religious tradition encompassing Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam does not represent the World on spiritual, cosmological, theological or moral interpretations. These are just a few very similar traditions, all drawing a line of descent from Zoroastrianism, which have evolved in their own times and places the dominant concept of “god,” (to use comedian George Carlin’s words), as “a really tall man in the sky who’s going to punish you if you do something ‘wrong.’” This of course is such obvious “horse fodder” that it’s extremely nuts to postulate.

But that’s just one side of a multilayered existentially based phenomenon that some, but not all, nominally refer to as “god,” which in-and-of-itself is a non-sequitur. No one other than the talking heads of the above mentioned traditions (especially extremist, fundamentalist, Protestant Christians in American) hold or claim to hold deity-concepts such as this.

“Morality” and practically all other concepts are just as much non-sequiturs as “god.” These are all words, interpretations, concepts, ideas, symbols, projections, etc. But, it is what they refer to that is important. (Keep in mind that to say “Nature, not God, programmed us with a moral sense” IS JUST AS ABSURD IF NOT MORE SO, than any theological concept); and if you’re thinking to yourself, “Hey, this guy’s just arguing Semantics,” I say “Hell yes!”

“Natural Selection” – how does Nature “select?” – This is a case of personifying Nature… which you might argue is the exact thing that most religious peoples are doing. “Natured programmed us…” – how does Nature “program?” –Again we have a personification and anthropomorphizing problem.

To put in terms such as the late, great Joseph Campbell might use, those spiritual and/or religious traditions or paths of the ancient “primitive” world, tribal societies, as well as the great religious traditions of the East have “god-concepts” which are more “Elemental, representing the POWERS WITHIN NATURE.” In these cases the “god” is a manifestation of the “energy” and “mystery” of Nature rather than being the generator of cosmic energy or the “architect” of the universe.

This concept works extremely well with the knowledge coming forward from the scientific communities.

In the end, it might very well sound like Pantheism, but that may in fact ultimately, in turn justify statements such as, “Natural Selection,” and “Nature programmed us with a moral sense.”

And you might ponder one of the questions I pose to my students of mythology; “If ‘god’ was the only thing which existed prior to the ‘creation’ of the universe, then what did ‘god’ create the universe out of?”

My final note, now that I have all of this out of the way, is that there’s yet another problem with the statement, “Nature programmed us with a moral sense,” which I’d prefer to write on at a later time. But until then; “If ‘Nature programmed with a moral sense,’ then 1) Why can’t we come to an universal agreement about morality itself? And 2) Why are there some who are simply not moral in any sense of the idea?

I really don’t see where, from my post, you are getting fodder for your argument. Your comment reads like a bad Nigerian email scam. And if you can’t tell, it is thoroughly confusing, ignorant, and arrogant to just jump into a discussion with no background on where you’re coming from. In the future, please give us some context, an introduction, something to help me grasp what about the post got you to think that way.

Kambiz