Reply to comment

I think Anisha is on to something here - something very controvertial and problematic. If morality is shaped by your surroundings, and not something inherent in human beings, where does that leave philiosophy? All major philosophical questions (are human inherently good or evil? what is the nature of humanity? etc etc) are explained by the simple explanation of inputs/outputs. Nature vs nurture becomes, obviously, nurture. This conclusion seems too easy and too simple, and if there something that Bryn Mawr has taught me, it is that something "true" usually has neither of those qualities.

I am also interested in the way people percieve morality, as Anisha hinted at, and that some people think of some acts as moral while the same act is blasphemous to others. Can this be simple input/output reactions? The non-science major in me wants somehow to explode this theory, but maybe life is not as complicated as I want to make it.