YesBut is a moral code an intrinsic human requirement?

Animals act in accordance with their instinct. Lions do not graze they hunt - they are super carnivores they only eat meat - its there nature. Humans have their own set of instincts - the strongest being sexual drive and survival. Setting us apart from other animals we do not respond unthinkingly to our instincts. If the instinct for survival was predominant, in situations of danger there would be no thought of protecting and saving others. Clearly we have a higher inherent “guidance system” than instinct.

Does the “guidance system” have defining parameters?


If so, what are those parameters?


Are they hard wired, or do they change?


Humans are a herd animal. We see ourselves belonging to a tribe, class, caste, race, religion, political affiliation, nationality, team supporter, etc, etc. We recognise for individual survival we must coexist. Therein lays the contradiction and source of tension - individual vs. coexisting. Given no external arbiter of moral imperatives, would we as individuals be sufficiently judicious to subjugate our immediate short-term desires to achieve long-term benefits? The answer is, probably, no. Even though we are tribal animals, there is a ranking of “tribes”. Top of the pyramid is self, the next stratum could be: “family”, friends, co-workers, social group, etc, their relative position in the pyramid varying, according to “self’s” present requirements.

But not all our actions are selfish, we are capable, and do perform selfless acts. And even on those occasions when our initial inclination is towards satisfying our needs, we do control our desires. There are forces other than self preservation that control our behaviour. In relation to morality - conscience.

Is conscience an inherent sense or the product of social indoctrination and pressure?