Would a real Tarzan, raised by animals - without God or the Bible - act immorally?

Answer 1

Since it's essentially a social construct, it would depend on the socialization of the species that raised him.

Answer 2

No. In nature there is not the same individual consciousness, as such, as there is with the human consciousness. Although in such an environment he would be likely to "sin", because a limit of human contact creates a more "innocent" psyche, he would less aspire to the emotions more dominant in modern human culture--selfishness, arrogance, and judgement. These emotions may be less experienced without due triggers being readily, one might say intrusively, available.
Thus, his conscience and his idea of himself are attuned to a culture wherein there is a binding harmony between all living things, and not a competition.
Morality, in such an environment, would center around the necessities for survival, and whether one is killing for either sport or need. But having had his society exist as multiple creatures of every kind, and seeing the kinds of personalities and co-dependant communities that co operatively thrive in that environment, his awareness and recognition of some higher power would be more than likely. I doubt that an individuals probable ratio of moral to immoral acts would be affected by such an experieince, and further I would say that "immoral" behavior would in fact be less likely.
"Conscience" is from the Greek, meaning "with knowledge". Each individual has their own capacity for good or bad, positive or negative, beneficial or not. Our very sense of "morality" is a product of our existence, not of our faith. Religions are a RESPONSE to faith, not vice-versa.

Answer 3

I don't think God or the Bible even have to be brought into the picture.... much of what we learn is from other people. The religious might not believe what they believe in if others didnt show it. What is good or bad comes from people, not the bible. Your question almost implies that those that do not believe in God or the Bible are amoral.

Answer 4

I expect he would be even more moral than the average man with access to a god and bible. He would have no idea what immoral was. He would depend on what he instinctively felt was moral.

Answer 5

If he was brought up by another social animal - chimps, say, or wolves - he'd be taught very swiftly that not obeying the standard social rules about the hierarchy causes painful teeth marks on your bum.

We're not the only animal with a moral sense.

CD

Answer 6

It depends on what you consider moral. He wouldn't exhibit the taboo parts of morality that have little to no basis in rationality, but he wouldn't be randomly murdering everyone he met either. Most likely he would act rationally according to his view of the world. Which would probably be animistic at best as far as spirituality is concerned.

Answer 7

'Amorally' yes.

However, don't forget that some principles of morality are common sensical - universality, you dont do to others what you dont want them to do to you. Reciprocal altruism is widespread in the animal kingdom but it can't quite be considered true morality. You can't blame the animals - there imperative is to replicate their DNA. That is not entirely compatible with traditional morality.

I don't want to upset people who think that animals are noble and nicer than people - but I will say that we're not the only species that engages in rape.

Answer 8

He would act in accordance with the morals and ethics established by the "society" he shares a living space with.

This is of course assuming they didn't crush his skull by the time he was 16.

"Dad, can I borrow the vine tonight? I have a date with Cherry Chimp."

SMASH!

Answer 9

Since when was the Bible a good moral guide? Is killing innocent babies just to prove a point moral?

Answer 10

every animal that has the ability to raise a human child has a similar moral code to humans.
the biggest difference is that those animals understand violence and power better than humans do.