General

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

liberty student — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:27:49 GMT

DD5, it's not a good idea to copy and paste from a wordprocessor into the forum. It breaks the forum display.

If you use a text editor like Notepad, that is better. Word and Wordpad add a bunch of code that break the post borders. I normally fix those posts, but it's not possible to fix every post and then every quote of that bad code. It's very time consuming.

If you need another workaround, let me know. There are settings you can change on your profile that can allow you to copy paste from work without adding code to the forum.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

Luming Zhou — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:15:55 GMT

zefreak:
It can only refine or suggest further arguments within the context of an ethical system, but never justify one.

I agree, if you had used "justify" in the descriptive sense of the term. You meant that Christians still believe in their faith even though Christianity holds no biological arguments. If you meant it by this sense of the term, then I will buy it.

zefreak:
A strictly libertarian ethic, one concerned with individual sovereignty and the right of each individual to his own system of valuation, does not seek to maximize humanity as a group, which limits the applicability of biology to it.

You had just mashed a series of claims into one small, meager sentence. Some claims seem unclear to me. So let us break your complex sentence into a few parts, and then analyze each. This makes it easier to find the potential problems of my biased assumptions in your statement.

zefreak:
A strictly libertarian ethic

As you know, not all self-described "libertarian anarchists" hold the same views. For instance, some libertarians support animal rights, some oppose abortion, some criticize retributive punishment, and some others support some parental authority. Those views conflict and compete with one another to attract attention.

As we have said previously, one could interpret the non-aggression principle in about a gazillion ways. Some anti-abortionists might feel cognitive dissonance, and thus interpret abortion as a form of aggression. Likewise, some others may interpret retributive punishment as a form of invasion against the criminal. Let us recall the problems of interpreting the non-aggression principle.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Does does the "non-aggression principle" allow "right to self-defense" or the "right to violently punish others"? Does the "non-aggression principle" allow trespassing or hate speech? We will show that the term "aggression" is highly vague.

Some will define "aggression" as "the initiation of physical violence." However, the term physical violence is also vague. Does "physical violence" include noise pollution? Does it include perceived threats of violence? Does "physical violence" include fraud? Whether noise pollution, threats of violence, and fraud are "physical violence" still begs the question.

Libertarians usually defend the right for broadcasters to homestead radio frequencies. However, if a malicious broadcaster "trespasses" another broadcaster's radio frequency, can we label this as "physical violence"? Obviously, the criminal changed nothing physical or tangible. This, also, begs the question whether if we should consider it as "physical violence." This same argument applies with the ownership of domain names.

Consequentially, it begs the question to ask whether anti-defamation laws violate the non-aggression principle. It also begs the question to ask whether the prohibition of nuclear weapons violate the non-aggression principle. In addition, it begs the question to ask whether ordering carbon dioxide polluters to pay restitution violates the non-aggression principle.

Libertarians define "individual sovereignty" as a state in which no one commits aggression against any individual. So far so good.

However, as we recall above, the word "aggression" has arbitrary interpretations. As a result, "individual sovereignty," which depends on the definition of "aggression," also has arbitrary interpretations. I found your usage of "self-ownership" in you elucidation above, therefore, as problematic.

As a consequence, we should only establish the definition of "libertarianism," "non-aggression principle," and "self-ownership" only prototypically. By "prototypically" we meant the prototype theory of classification. Libertarianism does not have any clear-cut "essence," and so does not "aggression" and "personal sovereignty."

Let us go to your second claim:

zefreak:
and the right of each individual to his own system of valuation

Let us say that a coward has a preference for rape. He values rape, but does not have any right to satisfy his right to act on "his own system of valuation." Ultimately, we should place limits on the right to valuation. For example, serial killers should never have any right to seek his valuation through the employment of aggression (I know that the word "aggression" has ambiguity, but we do get the point here).

Thus, some valuations among a group of individuals may conflict with one another. This may spark violence. So clearly, you might want to revise this statement.

However, I will leave a possibility that I may have misinterpreted your statement. You might have meant that it may "prototypically" at best enable individuals to have his own system of valuation, although not in the absolute sense such as rape and murder.

zefreak:
does not seek to maximize humanity as a group

You had made a typo. I will assume that you had meant something along the lines of "maximize utility" or "maximizing eudaimonia" when you ascribed "maximize humanity."

However, even with "maximize utility," it can also have potential problems. You might have opposed "utilitarianism," whatever you had mean by the term. Indeed, I may agree or disagree with your opposition of utilitarianism, depending on the context of the word.

Suppose that libertarianism would create vast inequalities of wealth, much more than the current system. We, as libertarians, know the fallacy of this statement. However, statists will believe in this.

If one maximizes his preference, it could result as either a gain or as an expense from others. For example, free trade benefits both parties by definition. However, in other situations, such as the rapist or serial killer, the aggressor maximizes his preference at the expense of others.

If you oppose "maximizing humanity as a group," as you have said, then this might imply in maximizing the preferences of certain individuals -- rapists, serial killers, bankers, business executives, etc. -- at the expense of everyone else.

If libertarianism officially prescribes the belief of "not seeking to maximize humanity as a group," this would probably scare the daylights out of statists. The statists would probably see libertarianism as an ideology benefiting business executives and corporations at the expense of the majority. No wonder why many statists label "libertarianism" as a form of "free-market fundamentalism."

And, finally, why limit biology with ethics? Why should we never accept human biology to ethics? Did it came from our belief of the blank slate? Did it came from Christianity?

Biology has explained why we label the rapist and the serial killer as "immoral." Precisely because we have empathy for the victims and we feel contempt against rapists and serial killers. We feel these emotions because of our instincts. Nothing else. No such logic can deduce the "immorality" of rapists and serial killers, without grounding them with our empathy and contempt.

And this demonstrates that all these assumptions can lay hidden under one sentence.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:17:37 GMT

DD5:

wilderness:

I'm talking about the part of language development that you learn. It's why Chinese people speak Chinese and Japanese - Japanese. You're talking about we have the the language ability. Our genes give us the ability to know Chinese, but our genes are not giving a Swedish child the ability to speak Chinese. There's nurturing/cultivation going on.

The mere presence of a child in a typical human speaking environment is all that is required for the child to acquire his Chinese or Swedish.

yes, I never said otherwise

DD5:

If that is your definition of nurturing/cultivation then wemayindeed be in agreement now. But the quality or even quantity of that "cultivation" is not very important, just as long as it is present.

yes that's my definition, but I'm sure you can agree there's less skilled and more skilled teachers.

DD5:

We have not argued about whether there is an interaction between environment and genes, because clearly there is. The debate is clearly about HOW this interaction takes place, especially in universal human traits such as empathyand language. My disagreement with you was about how you perceived that interaction to take place.

I never disagreed with how you perceived it, as I've been saying, so if you disagreed with me, then you disagreed with yourself.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:13:11 GMT

wilderness:

I'm talking about the part of language development that you learn. It's why Chinese people speak Chinese and Japanese - Japanese. You're talking about we have the the language ability. Our genes give us the ability to know Chinese, but our genes are not giving a Swedish child the ability to speak Chinese. There's nurturing/cultivation going on.

The mere presence of a child in a typical human speaking environment is all that is required for the child to acquire his Chinese or Swedish.

If that is your definition of nurturing/cultivation then wemayindeed be in agreement now. But the quality or even quantity of that "cultivation" is not very important, just as long as it is present.

We have not argued about whether there is an interaction between environment and genes, because clearly there is. The debate is clearly about HOW this interaction takes place, especially in universal human traits such as empathyand language. My disagreement with you was about how you perceived that interaction to take place.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:34:10 GMT

DD5:

Wilderness,

I don't want to have to define "reason"in order to avoid what you claim are misunderstandings. However, I will take a chance.

Do you need reason to learn how to walk? Certainly not, as I'm sure you'll agree. Similarly, you also don't need reason to learn how to talk. In fact you can use pure reason to reach that conclusion if one was very serious in examining the scientific evidence.

A child does not consciously learn how to talk. He picks up the vocabulary, accent, and grammar to almost perfection by age 3. By age 18, the average HS student has a vocabulary of about 50,000 words. That's about 1 new word every 90 minutes from age 1. Try to memorize a new phone number every 90 minutes. This is a purely unconscious process, particularly for the child. I don't see why you think that "reason" is part of this process. Language is clearly an instinct.

I'm talking about the part of language development that you learn. It's why Chinese people speak Chinese and Japanese - Japanese. You're talking about we have the the language ability. Our genes give us the ability to know Chinese, but our genes are not giving a Swedish child the ability to speak Chinese. There's nurturing/cultivation going on.

DD5:

I clearly didn't say it was all genes. What I said was that the environment certainly matters, but it is not a matter of "cultivation". What this means is that you cannot have anypredictableinfluence on the type of character an individual will grow up to be. Taking it to the extreme, as you have, showing that an individual that is completely isolated from the environment does not properly develop doesn’t not refute what I say. There is clear evidence on this matter from Behavioral Genetics.

I don't know, if you "clearly didn't say it was all genes", then we agree. I clearly didn't say it was all cultivation. Numerous times I've repeated our genes play a role. Are we done yet?

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:38:18 GMT

Wilderness,

I don't want to have to define "reason" in order to avoid what you claim are misunderstandings. However, I will take a chance.

Do you need reason to learn how to walk? Certainly not, as I'm sure you'll agree. Similarly, you also don't need reason to learn how to talk. In fact you can use pure reason to reach that conclusion if one was very serious in examining the scientific evidence.

A child does not consciously learn how to talk. He picks up the vocabulary, accent, and grammar to almost perfection by age 3. By age 18, the average HS student has a vocabulary of about 50,000 words. That's about 1 new word every 90 minutes from age 1. Try to memorize a new phone number every 90 minutes. This is a purely unconscious process, particularly for the child. I don't see why you think that "reason" is part of this process. Language is clearly an instinct.

I clearly didn't say it was all genes. What I said was that the environment certainly matters, but it is not a matter of "cultivation". What this means is that you cannot have any predictable influence on the type of character an individual will grow up to be. Taking it to the extreme, as you have, showing that an individual that is completely isolated from the environment does not properly develop doesn’t not refute what I say. There is clear evidence on this matter from Behavioral Genetics.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:43:17 GMT

DD5:

Arguing that human psychology is not a product of environmental conditioning doesn't mean we are Socartes. It also doesn't meant that environment doesn't have a role in development. What it does mean is that the interaction between biology and environment is not necessarily a learning process in the sense of conscious learning that can be manipulated or predicted according to one's environment.

Ok. and? Again you said nothing I didn't know. And you can become aware of what is "unconsciously" happening with you as the interaction of biology and environment happens. Not saying you will become totally aware consciously either. This seemed like a discussion that you've been wanting to get off your chest for some time. But I don't really see how you said anything I didn't know, but then again you said some things that I didn't get either. So we're discussing to see what we're each saying. (a little reflection on what I see happening, but I'm good with it, no quarrels).

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:37:40 GMT

DD5:

wilderness:

Yes, but it needs cultivated. Society or an individual can reject this for more adrenaline, hyped up aggressive emotions. A famous study in Africa in which young male elephants were found killing rhinoceroses and other animals out of the blue was linked to high adrenaline in blood due to no adult male elephants around to calm them. For when they brought in adult male elephants from other areas the young males were calmed by the adult males setting their territory and putting the young in their place. The adrenaline levels in the young males blood dropped. They took numerous samples before and after. That is what the scientific study found. The adult males were not present in these particular young male areas due to State culling activities, it became a unintended consequence via the State.

Empathy is obvious and so is aggression in humans. Cultivation or lack thereof leads to either. Biology is the pool in which to cultivate these biological traits from. I never argued against empathy being biological. Yet, I also say aggression is biological too.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term"cultivated" ? I think you mean that different environments can "shape" differently the personality of an individual. But I think you are also saying that human psychology (or human nature), or at least some of it, is also dependent on a learning process that takes place by observing others, perhaps during childhood.

I strongly disagree with such assertions based on the conclusive scientific evidence that has come out of the field of Behavioral Genetics over the past 4 decades. Many of the studies during the 20th century that have showed correlations of personality and behavior between parents and off-springs, wrongly inferred causation to the environment, because they carelessly or deliberately ignored biological heredity as a factor. They never controlled for any such factors. The correlations in fact, are a result of genes and not the specific upbringing of the parents or the specific environment. It's not to say that it is all genes, but what is not a result of heredity is also not what I believe you refer to as "cultivation".

It's not all genes. And yes I well understand the past 4 decades. Do you speak Chinese? Do you know Rothbard before you read Rothbard? That's what I'm saying by cultivation. But do our genes provide us with the faculty to speak Chinese? yes Do your genes provide us with the faculty to read and understand Rothbard? yes

DD5:

The study of elephants that you have pointed to is exactly the type of research that one cannot infer anything valuable with respect to causal relations. It is certainly bad practice to base such conclusions on such a study in light of all of the overwhelming evidence from such reliable controlled experiments that point in the other direction.

If you think so. It was a recent study. Why do studies even occur if our genes tell all anyways? - so no genes don't tell all, we need to learn.

DD5:

wilderness:

Check up on what feral child means. It has nothing to do with empathy not being biological. It has more to do with development or else we remain child-like. After a certain age it becomes near impossible and then after even an older age ever the more near impossible for humans to even learn language. And at this point in development the exercises become about trying to get through ABC's and clear communication and such.

Again, you are making many assertions based on a combination of things that don't really prove anything that you are claiming.

Well the world is made up of assertions some scientific but you don't have to believe them either.

DD5:

Nobody says that the environment is not required for development.

thank goodness... So it was only a misunderstanding on your part then.

DD5:

But having certain minimum conditions to stay on course doesn't mean that "enriched environment" for example, develops a child any better. Short of severe neglect, there isn't much evidence that there is any serious influence on one's outcome. "enriched environments" often termed by experimental psychologist can be a misleading term. It usually means not a neglected environment.

Back to square one. So if I never teach a child anything brought up in schooling the child will know it anyways cause of genes? doubt it.

DD5:

Of course you are not born speaking German or English. You must learn that from the environment.

thank goodness... So maybe back to you only misunderstood me. We also learn worldviews. Look around. There's plenty of diverse cultures presently and in the past.

DD5:

But the learning is possible at a very young age only because language itself must be innate. Not the dialect, but the basic circuitry to speak, understand, and learn language is there.

yes, I never said otherwise.

DD5:

The fact that it must be acquired at a young age, simply means that it is part of some genetic program that enables a limited window of opportunity to acquire the specific dialect of the environment. Children are not conscious to the fact that they are learning to speak. They do it effortlessly without any structured environment or drills. Yet language is extremely more complex then anything we learn consciously. Children are not learning language like you are learning Austrian economics.

of course, your not saying anything to me I don't know

DD5:

You must distinguish between the types of learning. One that is effortlessly acquired by specific mental ability that is mostly innate, and one that is acquired by discipline, reason, and logic, and often takes time and practice, such as reading and writing, math, science, history, etc. But human basic human psychology traits like empathy are most certainly innate. They are prerequisites for acquiring higher functions like language.

I never said otherwise. Language requires the faculty reason too. I really don't know what you're seeing going on in my posts but it seems your seeing something that I'm not writing. But I see you taking a heavy gene approach that says reason is not necessary cause people will do it automatically (genes will tell them). Reason is a cultivator of the potential ground that our biological form is. Other people using reasoned or unreasoned knowledge also cultivate our biological mass. We are willing and ready, but without the proper guidance our genes might just do anything - even become criminal. But I hope not. I choose liberty instead.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:10:21 GMT

Arguing that human psychology is not a product of environmental conditioning doesn't mean we are Socartes. It also doesn't meant that environment doesn't have a role in development. What it does mean is that the interaction between biology and environment is not necessarily a learning process in the sense of conscious learning that can be manipulated or predicted according to one's environment.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:01:50 GMT

wilderness:

Yes, but it needs cultivated. Society or an individual can reject this for more adrenaline, hyped up aggressive emotions. A famous study in Africa in which young male elephants were found killing rhinoceroses and other animals out of the blue was linked to high adrenaline in blood due to no adult male elephants around to calm them. For when they brought in adult male elephants from other areas the young males were calmed by the adult males setting their territory and putting the young in their place. The adrenaline levels in the young males blood dropped. They took numerous samples before and after. That is what the scientific study found. The adult males were not present in these particular young male areas due to State culling activities, it became a unintended consequence via the State.

Empathy is obvious and so is aggression in humans. Cultivation or lack thereof leads to either. Biology is the pool in which to cultivate these biological traits from. I never argued against empathy being biological. Yet, I also say aggression is biological too.

I'm not sure what you mean by the term"cultivated" ? I think you mean that different environments can "shape" differently the personality of an individual. But I think you are also saying that human psychology (or human nature), or at least some of it, is also dependent on a learning process that takes place by observing others, perhaps during childhood.

I strongly disagree with such assertions based on the conclusive scientific evidence that has come out of the field of Behavioral Genetics over the past 4 decades. Many of the studies during the 20th century that have showed correlations of personality and behavior between parents and off-springs, wrongly inferred causation to the environment, because they carelessly or deliberately ignored biological heredity as a factor. They never controlled for any such factors. The correlations in fact, are a result of genes and not the specific upbringing of the parents or the specific environment. It's not to say that it is all genes, but what is not a result of heredity is also not what I believe you refer to as "cultivation".

The study of elephants that you have pointed to is exactly the type of research that one cannot infer anything valuable with respect to causal relations. It is certainly bad practice to base such conclusions on such a study in light of all of the overwhelming evidence from such reliable controlled experiments that point in the other direction.

wilderness:

Check up on what feral child means. It has nothing to do with empathy not being biological. It has more to do with development or else we remain child-like. After a certain age it becomes near impossible and then after even an older age ever the more near impossible for humans to even learn language. And at this point in development the exercises become about trying to get through ABC's and clear communication and such.

Again, you are making many assertions based on a combination of things that don't really prove anything that you are claiming.

Nobody says that the environment is not required for development. But having certain minimum conditions to stay on course doesn't mean that "enriched environment" for example, develops a child any better. Short of severe neglect, there isn't much evidence that there is any serious influence on one's outcome. "enriched environments" often termed by experimental psychologist can be a misleading term. It usually means not a neglected environment.

Of course you are not born speaking German or English. You must learn that from the environment. But the learning is possible at a very young age only because language itself must be innate. Not the dialect, but the basic circuitry to speak, understand, and learn language is there. The fact that it must be acquired at a young age, simply means that it is part of some genetic program that enables a limited window of opportunity to acquire the specific dialect of the environment. Children are not conscious to the fact that they are learning to speak. They do it effortlessly without any structured environment or drills. Yet language is extremely more complex then anything we learn consciously. Children are not learning language like you are learning Austrian economics.

You must distinguish between the types of learning. One that is effortlessly acquired by specific mental ability that is mostly innate, and one that is acquired by discipline, reason, and logic, and often takes time and practice, such as reading and writing, math, science, history, etc. But human basic human psychology traits like empathy are most certainly innate. They are prerequisites for acquiring higher functions like language.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:34:57 GMT

DD5:

ladyattis:

The problem is that empathy is itself not an instinct, but rather a manifestation of the physical features of mirror neurons. They allow us to mimic the mental theatre of others, illustrating the quantities of pain/pleasure that another may experience. But there's something missing that can make the leap from feeling another's pain to doing something about it. And that is the choice to act and to think on the consequences of one's actions. Without that choice, whether free will or not, ethics is not possible. All you have is the simple pain/pleasure mechanism at work, where pain is largely avoided and pleasure is largely sought after.

We are not trained monkeys.

I disagree. We are not born Socrates. We need to learn. This does mean we are exposing/releasing our biology and cultivating it into more skillful application. You ever here of the Shaolin monks? Now that's tapping into potential.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

wilderness — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:30:15 GMT

DD5:

wilderness:

Empathy needs to be cultivated by reason or else the feral child. Without learned reason and culture humans don't know where/how to focus their instincts. Children grow up to learn different world views and are not born with them. This is why discoveries are made in science and philosophical debates encourage new ways at looking at life. We learn what to do with what we have and with physical culture expand our ways of dealing with the world.

We are not Blank Slates.

Never said we were.

wilderness:

Empathy has to do with relating to others.

yeap

DD5:

For example, the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, or understanding one's emotions without having it verbally transmitted to you. It is certainly a highly innate trait. There is ample evidence for this.

Yes, but it needs cultivated. Society or an individual can reject this for more adrenaline, hyped up aggressive emotions. A famous study in Africa in which young male elephants were found killing rhinoceroses and other animals out of the blue was linked to high adrenaline in blood due to no adult male elephants around to calm them. For when they brought in adult male elephants from other areas the young males were calmed by the adult males setting their territory and putting the young in their place. The adrenaline levels in the young males blood dropped. They took numerous samples before and after. That is what the scientific study found. The adult males were not present in these particular young male areas due to State culling activities, it became a unintended consequence via the State.

Empathy is obvious and so is aggression in humans. Cultivation or lack thereof leads to either. Biology is the pool in which to cultivate these biological traits from. I never argued against empathy being biological. Yet, I also say aggression is biological too.

DD5:

The idea that such traits are learned from the environment was the biggest blonder of mainstream psychology during much of the 20ths century, perhaps worst then Keynesian economics. You take the view of a "behaviorist", yet behaviorism is literally a dead theory.

Never took that view.

DD5:

Consider that a lack of empathy can be a serious neurological disorder, such as in the case of Autism. Or that certain brain damages can also result with similar symptoms, yet the ability to reason may remain fully intact.

Check up on what feral child means. It has nothing to do with empathy not being biological. It has more to do with development or else we remain child-like. After a certain age it becomes near impossible and then after even an older age ever the more near impossible for humans to even learn language. And at this point in development the exercises become about trying to get through ABC's and clear communication and such.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

zefreak — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:24:06 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

Although it may true that one cannot justify an "ought" from purely descriptive science,

It is.

Anarcho-Mercantilist:

it is however untrue that biology may refine or suggest further arguments for ethics. For example, evolutionary research on the causes of rape may suggest stricter penalities for convicted rapists.

It can only refine or suggest further arguments within the context of an ethical system, but never justify one. For example, an ethic based on the axiom of human survival and sustenance may very well use biology to elucidate and clarify a system of morals. The judeo-christian ethic, which has at its foundation the idea of human deprecation, subject to his carnal lusts, would have no need for biology, and could not be serviced by it.

A strictly libertarian ethic, one concerned with individual sovereignty and the right of each individual to his own system of valuation, does not seek to maximize humanity as a group, which limits the applicability of biology to it.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:27:35 GMT

ladyattis:

The problem is that empathy is itself not an instinct, but rather a manifestation of the physical features of mirror neurons. They allow us to mimic the mental theatre of others, illustrating the quantities of pain/pleasure that another may experience. But there's something missing that can make the leap from feeling another's pain to doing something about it. And that is the choice to act and to think on the consequences of one's actions. Without that choice, whether free will or not, ethics is not possible. All you have is the simple pain/pleasure mechanism at work, where pain is largely avoided and pleasure is largely sought after.

We are not trained monkeys.

Re: Natural Law and Human Nature

DD5 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:23:29 GMT

wilderness:

Empathy needs to be cultivated by reason or else the feral child. Without learned reason and culture humans don't know where/how to focus their instincts. Children grow up to learn different world views and are not born with them. This is why discoveries are made in science and philosophical debates encourage new ways at looking at life. We learn what to do with what we have and with physical culture expand our ways of dealing with the world.

We are not Blank Slates. Empathy has to do with relating to others. For example, the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, or understanding one's emotions without having it verbally transmitted to you. It is certainly a highly innate trait. There is ample evidence for this.

The idea that such traits are learned from the environment was the biggest blonder of mainstream psychology during much of the 20ths century, perhaps worst then Keynesian economics. You take the view of a "behaviorist", yet behaviorism is literally a dead theory.

Consider that a lack of empathy can be a serious neurological disorder, such as in the case of Autism. Or that certain brain damages can also result with similar symptoms, yet the ability to reason may remain fully intact.