Where Do Morals Come From?

Not long ago I ran into (an unedited version of) the question, "If there's no God then where do morals come from?" in the HubPages "Answers" section. Most of us have asked ourselves this question at one time or another, I think; but because I had some time on my hands, I thought I'd really consider all the components to my own answer to the question; and approach this Hub as if I were having this discussion with a friend. At some other time I may approach the subject in a more thorough, and better researched way. For my own reasons, and for now, I've decided to address the question in a more casual way.

I'm not saying whether or not I believe in a higher power, but what I don't believe in is being "good" or moral out of the fear that someone is watching and will punish me for not being good or moral. Where being a kind, good, caring, and moral person ("moral" can have different meanings for different people, of course) comes from is first a sense of empathy and compassion toward others.

It also comes from having good enough sense to be able to see potential consequences of one's actions and try not to do things that might bring on negative consequences. Being "good" or having integrity come from seeing how much nicer one's own life, and the lives of those he touches, can be by aiming to have integrity, do what's right, and be kind and thoughtful. Aiming to be a good person comes from respecting others and the world, and that comes from self-respect but also from what we're taught by our parents.

I don't believe that aiming to be a good person out of one's own, selfish, wish to get to Heaven is the "purest" form of good. It's essentially being good out of fear and selfish interests. I suppose it's better than someone who would otherwise do rotten things be afraid enough of not getting into Heaven that he'd choose not to act on his wish to do those rotten things. What's ideal, however, is when a person doesn't have the inclination to do rotten things at all.

There are two things that stop people from doing rotten things. The first is that they know right from wrong and want to aim to do what is right. The second is when people are so equipped with compassion and empathy that they don't even have the urge to do some things.

Knowing right from wrong comes as young children mature and their parents (or the world) has been telling them what is right and what is wrong. It's having the information in the brain that amounts to "knowing on an intellectual level" (as opposed to a deeper understanding of right and wrong). Parents tell young children things like, "Don't pull the kitty's tail. That's not nice because it's wrong to hurt the kitty." This is the same kind of "intellectual-level knowing" that is used by adults who are afraid they won't get into Heaven. They've been told by someone they trust (often, their religious leader(s)) what is wrong and what is right, and why doing what's wrong will be a problem. Being kind and aiming to do what's right also comes when children emulate the adults that they admire in their life. The youngest of children learn by emulating ("mimicking"), and older children (even teens) will choose to emulate parents if/when they admire what it is the parents do in one situation or another (or for one reason or another).

Not even having the urge to do what is wrong or immoral comes from the brain. Science (or the medical profession) has now seen (with the use of brain scans) that there is a part of the brain associated with empathy, and that the more well developed that part of the brain is; the more discomfort the individual will experience when witnessing the suffering of someone or something else (that "kitty" mentioned above is an example of "something else"). What has also been seen in brain scans of at least one individual who was believed to be a sociopath was that the part of the brain associated with conscience was not developed normally. It was theorized (by people with a lot more expertise than I have) that exposure to high levels of testosterone in utero could have (possibly) affected the development of this individual's brain. Whether this was nothing more than the individual's defense is something about which I'm not sure, but the argument was that the mother of this individual had been in a car accident when she was expecting him; and the stress/anxiety associated with the accident could have contributed to exposure to higher levels of testosterone. High (or higher) levels of testosterone has also been linked to Autism. Also, the presence of "stress chemicals" has been established as potentially damaging (or at least hindering) to the healthy development of infants. The significance/possible significance of the role of testosterone (and/or at least exposure to higher levels of it during any stage of brain development, and at least in some circumstances) will become clear later.

There are different parts of the brain associated with different types of thinking and different activities or skills, of course; and cognitive skills (intelligence) are only associated with certain parts of the brain. Which part of the brain is associated with which skills/abilities is beyond the scope of this article, as is the role of genetics and nurturing in the overall, normal, development of the brain. It is safe to say, however, that each newborn child is born with a certain amount of potential for "normal" brain development (as long as brain damage hasn't occurred before or during birth). It's also safe to point out that there a lot of people who have a very well developed sense of empathy and compassion (which would suggest that the same people also have the part/parts of the brain associated with those having developed to an average and/or high degree).
In other words, having a good degree of empathy and compassion and/or having the part(s) of the brain associated with that is a fairly common thing among human beings. Since it is as common as it is it's also safe to assume that the potential for brain development in healthy newborns includes the part(s) of the brain associated with empathy and compassion. In other words, most people are born with the potential to develop the empathy-/compassion- associated part(s) of the brain, as well as the other parts of the brain that develop as a child receives nurturing and matures.

Without suggesting (at all) that people with low IQ's cannot develop empathy and/or compassion (because most of us have known at least a few people with below average IQ's who are extremely compassionate and kind), when I was researching the question of whether or not criminals are most often "highly intelligent" I discovered that the prison population has a higher percentage of people with low IQ's than with above-average or high IQ's.

Also, years ago I read a book on highly gifted individuals. If I recall correctly, the book was offered by the American Psychological Association; but it was years ago. Even so, I have no reason to believe that what was offered in that book has become outdated.

In any case, it was stated in that book that highly gifted individuals often have a sense of spirituality, and even a sense of a "higher calling". If I recall correctly, a well developed sense of empathy was also mentioned as a trait often (OFTEN, NOT ALWAYS, of course) shared by highly gifted individuals.

So, the information about the high rate of low IQ's among the prison population and the information related to "well developed sense of empathy" and those traits associated with "highly gifted" individuals both support the idea that a healthy and well developed brain play an important role in a person's choices, instincts, and urges related to doing what is wrong. All that aside, it is now common knowledge that the right kind of nurturing will help a child's brain develop best; and the wrong kind of nurturing will harm brain development.

Those of us who have paid even a little attention to the subject of child development know that a child's brain and abilities develop according to an "approximate schedule". Babies are said to develop some understanding of some words long before they can say them, and the ability for them to speak usually develops somewhere around two/two-and-half years old (plus or minus months in some cases). Young children's brains are capable of learning a certain amount of "appropriate social behavior" in the preschool years. As they get closer to four or five, children generally develop better ability to function in a school setting. Impulse control can be a challenge for some five-year-olds, while it can be less of a challenge for seven-year-olds. While some of the more "dramatic" brain development takes place from birth to age two or three, the brain continues to develop throughout childhood.

It is now understood that the human brain is not finished developing in all areas until the individual reaches his early- to mid-twenties. Diane Sawyer (ABC News) did a Prime Time special on why sixteen years old is a bad age for teens to drive, and the point of it was essentially that sixteen-year-old kids have conflicting types of development; which include being at a stage of taking risks while not yet being at a stage of brain development that would lead to better choices about speeding (and other risk-taking when driving).

The point is that throughout a person's entire childhood his brain is developing. At exactly which point that part of the brain associated with empathy develops (and whether it develops very well) is, as I said, not something I know offhand at this time. The reason I bring up this point, however, will become clear below.

The good news is that it doesn't take a whole lot to nurture healthy brain development in a baby. Meeting the baby's physical needs is, of course, important. A brain doesn't develop well when a baby doesn't receive the proper nutrition. Meeting his emotional needs is also important, but doing that requires little but making a baby or toddler feel secure, loved, and respected. That doesn't take a genius or a child-development expert. All it requires is a mother's (or other adult's) voice (for calming and talking and singing), safe-feeling arms, and eye-contract for relating and letting the child know someone knows "he's in there". So what does this have to do with moral and "good" behavior in a person? It's the starting point from which (or the foundation on which) further brain development will be built.

Note: Here I'm going to deviate from what I know to be proven facts and instead write from my own observations and thoughts. It's not that I plan to "pull things out of thin air" here, by any means. It's just that I want to make it clear that I'm basing the following on assimilated knowledge, but also, in some instances, on my own guesses. Basically, I not only want to be certain I don't mislead any reader but also want to cover my own credibility as someone who is careful about what I present. Returning to the point about knowing right from wrong and having empathy and compassion....

The bad news is, I believe, that while it's easy enough to get a child from birth to the earliest (or even later) preschool years with a well developed brain (for a child of that age range), once the most basic brain development has taken place; it can be a little trickier for a parent to know exactly how to nurture the areas of the brain that are yet to develop (or continuing to develop). It doesn't help that some children have very different natures. One child may thrive best (and therefore develop best) with some types of nurturing/encouragement, while another may require a different set of things from his parent(s). Why this is worth mentioning is that as a child's development goes along with his maturation process, so does the degree of "sophistication" of his thinking. This would seem like a good thing (and is), but with that increased degree of thinking ability and development of different types of cognitive skills comes, or course, increasing autonomy and sense of independence. So, with a child's becoming a more complicated person, also comes an increased challenge in adults' knowing how to help that child feel secure and have self-esteem. While a maturing and increasing brain development certainly isn't "bad news", I think the bad news is that when parents don't know exactly how they should be handling some things for any particular child (and so often parents can't always know that); the insecurities, fears, and general emotional needs of an older, more complicated, child can not also be more complicated but also more difficult to recognize, address, and alleviate. I can only assume that if a child is sufficiently insecure, unhappy, fearful, and/or angry about such issues then there's the likelihood that his internal (brain-chemicals) environment may not be ideal for the development of whatever part of the brain would ordinarily be developed (or refined) in a child of his age range.

I'd guess (well, it's more than a guess) that the child who had ideal (or close to ideal) nurturing from birth to preschool would have an advantage over the child who didn't, and the issues that cause (often hidden) problems in the early school years may not (if parents are generally normal and loving but imperfect parents) so severely affect a child's brain development that he won't be "generally normal". Whether or not he reaches the potential he had at birth for developing all areas of his brain may be the real issue. Or, he may have all the "right" areas of his brain developed reasonably well, but to what degree any of them is developed beyond what is average or below average could be what is affected.

It's important to note too, however, that severe "stunting" of development can occur as a result of abuse and/or neglect. An extreme example is that of a six-year-old girl in a foreign orphanage. The girl was left in a crib and alone for years. Not only was this child unable to speak, but she was unable to walk. Severe developmental disabillities have also occurred when children have been left in isolation by abusive adults. The point is, brain development doesn't end when a child is two or three years old.

And, if helping an early-school-aged child feel secure, treasured, and respected is more of a challenge than helping a toddler feel those things; helping a teen feel the same can be close to impossible (at least in a lot of ways).

From the time a child's world begins to include the outside world, rather than primarily just his own family and home; the things that affect a child's sense of security or even cause pain go beyond what is within parents' control. To some extent, the child's increasing brain development also helps him deal with the challenges (and sometimes pain) of the outside world. On the other hand, he's still a child and still without a completely mature and developed brain. It gets more complicated for teens, because they're most often at a stage in development where the issues aren't just what goes on in the outside but immediate outside world, but are also associated with life and the larger world as well.

Basically, no kid has a mature and finished brain; and to one extent or another, every kid is faced with things that will threaten his sense of security and safety and sureness. More good news is that the farther along in development a child gets, the less likely it is his development will be affected by things that have the potential of amounting to emotional issues. More bad news is, however, that until a child reaches complete maturity (and ideally, that potential with he started he began his life) he's vulnerable to emotional damage which may or may not affect his brain development in one way or another.

Obviously, each child, each situation or incident, and each brain is different. It's not possible to know precisely which circumstances or stage-of-development will or won't contribute to actual damage to, or "stunting of", brain development (or to what extent). Things like emotional insecurity, fear, and anger amount to stress (or distress), and stress can lead to a fight-or-flight response (which amounts to having one's normal balance of "brain chemicals" changed to include "stress chemicals").

How well, and how far along, an individual's brain development has progressed can, in itself, has a child or teen be more equipped to find challenging or unpleasant situations less stress-, or even fear-, producing.

Separate from any actual damage to brain development, however (and I assume) is are the kinds of things that can cause emotional distress in a child or teen, even if, perhaps, they don't take a physical toll on the brain (at least to any substantial extent). Whether a child or teen is made to feel insecure or angry under some circumstances may depend on how much self-esteem the individual does or doesn't have. Also, a child or teen who have "generally OK" brain development are probably less likely to be as impacted by some things as one who isn't quite so "OK" may be; but most of (all, perhaps) can recall incidents or situations in our childhoods or teen years that involved our being extremely distressed, upset, and/or angered; and because of which we eventually vowed we'd never let our own child be so disappointed by, or feel so betrayed by, adults (or "the world").

With the some situations and some kids, the child or teen may not even recognize that he has been failed by, or betrayed by, adults (or again, "the world"). He may only know that nobody seemed to understand what he was going through. In other situations or with other individuals, the person may well recognize that he feels he has been failed by adults and as a result, be angry about it.

I can only assume that the equation that leads to a measure of degree of damage to any one child or teen must include state of brain development, degree of existing brain development, degree of balance of development on one side; and severity and timing of negative experiences/incidents on the other.

In the 1985 book, "High Risk: Children Without Conscience" (Kenneth Magid and Carol A. McKelvey), degree of sense of moral behavior/empathy is represented on a spectrum, with (if I recall correctly) people like Charles Manson on one end of the spectrum and people like Mother Theresa on the opposite end. Magid and/or McKelvey point out that most people fall somewhere between such extremes, although he does suggest some professions/lines of work in which people at different points on the spectrum might tend to fall.

The point is that somewhere between "sociopath" and "saint-like" there are a whole lot of perfectly normal people with well developed consciences and senses of empathy, compassion, selflessness, and caring about others - with degrees of such things varying, depending on the individual. Where, exactly, on that spectrum would be people who aren't as naturally inclinded to do what is right versus those who are, I don't know; but there would be some point at which some "normal" people might need the threat of not getting into Heaven more than some other people would. I don't happen to believe, however, that the people who don't need to be intimidated or "threatened" into doing what is right are only those near "the Mother Theresa end". I think a natural inclination to try to do what's right is far more common in people than that.

Separate from the matter of conscience, however, might also be the matter of common sense. Just as sense of empathy has been linked to one part of the brain, common sense if a kind of "intelligence" and is associated with its own part of the brain. While doing what won't be hurtful (or intentionally hurtful) to someone/something else may come primarily from conscience, caring, and empathy; perhaps aiming to do what won't have the high risk of potentially destroying us or our lives may come more from common sense. The fourteen-year-old kid with a lot of common sense may be less likely than one without that to experiment with sex or drugs.

A mature brain (which, no matter how mature or intelligent any kid is, no kid has) can also make a big difference when it comes to some potentially destructive things and whether or not an individual will engage in them. The immature brain believes "it won't happen to me". The more mature brain knows better, and if it doesn't completely know better; at least it isn't so sure that "it won't happen" as it was when it was less mature. A mature brain with well developed reasoning ability, as well as the ability to adequately process ideas presented through verbal communication, has no problem seeing why some behavior is not acceptable in a family or in society.

In fact, with a healthy, mature, brain; so many of those immature instincts to do, say, or be anything wrong or immoral aren't a part of us. So many things that are wrong are so often a matter of a child's or teen's insecurity and/or wish to just to what he wants to do. This isn't the stuff that would keep anyone out of anyone else's "Heaven". A two-year-old wants to jump on Grandma's new, cream-colored, sofa with his shoes on because he doesn't know any better (and just wants to do what he wants to do). An older child's lies are usually out of fear or insecurity. Even a teen's angry outburst at a parent is most often rooted in frustration, emotion, and inability to "remain cool" at all times.

While there are all kinds of destructive or "bad" things that have roots in something far less deep than this, some of the most harmful and evil behavior that people inflict on others is rooted it primitive instincts that people either grow beyond with increasing brain development, or else instincts that some people don't ever have because they've had the kind of nurturing that led to the right (healthiest) kind of brain development in the earliest years.

Some of the most primitive instincts go even "beneath" the basics of something like the instinct to survive or procreate and to the very nature of male or female sexuality. For example, I've read that hens who are competing for the attention of one rooster will try to peck to death any female who is different and might stand out among them. For all those people who say that money is the root of all evil, I've always believed that jealousy and envy may surpass even money if there's one "root of all evil" at all. Competition and being "Number One" is part of both male and female sexuality in their own ways, or perhaps being "Number One" is rooted yet "farther down" in ego. Ego, of course, is something for toddlers who have learned that they are not the same person as their mother are often known. People are supposed to grow beyond the ego of toddler-hood and two-year-old. They do, at least to some extent, with both the maturation process and being guided into a less self-centered kind of thinking, and being, by parents. Sometimes, of course, ego and self-centered thinking is actually nurtured or encouraged either by parents or childhood circumstances/incidents in general.

Being "Number One" (either by "ruling the roost" or by being "Number One" among hens vying for their place as their own version of "Number One") can be at the root of urges to do some very evil things, such as control others or eliminate competition with attacks (physical or verbal).

I'm under the impression that while brain development is the thing that moves people past a lot of the more primitive instincts that contribute to bad behavior (even evil), when some people feel their sense of security. Some people have "developed beyond primitive instincts" farther than others have; but under threat (or overwhelming emotion) there can be a tendency to slip a little farther back toward more primitive instincts and behavior (more for some people than others).

Of course, adequate brain maturity is also the thing that equips a person with the ability to better process emotions "intellectually", and do that in as short a time as possible (for whatever the emotion and circumstance involves); so a person with a brain that is mature (at least in this way, if not all ways) will not feel overwhelmed by emotion as often, or for as long, as someone who is less mature will. As a result, the completely (or almost completely) mature individual won't feel emotionally insecure or threatened as often (if at all) and won't be as likely as someone else to be "pushed farther back" into more primitive behavior.

Regardless of whether a person has matured to the point where he doesn't have the kind of ego that makes him truly feel as if he's more important than, more valuable than, or superior to, other human beings, people with a healthy maturity as complete human beings at least recognize these things on an intellectual level. Whether or not they're always capable of overcoming their own ego or their own insecurities enough that they always treat others as equals (worthy of respect and in "value") depends (as far as I can see) on the person, the situation, and how generally (if not completely) mature the individual is.

Most of the time, when people are either completely mature and well adjusted or else mostly mature and well adjusted, that's what it takes and all it takes for them to aim to do the right thing, the compassionate thing, the caring thing, and the honest thing.

This isn't to say that people can ever be completely able to always do what is right and good. It's only to say that it's their nature to always try and most often succeed. Good people will not want to hurt anyone else, and if they do it's only when the hurt is unintentional. We often hear people say that we should treat others as we'd like to be treated. That's not a bad concept, although I have a certain amount of reservation about even that approach to "being good" because without well developed empathy (and often, even with it), we can't put ourselves in the other person's shoes and situation simply because they are different people from us. It's not always good to assume that everyone else is just like us because that doesn't respect other individuals enough to recognize that they are, in fact, individuals with their own set of circumstances, issues, needs, and preferences.

The idea of treating others as we'd like to be treated works best, I think, when we recognize that someone else is an individual (and maybe when we at least ask, if possible, what the person would prefer or how best we can help him). Wanting to help others is most often, of course, rooted in compassion. Compassion is an important part of being a whole person. Even though genuine compassion, and a genuine wish to help (or not to harm) anyone else is one of the roots of "caring" behavior; again, demonstrating compassion often comes from the "intellectual-level" knowledge that showing compassion is what we're supposed to do if we want to be good people. Treating people with compassion is good, but genuinely and naturally having one's own sense of compassion is better. Even with that, though, compassion, by itself isn't necessarily what stops people from doing evil things. Genuine empathy and genuine respect for the life and value of others is.

Then, too, there's something we human beings call, "love". There are all kinds of love we human beings can feel for someone or something, and one of the most important (if not THE most important) kinds of love is also rooted in primitive instincts, which are the instincts to protect and nurture, particularly anyone or anything not as able to protect himself/itself as we are; but a solid enough nurturing instinct amounts to an overall approach to life, other humans (alive now or not yet born) and the world that includes the aim to eliminate hurt and suffering (the urge to protect is at the root of this, I'm guessing). The other part of that nurturing instinct includes wanting to help others grow to have the life and freedom to live that life to their fullest potential, and in the way that is right for them but also the way that they want and need to. Showing tenderness and kindness, and also thinking more about what we have to offer the other (as opposed to what they have to offer us, or what we will gain by having them in our life) are also parts of the nurturing instinct.

I once read an analysis of the different types of love there are in this world, and it was said that there are two things that must be present, no matter what type of love or relationship it is. Those two things are admiration and respect.

We see the nurturing instinct in the youngest of children and long before we've had a lot of time to try to teach it to them.

In personal relationships we, of course, have a close bond with those we love. We're attached to them. Still, a big part of the love we have for our loved ones involves fiercely wanting to protect them from harm, hurt, and pain. It's a different kind of love, but when we care about other human beings in general, or care about the world, it is a form of love; and the wish to "make the world a better place" stems from, I believe, that instinct to protect any number of other people and things from harm, hurt, pain, or damage.

Again, even though it's a very different kind of love, when we care about other people, mankind, and/or the world in general it amounts to loving people and the world and all good things in it. We feel that kind of love when we've been loved by others and/or when we've been around others who are worthy of being loved. Those of us who have children sometimes don't particularly love people and the world in general but instead want to make a difference because the world is the one in which our children and their children will live their futures. Then again, even those of us who don't particularly believe we generally love all of mankind and the world might discover that because we are parents we have well developed nurturing instincts and see other people as "someone else's child".

The nurturing instinct can at times backfire, of course; because human beings can have trouble separating the urge to protect from the fact that those we want to protect don't always want or need our protection. This is why the respect aspect of genuine love is so important (because it is that respect we have, or should have, for those we love that acts as guide for us and helps us keep our nurturing instincts in balance).

Yes, we human beings have the capacity to love. One problem is that the love we feel for anyone or anything is only as healthy and whole as we are. Psychologist, Abraham Maslow, depicted his theory on human needs in his "Hierarchy of Needs", which shows the most basic needs at the bottom of a pyramid and "higher thinking" at the top. Maslow's belief was that human beings must have each "level" of needs met before moving on to address/develop the next level of need. The need for "higher thinking" (which involves the need to make a difference in one's community and the world) is addressed only after the most basic physical needs and then emotional needs are met.

Still, I think that as long we are reasonably whole as individuals, then the love we feel will also be reasonably whole; and for all our inadequacies and imperfection, a whole lot of us, human beings, are capable of love that's awfully close to, if not beyond, whole.

Those of us who know how it feels to love in a whole (or mostly whole) way know that love brings only good things to this world and life. Unhealthy or incomplete love are something else; but love that is real, genuine, and whole are nothing but good and all about respect and healthy nurturing and care-taking.

Religious people often say that God is love. Non-religious people, I suppose, often believe that the human capacity to love others and the the world mean that this world has something so meaningful, important, deep, and even spiritual in it that it almost doesn't matter if there's a higher power or not.

Either way, what stops good and whole people from intentionally committing evil is love of one sort or another. It's that simple.

The thing about conscience and empathy and caring is that even when a person isn't capable of feeling "whole" and mature love toward others and/or the world, even just a good degree of ability to love (or at least to know that one is loved) is often enough to stop people who have some urges to commit evil from acting on them.

It's only the most damaged and/or unfinished (immature in one or more ways) who even have the urge to do some wrong things; and even with that, it's only the most severely damaged of people who are capable of committing some evil acts. These are the people for whom being intimidated or frightened into believing "someone is watching" may help prevent some evil acts; but I'm not even all that convinced about that, because it was that book to which I referred (about highy gifted people) that suggested that one trait of highly gifted people was a well developed sense of spirituality.

In the case of someone so severely damaged or stunted that he'd commit evil acts, it's not likely this individual will take to truly believing in a higher power or "something greater than ourselves" very well, simply because there's a good chance such a person won't be capable of the kind of "higher thinking" show in Maslow's Hierarchy. While there are certainly evil people who have demonstrated exceptional ability in one or another type of thinking, obviously the person capable of evil doesn't have that overall, well developed, brain (because if he did he wouldn't be capable of evil in the first place).

It's worth mentioning that there are people who have such a deep belief in God that they feel as if that God is a part of them, and as if they're a part of that God. They may feel that way because they feel so sure that they're good and decent and caring people, they essentially just feel "a part of God's time, or "at one with God". These are people who are more likely to see God as a friend than as a judge or a parent. These are people who see their God as a companion - not as someone to fear (or at least to fear as far as not getting into Heaven goes).

In the case of such people, however, I tend to think their belief in God is more a "symptom" of the fact that they already feel they're good, decent, caring people who try always do what is caring and right - not the cause of the kind of people they are.

We don't need to believe in God or know whether or not He exists to understand what has either been proven, or at least been shown to be evidence enough that some information appears to fit well into a larger, scientific, picture when it comes to the matter of understanding the root causes of morality (or lack of it).

Children may not be born with the understanding of why they shouldn't jump on Grandma's new cream-colored sofa with their shoes on, but they are born with the capacity to love, and the capacity to feel empathy for others. Those who grow up to be people who are capable of hurting others have been damaged and have learned how not to care about, or respect, others. It's a curious thing that so many people who believe in God also believe that human beings are born "evil", and it's odd that so many who believe in God believe we are all "God's children" - and yet give God no credit for being the same kind of parent that any of us who are parents are (which is aiming to have children who are moral, good, caring people, whether or not we are with them). Something else that's curious is the idea that people have been created "in the image and likeness of God", and yet so many religious individuals (and religions) also believe that people are essentially born sinners.

In any case, the potential for morality is something that comes with being born a human being. Whether or not someone becomes damaged enough to be capable of intentionally harming others (in one way or another) has little to do with whether or not God exists, or whether or not someone believes in God.