Your Opinions on Moral/Cultural Relativity

As the information age progresses, more and more people are learning a lot about eachother. It is evident that cultures around the world have very different values and cultural standards from one another.

Are morals and values of a person shaped completely by the culture they live in, or are there basic standards that every human society should uphold?

I believe that cultures can vary widely in their values and morals and still be equally good. However, I also think that there are some cultural standards that do transcend all just societies.. such as no murder, rape, stealing, ect. A society that doesnt respect these simple human values can be judged as bad or unjust.

What do you think?

I think you're a stinkin racist and a homophobe, you nazi!

Just kidding. I figured I'd say it before any of the leftys did, to take the sting out of it. ~;)

All kidding aside, I do believe in moral absolutes, but I think they are no where near as common as we think they are. For example, I think our society assumes a universality in opposition to homosexuality that is not there. I think there is plenty of room for them under the moral absolutes I hold to, and I am glad there people around here to remind me of that. I think the problems we have stem from cultural conditioning, and we'll move beyond all that. Marital infidelity, on the other hand, even in gay marriages, I believe to be a universal ill. You have sworn an oath to be true and you are flaunting it. Breaking it in weakness and seeking forgiveness is one thing, but to just discard it... shame on you.

I hold two moral absolutes at the end of the day, cause my teacher told me these were important. I) Love God with my whole heart, my whole mind, my whole soul and II) Love everyone around me as I love myself (well, as I'm prone to going on a bender or two and I smoke cigars, maybe better).

to be honest - i do not believe in the legitimacy of relativism nor the absolutism of morality
the more i visit these forums and read and investigate on my own time - the more confused i become

the less clear/more contradictory all positions seem to become

i cannot rationalize fidelity according to individuality
i cannot rationalize the concept that anything is "wrong" or "right" without a superlative
including murder, theft, abuse, totalitarianism, etc
since every concept of a superlative is so illogical and contradictory - i cannot see that there is one

since all of my pre-conceptions are based on a tradition and belief system that is so inherently flawed - i cannot easily buy the products of human rationalization derived from them.

the absolutist values change so often and so completely that everytime anyone thinks that they have found one, someone contradicts it and eventually a new standard is developed

i could, theoretically, state whatever i wanted as truth and as long as i was charming and steadfast enough - there is the possibility that it would be accepted by many and develop into a cultural norm to be defended at all cost

it feels as though no matter what happens to whom - nothing we do matters in any way. whether people are free to decide their futures or not - there doesn't seem to be a judgement standard and either way is reality

the correct answer never seems tenable
and simply lowering morality to the common denominator has no authority over me if i do not meet the standard

only raw power to stop me - and in a sense, we are back to square one

i can't really express the absolute despair and hatred of everything that my ideology breeds, but i only hope that others can be jaded enough to believe in morality and purpose and die happy

rant over - no matter what anyone says - my opinion seems to stay the same
but i still hope that what i hold to be true is true - as naive and mad as that sounds - basic respect for human rights (across the board) due to true altruism rather than some social consensus on how to protect individual selfishness without infringing on the selfishness of others





PS- nearly everyone seems to believe that their personal ideologies are right and many see them as worth dying for - that is an idea that is nearly universal throughout all societies. does that mean that this is also true?

oh no - that is a contradiction - lets just focus on the universal truths that dont blow our concept of lowest common denominator relativism to hell

Moral relativity is a useful tool to understand the context of the actions of someone particularly in history.

It means we can understand why someone did something.

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

I think that the 'golden rule' is a pretty good beginning for a universal moral standard. Most of us would not enjoy being raped, robbed, or murdered. If we treat other beings with the respect that we would like to be accorded we have at least the beginnings of a universal moral standard that really does transcend cultural norms.

Most problems of course come when we try to satisfy our desires for status and gain at the expense of others.

Cultures with a rational moral will survive. It's all about evolution of cultures, this has brought us what we have today in the world.
Every person gets it's moral values from the culture he lives in. It has very little to do with his instincts or "humanity"......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Cultures with a rational moral will survive. It's all about evolution of cultures, this has brought us what we have today in the world.
Every person gets it's moral values from the culture he lives in. It has very little to do with his instincts or "humanity"......

---

Much of the moral code has to instincts or "humanity", but... moral values based on culture can override those more basic rules.

But as the "golden rule" seems to a very effective way to build a society on, so I say that we stick with that. That I personally agrees with them, doesn't make it a weaker argument. ~;)

Whow, Panzer, this is the best question I ever saw here! I have to think about it.

If there is a kind of common values, next question would be which they are? ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Much of the moral code has to instincts or "humanity", but... moral values based on culture can override those more basic rules.

---

One example is rape. Out of a biological view, this is the most efficient way to get your genes spread. For a society it is impractical to have a lot offsprings without parental support, hence rape is not a good idea..... ~;)

I think there is such a thing as a universal morality, which is related to the 'golden rule'.
However, people tend to rationalize exceptions, which is where difficulties start. Murder is wrong, but executions can be done, soldier are considered honourable (I'm not saying they aren't), abortions are allowed etc. I don't a we can really stay true to the 'golden rule', simply because other people won't, and we should be able to protect ourselves from them and what they do. I do think most people know right from wrong when they listen to their inner voice, but we often chose to listen to what our mind says and not what soul wants :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

One example is rape. Out of a biological view, this is the most efficient way to get your genes spread. For a society it is impractical to have a lot offsprings without parental support, hence rape is not a good idea..... ~;)

---

Actually research shows that the female orgasm has a role in conception :book:

the surest way to ensure that women choose your genes over others is to kill others (competition) and force mating for a prolonged period of time (unwanted mariage between 1 man and many women) - im not afraid that our culture will devolve into this, but that is where all of this talk of specific gene survival and egoism goes.
i think that we will decide to look at another "meaning" of life after we see the dead end that this brings about

Quote:

---

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

---

What is 'right' Pape?

Quote:

---

I think you're a stinkin racist and a homophobe, you nazi!

---

Youre not the first, and you surely wont be the last.. ~;)

Oh and TuffStuff, youve blown my mind with that first post. Ive read it several times.. :dizzy2:

yea - that whole thought process never seems to impress anyone
and i can never make it sound right as i think it

i have been reading to try to feel that someone understands - and as it turns out the concepts that i have been trying (and failing) to get at are found in nihilist and existentialist thought by various philosophers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Are morals and values of a person shaped completely by the culture they live in, or are there basic standards that every human society should uphold?

I believe that cultures can vary widely in their values and morals and still be equally good. However, I also think that there are some cultural standards that do transcend all just societies.. such as no murder, rape, stealing, ect. A society that doesnt respect these simple human values can be judged as bad or unjust.

---

any morals or values shaped by community and culture, are in actuality, not morals or values at all

the only morals that are perfect and unchanging are those laid out by God. on occassion, mankind will happen to abide by God's morals on certain things. this is the only time in which those things can accurately be described as "morals" or "values".

anything mankind comes up with on it's own, contrary to God, is inherently immoral and of no value (other than perhaps, detrimental value)

as for saying that there are standards that transcend all societies such as no murder: that is rubbish

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

which again just underscores my original point (without all morals being based on God's will, society has no values or morals whatsoever). conducting a genocide of babies and pretending it's all "fine and dandy" is the epitome of evil which illustrates this reality beyond refute.

Ummm Navaros, I can't help but stumble on a glaring contradiction. If all morals are laid down by God, then which god? If any god can just lay down laws then they would be very different and therefore just as rubish as the ones we make up.

Even if we are talking about the same god and the same religion, there are still sects that disagree on things. Also God's laws(I'm assuming you are refering to the 10 commandments) don't cover every type moral. This leaves even more holes in the theory, and more chances for people to take advantage.

Then again I don't even believe in God, so I guess I'm a little biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

any morals or values shaped by community and culture, are in actuality, not morals or values at all

the only morals that are perfect and unchanging are those laid out by God. on occassion, mankind will happen to abide by God's morals on certain things. this is the only time in which those things can accurately be described as "morals" or "values".

anything mankind comes up with on it's own, contrary to God, is inherently immoral and of no value (other than perhaps, detrimental value)

as for saying that there are standards that transcend all societies such as no murder: that is rubbish

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

which again just underscores my original point (without all morals being based on God's will, society has no values or morals whatsoever). conducting a genocide of babies and pretending it's all "fine and dandy" is the epitome of evil which illustrates this reality beyond refute.

---

i agree in principle actually
social "morality" void of a God concept is not morality
it is simply a social standard that can change with the next consensus

I don't think you necessarily need God. You just have to agree that there absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I don't think you necessarily need God. You just have to agree that there absolutes when it comes to right and wrong.

---

but then the absolutes depend on agreement

My opinion on Moral/Cultural Relativity?

That's easy.

I don't believe that any of my relatives are particularly moral, nor are they very cultured. Bunch of drunken philistines, actually...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

most societies in this world conduct legalized mass-murders in a holocaust with no forseeable end. they just call it "abortion" in a sick attempt to pretend that their wanton acts of murder are not murder. but it is still murder no matter what they try to call it.

---

The fact that you and I and many other people around the world see it as wrong means that it has transcended societies.

Just because the majority of goverments around the world dont punish people for abortion, that doesnt mean it isnt recognized as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

The fact that you and I and many other people around the world see it as wrong means that it has transcended societies.

Just because the majority of goverments around the world dont punish people for abortion, that doesnt mean it isnt recognized as a bad thing.

---

but panzer, many other societies thought slavery was ok
even many slaves accepted their plight reluctantly

most societies believed that it was ok to keep foreigners out and keep to themselves

most of the time, the right thing requires a small portion of society to undermine the will of the majority

the way that they do this is by using power and an appeal to a higher moral authority than majority consensus

this is a seriously tough one - without a higher moral authority, what real authority is there to decide when to overide consensus?
seemingly power would be the only real deciding factor
and who will presusme to tell those with power that they should use it for non-selfish motives without invoking the same superlative ethical code?

i do not trust that any of the answers i have to this question are correct - i only try to find the holes

I think we should distinguish between what society allows, and what society thinks is right/wrong.

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

---

yea - that's why the average white farmhand in the south also believed that there was nothing wrong with slavery
because they were rolling in loot

i just dont believe in inherent morality

Moral relativism whether it be between person to person, society to society or culture to culture is clearly there and most definitely evident. What one person perceives as 'right' is different to anothers, what one society perceives as 'right' is different to others and the same for cultures.

We all need to simply choose what we believe is right and wrong and act upon that choice, everyone else does the same thing. Society can influence your decision making, but that does not get away from the fact that at the end we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact, which means there will always be moral relativism.

And I think that is right and dandy.

Well done JAG. I especially like this part:
we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact
because it's the foundamental truth. Anyone can commit any crime at any time, and there's no amount guilt to keep him/her from doing so.

We all have to have personal responsibility for our own percieved notions.


Oh and compassion IS universal so we still got that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I think we should distinguish between what society allows, and what society thinks is right/wrong.

Many times societies will allow things that are universally wrong for their own reasons. Many people knew slavery was wrong in their hearts, even in the south, but when your making big $$ off of it, its easy to submit to the apologists.

---

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

---

i agree
but i tend to support and vote in favor of conservative christians over liberal secularists even though i believe that my ideologies lie closer to liberal end
that is just the way it is - that is how i act - in opposition to the way that i think

but if the people in the south WERE racist
supported slavery and in some circles still believe in it - i dont know where you get the idea that "deep down they really didnt buy it"

Tuff, I don't think the line I have mentioned in this thread is completely to the 'liberal' extreme. Yes it was espoused by lefty figures, especially Sartre, but what it does also state is complete responsibility for your actions. If you kill someone and you know it is against the law, you have to face up to the responsibility of your decision if caught. If you decide to smoke cigarettes, you have to take the responsibility with your choice, no use saying 'I only smoke because my friends do' - no it is YOU which made the choice to smoke, your friends could not have forced you, you actively choose to smoke. It is your responsibility.

That - to me at least - is not out of bounds of many, many conservative view points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Tuff, I don't think the line I have mentioned in this thread is completely to the 'liberal' extreme. Yes it was espoused by lefty figures, especially Sartre, but what it does also state is complete responsibility for your actions. If you kill someone and you know it is against the law, you have to face up to the responsibility of your decision if caught. If you decide to smoke cigarettes, you have to take the responsibility with your choice, no use saying 'I only smoke because my friends do' - no it is YOU which made the choice to smoke, your friends could not have forced you, you actively choose to smoke. It is your responsibility.

That - to me at least - is not out of bounds of many, many conservative view points.

---

i cannot buy the responsibility bit as a foundation for any sort of morality

yes i am "responsible" for my actions, i agree- but what does responsibility actually mean? i am responsible for my life, but not in the same way someone puts childrens lives in your responsibility. the responsibility when watching children denotes some positive outcome - if you succeed in your responsibilities, the children are either better or the same
if you fail - something bad has happened

without a judgement figure - existentialism really relies on the alternative definition of the term responsible: Being a source or cause; rather than the one that seems to guide what sartre believed (from my understanding at least). he seems to match it up with responsibility in the way of a babysitter with pre-established guidelines - when i believe that that is a logical leap.

if i smoke ciggarettes - i am responsible for that decision because i caused it, not because i am answerable to any other authority. it has nothing to do with any morality or responsibility for all men - that makes no reeal sense - there is no judgement standard

can anyone explain what i am getting at here any better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

we are simply free to choose and we cannot get away from that fact

---

this is not a new idea - free choice is an archaic concept that is in the old testament and new one (and is much older than that) - it is the concept that has always fuelled the fight about pre-destination in the christian church and many others.

no one, here anyway, is denying that this is most likely true

Quote:

---

You cannot play that card unfortunately. What we do is what we choose, what we choose is what we believe, simple as that. We are not what we could / should / would / wanted but didn't / thought in our heart of hearts, etc, we should have done. We simply are what we act upon.

To go around life stating that you are not what you do but what you think you should have done, is absurd. Not only are you judged on what you do, but you define yourself by your actions, none of which involve your 'real' wants. It is rubbish.

Therefore to say those who supported slavery in the South 'truly' didn't because they 'truly' didn't support it in their heads and hearts, is wrong.

---

I think plenty of people think one thing and do another. Just because you are judged on your actions doesnt mean you believe what you did was right.

Its seems to my you are assuming everyone does what they think is right. Im saying that some cultures allow "wrong" things because they benefit from them.

Im not claiming the southerners didnt truly support slavery, im just saying most didnt try to justify it as the right thing to do - some did, but i dont think most.

Ive read some things by Lee and Jackson and they saw slavery as a neccessary evil that would eventually die out - in essense, they put the welfare of their culture, the white southern culture, above the culture of the blacks.

So going all the way back to Navs argument - Just because a culture allows something by law doesnt mean that culture has accepted it as a just or good thing.

Quote:

---

Moral relativity is a useful tool to understand the context of the actions of someone particularly in history.

It means we can understand why someone did something.

I don't see it as giving them the right to do what they did, it just gives us a better understanding.

---

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

That's the main way that I see it. While an action is not always right, it is helpful to understand why that action happened. By today's standard, looting cities after an army conquers it is of course unaceptable (or should be, at least). But it was common practice back in the day, and it is helpful to understand that these people who say ordered sacks of cities weren't insane monsters (neccasarily), and were quite normal for their time.

And I certiantly think that people can still act good (not harm each other, no stealing etc.) without the idea of a supreme diety(s).

---

sure they can - i never said that they couldnt
i just think that there is no inherent reason not to

and if there is something to be gained by not obeying what is percieved as "good", and/or one can get away with it - then so be it - nothing wrong with that

Mmm. You're saying without the fear of an after life, people wouldn't worry about doing wrong?
Well, most non believers (agnostics, aethists, whatever) I know (including myself), have pretty much the same idea about not harming each other as a religous person. However, the question must be raised, how much of it is due to my parent's raising me with "Christian values" (for lack of a better word).
Chances are, if me or JAG, or others like us have children, we'd also raise them to not harm others.
It is an interesting question, however. I'd like to think with laws, and people raising their children with love that even aethists wouldn't diverge into a dog eat dog world. Indeed, I don't see any difference between an aethist raising their kids to hate and a relgious person raising their kids to hate, or vice versa.

Wow, this thread is getting obvious. :embarassed:

Umm you don't need to be raised as a Christian or even from a Christian country to be able to have compassion for another's pain wether it be physical or psychological. Compassion is a human trait. Period.

If you receave love and caring when you are growing up then chances are that you are gonna have compassion for others when they are in distress. You don't need religion of any sort to give you that insight. It comes with being a social species. And that's that. :book:

Recogniiiize, bitch. ~D

Quote:

---

if i smoke ciggarettes - i am responsible for that decision because i caused it, not because i am answerable to any other authority. it has nothing to do with any morality or responsibility for all men - that makes no reeal sense - there is no judgement standard

---

To understand how Sartre makes the logical leap from having responsibility and choosing for yourself and this being the same and equivalent to having responsibility and choosing for all - meaning everyone on the planet - is a bit complex and would not only require a bit of time and space but my brain to be working, which at 3 am it isn't. ~;) Tomorrow or in a PM I will try and describe this part of his philosophy to you if you want, it is interesting and on the most part I completely agree with him. :book:

PJ, if someone chooses something, NO MATTER what they say, they actively choose to do the action. It does not matter what reasoning they used or what they think they really 'feel', at the end of the day they choose to do a specific action when they could quite easily have done something else. Someone choosing to smoke cigarettes, but feeling they don't really want to smoke cigarettes and are being 'forced' into it by their peers, is deceiving themselves. They could quite easily choose not to smoke cigarettes, but to try and make their choice easier on themselves, for whatever reason, people will try and deceive themselves with a whole host of reasons. Including coming out with statements like, 'but I really didn't want to smoke! My friends MADE me!' Rubbish.

As Sartre stated, yield or die, is still a choice. A nasty choice between giving in or being killed, granted, but it is still a choice. It is self deception to think 'I really wanted to not give in, but he had a gun!' If you yielded you choose to yield when faced with the circumstances, simple as that. You cannot claim things which you have not acted upon, simple as that.

Once you realise this, it is quite empowering, give it a go.

BP - why do you think everyone has compassion? I really do not think so, there is no universal trait everyone has which is not due to DNA. Emotions and traits - such as cowardice or honour - are all created ourselves by our choices. There is nothing such as compassion which people have just for being human, that form of human nature I will argue about forever, it is rubbish.

hmmm

that is not what i intended in my arguement
this applys to anyone who believes in an superlative right and wrong

anyone who believes in a plan at all believes that they have a codified judgement sheet based on something either written or passed down

not necessarily the fear of judgement, but the adherence to what is "true" is the cause for many to do good

if that is the way it SHOULD be - then that is what i SHALL do - not for fear of punishment but for propriety's sake because of true belief

this goes for anyone who BELIEVES in truth - christian, muslim, blah blah blah

not me - but what i am saying is that if it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong - even in collective groups - it isnt really right or wrong - only accepted

and it will be different for every other group and may infringe on individual liberties or worse - kind of like religion

all i am saying is that it is more difficult than the cut and dry easy answer that many of us proscribe in out infinite wisdom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

To understand how Sartre makes the logical leap from having responsibility and choosing for yourself and this being the same and equivalent to having responsibility and choosing for all - meaning everyone on the planet - is a bit complex and would not only require a bit of time and space but my brain to be working, which at 3 am it isn't. ~;) Tomorrow or in a PM I will try and describe this part of his philosophy to you if you want, it is interesting and on the most part I completely agree with him. :book:

---

i would appreciate that - as far as i am concerned it is a leap
but i am probably missing something - let me know - i love it when ideologies seem tight

doesnt make them right - but it adds to future understandings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

BP - why do you think everyone has compassion? I really do not think so, there is no universal trait everyone has which is not due to DNA. Emotions and traits - such as cowardice or honour - are all created ourselves by our choices. There is nothing such as compassion which people have just for being human, that form of human nature I will argue about forever, it is rubbish.

---

Why do I think everyone has compassion? I don't. I never stated everyone has compassion. I said it was a human trait, but there's always the odd exceptions in any species.

Being human you must have humanity. That is emotional as well as intellectual. Those are the building blocks of sanity. Granted they are not found in your DNA nor in your insticts, they are developed just by being around healthy relationships with other human beings. Parent's love, parent's caring as I preveously stated. You are giving the choice thing way too much credit JAG, not everything is made by choice. You don't have the choice of the environment and the types of people you grow up with, and it DOES have an affect on you, I don't care who you are.

Human nature is NOT rubbish, that is the worst statement you have ever made. Human nature is what makes us humans, otherwise we would be no different from complicated machines with no emotions and no compassion, just... choices?
That doesn't sound very inspirational, but if I understood what you said correctly that is what you are suggesting. Forgive me if I'm wrong though.

BP :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Forgive me if I'm wrong though.

BP :book:

---

no one can really tell you that

Quote:

---

not me - but what i am saying is that if it is up to the individual to decide what is right and wrong - even in collective groups - it isnt really right or wrong - only accepted

---

You are right to a certain degree - that right and wrong in groups is not really right and wrong merely what is accepted and in the case of countries, the law. It highlighted that when the law changes, our thoughts on what is right and wrong suddenly changes, even though before it could have been totally different. Although I accept our views do not always change when laws change, but it does in the most part / occasions.

However - I won't explain it because that is getting into too much Sartre which my brain won't handle at this point in time - when an individual chooses an action and deems it right or wrong - at that point the action is right or wrong.

And at some point in the near future I will message you and try and explain myself properly, I promise.

BP -

Quote:

---

Oh and compassion IS universal so we still got that.

---

That is where I thought you implied it is there in everyone, as in universal. And indeed you saying that it is a 'human trait' also is giving credit to the argument that compassion is there in us and it is a form of human nature. Sure some might not have compassion, but really they should.

I fundamentally disagree with that, a trait such as compassion is nothing but individuals choice to actively be compassionate, consistently. The fact that many people choose this way, doesn't make the situation universal or a human trait, it merely means lots of individuals are compassionate.

Sure the environment you are brought up in makes a difference to some of your choices - especially the society and parenting you receive - but that does not mean that people are broken from their condemnation to be free. They can still choose the opposite, they can still go against their environment and upbringing, they still have a free choice, albeit a slightly slanted one. The fact many people choose the same way in a society is due to this slanting. The relative strength of the conditioning is related to the strength of societies feelings for that action. For instance monogamy is thought of highly in the western society and actually legislated in favour of, thus our choice is slanted to support this, but we can still choose the opposite - and some do. However other issues, like wearing clothes which are not too revealing, are influenced by society but not to the extent of an issue such as monogamy. Thus more people choose the opposite.

The fact society influences the choice does not mean that the choice is not free and that there is suddenly a human nature - no it simply means that we can be swayed in our choices more than Sartre admitted.

Also I am not saying everything is caused by your choices, obviously there are things out of your control such as the environment you are brought up in and your DNA, but this does not mean there is a human nature and that everyone has specific traits. Far from it.

Human nature is rubbish. There is no such thing as a common emotional or characteristic trait which is common to everyone. The only human nature that there is comes from DNA - and I am sure this is not the form of human nature you refer to.

I don't think it's a human trait. Some animals show compassion. Some also show cruelty, or lust.