Most people accept that there are right and wrong actions- immoral and moral behaviours, if you will. This feeling presupposes some kind of framework or system for judging whether actions are immoral or moral.
What is this system? Natural or supernatural? Human-limited or utterly objective? Learned or innate?
My own instincts push me in the direction of a minimal, open-ended system, something like ‘what if everyone did what you did/you were the object of the action you’re contemplating’?
I also feel that respect and empathy (some of the key drivers for moral behaviour) are learned, so in a way, morality is learned.
I’ll need to write more on this in my final year philosophy dissertation. Watch this space for developing thinking!
things that might have been otherwise 
Piaget reckoned morality developed in stages, like other forms of cognition.
Very interesting – the metaphysics of quality, value ethics of worth
Logically, why should we help someone who is suffering? Do we have to be taught to help other people in distress?
I’m reading of the American Robert M.Pirsig who wrote the bestseller ‘Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance; an inquiry into values’ (1974) – a skeleton of a philosophy enclosed within a full bodied novel. His second book ‘Lila – an inquiry into morals’ – a skeleton of a novel enclosed within a full bodied philosophy’ has sold less well.
I’ve read ‘Lila’, and have a copy if you want to borrow it. The idea of ‘quality’ is a very interesting one…
Yes John I’d really like to borrow “Lila’, I will be at Quaker Quest on Monday, but not to worry
we live in a liberal democracy where different religious practices are accepted (since the act of toleration in 1689) by the majority, and the minority groups join the Quakers