evidently evolved for the function of learning songs. The actual songs are not innate, but they are the result of an innate song acquisition device. Some human traits are “starlingy.” Consider our capacity to abstract perceptual prototypes from experience and use them for subsequent categorization—openended but evolved for that purpose. When we encounter traits that are buggy, wrassey, or sta puma trionfo rlingy, we can say that th puma speedcat suede ey have an innate basis. In contrast there are traits that seem to be by-products of other capacities. Skinner conditioned pigeons to play toy pianos. Playing pianos is not an innate capacity in pigeons; instead it is acquired using a general-purpose learning system (operant conditioning). We too learn much using general-purpose learning systems, as when we learn how to drive. In contrast, consider the lowly flea. Fleas do remarkable things in flea circuses. For example, a group of fleas can play a game of toss using a tiny ball. The trick is achieved by coating the ball in a chemical that the fleas instinctively dislike, and when one comes into contact with the ball, it propels it away toward another flea, who then propels it away, and so on. Fleas are not using general-purpose learning systems to achieve this behavior; they are using systems evolved for the specifi c Puma online canada purpose of avoiding noxious chemicals, but they are using those systems to do something other than what they were designed for. Some human capacities may be like flea toss. Projecting spitballs, for example, is learned using some general-purpose mechanism, but it also capitalizes on our capacity for spitting, which probably evolved for a specific function, not for deployment in prankish games. Jesse J. Prinz Pigeon piano and flea toss give two models for traits that are not innate: general-purpose learning and moonlighting mechanisms. We will see if morality can be understood on either model. If morality is innate, we should expect it to be buggy, wrassey, or starlingy. If puma trionfo uk shops morality were buggy, we might expect to fi nd robust moral universals. If morality were wrassey, we might expect to see a fixed number of different variants on the same schematic moral rules. If morality were starlingy, we would expect that moral norm acquisition could not be explained by appeal to nonmoral learning mechanisms. If any of these nativist views were right, we might expect morality to be modular and developmentally pre pumas shoes 2011 dictable. We might also expect to see precursors of morality in other species. I will consider attempts to defend nativism in each of these ways, and I will return to bugs, fish, and bi puma trainers for men rds in the concluding section. Is Morality Innate? Universal Rules One might begin developing a case for moral nativism by identifying universal moral rules. If certain rules can be found in just about every culture, that could be explained by the supposition that those rules are innate. This strategy parallels arguments that have been used to support linguistic nativism. If aspects of grammar are found in all languages, then those aspects of grammar may be innate. There are two ris puma store canada ks in arguing from universality to innateness. First, some universals (or near universals) are not innate. Most cultures have fire, weapons, religion, clothing, art, and marriage. Many also have taxes, vehicles, and schools. It is unlikely that any of these things are innate. Humans the world over face many of the same challenges, and they have the same cognitive resources. If these two are put together, the same solutions to challenges will often arise. Second, there ar cheap puma trainers e cases where universal traits are biologically based, but not domain specific. The sounds that are used in spoken languages are innate, insofar as our capacity to make those sounds and to perceive them categorically is biologically prepared. However, these capacities probably weren’t evolved for language. Chinchillas and birds can categorically perceive human speech sounds, and rats can use acoustic information to distinguish between specifi c languages, such as Dutch and Japanese. To use universals to argue for innateness, a moral nativist should show (1) that there are moral universals, (2) that there are no plausible non-nativist explanations of these, and (3) that required innate mac pumas shoes 2011 hinery is specific to the domain of morality. Each of these points is difficult to establish. In this section, I Is Morality Innate? will focus on a strong form of (1), according to which there are universal moral rules with specifi c content, as opposed to universal rule schema with variable content. For further discussion of this question, see Prinz (forthcoming). What are some candidates for universal moral rules? One natural candidate is a general prohibition against harm, or at least against harming the innocent. Most people seem to have an aversive response to witnessing the suffering of others, and most people seem to avoid gratuitous acts of violence. This universal is believed by some to be innately based and to be a basic building block of human morality (Turiel, 2002; Blair, 1995). Is there a universal prohibition against harm? The evidence is depressingly weak. Torture, war, spousal abuse, corporal punishment, belligerent games, painful initiations, and fighting are all extremely widespread. Tolerated harm is as common as its prohibition. There is also mas puma trainers for men sive cultural variation in who can be harmed and when. Wit puma trionfo shoes hin our own geographic boundaries, subcultures disagree about whether capital punishment, spanking, and violent sports are permissible. Globally, every extreme can be found. In the Amazon, Yanamomo warriors engage in an endless cycle of raiding and revenge (Chagnon, 1992). Among the Ilongot of Luzon, a boy was not considered a man until he took the head of an innocent person in the next Puma canada village; when he returned home, women would greet him with a chorus of cheers (Rosaldo, 1980). In the New Guinea highlands, there are many groups that engage in perpetual warfare; between twenty and thirty-five percent of recorded male deaths in the speed cat big 2011 se groups are due to homicide (the numbers for women are much lower; Wrangham, 2004). Throughout geography and history, cannibalism has been a common practice, most indulgently pursued by the Aztecs, who sometimes consumed tens of thousands in a single festival (Harris, 1986). Brutality is also commonplace in large-scale industrial societies. As a U.S. General recently said, “Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. It’s fun to shoot some people” (Schmitt, 2005). Of course most cultures prohibit some harms, but there are non-nativist explanations for that. Such prohibitions are a precondition for social stability. Moreover, harming people often serves no end. We rarely have anything to gain from doing so. How would your life be improved if you could punch your neighbors regularly? Harming people only brings gains in special circumstances. Harming children who misbehave can keep them in line, harming criminals can serve as a deterrent, and harming enemies can allow us to obtain their goods. These, of course, are exactly the kinds of harms that have been tolerated by most