Inate Morality against Acquired Morality

Philosophy of law is a branch of philosophy and jurisprudence which studies basic questions about law and legal systems, such as "What is the law?", "What are the criteria for legal validity?", "What is the relationship between law and morality?" and many other similar questions.

In the Western tradition there are several schools of thought on the philosophical basis of law. First, there is natural law, which attempts to describe law as an inherent quality in humans that is derived from nature. Second, there is the positivism which believes that law is a purely human-made construct that society uses to maintain social order. Third, there is legal realism which believes that law is an arbitrary set of rules that are largely established through the tastes and preferences of judges. Legal interpretivism is a contemporary theory of law different from positivism and natural law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#Philosophy_of_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality


The two camps

1 - We are all born with an inate concept and idea of basic morality, of a sense of right and wrong, of justice.

2 - We acquire our concept and idea of morality, justice, right and wrong; from our environment.

Of course, we must accept room for an area of gray, and not such a plain black and white. Firstly, lets discuss the possibilities and some possible examples/case studies.

It is a folly, to believe simplistically, that there is a basic common ground of morality in everyone. Religiously, we talk of Good and Evil. Of God's Grace and Satans Temptations. Materialistically, we can assume that its is genetic, or through process of learning or both.

In an athiestic materialistic world, we would have to accept that Morality is relative; as there is no source, but our own chanced genetic make up and environment.
In a religious view, its established from whencebefore, from a higher being or consciousness of some sort.