April 12th, 2013
12:05 PM ET

Science Seat: Where morals come from

By Kelly Murray, CNN

Editor's note: The Science Seat is a feature in which CNN Light Years sits down with movers and shakers from different areas of scientific exploration. This is the eighth installment.

Being nice to others and cooperating with them aren't uniquely human traits. Frans de Waal, director of Emory University's Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Lawrenceville, Georgia, studies how our close primate relatives also demonstrate behaviors suggestive of a sense of morality.

De Waal recently published a book called "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates," which synthesizes evidence that there are biological roots in human fairness, and explores what that means for the role of religion in human societies. CNN's Kelly Murray recently spoke with De Waal about the book.

Read more about his research here

CNN’s Kelly Murray:  Tell us about the title of your book. 

Frans de Waal:  Well, the reason I chose that title is, when I bring up the origins of morality, it revolves around God, or comes from religion, and I want to address the issue that I think morality is actually older than religion. So I’m getting into the religion question, and how important is religion for morality. I think it plays a role, but it’s a secondary role.  Instead of being the source of morality, religion came later, maybe to fortify morality.

CNN:  How would you say that ethics or morality is separate from religion?

De Waal: Well, I think that morality is older. In the sense that I find it very hard to believe that 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, our ancestors did not believe in right and wrong, and did not punish bad behavior, did not care about fairness. Very long ago our ancestors had moral systems. Our current institutions are only a couple of thousand years old, which is really not old in the eyes of a biologist. So I think religion came after morality. Religion may have become a codification of morality, and it may fortify it, but it’s not the origin of it.

CNN: Why do people need religion?

De Waal: Well, that’s a good question. I’m struggling with that. I’m personally a nonbeliever, so I’m struggling with if we really need religion. ... I’m from the Netherlands, where 60% of the people are nonbelievers. So in northern Europe, there are actually experiments going on now with societies that are more secular, to see if we can maintain a moral society that way, and for the moment I would say that experiment is going pretty well. ... Personally I think it is possible to build a society that is moral on a nonreligious basis, but the jury is still out on that.

CNN: So do you believe that people are generally good?

De Waal: Yeah, my view is that you have two (kinds of) people in the world. You have people who think that we are inherently bad and evil and selfish, but with a lot of hard work we can be good, and you have other people like myself who believe that we are inherently good. There’s a lot of evidence on the primates that I can use to support that idea that we are inherently good, but on occasion when we get too competitive or frustrated, we turn bad.

CNN: So when the stakes are higher for survival, we’re more individualistic than group-oriented?

De Waal: Oh no, we very much survive by group life. Humans are not able to survive alone. For example, solitary confinement is one of the worst punishments we can give. We are not really made to live alone, we would not survive, and so when things get tough we would actually come together more and be more social when things get tough.

CNN: Can you talk about how being nice to another individual helps you?

De Waal: Sometimes people put that in a very narrow sense, and they say that everything that humans do or that animals do needs to have a payoff, but that’s not true. The example ... of adoption of children, I basically think it’s a costly act with no payoff, and these things happen in animals also.

Animals sometimes help each other even between species. Dolphins may help human swimmers, and I don’t think the dolphins get much out of it. So individual acts don’t necessarily need to have a payoff. So they are not selfishly motivated.

They are really altruistic, but you have the tendency to help, and to have empathy for others in general, on the average, is beneficial. Because you live in a group, you depend on these others, so you need to care about these others also because your survival depends on group life, and so there is some sort of general payoff, but people often think in terms of each individual act needs to (reap) some benefit but that’s not necessarily true.

CNN: Tell us more about the origins of empathy.

De Waal: We think that the origin of empathy, in the mammals at least, has to do with maternal care. So a female, whether you’re a mouse or an elephant, you need to pay attention to your offspring, you need to react to their emotions when they’re cold, or in danger, or hungry, and that’s where we think the sensitivity to others’ emotions come from.

That also explains why empathy is more developed in females than males, which is true in many animals, and it’s true for humans, and it explains the role of oxytocin. Oxytocin is a maternal hormone. If you spray oxytocin into the nostrils of men and women, you get more empathic (empathetic) reactions from them,  and so the general thinking about empathy is that it started in the mammals with maternal care, and then from there it spread to other relationships.  So men can definitely have empathy, but they on average have a little bit less of it than women.

CNN: By empathy, you mean that they feel each others’ pain?

De Waal: Well, feeling someone else’s joy is also empathy. Being affected by the laugh, as humans are, is a form of empathy. So empathy basically says that you’re sensitive to the emotions of others and react to the emotions of others.

Sympathy is a bit more complicated. Sympathy is that you want to take action. You want to help somebody else who’s in trouble. So sympathy is a bit more specific, it’s a bit more action-oriented. Empathy is just a sensitivity. Empathy is not necessarily positive. If someone wants to sell you a bad car for a high price, he also needs to empathize with you in order to get you to buy it. So empathy can be used for good purposes; I think most of the time it is, but it is not always used for good purposes.

CNN: In your book, you talk about a female primate who is crouching down giving birth while the rest of the group gathers around, and one of the other females is crouching and acting like the one giving birth.  Would that be an example of empathy?

De Waal: Yeah, that’s an act of mimicry and synchronization, which is the first form of empathy. If you talk with a sad person, you’re going to have a sad expression on your face. You’re going to feel sad very soon. That is the body channel of empathy. You synchronize with the other, and that female in the birthing scenario was synchronizing with the other. It’s a very early form of empathy; we call it “modes of mimicry,” when you do the same thing as somebody else. The body channel of empathy is very important to us and we rely on it every day. If you talk with people and you adopt their facial expressions, they will be laughing, you will be laughing, and so on.

CNN: Different cultures of humans have different ideas about morality. Is it the same way in primates?  Do different groups of primates have different cultures and ways of interacting with each other?

De Waal: We do think that primates have different cultures. One group behaves quite differently from another one. I’m not sure that I would say they have different moralities, but they may have different styles of interacting. But (with) the human variation in morality, one society may have different moral rules than another one.

In our current society in the U.S. we have debates about gay marriage, abortion - we have a lot of moral debates going on, and years from now we will believe different things from what we believe now, and so morality changes as a result of society, and that means you should not look for specifics of your morality in biology.

Biology provides some of the general primate psychology that we have, like pro-social tendencies, sense of fairness, following rules. Our primate background provides that kind of thing, but the specific rules that our society adopts are not contained in biology, and sometimes people confuse that when I say that morality is contained in our biology, that every rule we follow has to come out of biology. I don’t think it works that way. I think that we have general tendencies that come from our primate ancestors, and we turn that into our moral system that is suitable to our way of living.

CNN: Is there anything we can learn from animals about how to live a good life?

De Waal: I don’t think I can give you specific lessons for your life out of my animal studies, but I do think the animal studies have some sort of general message that is important.

Instead of looking at human morality as something we design in our heads — the philosophers want us to believe that by logic and reasoning we arrive at moral principles — I think it works very differently. We have a lot of feelings and tendencies that drive us to moral solutions, and yes, we often then later try to justify these solutions and come up with reasons for them, but that’s often secondarily.

In primate behavior we can see they have a sense of fairness. They have empathy: they enforce rules among themselves, they can delay gratification and they can control their impulses. So many of these tendencies that go into our moralities can be found in other animals, but instead of them coming from logic and reasoning, they actually come from our primate psychology most of the time.

Post by:
Filed under: Human ancestors • On Earth • Science Seat
soundoff (579 Responses)
  1. DSP

    Not a great article, but that is likely due to the kind of questions that were asked.
    De Waal says this at the onset "when I bring up the origins of morality, it revolves around God, or comes from religion, and I want to address the issue that I think morality is actually older than religion." Then nothing after this suggests where morality came from (just that it didn't come from God), but that it may be seen in primates (empathy at least).

    Also this "Well, I think that morality is older. In the sense that I find it very hard to believe that 100,000 or 200,000 years ago, our ancestors did not believe in right and wrong, and did not punish bad behavior, did not care about fairness. Very long ago our ancestors had moral systems" But nothing about where morals or their sense of right and wrong came from (just not God).

    But looking past all that, if he says that people are generally 'good,' who defines 'good' and where does that 'good'-ness originate? Form what we have learned as a species through the generations (evolution)? Cannot be; since we are still at war with each-other (interestingly enough over moral/religious issues for the most part).

    Science cannot (shouldn't not) make observations or conclusion on morality or religion that is cannot support. If science claims religion is younger than morality (I completely agree BTW), but cannot explain the origins of morality or 'good,' isn't it hypocritical to say that science can explain morality, and no one/nothing else can.


    May 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Jody

      Hello DSP. I don't think Morality came from Science. I think that All Animals Observe Something or Need Something and They Think Something is Wrong or Not Fair. You don't take Another Animal's Food. Somebody may say You Shouldn't Eat that Food and the Other Animal will say I don't Care. I'm Hungry. Some Animal might think I Really shouldn't eat that Other Animal's Food. I can't Stand It. I'm Hungry. When I say They Tell the Animal or They say Something, I mean in Their Way of Talking. Jody

      May 2, 2013 at 1:16 am |
    • TG

      Morality and religion are of the same age, for when our Creator, Jehovah God, made the 1st man Adam (Gen 2:7), he was designed with a conscience, like a compass that tells him which direction to follow. He was encoded with a sense of morality and desire to worship our Maker, though the conscience has to be trained or taught just as we go to school to acquire knowledge.

      With the command to not eat from "the tree of knowledge of good and bad" told to Adam and later Eve (Gen 2:17; 3:3), this set the starting point of being taught what is right and wrong in God's eyes. By right of being our Creator, Jehovah has the right to set moral boundaries for us and rightly does so, just as loving father sets protective boundaries for his children, explaining to them what is safe and what is dangerous, showing them by example what genuine love is.

      That both Adam and Eve's conscience was working, is seen from the fact that after they had violated the command concerning "the tree of knowledge of good and bad", and Jehovah was calling out to them, they hid themselves, noting that they were "naked", though there was nothing wrong with them being naked as husband and wife.(Gen 3:8-11) They recognized that they had crossed a moral boundary, but the conscience of both sought to excuse them.(Gen 3:12, 13)

      May 11, 2013 at 9:06 am |
  2. john west

    certainly not from the republicans....

    April 30, 2013 at 11:44 am |
  3. beni blanco from the bronx

    huh, if the primate have morals, did we really evolved? i'm confused.

    April 30, 2013 at 10:34 am |
  4. PC

    So using her scenario, how did humans develop forgiveness? Altruism? Non-violent resistance?

    "The example ... of adoption of children, I basically think it’s a costly act with no payoff" This woman either has no children or has no clue. When you adopt children, the payoff is huge–just not financially.

    What a self-righteous, self-promoting research junkie.

    April 29, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
  5. Sue in CA

    Believing that there is no God is sad. If there is no God then there is no promise for a better life than this. There would be nothing to look forward to. There would be no justice. There would be no hope for innocence and purity. There would be no standard. There would be no purpose to life or our existence. There has to be a God who is trustworthy, faithful, loving, and intimate. Because humans can not be trusted for a second. Humans make initial attempts to care, but they are weak. Humans are inevitably swept away by pride, fame, money, or power. Nature is God's artwork. The balance of all the perfect eco/water/solar/geological/environmental etc SYSTEMS are miracles. Cells and genetic codes are His programming. People can transform and change spiritually. There is a higher power above the highest human power. We don't just de-exist after death- we are spirits too. God's laws, if obeyed, are healthy. They make safer streets, honest businesses, hopeful futures, and the happiest people. Human's philosophies are flawed, irrational, self absorbed, neurotic, or cause insecurity and anxiety.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:32 am |
    • TG

      You are right that not accepting that there is a Creator is indeed a sad situation. This presently leaves them out of the picture of the hope of living on an earthly paradise that Jesus promised the evil-doer to one side of him at Luke 23:43. Some three years earlier, Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, told his Jewish audience that "blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."(Matt 5:5)

      Hence, Jesus laid out the hope of living on the earth as the inheritance for "meek" or humble ones, those who are teachable by our Creator, Jehovah God. Jesus was quoting from David's inspired words at Psalms 37, which says that "the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.....forever."(Ps 37:11, 29)

      In the Bible book of Revelation, it brings forth details of what God will do for these "meek" ones, saying that "the tent of God is with mankind (who are on the earth, not heaven), and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away."(Rev 21:3, 4)

      God's original purpose for the earth will then be fulfilled, for the earth to be filled with righteous ones that are enjoying life forever on it, taking delight in Jehovah's artistic handiwork.(Gen 1:28; Ps 104:24)

      May 10, 2013 at 9:09 am |
  6. Sue in CA

    We are not animals. There are great differences between humans and animals. We barter, trade, calculate, use math & science, we navigate, negotiate, have multiple and complex languages. We evaluate, measure, hold accounts, we celebrate, we decorate ourselves and beautify our dwellings. We have imaginations and set forth with our dreams. We invest, barter, and trade. We tell stories and we fabricate. We have a moral code. We change events and make plans. We follow trends and fads. We have modesty...We cover our modest parts with clothes because we feel exposed. We utilize ownership, accountability, responsibility, & honor. We invent and create. We manipulate our surroundings to suit us. Thinking we are animals is very wrong. We are made in the image of the Holy God.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:16 am |
    • Jody

      Hey Sue. We Learned in Biology in School that there are 2 Living Things and They are Plants and Animals. We are not A Plant. Also, Technically there is nothing wrong, but You said we Trade and Barter Twice. Animals might do some of those Things like Celebrate if They made A great Kill for Example. Animals might bring something and the Other Animals might lay something down and that would be like They were Swapping Things or Bartering. They might do something to The Nests or where They Habitat. Jody

      April 30, 2013 at 4:22 am |
  7. krehator

    Popular opinion. Morals are neither right or wrong. They change over time.

    April 27, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • PC

      Prohibitions against other religions, murder, adultery, theft, and greed. With the exception of the first, and that is a fairly recent development, which of these has changed in the past? This moral code, commonly known as the 10 commandments, has stood the test of time. Our country has decided that taking God out of the picture is ok. Every time someone does that, they suffer. Look at the history.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
    • TG

      The word moral means "involving right and wrong", but as some see it, of "derived from personal conscience" as well as "good by accepted standards” (Microsoft Reference Library 2005), with popular opinion often feeling that they can set their own moral standards, changing as they see it from one country to the next.

      This could be likened to the stock market, that vacillates back and forth, in which a person made some money one day, but on another day, there is a loss. This arrangement is highly unstable, and is not like the sun, that we can feel confident that it will rise each day to give us warmth. Would we want to the sun to shine one day but not on other days ? Would you want your car to start one day but not on other days ?

      Our Creator, Jehovah God has established moral boundaries (Isa 48:17), a set of perimeters that we cannot cross with impunity.(Deut 30:19) Unlike the moral standards that different groups of people may set and that may shift, God's moral laws, however, never change. A Bible writer said that with God “there is not a variation of the turning of the shadow.”(James 1:17) Whereas shadows cast by the sun are always changing in size and direction as the earth rotates, God is unchangeable in his moral boundaries.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
  8. Vincent

    The lord Jesus is has move to Siberia...:) He is alive. Google it.

    April 26, 2013 at 4:10 pm |
  9. michael

    Teach your child the way and he will not depart from it.
    If your are what you eat then -you are -what your thought .
    And i hope you eat these words !
    My hope is you are wise enough to understand why it is you send your child to school.
    If you tell your child that he is an ape do not cry when he acts like one!

    April 25, 2013 at 7:58 pm |
  10. Mike

    It's simple instinctive behavior that gets reinforced through peer pressure within social dynamics. There are certain survival advantages to cooperation and 'morals' are nothing more than hacked together attempts to facilitate it through instinct. Variations in those inborn instincts lead to debate and disagreement due to the imperfect interface between individuals.

    Humans, on an individual level, tend not to have a strong ability to look beyond their own inborn, natural presumptions and develop their own philosophy with objective rational thought. That's why this is such a "mystery" to so many. It's so basic and simple that it HAS to be more complicated than it is. Thus, complicated and convoluted arguments are raised on the issue which serves only to further obscure the basic principals from understanding. Without that understanding of the basics, it is impossible to understand anything beyond that as well.

    April 24, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
  11. Rail

    Fools say to themselves, "There is no God." They are corrupt and commit evil deeds; not one of them practices what is good.

    Psalm 14:1

    April 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • Jody

      Hey Rail. A Fool says that There is No Invisible Supernatural Being in the Sky Looking Over and Taking Care of Us. I think I will Do An Evil and Corrupt Thing by Telling People that. Somebody thought this was True Wrote This in A Book. Really? Because Somebody who Thinks This Wrote It in A Book that Makes It True? I think the Person who Wrote Psalms IS A Fool. Jody

      April 24, 2013 at 2:37 am |
  12. Chuck

    Morals are in our DNA, it takes years and years of brainwashing to overide them

    April 21, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Jody

      Hello Chuck. I don't know if Thoughts are in our DNA. Maybe They are in the DNA of our Brain. I think the Brain makes Pictures from the Thoughts and that Makes Memories. Maybe the Picture has something that seems Good or Bad and by going by Experiences we have had; then we might not want to have Something Happen. Maybe Something Gives Us Pleasure so We think it is Good. I think this is how we get Morals. Jody

      April 22, 2013 at 2:13 am |
      • Mike

        Thoughts themselves may not be in the DNA, but the basic structure of organs such as the brain are in there. Those structures will then shape the form that thoughts take by the very nature of how those structures are made. Autistics, as an example, tend to have substantial differences in some areas of brain structure. People that don't share those traits have a difficult time relating to the perspective of the autistic. Because on a basic level, they think differently from one another.

        April 24, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • TG

      Yes, "morals are in our DNA", for when our Creator, Jehovah God made man in his "image" (Gen 1:26), this gave man a conscience, a faculty that when properly trained either accuses or excuses us. It is designed to serve as a guide, to warn us when we consider crossing a moral boundary not permitted by God, but most have not trained their conscience according to the Bible (not even the churches).

      And after years of non use, the conscience can become like a broken compass, unable to guide. Mankind has been brainwashed by "spirit of the world", a disposition that emanates from God's archenemy Satan.(1 Cor 2:12; Eph 2:2) In this period of time, called the "last days" (2 Tim 3:1), mankind is further away from God's standards of morality than anytime in history.

      However, Jehovah God has established the one true religion that teaches people how to properly train their conscience, allowing themselves to be "instructed" by him.(Isa 2:2-4) Those who are taught by Jehovah find out where the moral boundaries are.

      April 28, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
  13. juvonist

    cnn deleated my comments on here. they dont want you to know the truth. i posted about how comlicated the cell is and what needs to happen for just one cell to work properly. if you dont know it is millions of things that need to happen in perfect timing for one cell to work properly. and we are made up of billions of these cells. i also talked about what happens when a cells copies the dna. i also talked about how there are no new species that have evolved from current exsisting species in the last couple of thouaand years. and if we are 98 % similiar to chimps. where are all the transitional forms in between. there should bean animal that is 98.01 % similiar 98.02% similiar....99.98% simiiliar, 99.99% similiar. you get my point. where are these animals? and where are the new transitional forms walking around? did evolution stop?

    April 21, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • Jody

      A Couple of Years Ago, There was A New Fish or Frog that Developed A Third Leg. I think that was Evolution. I don't think God Created A New Creature or A New Type of Fish or Frog with An Additional Leg. Also, Maybe if God wanted to end with Man; then He used Evolution and there was No more Evolution after Man Evolved from the Apes. As I said, There may still be Some Evolution Happening. Jody

      April 22, 2013 at 2:06 am |
    • TG

      Perhaps this will add to your thoughts on the cell. A cell's function is regulated by some 2,000 proteins that serve as enzymes. A protein is made up of 20 different amino acids, that must be precisely located or else the protein fails to work. For just one protein to have come about at random, the odds of this happening has been set at 10 followed by 113 zeroes. Mathematicians have established that any number higher than 10 followed by 50 zeroes is impossible.

      What if the odds are raised, say to some 2,000 proteins to have arose by chance that are needed as enzymes for a cell to properly function ? This has been seen as 10 followed by 40,000 zeroes. Fred Hoyle, British astronomer (1915-2001), stated that if this could happen, this is like being able to throw 50, 000 sixes in row with unbiased dice. What are the odds of that happening ? This does not account for the DNA, the RNA, and the composition of organs within the body that had to arise at the same time or else death.

      Thus, the more a person examines the complexity of life without bias, being reasonable, the more readily a person can see that life did not arise by chance, by so-called evolution. Often, these ones recognize that a Supreme Designer made the universe and all life in it. Many come to know the One who made all things, his name being Jehovah.(Ps 83:18; Isa 42:5)

      April 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
  14. virginia

    'Morals come from God' = Religion comes from men's gatherings to worship God...and to uphold Morality for humanity and generations to come.

    April 20, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • TG

      You are right that "Morals come from God", with him establishing that right as our Creator. When he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and stipulated that they not eat, "no, you must touch (the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and bad") that you do not die" (Gen 3:3), our Maker, Jehovah God set a marker of what is right and wrong or moral, making firm that he establishes the moral boundaries for us as his creation.

      April 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
  15. Romel

    if the monkeys are our ancestor, where their morals come from in the beginning?

    April 20, 2013 at 12:19 am |
    • Jody

      Hello Romel. The Primates get Their Morals from Observation and A Sense Of Decency. If Monkey B Took Monkey A's Food, Then Monkey C would say That's Not Fair. That Food Doesn't Belong to you. That Food Belongs to Monkey A. How would you like it if Monkey A Took Your Food Monkey B? You wouldn't Like that would you? If Monkey C Passed by and didn't do anything; then The Other Monkeys in the Group would make Monkey C Leave because He wouldn't Help Monkey A. They would also do Something to Monkey B. Of Course, They would Scream OOOHHHHHHH! That would be Monkey Talk for what I said. Jody

      April 22, 2013 at 1:55 am |
  16. reasonablefaith

    (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
    (2) The universe exists.
    (3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
    (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
    (5) God exists.

    April 19, 2013 at 9:50 pm |
    • Jody

      Hello ReasonableFaith. I don't think that God Created the Universe. I read how this Happened, but it has been A Long Time so I may not have It Quite Right. However, I think it is Something like This. The Dirt Gathers around the Stars and It gets so Thick that at some point, It Breaks away and Forms Planets. I think This Naturally Happens in Nature and Somehow Like This The Big Bang Occurred to Cause The Universe. You can Discover Things with Science. You don't just say Somebody must have Created this so God Created the Universe. Jody

      April 22, 2013 at 1:48 am |
  17. cebundy

    Love this article!!! I've heard too many people say that without religion there is no morals. Of course, these people would be the last to read or comprehend a science article.

    April 19, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
  18. Name*Les Taylor

    I believe that ,were he not trying so desperately to disprove the existence of God,Mr.De Waal would realize that the evidence he presents actually does the opposite .
    I believe that his theory may be the result of the same deeply flawed reasoning that gave birth to "Java man ".This reasoning assumes evolution to be a fact (which it is not)and then views the evidence through that filter .
    If we take into account the fact that evolution is nothing more than a theory proposed by a man with no scientific training and the fact that it is not supported by the fossil record ,we can remove the evolution filter and view the evidence again .

    April 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Jody

      Hey LesTaylor. I think It Is Better to go by The Fossils than to go by A Book or than to say Somebody must have Created the Universe because It is So Organized. Anybody can Write Anything, but the Fossils DO Tell you Something. Even if Something Happened Earlier than the Fossils Led you to Believe, I would Still Rather Go by The Fossils. It's A Way to Find out what Happened and Maybe Some Other Fossils would be Accurate. Jody

      April 22, 2013 at 1:40 am |
  19. Jose M Pulido

    Morals originated in the state of Morelia, Mexico. That is where they come from, ha ha ha.

    April 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
1 2


  • Elizabeth Landau
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer