No it doesn't 'necessarily require a teacher'.  You can learn simply by observing the state of the world, by doing things and observing their effect, by making mistakes etc.  But so-called learned behaviour isn't really the case in point here, it's the effect of the world and its imperfections that causes us to become what we are.  We don't learn so much as become.

Sorry, Martin, but I would have to disagree.  Unless something is innate to all of us, such as the ability to use language, or to a specific group of us, such as (and here is a rather poor analogy, I accept) sickle-cell anaemia, any behaviour has to be learned, be that from individuals or community.  If the latter, where is this wonderful society that so many people - from all shades of politics and opinion - tell us we live within.  If from individuals where, ultimately, does the imperfection come from if we are all born without 'imperfection'?

You're not reading what JJ writes are you Andy?  She mentioned a whole load of things that cause imperfection, only some of which are human-caused.  She mentioned famine, cold, fear of being killed by a wild animal, disease, tsunamis, terror, pain, toothache. How is it that you failed to spot what she wrote?

I read that perfectly well, Martin - but still find it hard to understand how these things occur in what you and others have tried many times to tell me is a 'perfect' situation.  Where, for instance, does the fear of being killed by a wild animal come from if not from being told to fear by an adult or older sibling?  After all, if you look at the animal world, young have to be instructed in some way - be it through mimicked behaviour or by physical admonition - to avoid being left unattended or alone.  Remember that, from a purely evolutionary perspective, humans are (at least at the moment) the ultimate 'wild animal', especially when we increasingly kill for the sake of killing, rather than for food alone.

... the aim of morality should be about the well being of the individual not just the patriarchal notions of for the good of mankind ...

Why does 'for the good of humanity have to be patriarchal, ecu?  Even matriarchal societies hold to the principle.

... but seems to me the crux of the argument is that silly manmade issue of sin from a religiosity perspective that lacks substance in the real world but keeps the legal spiritual lawyers happy.....

if it is a manmade issue, ecu, why was it the first thing that Jesus dealt with in so many of the miracles, etc.?

hi Andy thanks... but why would one want to believe in a presupposition?

i mean who decides what is sin and what is not sin?  what is this notion of right and wrong ? where is that coming from ?

Well, if you are a person of faith, it is normal to believe that that decision is made by the deity you belief in/follow.  One will sometimes then challenge others on their behaviour when you believe that behaviour doesn't match up with what 'God' says is acceptable.  For others (and some 'of faith' as well) believe that a country's laws outline what is and what isn't 'sin'.  Often, the two benchmarks match - as in the case of, say, murder or theft; sometimes, as in the case of, say, abortion or killing whilst defending oneself, there can be an indefinable but obvious mismatch; occasionally, a 'religious' or 'secular' (for want of a better pair of terms) law is superseded by something that strengthens the original law (such as Jesus' comments about murder and adultery in Matthew 5).

what does Jesus say about innate or learned stuff then... ?
some passages do come to my mind

Sometimes, Jesus points out that a situation is not because of the sins of a person's parents or ancestors; at other times he denounces certain places for not repenting; at yet other times, he talks about 'un-cleanliness' coming, not from stuff that goes into a person but from within ('from out of his mouth' - Matthew 15).