If we’re to believe the Buddhist perspective on life, it means that at the end of the day we’re all responsible for what happens to us. However, this doesn’t mean we’re to blame.

For example, we’re not to blame for being born into poverty or for having something awful happen to us. However, we’re responsible for how we deal with the situation, how we respond to things, and what our next steps will be. In other words, we have the power to better our situation and not just be flung about by the winds of fate (or, rather, by our own decisions).

Though some people would argue that morality is something that's learned through experience, Lickerman told Bored Panda that "our sense of morality may actually be neurologically wired into us." However, this doesn't mean that acting morally or responsibly is easy or the go-to decision for most of us.

Lickerman told Bored Panda that we tend to need some sort of push to make us act responsibly. "People, in general, need a motivation to accept responsibility for their actions," he said. That motivation could be pretty much anything, however, Lickerman suggests that accepting responsibility for our actions "may actually make us stronger, more resilient."

He added that it's difficult to say where the limits of our ability to change ourselves to match our own perceptions are. "Research shows our self-perception is a very powerful influencer of our behavior. Can’t say it’s been quantified. It won’t change immutable characteristics, like personality characteristics, but it will change behaviors," he said.

In his first book, The Undefeated Mind, Lickerman explains how research has begun to show that belief in good (what is just and fair) and evil (what is unjust and unfair) may be "far more universal than previously thought." Psychologist Marc Hauser and his colleagues conducted an internet study with 5,000 subjects in 120 countries, asking them to "render moral judgments and to justify them" in moral scenarios. One of them was the infamous trolley problem where you have to choose between killing one person and five.

Lickerman writes: "The subjects agreed about which actions were moral and which weren’t in most of the scenarios, delineating in the process a set of moral principles that seem to be shared by members of all cultures—namely, that it’s less morally permissible to intentionally harm someone than to allow them to be harmed, that it’s less morally permissible to invent a way to cause harm than to cause harm with an existing threat, and that it’s less morally permissible to cause harm directly than to cause it indirectly. Yet the vast majority of subjects couldn’t name these reasons as their underlying justification for judging the actions in each scenario as they did."

He continues: "When we take moral action, we seem to rely not so much on moral reasoning as on moral intuition and then work backward to rationalize the judgments we’ve already made. (Which isn’t to say our moral intuition can’t and shouldn’t be influenced by reason, but rather that our moral intuition remains the primary driver of our moral decision making.)." However, where our moral intuition comes from is still unclear. However, our conception of good, the desire to provide help and prevent harm might be "rooted [...] in the psychological and perhaps even neurological processes of the human mind."