Where does morality come from?

[Madwand1]

One of the facts that seem to arise out of this information is that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives because liberals lack an appreciation of the greater number of moral foundations operating in conservatives as a generality.

On the other hand a lack in liberals of several possible moral foundations may create a temptation to call them evil by those who hold to those foundations.

I am interested not so much is who is right or wrong, but how differences in morality create so much misunderstanding and hostility between human beings. Perhaps a better understanding of other people's moral foundations can create more tolerance of others viewpoints and less judgmentalism.

Well, I was enticed by the question posed in the thread title, but disappointed by the approach taken above, because I think that an obvious answer to the question of foundation of morality exists, which is in direct opposition to the suggested approach of relative morality.

That answer is that we are not merely similar to each other and need be respectful of the opinions and behavior of others, but that we are one in reality, as aspects of an integral universe. Morality in this view arises not from the perspective of allowing for differences, but rather from the unity beneath all the apparent differences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, I was enticed by the question posed in the thread title, but disappointed by the approach taken above, because I think that an obvious answer to the question of foundation of morality exists, which is in direct opposition to the suggested approach of relative morality.

That answer is that we are not merely similar to each other and need be respectful of the opinions and behavior of others, but that we are one in reality, as aspects of an integral universe. Morality in this view arises not from the perspective of allowing for differences, but rather from the unity beneath all the apparent differences.

We do seem to see in the scientific evidence a number of different moral categories not universally shared or shared to different degrees between conservatives and liberals. As much as I admire your big truth idealism here, I think science is due its pound of flesh. We would have to actually tease apart the various moral categories to find some universal beneath, I would think. Do you have any suggestions as to how to proceed along that path?

 

[moonbogg]

Morality is an evolutionary biproduct. You can see it in other primates when they groom eachother. What makes me scratch my head is the fact that all of this doesn't take place in the dark, in a purely material cause and effect manner, but instead, we have inner experience taking place and we are matter that has become aware.
Evolution is simply keeping what works, those functions chosen from the hand bag of genetic variation. Morality is necessary for societies to develop and be sustained, but why there is anyone home to be a witness to any of this makes no sense from any perspective that I have yet heard of.

 

[piasabird]

The best discription of morale conduct is it is what is acceptable in common society. For instance stealing and murder are almost universally accepted as being wrong in almost all societies. One might of course argue that taxation is stealing.

 

[Braznor]

There are various types of morality, but much of the same is derived from the environment.

 

[Moonbeam]

Morality is an evolutionary biproduct. You can see it in other primates when they groom eachother. What makes me scratch my head is the fact that all of this doesn't take place in the dark, in a purely material cause and effect manner, but instead, we have inner experience taking place and we are matter that has become aware.
Evolution is simply keeping what works, those functions chosen from the hand bag of genetic variation. Morality is necessary for societies to develop and be sustained, but why there is anyone home to be a witness to any of this makes no sense from any perspective that I have yet heard of.

Perhaps the one you suggest, that awareness is just one of the handbag of tricks that works because it is adds conscious intention on top of cause and effect. A mechanical selection pressure that favors survival for reproduction will better succeed if the genes find a way to house themselves in a being that intends to. What better means to survive can there be for a genes than to reside in a being that loves all life, one say, that vows to save all other sentient beings.

 

[Braznor]

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing the right thing.

-------- Salvor Hardin; Issac Asimov's Foundation Series.

 

[Patranus]

Religion.

 

[Whiskey16]

Religion.

Single word trolling? Unbecoming and unwelcome in this forum.

We witness that you have skipped the content of this thread that has refuted that as a possibility and you have surmised magical conjuring as the lone source for social constructs of interacting behaviour. :thumbsdown:

 

[TeeJay1952]

Religion.

Within.

 

[Patranus]

Single word trolling? Unbecoming and unwelcome in this forum.

We witness that you have skipped the content of this thread that has refuted that as a possibility and you have surmised magical conjuring as the lone source for social constructs of interacting behaviour. :thumbsdown:

Thread Title - Where does morality come from?
Answer - Religion

Answering a question is not trolling?

Anyways 9/10 people who I know lack religion are more or less pathetic excuses for human beings.

Aboritons, alcoholics, drugs, slutting it up, using people, unemployed, complaining they can't hold a relationship, complaining they cant find a mate after the slutted it up, treats animals like crap, cigarettes, just all around bad people and are a detriment to society - have no moral base.

9/10 people who are "non religious religious" to religious have some sort of moral base.

Morality comes from knowing that there are consequences for your actions. The rise of atheism in the millennial generation and how that generation is morally bankrupt and essentially a wasted generation illustrates that perfectly.

 

[Zebo]

I don't really believe in universality of morals except as a societal construct that was learned and you can be penalized for for not abiding. There are some universal morals like stealing most societies seem to agree on out of practicality but even murder in sanctioned under some mores/tenents/atmospherics. I guarantee you every suicide bomber killing 100 per week in Iraq right now thinks they are doing gods work. They's why they are called martyrs and praised funded and revered by their click.

As to why there is little tolerance for other moral views - well- since morals, i believe are societal constructs as to what makes for best society - it's pretty fundamental to being and since one group doesnt want their moral view corrupted by the other they are cast off.

 

[Whiskey16]

Thread Title - Where does morality come from?
Answer - Religion

Answering a question is not trolling?

Anyways 9/10 people who I know lack religion are more or less pathetic excuses for human beings.

Yes, you are trolling. You had only contributed a single word, of which was already sufficiently counter-argued. Then you went on with the above worthless and unsupportable anecdote based upon your prejudice and false idealism against atheism (= the lack of morals).

Into the second page of the thread you have demonstrated an inability to read past the thread's title. You are not present to listen and build upon the discussion from what others have taken the time over the past month to contribute, rather you disrespect us all and this forum by only barging in with an empty recognition of this thread's title.

Though I have already addressed your tardy point, to nullify your prime belief of religion being the lone source of morality, I will repeat a snippet of what I presented into this thread nearly one month ago:

For starters, toss out any notion of any G*d being the author of any rights. To impose such is the authoritarian decree to deny religious freedom upon those who do not recognise said G*d.

Religion is only that which is formed by society. Morality of society comes before that of any formulation and compilation of a religious doctrine. Such socially developed constructs are hardly isolated to that of human civilisation. Any socially interacting animal recognise the need for moral limits upon action and their acceptance within the community. The difference being the recording of such doctrines and the point of such recordings lending to lasting and transferable tales of morality.​

In brief -- to rationally discuss rights and morality, then one must honestly toss out religion and G*d as being the forbearer and necessity to realise such.

Such rights never have been developed out of some vapid vacuum. That belief is for impossible fairy tales held by those who arbitrarily wish to neglect reality. No god nor religion being present before what a society constructs.​

Petranus, is you have any ounce of respect and interest for what else myself and others have said, I suggest going back just a single page and to read the remainder of the thread.

 

[Patranus]

Yes, you are trolling. You had only contributed a single word, of which was already sufficiently counter-argued. Then you went on with the above worthless and unsupportable anecdote based upon your prejudice and false idealism against atheism (= the lack of morals).

Into the second page of the thread you have demonstrated an inability to read past the thread's title. You are not present to listen and build upon the discussion from what others have taken the time over the past month to contribute, rather you disrespect us all and this forum by only barging in with an empty recognition of this thread's title.

Though I have already addressed your tardy point, to nullify your prime belief of religion being the lone source of morality, I will repeat a snippet of what I presented into this thread nearly one month ago:

Petranus, is you have any ounce of respect and interest for what else myself and others have said, I suggest going back just a single page and to read the remainder of the thread.

Wait, so because you decree a point nullified that point isn't valid?
That is your idea of a discussion?

Anyways, you say that morality is a social construct. Apes lack religion, have society, and lack morals.

 

[Whiskey16]

Apes lack religion, have society, and lack morals.

No. As myself and others have stated, morality is a recognition of socially defined rules as developed from an interacting culture. Not any requirement for a religion, which itself is a belief/allegorical system that manifests in societies that developed a state of language to transfer this codified structure amongst themselves and to following generations.

With a simple search, I can easily find objective sources to demonstrate how wrong you are, Patranus:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior - New York Times

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists’ bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.

The original call to battle was sounded by the biologist Edward O. Wilson more than 30 years ago, when he suggested in his 1975 book “Sociobiology” that “the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized.” He may have jumped the gun about the time having come, but in the intervening decades biologists have made considerable progress.

Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.

Dr. de Waal, who is director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, argues that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped.
..
Social living requires empathy, which is especially evident in chimpanzees, as well as ways of bringing internal hostilities to an end. Every species of ape and monkey has its own protocol for reconciliation after fights, Dr. de Waal has found. If two males fail to make up, female chimpanzees will often bring the rivals together, as if sensing that discord makes their community worse off and more vulnerable to attack by neighbors. Or they will head off a fight by taking stones out of the males’ hands.

Dr. de Waal believes that these actions are undertaken for the greater good of the community, as distinct from person-to-person relationships, and are a significant precursor of morality in human societies.

Patranus, you proposed a point of "Apes lack morals." With support, that claim has been decisively negated.

Then counter to your religious claims, support of religion not being a precursor to morality:

Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion. “I look at religions as recent additions,” he said. “Their function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them, which is what religions really do.”

Though Patranus, I do fear expressing the title of Dr. de Waal's latest book may incite a seizure.... 'The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates'

The way this forum works, is for you to recognise the content of this discussion, how it relates to you positions, and if sufficient to weaken or nullify your stance, for you to concede your argumentative points. As you have only presented your personal prejudicial beliefs, and unlike others offering an ability to cite external sources to support an opposing position, your opinion is of lesser worth, and with just cause, evidently invalidated. That's life. We should be here to reason. This is how we adequately discuss, progress, and learn.

 

[v-600]

Thread Title - Where does morality come from?
Answer - Religion

Answering a question is not trolling?

Anyways 9/10 people who I know lack religion are more or less pathetic excuses for human beings.

Aboritons, alcoholics, drugs, slutting it up, using people, unemployed, complaining they can't hold a relationship, complaining they cant find a mate after the slutted it up, treats animals like crap, cigarettes, just all around bad people and are a detriment to society - have no moral base.

9/10 people who are "non religious religious" to religious have some sort of moral base.

Morality comes from knowing that there are consequences for your actions. The rise of atheism in the millennial generation and how that generation is morally bankrupt and essentially a wasted generation illustrates that perfectly.

You've not got a location on your profile so this may not be too much help to you, but do you fancy a cuppa sometime? You said that 9/10 people you know who lack religion are not very nice people, so I offer you my company and the possibility of coffee/tea and hopefully we can bring this down to 9/11 people (forgive my dodgy stats). I have many friends who are not alcoholics, unemployed etc and I am sure if you're ever in the UK or Nepal we can get cakes sometime.

 

[sci guy]

No. As myself and others have stated, morality is a recognition of socially defined rules as developed from an interacting culture.

This is not true. If it is true, as you claim, then slavery was moral since slavery was a socially defined rule developed in an interacting culture. It also means the holocaust was moral since it was a socially defined rule developed in an interacting culture.

There are actually different types of morality, but most people lump them into one big item. There are universal morals (things all humans posses) and then there are societal morals (which are based on your society). Ready examples of each are that killing your neighbor to make it easier to rape his 2 year old child universally immoral (an extreme example, but one that shows what I mean quite well) while being naked in front of strangers of the opposite sex is culturally immoral.

WRT the thread topic, society morality comes from society while universal morality either comes from genetics via the gain it provides to our survival as a species or a deity. We have no way of saying which is the correct answer since we cannot answer the question if a deity exists.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thread Title - Where does morality come from?
Answer - Religion

Answering a question is not trolling?

Anyways 9/10 people who I know lack religion are more or less pathetic excuses for human beings.

Aboritons, alcoholics, drugs, slutting it up, using people, unemployed, complaining they can't hold a relationship, complaining they cant find a mate after the slutted it up, treats animals like crap, cigarettes, just all around bad people and are a detriment to society - have no moral base.

9/10 people who are "non religious religious" to religious have some sort of moral base.

Morality comes from knowing that there are consequences for your actions. The rise of atheism in the millennial generation and how that generation is morally bankrupt and essentially a wasted generation illustrates that perfectly.

9/10 people you know, eh? You'll pardon me if I place more credibility in scientific polling. From a recent P&N thread:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...ce-less-than-christians/news/2013/07/02/70328

An Evangelical Christian pollster finds that atheists commit less crimes, divorce less, and are better educated than their fellow Christians.

In fact, a review of worldwide studies found that criminality and religion go hand in hand. The countries with the most religious people have the highest crime rates, highest sexually transmitted diseases and the highest teen pregnancy rates.

This is also true in the United States. The more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates. The report does say that the religious are happier than the secular but posits that the ostracism of the latter may be a major cause.

 

[v-600]

Quote:Originally Posted by Whiskey16
No. As myself and others have stated, morality is a recognition of socially defined rules as developed from an interacting culture.


This is not true. If it is true, as you claim, then slavery was moral since slavery was a socially defined rule developed in an interacting culture. It also means the holocaust was moral since it was a socially defined rule developed in an interacting culture.

There are actually different types of morality, but most people lump them into one big item. There are universal morals (things all humans posses) and then there are societal morals (which are based on your society). Ready examples of each are that killing your neighbor to make it easier to rape his 2 year old child universally immoral (an extreme example, but one that shows what I mean quite well) while being naked in front of strangers of the opposite sex is culturally immoral.

WRT the thread topic, society morality comes from society while universal morality either comes from genetics via the gain it provides to our survival as a species or a deity. We have no way of saying which is the correct answer since we cannot answer the question if a deity exists.

It seems to me in your first example you are confusing the idea of morality with instances that may be either moral or immoral.

Morality (the rules of what is accepted or not) can be generated and changed by different aspects of society separately from historical instances. To continue with your first example, yes during the 1600/1700's slavery was accepted by the majority of US citizens (my knowledge of US history is limited, so I may be wrong). However societies views changed and what was once moral became immoral, then illegal and now is viewed as something abhorrent. The ancient greeks and romans owned slaves and were quite happy to do so as it was a morally acceptable activity. Looking back now though it seems wrong.

Some accepted morals (e.g. ownership of people) have changed more than others (not stealing from people) but both are generated by and affect the society/culture at the time. Case in point the ancient spartans viewed theft of food as acceptable as it meant that you were better/stronger/craftier than the person you were stealing from.

EDIT: Not sure what happened with the quotes.

 

[moonbogg]

Perhaps the one you suggest, that awareness is just one of the handbag of tricks that works because it is adds conscious intention on top of cause and effect. A mechanical selection pressure that favors survival for reproduction will better succeed if the genes find a way to house themselves in a being that intends to. What better means to survive can there be for a genes than to reside in a being that loves all life, one say, that vows to save all other sentient beings.

I agree with this. As far as I am able to reason, what you said above has to be the case as it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective (the only worth while perspective in my eyes). I guess I get caught up in trying to discover the mechanism from which consciousness arises. You mentioned the why of it, I am stuck on the how of it, though this may be off topic.

 

[Moonbeam]

I agree with this. As far as I am able to reason, what you said above has to be the case as it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective (the only worth while perspective in my eyes). I guess I get caught up in trying to discover the mechanism from which consciousness arises. You mentioned the why of it, I am stuck on the how of it, though this may be off topic.

Yes, very interesting question. My sense of it is maybe that it involves the awareness of feedback, not just the ability to kick ones foot when a nerve is hit but to be aware that one has a leg that can be directed volitionally into fight or flight, a program that is aware of and assigns meaning to neural transmissions. It is all well and good to pull ones hand from a burning stove but quite a leap to plan an escape because of the smell of smoke coming from a forest fire.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes, very interesting question. My sense of it is maybe that it involves the awareness of feedback, not just the ability to kick ones foot when a nerve is hit but to be aware that one has a leg that can be directed volitionally into fight or flight, a program that is aware of and assigns meaning to neural transmissions. It is all well and good to pull ones hand from a burning stove but quite a leap to plan an escape because of the smell of smoke coming from a forest fire.

Self awareness and the ability to an anticipate the unfolding of events provides an invaluable survival advantage. Could this same mechanism be at the root of morality, in both humans and other higher life forms? If so, it would appear that morality comes only after its foundations are laid by the necessity to survive, this foundation being awareness.
A double edged sword it seems to be however. Based on this argument, awareness and higher cognitive function once served to enhance survival of the individual and perhaps those in the same clan or family, only to later become a detriment to the survival of the greater whole of primitive societies and tribes. Perhaps this is the point where morality truly has its roots. Its that pivotal era of early mankind where self sacrifice becomes necessary for the survival of the whole. I would argue, that if this is the case, then morality has been evolving along side humanity from those early pivotal days of societal breakout capacity and continues to be one of our greatest struggles, the hinge pin of the ultimate success of a species.