Where does morality come from?

[LucyJr]

I believe morality comes from ethics and ethics are set of principles created by man to navigate the duality of nature and the duality of humans. The duality consisting of good and bad in the most basic form. But not all things are clear cut and principles or guidelines are created by society and humans to better navigate and understand how good and bad manifests itself and how we can best make sense of it all. The set of principles are then adopted as beliefs and actions and it helps give society an organized way to live. The principles appeal to the most fundamental nature of good and bad in a man/woman and also relates to the fundamental human laws of nature. Morality exists for individuals as a compass; to navigate through one's dark and light aspects and ultimately learning to create and live from a light source of Universe/God and to learn to control and transcend the darker aspects of humans. The principles can help a man/woman transcend from living from a purely instinctual and animalistic desires to a more conscious and creative living.

When you think about it, the duality of good and evil is false. Here is how C. S. Lewis puts it:

“Now what do we mean when we call one of them the Good Power and the other the Bad Power? ….If ‘being good’ meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other actually right.
But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two Powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God”

 

[LucyJr]

If we believe our sense of morality was intelligently planted into us, we run into another logical problem. We have no reason to trust that the moral code God gave us is a good one. If he can decide what does and does not feel right, then we have no way of knowing if he is an evil or amoral God and has simply programmed us to believe he is good.
We are only feeling what he wants us to feel. How could we know that God is perfectly good if we're using the moral compass he gave us?

Again, this is a not correct. Why would God lie us and deceive us, when He himself is the very standard of morality? In other words, how could you expect a lie from the One that to Him is impossible to lie?

 

[54tjsioU]

All this god talk makes me yearn for a time when Thor and Odin were a thing. What does Scientology believe in? Lets fast forward and all believe in that -_-

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Yes, and its a perfect refutation of supposedly refutations of morality that claim morality is self-serving and selfish. As many people said, people do things that are apparently irrational, like giving own life for a friend, or self-confess a murder or a bad action. Why would they do that?

Because we are all One despite what is drilled in our heads.

 

[Solongo]

When you think about it, the duality of good and evil is false. Here is how C. S. Lewis puts it:

“If ‘being good’ meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other actually right.

This is a subjective definition of what is meant by "good". I was referring to a more collective perspective of good and bad - specifically good and bad actions. Actions which are collectively viewed as bad which would be harming other individuals such as abuse and murder. Actions that are collectively viewed as good to be charitable and in service to others.

 

[La Sagna]

True. How would this go with silly claims that morality is actually selfish in its very nature?
Why would a man go into a fire to save a child from a fire, whle knowing that he could die in trying to save that child?

This man can risk his life because he can imagine it being his child or himself when he was young.

Maybe God gave us our morality but we don't have proof of that. It is a belief that we can choose to have.

Some atrocious things have been done 'in the name of God' and many atheists have a very strong sense of morality, because of this I don't believe that morality is shaped solely through organized religion. However, I am willing to consider the possibility that it is an innate 'knowledge' given by God, but then how do we explain those that have no morality?

 

[Varus]

Morality? Different things really, fear, hatred, guilt, compassion are all emotions that can lead to your morality, your morality is derived from your emotions. If you feel as though you would feel guilty (possibly for causing pain to someone) you will not want to do actions which will cause pain to others. If you hate something a prime example in this modern and totally equal and understanding world we live in would be homosexuality a lot of people hate homosexuals therefore they believe it's immoral to be such.

There is also ignorance, ignorance plays a rather huge role in morals. Not as a originator but simply like emotions a contributor.

 

[the]

This intrigues me.....
Do you think you would mind expanding on it? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say!

In 1850, 98% of people polled approved of slavery, now 2% approve of slavery. Did humanity in America have some sort of epiphany between then and now? Did the source of morality change?

By spreading the word that slavery is wrong (something I don't like), morality seems to me to be a good way to help ensure that you never become a slave. (or at least are able to redefine the term slave to mean something almost imaginary, so that your "worker" life is more bearable)

Murder is almost always considered bad or at least a necessary evil at times, but it's just killing when soldiers do it. No where near as bad as murder and does not warrant any jail time or even probation. In fact you deserve an award and a paycheck. It's justified killing when the government uses its shock troop boys in blue to put a man in a cage for a few years on death row before they stuff kleenex up his ass and kill him in an electric chair. Warrants a few lines in a newspaper that a few will read but not much else.

So murder is okay for us as a group if by killing him or her we are all safer, but murder is not okay when one person does it and has not yet convinced everyone of the benefits of killing this particular individual(s). In this case initiative will get you killed. The group is what sanctifies it, and safety is one of the justifications we use.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

In 1850, 98% of people polled approved of slavery, now 2% approve of slavery. Did humanity in America have some sort of epiphany between then and now? Did the source of morality change?

By spreading the word that slavery is wrong (something I don't like), morality seems to me to be a good way to help ensure that you never become a slave. (or at least are able to redefine the term slave to mean something almost imaginary, so that your "worker" life is more bearable)

Murder is almost always considered bad or at least a necessary evil at times, but it's just killing when soldiers do it. No where near as bad as murder and does not warrant any jail time or even probation. It's justified killing when the government uses its shock troop boys in blue to put a man in a cage for a few years on death row before they stuff kleenex up his ass and kill him in an electric chair. Warrants a few lines in a newspaper that a few will read but not much else.

So murder is okay for us as a group if by killing him or her we are all safer, but murder is not okay when one person does it and has not yet convinced everyone of the benefits of killing this particular individual(s). In this case initiative will get you killed. The group is what sanctifies it, and safety is one of the justifications we use.

It may be that people in 1850 were just smart enough to realize what slavery was. And people nowadays are too stupid to realize they're slaves.

 

[muir]

True. How would this go with silly claims that morality is actually selfish in its very nature?
Why would a man go into a fire to save a child from a fire, whle knowing that he could die in trying to save that child?

Absolutely, people are all different and have different motivations

There seem to be some schools of thought that create philosophies that are basically geared towards justifying the selfish acts of individuals

Personally i think there is a middle way between totally selfish nihilistic behaviour and selfless ascetic behaviour.

The nihilist current is asserting itself in our society at the moment. They are behind the corporate excesses, they are behind the occult stuff in popular culture and they are behind fascism and the move towards central control. The world is out of balance at the moment

They have various philosophies they use to justify and rationalise their behaviour but personally i think the ideal is to strike a balance between a persons personal freedoms and their responsibilites to their wider community

When people deviate from that middle way then they see chaos materialse in their world

 

[Lark]

I read this today on an Eco-Islamic site:

"If a person has no belief, one has to question where the morality comes from"

http://www.theecomuslim.com/2013/03/10-environment-quran-verses.html


I've read a lot of discussion on beliefs, ideologies, religion, etc. and I thought it might be interesting to see what you guys think of this.

At first I was offended...suggesting that because I don't subscribe to a particular ideology, that I don't have morality...but then I began to think, "Well, where does my morality come from? What do I base it on?" ... now I'm left quizzical, rather than offended.

I would be interested in hearing what you guys think!

I think this is the sign of a very mature mind, the beginning of wisdom too, that you have not simply stated that, upon being provoked you reacted with thinking but acknowledging and reflecting upon the fact that you were provoked at all in the first place. People seek to deny that too often and assume a phony stoicism.

Just because you possess beliefs or subscribe to an ideology or religion I dont believe automatically makes anyone moral or a subscriber to morality, I think there has been a great, great deal of trouble in life and human history as a result of that sort of thinking. The whole better a bad christian than a good jew/muslim/communist thing. It is one variety of us-them thinking and conjuring up the villainous "other" and valourising the "us". All profoundly mistaken. The behaviour which arises from that kind of thinking is even more problematic.

Anyway, I believe that morality is transcendent, transcendent of subscribing to any ideology or religion or belief system, I believe that it corresponds to human nature. There is evidence for this belief if you search for it, philosophers have written at length about natural law and natural philosophy, researchers have sought to validate and vindicate it too. It is possible to mount very sophisticated arguments for relativism and for subjectivism and against there existing any "nature", indeed its considered the "natural fallacy", one of a number of "logical fallacies" or failures in logic, to suppose so. I just dont know what purpose that serves. Perhaps it is greater clarity, truth or rigour which is meant to serve but I doubt it. I suspect its a rationalisation employed by people who want to shirk any purchase conscience may have upon them personally, even in mathematics there are undeniably axioms, believes which you cant empirically prove satisfactorily.

 

[SpecialEdition]

Morality comes from other people.

From a biological standpoint all beings act in such a way as to further their species - that means following through on certain behaviours that will allow them to survive through various circumstances. When others put that species at risk, they are extricated from the group. The same goes for human beings. We have to act in a way that preserves social and economical harmony because this is advantageous for the majority. We have to avoid behaviours that bring harm to the balance of human beings and on a fundamental level that means not eliminating each other and making sure that we are pro-creating. When we are pro-creating we have to ensure that we are able to raise the child and indoctrinate that child with our ways so as to continue forward.

Now we are in such a place that most of us can break free from the "group" and embark on our own individual journeys but we still suffer greatly when we are isolated and we are still causing harm to our species if we murder each other or otherwise do anything that would prevent growth. I think that this is where a lot of religious stuff comes in - get married because you merge two families together to support the procreation of a new life. Raise that new life. Bring it into the fold. Lather, rince, repeat. Thou shall not kill because if we did, our species would suffer the consequences... I mean look at how terrible the world is because we slaughter each other in droves. A lot of what is written in religions is actually intuitive to human beings. I think you may notice that while many people do not identify with one religion or another that they automatically will behave in such a way that obeys the laws. The ten commandments come to mind.

Adhering to the morality set out by other people is easier than going against it because there are real social and economical consequences.

 

[Lark]

Today I read Satre's existentialism and humanism, I was intrigued about what he had to say about morality and the perspective on life, I dont buy it completely but it was interesting.

The idea was that all self-aware humans (which is were I have a bit of an issue, how is that qualified? Do the unborn or infants qualify?) face death and from that there can be constructed a universal experience, which includes action and choice, these things are unavoidable, even choosing not to choose is a choice and an action. From this eminates morality, and also some idea that when you make conscious choices you are deciding not simply for yourself but for the whole of humanity because you provide an example in doing so (this reminded me a little of Jung's archetypes, although inverted because Satre's idea is that there is nothing a priori besides what humans actively construct themselves inter-subjectively).

In many ways its intriguing but from the stand point of practical reason its a lot of reinvention or navel gazing to get to a position which could as easily be evidenced from the concept of natural law or axioms.

No matter how much social construction there is going on at any time there is always personal conscience to contend with, which I believe arises from the interaction of innateness and environmental as id developmentally determined.