Where Does Morality Come From?

[Mavorpen]

Not necessarily. The possibility exists that those people are just wrong.

Only by someone elses (or societies) definitions.

This means that we cannot judge other societies and that we cannot defend those that are the victims of atrocities in those societies. So hey, why bother with helping those in other countries? Their morals are just as reasonable as ours.

[Big Jim P]

Only by someone elses (or societies) definitions.

This means that we cannot judge other societies and that we cannot defend those that are the victims of atrocities in those societies. So hey, why bother with helping those in other countries? Their morals are just as reasonable as ours.

No, we can make judgement calls, and base our actions on those judgements. We just cannot pretend that those judgements are based on some universal morality.

[Mavorpen]

This means that we cannot judge other societies and that we cannot defend those that are the victims of atrocities in those societies. So hey, why bother with helping those in other countries? Their morals are just as reasonable as ours.

No, we can make judgement calls, and base our actions on those judgements. We just cannot pretend that those judgements are based on some universal morality.

Which would be admitting that what they believe to be moral, is not moral. Thus you've explained yourself why your claim was wrong.

[Big Jim P]

No, we can make judgement calls, and base our actions on those judgements. We just cannot pretend that those judgements are based on some universal morality.

Which would be admitting that what they believe to be moral, is not moral. Thus you've explained yourself why your claim was wrong.

It was not moral by OUR judgement. It was by theirs. Two differing points of view, meaning that BOTH standards of morality are relative. Both are equally valid, and it comes down to which society was strong enough to force their views on the other.

[Mavorpen]

It was not moral by OUR judgement. It was by theirs. Two differing points of view, meaning that BOTH standards of morality are relative. Both are equally valid, and it comes down to which society was strong enough to force their views on the other.

Which you admit does not make it moral. Both are not equally valid, actually. That's why ethics exists.

[Big Jim P]

It was not moral by OUR judgement. It was by theirs. Two differing points of view, meaning that BOTH standards of morality are relative. Both are equally valid, and it comes down to which society was strong enough to force their views on the other.

Which you admit does not make it moral. Both are not equally valid, actually. That's why ethics exists.

Can you explain how both are not equally valid without resorting to your own personal view of morality?

[Trotskylvania]

Which you admit does not make it moral. Both are not equally valid, actually. That's why ethics exists.

Can you explain how both are not equally valid without resorting to your own personal view of morality?

Another's could be internally inconsistent with its reasoning. It could be based on faulty arguments, or false premises about the nature of reality. Or one could argue that it violates certain categorical imperatives that are implied by living in civil society.

[Maurepas]

It comes from people, typically the given majority of a given area or culture.

[Big Jim P]

Can you explain how both are not equally valid without resorting to your own personal view of morality?

Another's could be internally inconsistent with its reasoning. It could be based on faulty arguments, or false premises about the nature of reality. Or one could argue that it violates certain categorical imperatives that are implied by living in civil society.

None of which removes it from relativity.

[Mavorpen]

Can you explain how both are not equally valid without resorting to your own personal view of morality?

It's not about my own personal views on morality. It is about observing facts, truths, and forming a coherent moral philosophy that works.

[Trotskylvania]

Another's could be internally inconsistent with its reasoning. It could be based on faulty arguments, or false premises about the nature of reality. Or one could argue that it violates certain categorical imperatives that are implied by living in civil society.

None of which removes it from relativity.

Not necessarily, though the latter implies a certain level of objectivity with regards to ethics. But most importantly, they do refute your conceit that morality is an anything goes game of simple unthinking sentiment.

[Big Jim P]

None of which removes it from relativity.

Not necessarily, though the latter implies a certain level of objectivity with regards to ethics. But most importantly, they do refute your conceit that morality is an anything goes game of simple unthinking sentiment.

Until a universal constant of morality is discovered, morality (like all other human constructs) remains relative. Effective morality merely comes from the ability of a society to force it's morality on another. Anything does indeed go, as long as an individual or society can back up it's actions by force.

[Mavorpen]

Until a universal constant of morality is discovered, morality (like all other human constructs) remains relative. Effective morality merely comes from the ability of a society to force it's morality on another. Anything does indeed go, as long as an individual or society can back up it's actions by force.

He said that he's not denying morality is relative. He stated that ethics is, at least partially, objective. The two are similar, but different in fundamental ways.

[Big Jim P]

Can you explain how both are not equally valid without resorting to your own personal view of morality?

It's not about my own personal views on morality. It is about observing facts, truths, and forming a coherent moral philosophy that works.

Since it is not about your personal views, what external, objective entity does the observing, and forming the moral philosophy? I suppose society serves such a purpose, but society is created by humans, and thus, is not objective.

[Trotskylvania]

Not necessarily, though the latter implies a certain level of objectivity with regards to ethics. But most importantly, they do refute your conceit that morality is an anything goes game of simple unthinking sentiment.

Until a universal constant of morality is discovered, morality (like all other human constructs) remains relative. Effective morality merely comes from the ability of a society to force it's morality on another. Anything does indeed go, as long as an individual or society can back up it's actions by force.

Again, no. Unthinking prescription, especially when backed only by force, is not an exercise in morality. Quite the opposite, by abandoning reason it's pretty clearly conceded in favor of a fallacious attempt to make might into right. It is more instructive to think of morality as a process rather than a concrete thing.

[Big Jim P]

Until a universal constant of morality is discovered, morality (like all other human constructs) remains relative. Effective morality merely comes from the ability of a society to force it's morality on another. Anything does indeed go, as long as an individual or society can back up it's actions by force.

Again, no. Unthinking prescription, especially when backed only by force, is not an exercise in morality. Quite the opposite, by abandoning reason it's pretty clearly conceded in favor of a fallacious attempt to make might into right. It is more instructive to think of morality as a process rather than a concrete thing.

Might is right however. Might is the only way in which a society can force it's morality, either on another society, or on the individuals within society.

[Mavorpen]

Since it is not about your personal views, what external, objective entity does the observing, and forming the moral philosophy? I suppose society serves such a purpose, but society is created by humans, and thus, is not objective.

Nothing. Moral philosophy, like all philosophy seeks knowledge for truth, but specifically morals. Forcing morality upon others does not make anything moral. That is not a moral philosophy. For one, you would have to create a philosophy explaining why that would be moral.

[Cameroi]

not that complicated really. real morality comes from what it takes to not screw everything up for everyone. anything else may be whatever it is. but real morality is that and only that.
that makes universal consideration a matter of morality, and what takes places out of sight between mentally competent consenting sentients not.

[Sociobiology]

no good just means that which we act favorably towards.
good or bad is like disgust or pleasant, it is an emotional tag, not an inherent characteristic of the action.

That's called noncognitivism, I myself lean towards moral nihilism and error theory. I say that doesn't make it good or bad, but those are merely emotions, and that there's no reason to believe certain emotions make things "good" or "bad" even subjectively because it's still making a false claim.

what claim?
I am hungry only claims that I fell the emotion or sensation of hunger.

no those things are right or wrong only to the extent we behave as if they are, good and bad ONLY exist to the extent humans behave as if they do.

nothing is right or wrong objectively only subjectively as a human with said instincts or beliefs.

Like I said before, just because certain people act a certain way doesn't make the claims they make true. When people say "X is bad" or "X is good" that is claim, and one that I'd argue is false.

what part of

those things are right or wrong only to the extent we behave as if they are

is giving you trouble? Because you obvious do not understand the statement. otherwise you would not be agreeing with it in an oppositional tone.

[Ashmoria]

yes

it can change based on a compelling argument by a dynamic personality but it still ends up as the consensus of each particular society.

thats why honor killings are commonplace in certain islamic countries but are horrifying to most western christians.

most may be stretching it.

and just because an instinct can be overridden does not mean it does not exist.
Unless you think humans do not have a pain avoidance instinct.

most isnt stretching it. ... unless you count "crimes of passion" as honor killings--where a man finds his wife with another man and kills them both, for example.

i dont know what you meant by the rest or why you said it to me.

[Volnotova]

That's called noncognitivism, I myself lean towards moral nihilism and error theory. I say that doesn't make it good or bad, but those are merely emotions, and that there's no reason to believe certain emotions make things "good" or "bad" even subjectively because it's still making a false claim.

what claim?
I am hungry only claims that I fell the emotion or sensation of hunger.

Like I said before, just because certain people act a certain way doesn't make the claims they make true. When people say "X is bad" or "X is good" that is claim, and one that I'd argue is false.

what part of

those things are right or wrong only to the extent we behave as if they are

is giving you trouble? Because you obvious do not understand the statement. otherwise you would not be agreeing with it in an oppositional tone.

What part of "People just do" don't you understand?

Eating a rotting maggot infested corpse or a bucket of cow dung is just plain gross to many people, which is why they refrain from it, not necessarily(or even) because it is wrong, percieved as wrong or feels wrong, but because our evolution has determined(for people that it has) that the mere smell of thought of such actions invokes a sense of disgust and thus serves to make us refrain from doing things that would otherwise prove detrimental to our health, and thus serves an evolutionairy purpose.

This entire "If you feel disgusted, that is because you really, deep inside, know/think it is immoral!" is getting really old now.

Either what you are doing is trying to rationalise those feelings, trying to rationalise the experiences and turn them into something more than they really are or you are just juggling the definitions around and changing the meanings of certain terms(or using them in a manner that other people do not use them).

Or maybe, I am just not experiencing the same feelings as you.

[Chinese Regions]

Environment, genes, evolution, society.

[New Rogernomics]

Morality is derived from altruism, which is biologically (or genetically) inherited. As a sentient species we are capable of higher thinking than non-sentient species; some anthropologists argue sentience is determined by the ability to have creative/innovative thought, as well as fashion tools. Though other animals can dream {and fashion tools], so it is a difficult question as to whether other animals establish moral principles (and aren't solidly altruistic): http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/dreaming.html

[Volnotova]

Morality is derived from altruism, which is biologically (or genetically) inherited. As a sentient species we are capable of higher thinking than non-sentient species; some anthropologists argue sentience is determined by the ability to have creative/innovative thought, as well as fashion tools. Though other animals can dream {and fashion tools], so it is a difficult question as to whether other animals establish moral principles (and aren't solidly altruistic): http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/dreaming.html

Not all forms of morality are derived from altruism, some follow a deontological not utilitarian pattern(Although the utilitarian principles might be based on deontological thought).

[Augarundus]

Morality is derived from altruism

Lol, Objectivism.