Where Does Morality Come From?

[Arborlawn]

Someone's ass.

[Not Safe For Work]

So you're saying a vegetarian doesn't eat meat because they fear that if they do they will wake up to find a cow chowing down on them?

Keep in mind that the majority of the human race differentiates between animal and human meat (I'm sure most vegetarians do as well) so there is not really much of a pragmatic argument to not eat animal meat.

I'm saying people don't eat people for pragmatic reasons. I'm further saying that vegetarianism is an extension of the same psychology - those who oppose eating meat for 'moral' reasons, are merely extending the empathy for humans, to other animals.

[Jello Biafra]

(no one likes mean people!).

This doesn't seem to be true. While most people don't like people who are mean to them (though there are exceptions even here) there are lots of people who don't mind it when people are mean to other people.

[Free Soviets]

morality comes from the combination of our underlying evolved moral sentiments, our ability to literally feel with people, objective facts about the sorts of beings we are, and the use of reason.

one of the most interesting aspect of the mix is the way that reason and our technologically-enabled expansion of our personal universes (both communications technologies and just knowledge in general) create singer's ethical escalator. once you start reasoning from whatever low-level ethical premise, it becomes very hard to stop the progress of that thought from expanding out to cover beings well outside of your original intentions. you find that you can't rationally justify not including them. this, i think, is the main driver of what we call 'moral progress'.

[Big Jim P]

The self. What do you consider right or wrong?

[Ifreann]

I got mine in a cereal box.

[Free Soviets]

I got mine in a cereal box.

and that, kids, is why i prefer sugar-coated chocolate sugar puffs. gets you much better toys than whatever gruel Ifreann eats.

[LogiChristianity]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

Does Not Compute.

Two things: 1, the Bible can be used to claim moral things are immoral or vice versa, and 2, there is no way that your first sentence leads logically to your second, in particular if God does not exist.

[Free Soviets]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

religious-derived morality is almost unbelievably immoral. this is because it's methods of revelation and authority are basically guaranteed to result in bad ideas being promoted sometimes, while at the same time undermining the only methods we have that can sort out the right from the wrong.

[Ifreann]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

The Bible told me to crack babies off rocks, I don't trust it as a source of morals.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

erm, people. Sometimes those people die and pass on what they believe as normal (social norms) on to the next generation sometimes they don't and are all brutally killed off in some unfortunate event.

I am curious if there were no people around before you or I would we have the same ideas of morality? probably not.
Though i know there's two main schools of thought on this ie it's ingrained into everyone from birth in some manner (in some religions via the soul i guess).
Or it doesn't exist at all and it's just people using social norms to push their own agendas in some machiavellian nightmare scenario.
Honestly i've never really figured it out either.

[Volnotova]

A bull's rectum.

Alternatively, mental processes.

You can probably guess my stance on it all.

[Ifreann]

A bull's rectum.

Alternatively, mental processes.

You can probably guess my stance on it all.

You're a veterinarian?

[Volnotova]

The self. What do you consider right or wrong?

Nothing as a matter of fact, at least, not as long as it pertains to some form of logical thinking and problem solving(Like saying that a sphere is round).

A bull's rectum.

Alternatively, mental processes.

You can probably guess my stance on it all.

You're a veterinarian?

Why would I need to be? I can smell the crap from miles away.

[DesAnges]

You need God to understand the concept of positive and negative.

Everyone knows that killing is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

So without the existence of God you would go around slaughtering everybody?

And people wonder why using the Bible as a moral arbiter is scary.

[Volnotova]

Your own head.

The very fact you would state that implies that morality would not exist if it were not seen, which defeats the entire purpose of inherent human rights and the like right?

I mean, obviously, if you imply that there exists something as fundemental as moral rights, claims(that are actually valid) and virtues but then state they only exist because you see them I would start questioning such a statement's validity.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Maryland if memory serves.

[Volnotova]

You need God to understand the concept of positive and negative.

Everyone knows that killing is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

I for one don't, but please, elaborate what makes "wrongness/immorality" the inherent property of the termination of life.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

You need God to understand the concept of positive and negative.

What concept are you talking about? It isn't that I don't understand it, it's just that I currently have no clue what you're referring to so I can't tell if I know about it.

Everyone knows that killing is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

What about people knowing that killing is wrong because that is what they are taught by the society they have grown up in? Western culture has arrived at the consensus that killing is bad because that helps keep society stable. Other people groups do not find all killing of humans to be wrong because their society is stable without that constraint due to their different way of life. If morality was from God, there would not be cultural differences like this.

[The Daktanese Technocracy]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

Someone says I'm wrong, therefore, god must exist.

HOLY SHIT, WHEN SOMEONE SAYS STAR TREK COULD KICK STAR WARS ASS, IT PROVES DATA EXISTS AND IS IN A DUEL WITH SHAU KUN ON THE FOURTH MOON OF YAVIN.

MY LIFE IS COMPLETE.

[Volnotova]

Once again, I'd like to point out that sometimes all these other moral sources direct you to something immoral. Thus, it must be from God.

Someone says I'm wrong, therefore, god must exist.

HOLY SHIT, WHEN SOMEONE SAYS STAR TREK COULD KICK STAR WARS ASS, IT PROVES DATA EXISTS AND IS IN A DUEL WITH SHAU KUN ON THE FOURTH MOON OF YAVIN.

MY LIFE IS COMPLETE.

I wish logic worked that way in real life, it would certainly make everything much easier.

Although I am not even sure where Logi was trying to get with his main point(if it even exists).

"Sometimes this, therefore God exists." What?

[Nihilistikus]

There is no objective morallity, that says this is right, this is wrong etc. etc.
It isn't wrong to kill a man, not objectively. It wouldn't make a difference if any of you came to my door and shot me. It wouldn't really change anything on a global or universal scale. There is no objective rule that says its wrong to kill a man. It isn't ''written in stone''.
Theres no such thing as an objective morality, only subjective morality.
An example of this is WW2: The allies thought it was okay to kill Hitler, but the axis didn't. Hitler thought it was ok to kill jews, Churchill didn't etc etc

[Sociobiology]

I've recently been in a lot of discussions about where morality comes from with a group of my peers. A few say it definitely comes from God, whereas most of us are debating about whether it comes from society or some scientific instinct hidden in our minds from birth.

So, NSG, I ask you, where do you believe morality comes from?

I personally think it just comes down to a sense of empathy. I don't like pain, because it feels bad. I know that other people feel that way. Thus, I don't want to cause other people pain just to do it, because I care about other people and don't wish that on them.

But, there are some more interesting opinions than my quick four sentence opinion.

So here's some other ones.

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/hu ... come-from/

From what I can best gather through my experience and sense data is that morality is a complex structure to maintain social cohesion and enhance survivability among social creatures. It is present in wolf packs and even among savage reptilian crocodiles. Really most anywhere you find social orders of animals you will find acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. For example it is unacceptable for a small crocodile to take food from a larger one, or it is unacceptable for a subordinate wolf to mate over the Alpha wolf. If these things happen then there will be consequences, the smaller crocodile or subordinate wolf will be physically attacked. As with humans if you steal something other humans will try to give you consequences.

http://mbogart.com/where-does-morality-come-from/

In the final analysis, workable moral standards are only possible when they are based on a source external to the changing whims of the masses or of those who generate public opinion. That external source is God. He is both truly good and truly wise. He alone is impartial, favoring no one. To follow his standards, which Jews and Christians believe are given in the Bible, is to have both a compass and an anchor. In contrast, morality based on the ever-changing opinions of some manufactured majority consensus is biased, arbitrary and chaotic. It seems that we are not far from this in our own times.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/cultu ... tivism.htm

Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can actually be considered “right” or “wrong.”

Cultural relativism is a widely held position in the modern world. Words like “pluralism,” “tolerance,” and “acceptance” have taken on new meanings, as the boundaries of “culture” have expanded. The loose way in which modern society defines these ideas has made it possible for almost anything to be justified on the grounds of “relativism.” The umbrella of “relativism” includes a fairly wide range of ideas, all of which introduce instability and uncertainty into areas that were previously considered settled.

instincts, empathy, culture, the shape of the brain, all of the above actually.

I recommend the book the science of good and evil, it is one long scientific discourse on morality and especially universals in morality.

it is also a very easy read, Shermer has a very inviting writing style.

full title
The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.

ISBN 0-8050-7520-8

[Beiluxia]

Comes from your experiences growing up all the way into adulthood. Everybody's view of morality is different, that's why morality is so objective. Heck, each culture has its own version of morality. Look at the Greeks and their pederasty, for starters. Morality comes from one's own opinion of right and wrong, which is most influenced by the people around them.