Where Does Morality Come From?

[Der Landstreicher]

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/


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


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

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

That's more of a evolutionary psychology book.
Just because people act a certain way doesn't mean that's morality, morality makes certain claims, claims that are irrelevant to how people act. So instead you should focus more on the title, because that is less misleading than what you said.

[Ashmoria]

morality comes from the cultural consensus of the people living in the society in question.

Do you think that applies to all morality?

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.

[Sociobiology]

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

That's more of a evolutionary psychology book.

what field of science do you think would apply to human behavior?

Just because people act a certain way doesn't mean that's morality, morality makes certain claims, claims that are irrelevant to how people act.

no that is called ethics.

morality is acting as if actions are good are bad, it is a construct. the book explains why the construct exists and in what form it exists.

vampire bats have morals
vampire bats do not have ethics.

So instead you should focus more on the title, because that is less misleading than what you said.

the tittle was about half of what I said.

[Sociobiology]

Do you think that applies to all morality?

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.

[Der Landstreicher]

what field of science do you think would apply to human behavior?

I don't know?

morality is acting as if actions are good are bad, it is a construct. the book explains why the construct exists and in what form it exists.

vampire bats have morals
vampire bats do not have ethics.

No, morality has little to with "acting" it's a matter of making judgements (in other words "claims).
Moral systems make claims about what one "should" or "should not" do, or alternatively what actions are "good" or "bad."

Ethics is the study of morality, and the philosophical basis for such.

the tittle was about half of what I said.

"Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule."

This is more accurate, however it doesn't give arguments for why these things are either "right" or "wrong" it gives a scientific answer to why a majority of people have those beliefs.

[Sociobiology]

what field of science do you think would apply to human behavior?

I don't know?

sarcasm, look it up.

morality is acting as if actions are good are bad, it is a construct. the book explains why the construct exists and in what form it exists.

vampire bats have morals
vampire bats do not have ethics.

No, morality has little to with "acting" it's a matter of making judgements

judgments are behavioral actions.

(in other words "claims).
Moral systems make claims about what one "should" or "should not" do, or alternatively what actions are "good" or "bad."

Ethics is the study of morality, and the philosophical basis for such.

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.

you really should read the book it would help you with this.

the tittle was about half of what I said.

"Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule."

This is more accurate, however it doesn't give arguments for why these things are either "right" or "wrong" it gives a scientific answer to why a majority of people have those beliefs.

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.

[Mavorpen]

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

Right, people have never been killed. Time to pack up guys!

[LogiChristianity]

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

Right, people have never been killed. Time to pack up guys!

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Mathematics is no less invented than systems of morality. Are you going to reject math too?

[Mavorpen]

Right, people have never been killed. Time to pack up guys!

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Right, people have never been senselessly murdered! Time to pack it up guys! Fire all of the police! Murder doesn't exist!

[The Daktanese Technocracy]

Right, people have never been killed. Time to pack up guys!

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Yes, we know why we know it.

Evolution. Look it up. Bad to kill your own a bunch.

[LogiChristianity]

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Right, people have never been senselessly murdered! Time to pack it up guys! Fire all of the police! Murder doesn't exist!

When people commit it, they don't think it is senseless.

[LogiChristianity]

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Yes, we know why we know it.

Evolution. Look it up. Bad to kill your own a bunch.

First of all, evolution isn't necessarily real. But even if it is, survival of the fittest doesn't always support morality. Honesty is moral, right? But it doesn't always help survival. Dishonesty, if done well, can cause you personally to thrive and reproduce with lots of women.

[Mavorpen]

Right, people have never been senselessly murdered! Time to pack it up guys! Fire all of the police! Murder doesn't exist!

When people commit it, they don't think it is senseless.

Now tell me, how does that make it not senseless?

[The Daktanese Technocracy]

Yes, we know why we know it.

Evolution. Look it up. Bad to kill your own a bunch.

First of all, evolution isn't necessarily real. But even if it is, survival of the fittest doesn't always support morality. Honesty is moral, right? But it doesn't always help survival. Dishonesty, if done well, can cause you personally to thrive and reproduce with lots of women.

Yes, Evolution has been proven.

Honesty is moral in most systems, yes. But it doesn't always help survival. Yes. That's why we lie. Also, Evolution doesn't only effect men.

[Mavorpen]

First of all, evolution isn't necessarily real.

Yes, it is.

But even if it is, survival of the fittest doesn't always support morality. Honesty is moral, right? But it doesn't always help survival. Dishonesty, if done well, can cause you personally to thrive and reproduce with lots of women.

Yeah, no. Simply because honesty does not always work does not mean that it never works. Hence why we are not perfectly honest.

[Rov]

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Nope. Senseless killing is wrong (at least with my morals, dunno about yours) because if you do so (to sentients, that is), you give up the right not to be killed senselessly. It's just logical- why exactly are your rights worth more than someone else's? As I do not want to die, due to basic evolutionary principles, I don't want to kill anyone else.

[Der Landstreicher]

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.

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.

[Big Jim P]

Okay, everyone knows that senseless murder is wrong, but nobody knows why they know it. Because it comes from God.

Nope. Senseless killing is wrong (at least with my morals, dunno about yours) because if you do so (to sentients, that is), you give up the right not to be killed senselessly. It's just logical- why exactly are your rights worth more than someone else's? As I do not want to die, due to basic evolutionary principles, I don't want to kill anyone else.

Senseless killing would not be senseless or wrong to the killer. Morality is relative.

[Not Safe For Work]

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.

If the former was true, the latter might be true. There's no reason to believe the former is true, though.

[Trotskylvania]

Nope. Senseless killing is wrong (at least with my morals, dunno about yours) because if you do so (to sentients, that is), you give up the right not to be killed senselessly. It's just logical- why exactly are your rights worth more than someone else's? As I do not want to die, due to basic evolutionary principles, I don't want to kill anyone else.

Senseless killing would not be senseless or wrong to the killer. Morality is relative.

Not in the sense you suggest. Since morality is inherently interpersonal and social, no one person can ever claim what is or is not moral.

[Big Jim P]

Senseless killing would not be senseless or wrong to the killer. Morality is relative.

Not in the sense you suggest. Since morality is inherently interpersonal and social, no one person can ever claim what is or is not moral.

But as long as one person has a different sense of morality, it by definition is relative.

[Trotskylvania]

Not in the sense you suggest. Since morality is inherently interpersonal and social, no one person can ever claim what is or is not moral.

But as long as one person has a different sense of morality, it by definition is relative.

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

[Big Jim P]

But as long as one person has a different sense of morality, it by definition is relative.

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

Only by someone elses (or societies) definitions.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Only by someone elses (or societies) definitions.

Again, no. Declaring that all morality is relative, or that all moral points of view are equally valid is just as stupid as claiming that there is a divinely authored code of conduct that is non-negotiable and binding in all circumstances.