The source of morality?

[SkyWriting]

What do non-believers feel is the source of morality and why would theirs apply to other people?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I can almost predict this. (Utilitarianism. the Hippocratic Oath of "do no harm" etc.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Humans are a social species. We evolved to cooperate; we evolved empathy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can almost predict this. (Utilitarianism. the Hippocratic Oath of "do no harm" etc.)

That's not a source.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Source? Morality is an idea, like money. We thunk it up.

 

[Ken-1122]

What do non-believers feel is the source of morality

The source of morality? The human mind.

and why would theirs apply to other people?

I would have to convince other people my morals should be applied to them. If I can't make a good enough argument, my morals will be dismissed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Morality is an expression of evolved behaviours. As @Tinker Grey has noted, as a social species this leads to morals that emphasise cooperation, to which I would add empathy and compassion.

Since all morals have a common source we all have substantial amounts of common ground. It is only in the detail that conflict arises.

 

[zippy2006]

...and why would theirs apply to other people?

No one has attempted to answer this portion of your question, though Ken did reference it.

 

[Strathos]

Morality is an expression of evolved behaviours. As @Tinker Grey has noted, as a social species this leads to morals that emphasise cooperation, to which I would add empathy and compassion.

Since all morals have a common source we all have substantial amounts of common ground. It is only in the detail that conflict arises.

So if we had evolved like the praying mantis, where it is normal for a female to kill and eat her mate after mating with him, would that act then be moral?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No one has attempted to answer this portion of your question, though Ken did reference it.

My judgments apply universally. I think Brussels Sprouts taste bad even when someone else is eating them. I think stealing is wrong even when someone else is doing the stealing. Morality is not a personal code of conduct; it's a way of evaluating people's actions. Of course it applies to other people.

 

[Ophiolite]

So if we had evolved like the praying mantis, where it is normal for a female to kill and eat her mate after mating with him, would that act then be moral?

Not necessarily. Thus rape is frowned upon by most cultures. The thing about the evolution of intelligence is that it is a game changer as it facilitates the formalisation of instinctive tendencies and the development of nuances. Together that increases the effectiveness of the moral environment.

 

[Ken-1122]

No one has attempted to answer this portion of your question, though Ken did reference it.

The reason I only referenced it rather than answer that part of the question is because the question is leading. I don't believe my morals should be automatically applied to other people, that would be tyranny; I believe I should have to convince them of my morals.

 

[Strathos]

Not necessarily. Thus rape is frowned upon by most cultures. The thing about the evolution of intelligence is that it is a game changer as it facilitates the formalisation of instinctive tendencies and the development of nuances. Together that increases the effectiveness of the moral environment.

So you're saying that even if we had evolved differently, we would have adopted the same morals? So morals are independent of evolution, then.

 

[zippy2006]

The reason I only referenced it rather than answer that part of the question is because the question is leading. I don't believe my morals should be automatically applied to other people, that would be tyranny; I believe I should have to convince them of my morals.

Isn't that just what the OP did? Asked you to convince them of your morals? Or rather, they asked what that convincing would look like in general.

My judgments apply universally. I think Brussels Sprouts taste bad even when someone else is eating them. I think stealing is wrong even when someone else is doing the stealing. Morality is not a personal code of conduct; it's a way of evaluating people's actions. Of course it applies to other people.

Merely asserting that they do apply is not an explanation of why they apply.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Merely asserting that they do apply is not an explanation of why they apply.

And if I reject the premise?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Merely asserting that they do apply is not an explanation of why they apply.

It's obvious. That's what judgments are. They are immediate to my consciousness. You can't stop me from judging you. Nyah.

 

[zippy2006]

And if I reject the premise?

What premise are you attempting to reject? That stating "Brussel sprouts are bad" is not an explanation of why such a judgment should apply to other people? I guess you could try to reject the fact that assertions are not explanations or justifications of prescriptions, but that would be highly irrational.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What premise are you attempting to reject? That stating "Brussel sprouts are bad" is not an explanation of why such a judgment should apply to other people? I guess you could try to reject the fact that assertions are not explanations or justifications of prescriptions, but that would be highly irrational.

The premise that my morals "apply" to others or need to be applied.

I behave in ways that I hope inspires reciprocity and that that reciprocity I'll perceive is a good thing.

This is what we've evolved to do. The long tedious discussions are a byproduct that may be necessary to proceed cooperatively.

 

[Ken-1122]

Isn't that just what the OP did? Asked you to convince them of your morals? Or rather, they asked what that convincing would look like in general.

I don't think that is what he was asking.

 

[zippy2006]

The premise that my morals "apply" to others or need to be applied.

I suppose you don't have to but I think that's just what morality means. A morality is a normative framework that guides action. If someone says, "Why did you do that?" and you answer, "For no other reason than because I wanted to," then the action you performed was not self-consciously moral or guided by any normative framework.

This is what we've evolved to do. The long tedious discussions are a byproduct that may be necessary to proceed cooperatively.

I don't find "because Evolution" compelling at all. Humans are rational beings and act for reasons. No one reflectively acts "because Evolution." They may ascribe normativity to Evolution and try to imitate it in their conscious decision-making, but that is a bit different.