What is Morality and Where does it Come From?

[MemeBuster]

What is morality?

Where does morality come from?

 

[flicka]

Social standards mostly.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

The consequences. And experience. Normally. Other people have them spoonfed to them through religion, and others take bits and pieces from them.

 

[ArcticKnight]

What is morality?

At it's most basic, morality is a set of social standards.

Where does morality come from?

Morality evolved as a means of survival.

Since there is safety in numbers, man formed small communities for safety. The members of the community worked together to provide sustinence, shelter, etc., as well as protection from predators.

A set of social standards would develop in an effort to create harmony among the members of the community. Discord in the community could cause the community to split, meaning smaller numbers and weaker defense. If an individual acted against the social standards, they could be exiled or killed by the community, neither option was beneficial to the individual's survival.

Standards were set to promote survival of the community. Individual conformity to the standards was neccessary to the survival of the individual.

 

[cantata]

Perhaps it's useful to use moral language to talk about our feelings about things, but in the abstract I can't really see the point. I don't think it exists independently of what we make of it.

Nice bi pride flag, Arctic

 

[True_Blue]

Morality does not come from social standards. Otherwise, it would be moral for Germans to kill Jews, and it would be moral Aztecs to make human sacrifices. Whole societies can be wrong about morality, and social standards are difficult to measure or define, so social standards don't even make good evidence of morality.

Moral actions are those in accordance with God's will, and immoral actions are those not in accordance with God's will. The hard part is determining God's will. To determine God's will, the following things must be in alignment:

1. You conscience
2. The Bible
3. The opinions of wise and godly people you trust
4. Logic, philosophy, economics, etc.
5. Spiritual messages

Each of those things taken by itself might deceive you, so you have to compare it with the other four as applicable. For example, angels or spirits can lie to you. But if the spirit is from God, it will never contradict the Bible. The Bible can sometimes be easy to misinterpret, so you have to pray about what you read, consult with people who perhaps have spent their entire liftetime studying it, and use your own common sense. Even wise people that you trust might not have the right answer about a moral question, so you need to balance their answer against your own common sense, the Bible, and your conscience.

 

[Washington]

Morality does not come from social standards. Otherwise, it would be moral for Germans to kill Jews, and it would be moral Aztecs to make human sacrifices.

But it was moral. Just because you don't agree with Nazi morality doesn't mean it fails to qualify as a doctrine or system of conduct.

Moral actions are those in accordance with God's will, and immoral actions are those not in accordance with God's will.

Well, as comforting and self serving as that is, your characterization of god having a monopoly on moral doctrine is rather naive. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of morality, and probably ethics as well, before assigning exclusive rights to it.

 

[Braunwyn]

Moral actions are those in accordance with God's will, and immoral actions are those not in accordance with God's will. The hard part is determining God's will. To determine God's will, the following things must be in alignment:

1. You conscience
2. The Bible
3. The opinions of wise and godly people you trust
4. Logic, philosophy, economics, etc.
5. Spiritual messages

I agree with #1, part of #3 and 4 and am not sure what's meant by #5. I disagree with #2 and part of #3. The bible, and even Jesus, supports the killing and torture of animals. I find that to be the most reprehensible act known to wo/man since it is the slaying of innocents. It is not moral and yet I understand it's immoral even though the bible supports such acts. Obviously the bible is not needed to have a moral compass and most "godly" people can be included in the long line of supporters of crimes against animals.

 

[The Nihilist]

I am unconvinced that German morality ever allowed for genocide. National Socialism was always in opposition to German morals, which were weakened by years of poverty and political instability.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

It must be realized that morality is not an objective truth; it is simply a guide for the way in which people lead their lives. It is quite evident from the different morals that different people have that it cannot be true that there is a criteria for what morals specifically can and can't be--it's too subjective for that. You may disagree with certain people's morals if you wish, but that doesn't mean they're immoral just because what they believe in or value isn't the same as yours. I could ask if polygamy is moral, and some people will say yes; but others will say no.

 

[True_Blue]

I agree with #1, part of #3 and 4 and am not sure what's meant by #5. I disagree with #2 and part of #3. The bible, and even Jesus, supports the killing and torture of animals. I find that to be the most reprehensible act known to wo/man since it is the slaying of innocents. It is not moral and yet I understand it's immoral even though the bible supports such acts. Obviously the bible is not needed to have a moral compass and most "godly" people can be included in the long line of supporters of crimes against animals.

I am very glad that you believe cruelty to animals would be wrong even if the Bible said it were ok. You would be right, and I would agree with you. Even if every other human being on earth disagreed with us except for us the two of us, we would be right and they would be wrong. Morality is an absolute, objective, discoverable truth, and cruelty to animals is absolutely, morally wrong.

Fortunately, the Bible does not condone cruelty to animals. Please consider Deuteronomy 25:4 and Proverbs 12:10. Cruelty to animals is the infliction of unnecessary suffering or harm to animals. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals. Cruelty is measured by the subjective intent of the person committing the act. As with every malum in se crime, the intent of the actor determines the presence or the absence of a crime. If you kill an animal as humanely as you can with the intent to eat the animal, then you have not broken the prohibition against cruelty to animals. If you intend to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, perhaps to gain some sadistic pleasure, then you've committed a moral violation, which is a crime ultimately against God.

 

[AngelusTenebrae]

I would have to disagree about morality being objective and absolute. If it really were objective and absolute, then you could answer whether or not euthanasia is wrong, issues about abortion, homosexuality, and any other number of complicated issues which rarely ever have a single correct answer, if you wish to call it such.

 

[ArcticKnight]

Morality does not come from social standards. Otherwise, it would be moral for Germans to kill Jews, . . .

. . .the following things must be in alignment:

1. You conscience
2. The Bible
3. The opinions of wise and godly people you trust
4. Logic, philosophy, economics, etc.
5. Spiritual messages

When you consider that Hitler himself believed the Bible, thought himself to be a Christian, and believed he was acting within most, if not all, of your five guidelines, then it could be argued that he was acting morally when exterminating Jews. However, it is obvious within the context of basic morality being a societal standard designed for survival of the species, that his actions were wrong.

The KKK uses the Bible as their guide for extreme racism. If you were to rpesent one of their members with your list, they would most likely say that they operate within those five guidelines you posted.

Even Jim Jones believed he was following those five guidelines.

Our basic need for survival is the strongest influence on morality. Survival dictates that people living within a society act within the set standards of that society for the betterment and survival of all within that society.

 

[quatona]

What is morality?

I so wish all "What is X?" question would be replaced by "What do you mean when you say X?".

I don´t find myself using this term often, and when I do it´s in a pretty loose way, for all sorts of ideas about what humans in general or certain humans "should" do.

Where does morality come from?

Bordeaux, France.

 

[Amoranemix]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]You guys have no clue what you are talking about. Fortunately Amoranemix is here with definitions and articles from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Main Entry: mo£ral£i£ty[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Pronunciation: m„-‚ra-l„-t‡, m•-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Function: noun[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Inflected Form: plural-ties[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Date: 14th century[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]4 : moral conduct : virtue [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The above definition doesn't give much to go on. Fortunately the definition of moral adds some insight.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Pronunciation: ‚m•r-„l, ‚mär-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Function: adjective[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Date: 14th century[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]2 : probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]-mor£al£ly \-„-l‡\ adverb[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]synonyms moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]e basic moral values of a community>. ethical may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions of rightness, fairness, or equity <committed to the highest ethical principles>. virtuous implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character <not a religious person, but virtuous nevertheless>. righteous stresses guiltlessness or blamelessness and often suggests the sanctimonious <wished to be righteous before God and the world>. noble implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character <had the noblest of reasons for seeking office>.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Britannica has an article on moral theology.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]also called Christian ethics. Christian theological discipline concerned with identifying and elucidating the principles that determine the quality of human behaviour in the light of Christian revelation. It is distinguished from the philosophical discipline of ethics, which relies upon the authority of reason and which can only call upon rational sanctions for moral failure. Moral theology appeals to the authority of revelation, specifically as found in the preaching and activity of Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The moral teaching in Christian communities has varied in the different eras, regions, and confessional traditions in which Christianity has been professed. The Roman Catholic tradition has been inclined to emphasize the mediating role of ecclesiastical institutions in its approach to the moral authority of revelation. Protestant churches have often put great emphasis on the direct, or immediate, moral responsibility of the individual before God. The influence of the spiritual director for the moral welfare of the individual Christian has been a significant aspect of Eastern Christianity.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Moral theology has at times seemed to have been restricted in its scope to a consideration of those thoughts, works, and actions that are viewed as offensive to God and spiritually harmful to human beings—that is, an enumeration of sins. It was thus seen as a negative complement of ascetical and mystical theology, which both presuppose a more positive orientation of the individual toward God. Many moral theologians, however, have believed that it is more faithful to the spirit of the New Testament and of early theology not to separate moral teaching from the religious anthropology that is implicit in the message of the Gospels. This approach has been reflected in the traditional Eastern Christian emphasis on the divinization of man through his association with Jesus Christ and in the Protestant concern with the moral power of justification. Medieval and post-Reformation Roman Catholic moral theology tended to separate moral teaching from dogmatic theology.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The significance of the relation of moral teaching to divine revelation lies in the problem of determining the nature of the particular “highest good” that characterizes any ethical system. Without such a determination of the nature of this good, one could easily have the impression that morality is simply obedience to a set of rules or laws the observance of which has been labeled, more or less arbitrarily, good. In the light of revelation, sin is seen as a deterioration of the fundamental disposition of a person toward God, rather than as a breaking of rules or laws. Virtue is viewed as the habitual capacity of a person to respond freely and consciously to situations in a manner that reflects and intensifies his conformity to Jesus Christ.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The diverse approaches to moral theology through the centuries have varied greatly in their recourse to logical reasoning and in the degree of their acceptance of general moral principles that are considered universally applicable. A recent tendency challenging the validity of such general principles is called situation ethics. Contemporary moral theology must confront problems resulting from modern technology, such as the moral issues related to the use of sophisticated instruments of warfare, individual responsibility in large corporate institutions, the demands of social justice, and developments in the biological sciences.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The Britannica also has a long article on ethics, of which I will just post the introduction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]also called moral philosophy the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]How should we live? Shall we aim at happiness or at knowledge, virtue, or the creation of beautiful objects? If we choose happiness, will it be our own or the happiness of all? And what of the more particular questions that face us: Is it right to be dishonest in a good cause? Can we justify living in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are starving? If conscripted to fight in a war we do not support, should we disobey the law? What are our obligations to the other creatures with whom we share this planet and to the generations of humans who will come after us?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The terms ethics and morality are closely related. We now often refer to ethical judgments or ethical principles where it once would have been more common to speak of moral judgments or moral principles. These applications are an extension of the meaning of ethics. Strictly speaking, however, the term refers not to morality itself but to the field of study, or branch of inquiry, that has morality as its subject matter. In this sense, ethics is equivalent to moral philosophy.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Although ethics has always been viewed as a branch of philosophy, its all-embracing practical nature links it with many other areas of study, including anthropology, biology, economics, history, politics, sociology, and theology. Yet, ethics remains distinct from such disciplines because it is not a matter of factual knowledge in the way that the sciences and other branches of inquiry are. Rather, it has to do with determining the nature of normative theories and applying these sets of principles to practical moral problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]In order not to overwhelm you I will post more later.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Amoranemix]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I see morality as a quantity. Someone who is morally good, a.k.a benevolent, has a positive morality. Someone who is morally bad, a.k.a. malevolent, has a negative morality. I have given a definition for omni-benevolence, that is the highest possible moral value, in the thread christianforums.com/t3106736-what-does-it-mean-for-god-to-be-good-or-omni-benevolent-.html. I summarized it as the unimpaired desire to maximize the well-being of the exterior world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Benevolence would then be the desire to increase the well-being of the exterior world.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Malevolence is more complicated but it could be the desire to increase the ill-being of the exterior world or it could be the desire to increase the well-being of the self.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]With definitions like that I have an absolutist view of morality. The morality of a society is the application of the absolute moral code in the context of that society. That application can be flawed of course. Therefore the morality of a society can be judged using that absolute standard as a reference.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Moving on to the origin. I saw a documentary on National Geographic channel about romantic and sexual love yesterday, where they provided one drive for kindness different from the ones I have heard before. The peacock has a large tail that is a disadvantage in its struggle to survive. Why hasn't it been weeded out by natural selection then ? Because in natural selection the needs of the individual outway the needs of the species. By having a large beautiful tail the male peacock shows the females that he has good genes because he is able to survive with such a big tail. The same mechanism is also said to be a cause for intelligence in humans. The brain is a costly organism as is consumes about 20% of our energy and if you are intelligent you show you have good genes that can afford you to have a good brain. Therefore humans find intelligence attractive in a potential mate. Kindness is also a costly attribute. Thus it shows you must have good genes if you can afford to be kind. Therefore kindness is an attractive feature in a potential mate. Unlike the peacocks tail, the trait of kindness also happens to be an asset for the species.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Moral actions are those in accordance with God's will, and immoral actions are those not in accordance with God's will
[*]. The hard part is determining God's will. To determine God's will, the following things must be in alignment:

[*] If that is a definition of morality then it is in disagreement with the dictionary. If it is a deduction then can you please explain your reasoning ?[/FONT]

It must be realized that morality is not an objective truth; it is simply a guide for the way in which people lead their lives. It is quite evident from the different morals that different people have that it cannot be true that there is a criteria for what morals specifically can and can't be--it's too subjective for that. You may disagree with certain people's morals if you wish, but that doesn't mean they're immoral just because what they believe in or value isn't the same as yours. I could ask if polygamy is moral, and some people will say yes; but others will say no.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]A statement is subjective if it amounts merely to an opinion or the truthvalue of the statement cannot be accurately assessed. The morality of some behaviour or society is subjective due to lack of wisdom. People disagree on the morality of polygamy because they don't have all the information required to make an accurate judgement. If with all the required information there is still disagreement then I think someone is wrong.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Imagine that an alien civilization colonizes earth. They slaughter half of the humans and take the rest as slaves. They mistreat the humans horrendously. From a relativist moral point of view the aliens could not be judged to be immoral if the morality of their society teaches that everything they do is good and that the universe belongs to them and that anyone using resources of that universe without their permission is criminal scum. Clearly there is morality superseding the morality of a society.[/FONT]

I would have to disagree about morality being objective and absolute. If it really were objective and absolute, then you could answer whether or not euthanasia is wrong, issues about abortion, homosexuality, and any other number of complicated issues which rarely ever have a single correct answer, if you wish to call it such.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]It is not because a question is difficult to answer that the question has no answer. Some people claim the world is 6000 year old while others claim the world is 15000 million years old. Does that mean that the world doesn't have a real age ? No. It means someone is wrong. Fermat's last theorem is very difficult to prove. Does that mean that the theorem is merely a matter of opinion ? No. The theorem has been proven and is thus true. Quantum field theory is very complicated. Does that mean it cannot provide objective answers about subatomic forces ? No. It means that most people are too ignorant to use quantum field theory to derive those answers. Ignorance is merely a perception of the world and does not prove there is no real world.[/FONT]

Our basic need for survival is the strongest influence on morality. Survival dictates that people living within a society act within the set standards of that society for the betterment and survival of all within that society.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I don't think morality is a basic need. Food, water, breathable air and warmth are basic needs. In principle humans can survive without morality.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Membebuster : [/FONT]Where does morality come from?
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]quatona : [/FONT]Bordeaux, France.
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]That is a too simplistic view. Morality comes from the fifth dimension.[/FONT]

 

[Braunwyn]

I am very glad that you believe cruelty to animals would be wrong even if the Bible said it were ok. You would be right, and I would agree with you. Even if every other human being on earth disagreed with us except for us the two of us,

Well, almost every human being on the planet does disagree if we look at %. And note that I state not only the torture of animals but the killing of animals.

we would be right and they would be wrong. Morality is an absolute, objective, discoverable truth, and cruelty to animals is absolutely, morally wrong.

I recently had a similar discussion. I don't believe that morality is objective because it only applies to humans.

Fortunately, the Bible does not condone cruelty to animals. Please consider Deuteronomy 25:4 and Proverbs 12:10. Cruelty to animals is the infliction of unnecessary suffering or harm to animals. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals. Cruelty is measured by the subjective intent of the person committing the act. As with every malum in se crime, the intent of the actor determines the presence or the absence of a crime. If you kill an animal as humanely as you can with the intent to eat the animal, then you have not broken the prohibition against cruelty to animals. If you intend to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, perhaps to gain some sadistic pleasure, then you've committed a moral violation, which is a crime ultimately against God.

I think killing animals for food is immoral especially if it's unnecessary. 99.9% of westerners do not need to kill animals for food and yet they do anyway. Not only that, most people obtain their animal products via factory farming, which is a haneous industry and most people know it and don't care.

I also think humane killing for unnecessary food is a contradiction. We can't say that killing humans for food is ok if it's done humanely. I don't see why such a premise should applied to animals since they are capable of suffering and they have the same instincts to stay alive as we do.

eta: in short, if I were to subscribe to most religions and religous texts I would have to compromise my morals.

 

[MemeBuster]

I recently had a similar discussion. I don't believe that morality is objective because it only applies to humans.

I think for every given situation, there is right and wrong [moral] answer. But what is important to note is that these answers erquire a good deal of qualification, are often close to each other, and depend on the details of the situations.


MB.

 

[ArcticKnight]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I don't think morality is a basic need. Food, water, breathable air and warmth are basic needs. In principle humans can survive without morality.[/FONT]

Please note that I never said that morality was a basic need. What I said was, "Our basic need for survival is the strongest influence on morality."

 

[cantata]

The well-being of the external world?

I have to say I'm not at all worried about the well-being of rocks or viruses or helium.