Where does morality come from?

[MemeBuster]

I think one convincing answer is that morality is a [by]product of human evolution.

Gods' men typically plagiarized evolutionary moral codes and attributed them to their gods, often without adding much value themselves. This is the reason why, for example, the Ten Commandments those not have anything useful in it that people of the time did not already know.


MB.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I am curious. How do you judge what is moral, and what is not? I ask because I can see this going in two major ways:

1.) Things that support humanity from an evolutionary perspective are moral

and

2.) Things that are generally agreed upon (and thus are probably in the nature of humanity) are moral.

I suppose ideally you'd have to both, because if it doesn't support evolutionary directives it isn't really evidence towards evolutionary morality, and if it isn't at least somewhat agreed upon then it doesn't' seem to be that effective of evolutionary impulse.

 

[allhart]

I think one convincing answer is that morality is a [by]product of human evolution.

Gods' men typically plagiarized evolutionary moral codes and attributed them to their gods, often without adding much value themselves. This is the reason why, for example, the Ten Commandments those not have anything useful in it that people of the time did not already know.


MB.

One equation to any answer their must be belief , faith.or it is in other word s it would be "whatever " There is some truth to plagiarized
,but there is some discerning needing still some more consideration. The start of Good and evil. Logic ,reasoning , understanding.A creator , To many variables not addressed. A beginning and an end. In other words the rest of life is ill logical unexplainable Past present or future and unexceptionable in my life ,eye's. I have a beginning and an end even though you have unbelief, no faith or hope.

 

[MemeBuster]

I am curious. How do you judge what is moral, and what is not?

I would say what contributes to the welfare of human beings (and other life-forms) and the continuation of human civilization, should be considered moral [from our point of view].

There are some obvious exmples: it is immoral to discourage people in AIDS ravaged Africa from using condoms. It is moral to treat our environment with care.

But determining what contributes to the welfare of human beings and the continuation of human civilization is a very complex task and therefore the question of what is moral/immoral is often difficult to answer. We often find ourselves having to choose between the lesser of two evils.


MB.

 

[MoonlessNight]

But determining what contributes to the welfare of human beings and the continuation of human civilization is a very complex task and therefore the question of what is moral/immoral is often difficult to answer. We often find ourselves having to choose between the lesser of two evils.

I suppose this makes me wonder something further, this morality you speak of, is it evolutionary instinct or evolutionary imperative? What I mean is how much of what is moral is ingrained in us, and how much of it must we figure out ourselves? The way you describe it it falls to our reason primarily to figure out what is moral and immoral, and the evolutionary framework simply feeds in the goal of "it is moral to further human civilization." Would this be an accurate assessment?

 

[MemeBuster]

I would say it is a combination of both.

It is ingrained in most people to abhor cannibalism and incest. But there are also things that we figure out ourselves and then evolutionary forces punish/reward our decisions. For example, intelligent life-forms that choose to make large and small sacrifices in order to take care of their environments are more likely to surive and reproduce than those that don't.


MB.

 

[Crazy Liz]

From an evolutionary and neuroscientific standpoint, morality/ethics is like language. Human beings are hardwired for both in terms of capacity. However, which moral/ethical system you adopt is as dependent on your society and culture as whether you will speak English or Mandarin.

 

[Canuckmom]

I think one convincing answer is that morality is a [by]product of human evolution.

Gods' men typically plagiarized evolutionary moral codes and attributed them to their gods, often without adding much value themselves. This is the reason why, for example, the Ten Commandments those not have anything useful in it that people of the time did not already know.


MB.

Man needs a solid standard as his basis of morality. If we reject the Ten Commandments then what will be your standard of morality?

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

"Morality" specifically is a Judeo-Christian concept...but if we're talking about morality/ethics or generally what is right...

It comes from evolution, imo. It's transience and ultimate meaningless don't really matter to me--we do what is in our hearts and that's what is right.

 

[MoonlessNight]

"Morality" specifically is a Judeo-Christian concept...but if we're talking about morality/ethics or generally what is right...

It comes from evolution, imo. It's transience and ultimate meaningless don't really matter to me--we do what is in our hearts and that's what is right.

If what we do is what is in our hearts, and if what is in our hearts is right, then what is wrong?

What I mean to say is that looking at things this way seems to take much of the value out of the term "right" because it isn't describing anything in particular in regards to human actions.

 

[Avatar]

.

 

[Canuckmom]

"Morality" specifically is a Judeo-Christian concept...but if we're talking about morality/ethics or generally what is right...

It comes from evolution, imo. It's transience and ultimate meaningless don't really matter to me--we do what is in our hearts and that's what is right.

So then I can be my own standard. What if it comes in my heart to rob or shoot you?

I think I'd rather trust what the Bible says about the human heart.
Jerimiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;....

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

If what we do is what is in our hearts, and if what is in our hearts is right, then what is wrong?

What I mean to say is that looking at things this way seems to take much of the value out of the term "right" because it isn't describing anything in particular in regards to human actions.

I can understand the absolutist position as I used to agree with it...but now I don't see why 'right' has to have an absolute meaning. We can all agree that certain actions are appalling to any moral code (eg rape, unjustified and unnecessary killing, genocide etc etc) but can look at things differently.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

So then I can be my own standard. What if it comes in my heart to rob or shoot you?

I think I'd rather trust what the Bible says about the human heart.
Jerimiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;....

If that is what your heart tells you to do then it's still wrong. Sorry if what I said sounded too absolute. But I'd definitely think morals aren't absolute and can/should be adjusted.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I can understand the absolutist position as I used to agree with it...but now I don't see why 'right' has to have an absolute meaning. We can all agree that certain actions are appalling to any moral code (eg rape, unjustified and unnecessary killing, genocide etc etc) but can look at things differently.

Well while I do believe in an objective morality which is absolute in certain senses, that really wasn't what I was getting at.

What I meant is that even without an objective moral framework, words, in order to be useful, have to have some sort of strict definition. In a subjective morality actions may not be absolutely right or wrong but they are still right or wrong in some subjective sense.

What I took you as saying is that the only sensible measure of right and wrong comes from the person carrying out the action, along with the statement that people do what they think is right. And looking at it that way it seemed that the word loses usefulness, because wrong actions wouldn't occur in a meaningful sense.

But I guess perhaps they could be useful as comparative terms, showing the difference between what I think is right and what you think is right. I didn't think about that when reading your original post is all.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Well while I do believe in an objective morality which is absolute in certain senses, that really wasn't what I was getting at.

What I meant is that even without an objective moral framework, words, in order to be useful, have to have some sort of strict definition. In a subjective morality actions may not be absolutely right or wrong but they are still right or wrong in some subjective sense.

What I took you as saying is that the only sensible measure of right and wrong comes from the person carrying out the action, along with the statement that people do what they think is right. And looking at it that way it seemed that the word loses usefulness, because wrong actions wouldn't occur in a meaningful sense.

But I guess perhaps they could be useful as comparative terms, showing the difference between what I think is right and what you think is right. I didn't think about that when reading your original post is all.

Oh I see! Fair enough, I'd understand how you'd get that from what I posted. I did mean that morality has meaning generally, but not absolutely, imo.

 

[IzzyPop]

What I meant is that even without an objective moral framework, words, in order to be useful, have to have some sort of strict definition. In a subjective morality actions may not be absolutely right or wrong but they are still right or wrong in some subjective sense.

To carry your analogy a bit further: While words at the present time have a strict meaning, that meaning can change over time. Same with morals. What was moral 200 years ago may not be so today. Personally, that is where the absolutist stance falls down for me.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So then I can be my own standard. What if it comes in my heart to rob or shoot you?

I think I'd rather trust what the Bible says about the human heart.
Jerimiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;....

Then that same human heart will interpret the bible to support the morality it has. So humans have done throughout history.

The idea that there is an absolute morality such as the bible is nonsense. Throughout history all humans have formed their own moral ideas and used authorities (such as the bible) to support those ideas. That's why even today, people claiming the bible as the source of their morals still wildly disagree about what is and isn't moral.

 

[cantata]

I think one convincing answer is that morality is a [by]product of human evolution.

Gods' men typically plagiarized evolutionary moral codes and attributed them to their gods, often without adding much value themselves. This is the reason why, for example, the Ten Commandments those not have anything useful in it that people of the time did not already know.


MB.

Do you mean "Where do our moral feelings come from?" or "What is the basis of correct morality?"

Our moral feelings almost certainly come from a mixture of evolutionary drives and social conditioning. To say that the products of evolution are the correct basis for a moral system, however, is to commit the naturalistic fallacy: simply because we are a certain way does not necessarily mean that we should be that way.

 

[MoonlessNight]

To carry your analogy a bit further: While words at the present time have a strict meaning, that meaning can change over time. Same with morals. What was moral 200 years ago may not be so today. Personally, that is where the absolutist stance falls down for me.

It's somewhat humorous to me that you have also responded to what I posted in a rebuttal of objective morality when really that isn't what I was talking about at all in that quote. I merely meant that to have productive philosophical conversations, we must use strict definitions and those definitions must be useful in some sense. Sure we certainly could use other definitions, but the conversation wouldn't go anywhere. That's all.

Though I do feel compelled to note that your expansions is flawed because it assumes a subjective morality. You say that morality has changed over 200 years, but all we can say is that the common interpretation has changed. If this common interpretation defines morality, then yes it has changed, but if that is the case it was never distinct from human opinion anyway.

Though I suppose you could say that this means that an objective morality may be too hard to determine to be practical, but I've never really found practical arguments all too compelling.