Where does morality come from?

[Moral Orel]

I agree! I agree it is good to make people feel good, and to be kind to them. I agree it is bad to make people feel bad and to be mean to them. But I think morality goes a bit further than that. I believe morality is more about what’s right and what you should do, and immorality is more about what’s wrong and what you should not do.

Good/right, bad/wrong... You should do good things and you should not do bad things (generally). You don't agree?

ETA Let's try to be a little less general. I believe the goal of morality is to have as many good things as possible (i.e. promote well-being), and as few bad things as possible (i.e. prevent suffering). Do you agree to that?

 

[stevevw]

So, answer the question, where is these morals placed? Are they physical or not?

Like many things such as love, faith, hope, anger, hate, spirituality, etc they are not material but immaterial and therefore more about philosophy and metaphysics. We cannot show evidence directly but indirectly.

Besides, we can see the brainfunctions of feelings like love. No real mystery there.

And we can see when someone feels guilty of a wrong as well in brain imaging. Lie detectors can also detect when someone has done something wrong or that they are not guilty of a wrong. But even more outstanding is we have tests that show even babies know right from wrong with behavioral tests.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like many things such as love, faith, hope, anger, hate, spirituality, etc they are not material but immaterial and therefore more about philosophy and metaphysics. We cannot show evidence directly but indirectly.

And we can see when someone feels guilty of a wrong as well in brain imaging. Lie detectors can also detect when someone has done something wrong or that they are not guilty of a wrong. But even more outstanding is we have tests that show even babies know right from wrong with behavioral tests.

Not quite, we can see certain ”fairness” that seems like an instinct. But intincts isnt something that supports ”objective morals”.

I reject the existance of metaphysics beyond our imagination.

And as you cant tell where ”objective morals” are located or what they entail its a meaningless concept. Its just someting you really really wish to be true so you can say that you are so very right in your values without the need to reflect.

 

[Ken-1122]

Good/right, bad/wrong... You should do good things and you should not do bad things (generally). You don't agree?

I agree you should not do bad things, but I don’t agree you should be required to do good things.

ETA Let's try to be a little less general. I believe the goal of morality is to have as many good things as possible (i.e. promote well-being), and as few bad things as possible (i.e. prevent suffering). Do you agree to that?

Perhaps one of the goals could be to prevent bad things, but I don’t think it is to promote good. When someone does good, they are going over and beyond their call of duty. Indifference is all that is morally required of us IMO

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree you should not do bad things, but I don’t agree you should be required to do good things.

Perhaps one of the goals could be to prevent bad things, but I don’t think it is to promote good. When someone does good, they are going over and beyond their call of duty. Indifference is all that is morally required of us IMO

Seems fair enough, but doesn't it take something extra to prevent bad things from happening? Don't you need to do good to prevent/stop the bad?

Say for instance you're walking down the street and witness a rape occurring. Cold indifference would mean that you just keep walking. Are you really saying that doing good, going above and beyond, is not something you should do? That a person who ignores it is not being immoral?

 

[Ken-1122]

Seems fair enough, but doesn't it take something extra to prevent bad things from happening? Don't you need to do good to prevent/stop the bad?

Say for instance you're walking down the street and witness a rape occurring. Cold indifference would mean that you just keep walking. Are you really saying that doing good, going above and beyond, is not something you should do? That a person who ignores it is not being immoral?

Good question. If I possibly risk my life to save a woman from such an attack, I am a hero. Hero’s are people who have gone over and beyond their call of duty. If I fear for my own safety and remain indifferent due to being a coward, I am not the immoral one the attacker is; all harsh judgments are to be directed at him

 

[Moral Orel]

Good question. If I possibly risk my life to save a woman from such an attack, I am a hero. Hero’s are people who have gone over and beyond their call of duty. If I fear for my own safety and remain indifferent due to being a coward, I am not the immoral one the attacker is; all harsh judgments are to be directed at him

If you don't help because of cowardice, then it isn't because of indifference.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you don't help because of cowardice, then it isn't because of indifference.

True. Let me phrase it this way; if the person who witness the attack and does not decide to become a hero, whatever his reasons for not getting involved I will not judge him immoral.

 

[Moral Orel]

True. Let me phrase it this way; if the person who witness the attack and does not decide to become a hero, whatever his reasons for not getting involved I will not judge him immoral.

I wouldn't call someone a hero for simply calling the cops or even simply saying, "Hey, cut that out!". I find it interesting that you keep phrasing it as though a person has only the choice of physically involving themselves or doing nothing. If they choose to do absolutely nothing about it because they simply don't care, there's nothing "wrong" with that. Even if they know they could stop it, even if they know that they won't be harmed in the process, there is no "one should do something". It's as though the old "Golden Rule" isn't even in your morality. You can feel that way if you want; I'm not saying you can't. It's just fascinating is all.

 

[Kylie]

So when someone condemns and objects to a wrong and may even take action in making a protest about it, such as with signs saying DV is wrong and perpetrators should be convicted you are saying they don't really mean what they are saying and making a stand for. It really isn't wrong but just something the person personally thinks is wrong so they may not be really right in making their stand and its not the truth.

You seem determined to misrepresent my position.

But your taste for oysters is not like how we talk about morality. As mentioned a moral right and wrong is equated to "likes and dislikes" under subjective morality. So if you claim that "eating Oysters is wrong" or "you should not eat Oysters" you are making an objective statement.

In saying oysters are always disgusting you are subjectively describing something. You are saying they are disgusting. Words like disgusting are adjectives (describing words) which makes it subjective. Whereas saying oysters are right or wrong you are putting a factual statement out there that (fact/truth) oysters are wrong.

Anything objective sticks to the facts, but anything subjective has feelings.
Objective and subjective are opposites.
Objective: It is raining. (Oysters are wrong)
Subjective: I love the rain! (oysters are always disgusting)
objective vs. subjective on Vocabulary.com

Therefore disgusting is a feeling word in which the subject is describing the taste of an Oyster to them regardless of how you want to structure the sentence.

Whereas "Oysters are wrong" or 'you should not eat oysters" or "you are right in eating oysters" are fact/truth statements. There is no subject in the statement, just a statement of fact.

I've already tried to explain it to you. I see no reason to further try to explain it when it's clear to me that you apparently just don't want to understand where I am coming from.

 

[Ken-1122]

I wouldn't call someone a hero for simply calling the cops or even simply saying, "Hey, cut that out!". I find it interesting that you keep phrasing it as though a person has only the choice of physically involving themselves or doing nothing. If they choose to do absolutely nothing about it because they simply don't care, there's nothing "wrong" with that. Even if they know they could stop it, even if they know that they won't be harmed in the process, there is no "one should do something". It's as though the old "Golden Rule" isn't even in your morality. You can feel that way if you want; I'm not saying you can't. It's just fascinating is all.

So if you consider chocolate ice cream to be morally good, are there any ice cream flavors you consider to be immoral?

 

[Moral Orel]

So if you consider chocolate ice cream to be morally good, are there any ice cream flavors you consider to be immoral?

It isn't the flavor itself that is moral or immoral. Choosing the best flavor for the situation is where morality comes in. See for me, I want to be moral, not just not immoral. I feel I should do good things, you seem to feel as though you only should not do bad things. (generally) So you likely can't relate to feeling you should do something good like making people happy. I'll explain, but I'm not going to bicker over it since we simply disagree fundamentally that there are "shoulds", not just "should nots".

My wife doesn't like chocolate, but she does like vanilla. She particularly loves Frosties from Wendy's. If I stop on my way home from work and pick up a chocolate Frosty for her, that was a bad thing to do (I shouldn't choose chocolate) if I stop and pick up a vanilla Frosty for her, that was a good thing to do (I should choose vanilla). So when I'm sitting in the drive-thru, planning to purchase a Frosty, I have a moral choice to make about the flavor of ice cream I purchase.

Now since I know you can't relate to that, I'm sure you can't relate to causing yourself to feel happy as a moral imperative. It can be taken too far, for sure, but maintaining a level of psychological contentedness is part of living a healthy life which is something I feel I should do, and if some chocolate ice cream makes me happy, it helps to maintain that contentedness. If I chose to eat something I despise like Rum Raisin, eating that would make me unhappy and diminish my contentedness.

 

[Ken-1122]

It isn't the flavor itself that is moral or immoral. Choosing the best flavor for the situation is where morality comes in. See for me, I want to be moral, not just not immoral. I feel I should do good things, you seem to feel as though you only should not do bad things. (generally) So you likely can't relate to feeling you should do something good like making people happy. I'll explain, but I'm not going to bicker over it since we simply disagree fundamentally that there are "shoulds", not just "should nots".

My wife doesn't like chocolate, but she does like vanilla. She particularly loves Frosties from Wendy's. If I stop on my way home from work and pick up a chocolate Frosty for her, that was a bad thing to do (I shouldn't choose chocolate) if I stop and pick up a vanilla Frosty for her, that was a good thing to do (I should choose vanilla). So when I'm sitting in the drive-thru, planning to purchase a Frosty, I have a moral choice to make about the flavor of ice cream I purchase.

Now since I know you can't relate to that, I'm sure you can't relate to causing yourself to feel happy as a moral imperative. It can be taken too far, for sure, but maintaining a level of psychological contentedness is part of living a healthy life which is something I feel I should do, and if some chocolate ice cream makes me happy, it helps to maintain that contentedness. If I chose to eat something I despise like Rum Raisin, eating that would make me unhappy and diminish my contentedness.

So if I understand you correctly, you consider it moral to eat things you like, and immoral to eat things you don’t like; is that correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

So if I understand you correctly, you consider it moral to eat things you like, and immoral to eat things you don’t like; is that correct?

Generally.

 

[Ken-1122]

Generally.

How about if you eat something you don't like to spare someone's feelings?

 

[Moral Orel]

How about if you eat something you don't like to spare someone's feelings?

When we make a decisions, differing morals are going to come into conflict a lot. "Eat what tastes good" is a guideline I shoot for, and "Make people happy" is a guideline I shoot for. Sometimes you can't do both. That's why they're general principles. Things aren't absolute like they would be with objectivity.

 

[Ken-1122]

When we make a decisions, differing morals are going to come into conflict a lot. "Eat what tastes good" is a guideline I shoot for, and "Make people happy" is a guideline I shoot for. Sometimes you can't do both. That's why they're general principles. Things aren't absolute like they would be with objectivity.

So if I understand you correctly, in order to remain moral I have to offer help, or at least react in some type of supporting way when I see someone in distress, is this right?
Consider the following scenarios and the minimum support required of me in order to refrain from being immoral

1 A woman is being attacked, but she was walking in a dangerous neighborhood at night where attacks have been known

2 An attractive woman offended when she is whistled at and the subject of cat calls as she walks by a construction site

3 A gang member is wearing his gang colors In a rival gang’s territory, and is being attacked by rival gang members

4 A runaway/street kid has joined a street family and is being disciplined/beaten up by senior members of his street family for getting his hair cut when he was told not to

5 A mother is spanking her naughty child in a public place

6 A person is visibly upset after losing a large amount of money at a Casino

What level of reaction/support is required of me in the following scenarios in order to not become immoral, and why.

 

[Moral Orel]

So if I understand you correctly, in order to remain moral I have to offer help, or at least react in some type of supporting way when I see someone in distress, is this right?

This is weird... Why are you asking this now? This doesn't have anything to do with the thing you quoted. I said something about this earlier, sure. But you're just dropping the subject of chocolate ice cream as a moral issue and going back?

How about you go back and read what I said about this?

 

[Ken-1122]

This is weird... Why are you asking this now? This doesn't have anything to do with the thing you quoted. I said something about this earlier, sure. But you're just dropping the subject of chocolate ice cream as a moral issue and going back?

How about you go back and read what I said about this?

I think it's all related. I'm just trying to figure out this method to your madness. (as they say)

 

[Moral Orel]

I think it's all related. I'm just trying to figure out this method to your madness. (as they say)

Is it any different from most other folks, really? I value some things, I value the absence of some things, all to varying amounts of value and I try to juggle those values and weigh them against each other as best I feel I'm able. I'm sure there are some things I value that some people don't, I'm sure there are some things I value the absence of that some people value the presence of. What seems so strange about it? That I have "shoulds" in my morality? That's normal. Are you just curious about what I happen to value? That's boring.