Where do our morals come from?

riley540riley540 Denver Colorado Posts: 1,128
I'm not sure if I believe in a higher power or not. It's something I've thought about a lot. I was thinking about my morals that I carry as a person and can't get passed thinking my morality comes from something bigger. I just don't really know, and was wondering other people's thoughts. 
«1

Comments

  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    From our parents, from our experiences, from our desires...
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    I see morality as a very simple thing.
    Everyone feels pain.  Humans have empathy.  Empathising with another's pain creates a desire to avoid causing pain. 
    Simple.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,592
    edited May 2017
    One answer is here.  But it's not a quick read:



    The text book definition of sociobiology is "A field of scientific study that is based on the hypothesis that social behavior has resulted from evolution and attempts to examine and explain social behavior within that context."  But it's much more complicated than that.  And very astute thinkers have argue over this and the "nature vs nurture" dispute endlessly so it's not likely that we'll see a consensus here.  Wilson's argument holds more water to me than that of, say Gould, but who am I to prove it?  No easy task.  And then all this leads us to questions that lead to endless debates like, "Are humans so intelligent and advanced that we are something bigger than biological beings?"  Again, I lean strongly toward the ecological sciences and say, no, we are animals, we're a product of our genetics and evolution.  At least that's what makes sense to me. 
    Post edited by brianlux on
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    rgambs said:
    From our parents, from our experiences, from our desires...
    This.  And your post after.

    It really CAN be that simple.

    But, as sometimes-complex beings, I think the concept of morality might get fucked up in the process of life.
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,303
    brianlux said:
    One answer is here.  But it's not a quick read:



    The text book definition of sociobiology is "A field of scientific study that is based on the hypothesis that social behavior has resulted from evolution and attempts to examine and explain social behavior within that context."  But it's much more complicated than that.  And very astute thinkers have argue over this and the "nature vs nurture" dispute endlessly so it's not likely that we'll see a consensus here.  Wilson's argument holds more water to me than that of, say Gould, but who am I to prove it?  No easy task.  And then all this leads us to questions that lead to endless debates like, "Are humans so intelligent and advanced that we are something bigger than biological beings?"  Again, I lean strongly toward the ecological sciences and say, no, we are animals, we're a product of our genetics and evolution.  At least that's what makes sense to me. 
    Nailed it.
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    I don't think morality necessarily equates with intelligence or advancement, though...nor with ego.

    Moreso, for me, with compassion, whether innate or learned (or both).  The golden fucking rule.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    hedonist said:
    I don't think morality necessarily equates with intelligence or advancement, though...nor with ego.

    Moreso, for me, with compassion, whether innate or learned (or both).  The golden fucking rule.
    Yeah but you have to be intelligent and advanced enough to experience empathy to even understand compassion.
    A cockroach has no concept of morality, it can't conceive of anything beyond itself.  
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • When a theist asks how can we have an absolute morality without God we must say that it serves a purpose. Morality serves the desire of a species living together in close proximity. We do not need a perfect version of morality to meet the societal want. Any version of it is better than no version at all. When human beings built the first bridges they did not have an image of the Golden Gate Bridge to work toward, just as the Wright brothers

    first airplane was not a failure to build the Concord. Morality exists because there is a desire for it to exist. It increases the quality of life. We see this throughout human history. As morality reaches higher and higher standards and these standards become accepted we in turn make higher demands of our moral code. We then begin to see that morality is a process of positive feedback. Just as building the first bridge meant not having to walk as far and freed time for us to pursue desires instead of needs, developing moral codes allowed us to have less fear of others within society which allows us more time to think about what we want instead of guarding against every stranger we encounter. We also can now see that as communication, travel and other technologies are at the beginnings of creating a global society, morality is once again evolving, as we demand more from it. Now that we have closer contacts with other countries, nationalism has become xenophobia and righteous persecution towards LGBT has become homophobia. Keep in mind that religious texts have remained the same for these changes and many more.

    Morality, like any other humanity pleased an aesthetic and evolved, as we demanded more from it. As Mozart was not content to forever bang on drums as cavemen did but instead endeavored to create something ever more complex, beautiful and pleasing so does humanity endlessly strive to throw off Bronze Age morality and create a world more beautiful and pleasing for ALL its inhabitants. 

    https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/a-refute-to-morality-from-god/

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    rgambs said:
    I see morality as a very simple thing.
    Everyone feels pain.  Humans have empathy.  Empathising with another's pain creates a desire to avoid causing pain. 
    Simple.
    I agree.

    They sure don't come from religion. If someone thinks they need religion to be moral, I think that person may very well be immoral after all.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,592
    When a theist asks how can we have an absolute morality without God we must say that it serves a purpose. Morality serves the desire of a species living together in close proximity. We do not need a perfect version of morality to meet the societal want. Any version of it is better than no version at all. When human beings built the first bridges they did not have an image of the Golden Gate Bridge to work toward, just as the Wright brothers

    first airplane was not a failure to build the Concord. Morality exists because there is a desire for it to exist. It increases the quality of life. We see this throughout human history. As morality reaches higher and higher standards and these standards become accepted we in turn make higher demands of our moral code. We then begin to see that morality is a process of positive feedback. Just as building the first bridge meant not having to walk as far and freed time for us to pursue desires instead of needs, developing moral codes allowed us to have less fear of others within society which allows us more time to think about what we want instead of guarding against every stranger we encounter. We also can now see that as communication, travel and other technologies are at the beginnings of creating a global society, morality is once again evolving, as we demand more from it. Now that we have closer contacts with other countries, nationalism has become xenophobia and righteous persecution towards LGBT has become homophobia. Keep in mind that religious texts have remained the same for these changes and many more.

    Morality, like any other humanity pleased an aesthetic and evolved, as we demanded more from it. As Mozart was not content to forever bang on drums as cavemen did but instead endeavored to create something ever more complex, beautiful and pleasing so does humanity endlessly strive to throw off Bronze Age morality and create a world more beautiful and pleasing for ALL its inhabitants. 

    https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/a-refute-to-morality-from-god/

    Oh rats!  I thought this was going to be an "atheist, a priest and a cross dresser walk into a bar" joke.

    But, yeah, Dawkins is interesting too.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    I see morality as a very simple thing.
    Everyone feels pain.  Humans have empathy.  Empathising with another's pain creates a desire to avoid causing pain. 
    Simple.
    I agree.

    They sure don't come from religion. If someone thinks they need religion to be moral, I think that person may very well be immoral after all.
    It doesn't necessarily come from religion, but certainly can come from that path.  It works for some, it worked for my father,and my grandmother died for it in a horrible fucking way.  Neither were "immoral" (how is that defined, anyway?) and while I get many eschew religion itself (as I do, in ways), to deem them as such seems short-sighted and lacking compassion, understanding.

    Some tenets are worthy, and I am a testament to that.  Who knows if I'd have the same level of integrity without it?  In the end, who cares? 

    My two cents and not looking to change anyone's open minds.
  • SmellymanSmellyman Asia Posts: 4,517
    You think it worked for them or they could just be good people. (most likely)


    With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    hedonist said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    I see morality as a very simple thing.
    Everyone feels pain.  Humans have empathy.  Empathising with another's pain creates a desire to avoid causing pain. 
    Simple.
    I agree.

    They sure don't come from religion. If someone thinks they need religion to be moral, I think that person may very well be immoral after all.
    It doesn't necessarily come from religion, but certainly can come from that path.  It works for some, it worked for my father,and my grandmother died for it in a horrible fucking way.  Neither were "immoral" (how is that defined, anyway?) and while I get many eschew religion itself (as I do, in ways), to deem them as such seems short-sighted and lacking compassion, understanding.

    Some tenets are worthy, and I am a testament to that.  Who knows if I'd have the same level of integrity without it?  In the end, who cares? 

    My two cents and not looking to change anyone's open minds.
    I don't doubt it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • jnimhaoileoinjnimhaoileoin Baile Átha Cliath Posts: 2,682
    My morals come from my mother, plain and simple
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    rgambs said:
    hedonist said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    rgambs said:
    I see morality as a very simple thing.
    Everyone feels pain.  Humans have empathy.  Empathising with another's pain creates a desire to avoid causing pain. 
    Simple.
    I agree.

    They sure don't come from religion. If someone thinks they need religion to be moral, I think that person may very well be immoral after all.
    It doesn't necessarily come from religion, but certainly can come from that path.  It works for some, it worked for my father,and my grandmother died for it in a horrible fucking way.  Neither were "immoral" (how is that defined, anyway?) and while I get many eschew religion itself (as I do, in ways), to deem them as such seems short-sighted and lacking compassion, understanding.

    Some tenets are worthy, and I am a testament to that.  Who knows if I'd have the same level of integrity without it?  In the end, who cares? 

    My two cents and not looking to change anyone's open minds.
    I don't doubt it.
    Neither do I. (and FWIW, in the end, I care. I consider religion and everything it entails, including its role in morality or lack thereof one of the world's most important and profound issues).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • THE LOOKTHE LOOK Posts: 324
    For me.... it's passed on by our relatives and others that have morals. However, I do think for some people it's spiritual as well. 
    Bigfoot is blurry.
    - Mitch Hedberg
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 15,489

    If not from God, then everything is part of nature.  We chalk up the way birds flock together or how a pride of lions interact with each other to nature.  No difference with how humans interact.  There is no right or wrong then, just what the general consensus is at that point in time.    If we blow up the world with nuclear weapons it is all part of nature.  If the world is frozen over in an ice age, or is boiling in a heat wave, it is nature. 



  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    edited May 2017
    THE LOOK said:
    For me.... it's passed on by our relatives and others that have morals. However, I do think for some people it's spiritual as well. 
    I might think that, except for the fact that I've known people who have been surrounded by terrible people without morals and turned out to be very moral people themselves, and vice versa. I personally think that being a moral person is largely something you're born with (or not). I feel like the impact of the psychological and emotional disposition that one starts out with in this world is often quite underestimated. Yes, nurture absolutely plays a big role ... but I believe how one responds to that nurturing is wholly dependent on that inborn disposition. I'm sure such a theory is one some don't want to believe, because it kind of condemns those who are born without a disposition that lends itself to morality to a life of immorality, or at least one without empathy .... dems da breaks. Just based on my own experiences and observations in life, I don't feel that empathy is a learned trait. What you do with empathy (or with a lack of it) is largely learned, but not empathy itself.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • riley540riley540 Denver Colorado Posts: 1,128
    Humans have the ability to follow laws and rules, and most laws are based off of right and wrong. Being moral means in the right. Almost as if they are laws of nature. The more I think about things the deeper in a hole I get and the more plosible a higher power seems. At least to me 
  • I know that if I meet god I'm gonna kick him right between the uprights for not giving everyone morals.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    riley540 said:
    Humans have the ability to follow laws and rules, and most laws are based off of right and wrong. Being moral means in the right. Almost as if they are laws of nature. The more I think about things the deeper in a hole I get and the more plosible a higher power seems. At least to me 
    Morality is not nearly so simple as right and wrong.
    Is stealing wrong?
    If you are stubbornly sitting on a pile of food that is going to rot because you couldn't possibly eat it all and I steal some for my starving child, is that wrong?  Is it immoral?  
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    edited May 2017
    Bad vid :(

    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    edited May 2017
    It comes down to empathy and suffering.  God vs nature isn't really relevant.  If you don't have empathy you can't conceive of others' suffering.  If you do have the capacity for empathy, morality is the name we give to systems of avoiding the causation of suffering. 
    An act which causes suffering is immoral, an act which causes no suffering is amoral, and an act which alleviates suffering is moral.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,586
    I believe everyone is good at their core being (empathic, etc), and experiences over time can bury that empathy in a person. Morals are also guided by culture. Western, consumer based culture teaches us to normalize interactions in a system that are harmful to others. 
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    edited May 2017
    I believe everyone is good at their core being (empathic, etc), and experiences over time can bury that empathy in a person. Morals are also guided by culture. Western, consumer based culture teaches us to normalize interactions in a system that are harmful to others. 
    I've known very young children who quite obviously had very little empathy, despite their parents having it. There is also a very huge body of research about children who were very clearly born psychopathic or sociopathic. Obviously, from that, I don't at all believe that everyone is born good. I don't feel like there is any actual evidence suggesting such a premise - there is only evidence to the contrary. I think some people are certainly born good though.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,586
    PJ_Soul said:
    I believe everyone is good at their core being (empathic, etc), and experiences over time can bury that empathy in a person. Morals are also guided by culture. Western, consumer based culture teaches us to normalize interactions in a system that are harmful to others. 
    I've known very young children who quite obviously had very little empathy, despite their parents having it. There is also a very huge body of research about children who were very clearly born psychopathic or sociopathic. Obviously, from that, I don't at all believe that everyone is born good. I don't feel like there is any actual evidence suggesting such a premise - there is only evidence to the contrary. I think some people are certainly born good though.
    It's my own personal theory after working with a lot of people who have done a lot of messed up shit. Most mental health professionals hesitate to label kids in the 8 to 12 range as psycho/sociopathic, so there's even more hesitancy when their younger. Definately infants can be exposed to trauma, isolation/lack of connection to others, and their brain not developing correctly any of which can inhibit empathy.   
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,821
    PJ_Soul said:
    I believe everyone is good at their core being (empathic, etc), and experiences over time can bury that empathy in a person. Morals are also guided by culture. Western, consumer based culture teaches us to normalize interactions in a system that are harmful to others. 
    I've known very young children who quite obviously had very little empathy, despite their parents having it. There is also a very huge body of research about children who were very clearly born psychopathic or sociopathic. Obviously, from that, I don't at all believe that everyone is born good. I don't feel like there is any actual evidence suggesting such a premise - there is only evidence to the contrary. I think some people are certainly born good though.
    It's my own personal theory after working with a lot of people who have done a lot of messed up shit. Most mental health professionals hesitate to label kids in the 8 to 12 range as psycho/sociopathic, so there's even more hesitancy when their younger. Definately infants can be exposed to trauma, isolation/lack of connection to others, and their brain not developing correctly any of which can inhibit empathy.   

    Sure, very few people would actually diagnose/"label" a child as a psychopath, but that doesn't mean there aren't clear indicators from very early on in some individuals that go on to fit that label in adulthood.

    You also have to bear in mind that most small children appear psychopathic at times, given the natural emotional immaturity and self-centredness.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 49,473
    edited May 2017
    PJ_Soul said:
    I believe everyone is good at their core being (empathic, etc), and experiences over time can bury that empathy in a person. Morals are also guided by culture. Western, consumer based culture teaches us to normalize interactions in a system that are harmful to others. 
    I've known very young children who quite obviously had very little empathy, despite their parents having it. There is also a very huge body of research about children who were very clearly born psychopathic or sociopathic. Obviously, from that, I don't at all believe that everyone is born good. I don't feel like there is any actual evidence suggesting such a premise - there is only evidence to the contrary. I think some people are certainly born good though.
    It's my own personal theory after working with a lot of people who have done a lot of messed up shit. Most mental health professionals hesitate to label kids in the 8 to 12 range as psycho/sociopathic, so there's even more hesitancy when their younger. Definately infants can be exposed to trauma, isolation/lack of connection to others, and their brain not developing correctly any of which can inhibit empathy.   
    I still believe that you're born with or without empathy. I think you either have the capacity for it or you don't. I definitely don't think a lack of empathy is always attributable to some illness or defect or trauma, though I won't deny that in some cases that could be the cause. Being born without empathy isn't the ONLY reason one might not have any. But I strongly feel that it is one of the main reasons.
    There are a few reasons mental health experts won't label young children that way, but from what I know (from documentaries and reading), it's not because children can't be born with psychopathy/sociopathy or a severe lack of empathy.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 8,586
    I'm not sure how they would gauge lack of empathy in an infant. It's something that surfaces as the child grows and develops. A lot can happen in the first year that may impair the ability to develop empathy, so I'm hesistant to say it's something the kid was born with. 
  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited May 2017
    I think empathy once recognized in oneself is very hard to remove but if it was removed people are capable of regaining it.
Sign In or Register to comment.