Where do our morals come from?

riley540

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. 

rgambs

From our parents, from our experiences, from our desires...

rgambs

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.

brianlux

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. 

hedonist

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.

dignin

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.

hedonist

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.

rgambs

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.  

PJfanwillneverleave1

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_Soul

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.

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

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.

hedonist

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.

Smellyman

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.

rgambs

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.

jnimhaoileoin

My morals come from my mother, plain and simple

PJ_Soul

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).

THE LOOK

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. 

bootlegger10

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_Soul

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.

riley540

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 

PJfanwillneverleave1

I know that if I meet god I'm gonna kick him right between the uprights for not giving everyone morals.