Where do our morals come from?

rgambs

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?  

PJ_Soul

Bad vid :(

rgambs

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.

Go Beavers

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_Soul

Go Beavers 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.

Go Beavers

PJ_Soul said:

Go Beavers 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.   

oftenreading

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

Go Beavers 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.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

PJ_Soul said:

Go Beavers 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.

Go Beavers

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. 

PJfanwillneverleave1

I think empathy once recognized in oneself is very hard to remove but if it was removed people are capable of regaining it.

brianlux

bootlegger10 said:

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. 

That depends on how you define "nature". Here are two common definitions of nature under which your premise do not hold true:

-Nature, n., the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

Nature, noun  1., the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

          2. the natural world as it exists with humans or civilization.

And yet there are definitions that would support your premise but only because they are definitions that are anthropocentric rather than biocentric in ... um... nature.

Smellyman

Empathy domain of Dems

Limited to no empathy domain of the bible thumping Cons