Where does morality comes from?

[Aura]

Why humans have the sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad and how do me know that it is true? do you believe there is true kindness, charity and generosity in human nature? are we really altruistic or selfish? Does morality comes from God or it is product or evolution?

Im curious to see what certain members think about this, I already have my opinion about this :)

[Drawing-slim]

Why humans have the sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad and how do me know that it is true? do you believe there is true kindness, charity and generosity in human nature? are we really altruistic or selfish? Does morality comes from God or it is product or evolution?

Im curious to see what certain members think about this, I already have my opinion about this :)

I think there's a good long doscussion thread on this somewhere.

[Superbia]

This sums it up pretty well:

NcS22Iy7was

Well, "the sense of good and bad"... before all those terms where corrupted by Christianity and its moral designed for the empowerment of sheeps and slaves, every positive moral term had the connotation of noble, aristocratic, powerful, beautiful. Greek "agathos" was used in the phrase "kalos kai agathos", "good and beautiful", and "good" here means the spiritual disposition that accompanies such a body as of an sculpture and such a will as that of a proud warrior. Latin "virtus" from "vir", force, manliness. Good is everything that enhances and raises the human powers and affirms its life as intense, strong, capable of pain as well as of refinement, a life that knows itself superior. Everything else is corrupted, nihilistic, anti-natural and decadent.

"The symbol of this battle, written in a script which has remained legible through all human history up to the present, is called “Rome Against Judea, Judea Against Rome.”" (F. Nietzsche)

[Aura]

I like Richard Dawkins explanation and the roots of morality in evolution!

[Superbia]

I like Richard Dawkins explanation and the roots of morality in evolution!

I tend to mistrust such approaches relying only in evolution, because they lack a criteria for judging which forms of life are superior to others: often the mediocre prevail and show better adaptation.

[morski]

Depends mostly(though not entirely*) on the traditions and practices of the culture in which one was socialised and conditioned to, imo.

*That part is going into metaphysics and I'm not particularly keen on getting there.:D

[Virtuous]

Some say that it's because it's taught to us since childhood and it's not something innate.

But if that's really true, how did the first people who started teaching morality know about it in the first place?

[Virtuous]

I think it is indeed about evolution, when we started to live together starting as small gatherings and developed a conscience we had to establish moral codes in order to survive and live peacefully, later these moral codes have evolved because of influences like religion and such.

[Drawing-slim]

I like Richard Dawkins explanation and the roots of morality in evolution!Interesting you bring this up because when I observe Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens I start thinking that there must be a god. And i'm not religious by any means, but these two just dont put me at ease on that regard. Just the way they look..:D

[Virtuous]

I think it is indeed about evolution, when we started to live together starting as small gatherings and developed a conscience we had to establish moral codes in order to survive and live peacefully, later these moral codes have evolved because of influences like religion and such.

I also have to add, today's individualist Capitalist system where everyone is selfish and thinks for himself has led the people become less moral and to develop a nihilistic attitude.

[Aura]

I tend to mistrust such approaches relying only in evolution, because they lack a criteria for judging which forms of life are superior to others: often the mediocre prevail and show better adaptation.

Well the only real explanation till now is through evolution and natural selection. a lot of experiments showed that animals tend to care for, share resources with, warn of danger or show altruism towards close kin bcs of statistical likelihood that kin will share copies of the same gene.
The other type of altruism is reciprocical altruism(you scratch my back I scratch yours) The bee needs nectar and the flower needs pollinating, flowers cant fly so they pay bees with nectar, The hunter needs a spear and the smith wants meet. So I think the kinship and reciproation of altruism is totally Darwinian!

[Virtuous]

The hunter needs a spear and the smith wants meet. So I think the kinship and reciproation of altruism is totally Darwinian!

Caveman approves.

[Aura]

Caveman approves.
Go for hunting we have 8 kids :D

[Virtuous]

Go for hunting we have 8 kids :D

Caveman rather be eaten alive by a pack of hungry wolves.

[ficuscarica]

If it comes from evolution it is completely worthless, because it is absolutely relative.

It would be just a compilation of feelings that come from material processes. Moral wouldn´t be good or bad, but just a complex mechanism of matter maintaining matter for no purpose whatsoever. If it is just about "existence", we stand there with the question: What makes existence good?
Maybe it is bad, wrong, evil, or whatever that we exist.

Ultimately moral needs an eternal law/God/being to be based on, or it will be relative and thus, in the end of all questioning, completely baseless.
Otherwise you just can´t even say why the feeling of pain is morally right or wrong, you just can´t even say why existing is good or bad, you can´t even say why compassion is good or bad. Without an eternal "it was always good/bad and it will always be" this is simply impossible. If you doubt it... try it, and I will proof my point to you.

[Aura]

If it comes from evolution it is completely worthless, because it is absolutely relative.

It would be just a compilation of feelings that come from material processes. Moral wouldn´t be good or bad, but just a complex mechanism of matter maintaining matter for no purpose whatsoever. If it is just about "existence", we stand there with the question: What makes existence good?
Maybe it is bad, wrong, evil, or whatever that we exist.

Ultimately moral needs an eternal source or it will be relative and thus, in the end of all questioning, completely baseless.

It is relative but not worthless or baseless

@drawing have you read any of Richard Dawkins books, or you have seen just the debates? its really a big difference, and dont get it why you find him pointless, compared to his opponents he is the master.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Religion and social control.

The divine is actually amoral.

[ficuscarica]

It is relative but not worthless or baseless

It then has a basis, but a basis without a basis, and thus no worth.

[morski]

If it comes from evolution it is completely worthless, because it is absolutely relative.

It would be just a compilation of feelings that come from material processes. Moral wouldn´t be good or bad, but just a complex mechanism of matter maintaining matter for no purpose whatsoever. If it is just about "existence", we stand there with the question: What makes existence good?
Maybe it is bad, wrong, evil, or whatever that we exist.

Ultimately moral needs an eternal law/God/being to be based on, or it will be relative and thus, in the end of all questioning, completely baseless.
Otherwise you just can´t even say why the feeling of pain is morally right or wrong, you just can´t even say why existing is good or bad, you can´t even say why compassion is good or bad. Without an eternal "it was always good/bad and it will always be" this is simply impossible. If you doubt it... try it, and I will proof my point to you.


Some would argue you are God, hence no need for "eternal law/God/being".

[Aura]

It then has a basis, but a basis without a basis, and thus no worth.

Not everything has a base or purpose and that doesnt make it worthless, why everything should have a base or purpose?! a purpose may have no purpose, it makes sense too

[ficuscarica]

Not everything has a base or purpose and that doesnt make it worthless, why everything should have a base or purpose?! a purpose may have no purpose, it makes sense too

You don´t even have a basis for the word "worth" without an eternal law of good or bad. On what do you base "worth"? On your feeling? Your reasoning? How can you know that what you feel or think to be of "worth" ultimately isn´t completely worthless or even bad?

[ficuscarica]

Some would argue you are God, hence no need for "eternal law/God/being".

Ok, putting yourself as the absolute. But that is absurde, because I exactly know that I have a beginning and an end - a very small frame of time, and also abilities.

[Aura]

You don´t even have a basis for the word "worth" without an eternal law of good or bad. On what do you base "worth"? On your feeling? Your reasoning? How can you know that what you feel or think to be of "worth" ultimately isn´t completely worthless or even bad?

and what is that etarnal law that gives us the basis for the word 'worth' can it be proven in empirical way? if yes explain if not than its unworthy.

We already have the definitions what is bad and what is evil according to human experience.

[Hayalet]

Well, there is the idea that all actions are selfish; when someone commits an act of altruism, he/she feels good about himself, and has personal satisfaction at least in some way. But in the end this is unfalsifiable, so I am not very fond of it.


Ultimately moral needs an eternal law/God/being to be based on, or it will be relative and thus, in the end of all questioning, completely baseless.
Otherwise you just can´t even say why the feeling of pain is morally right or wrong, you just can´t even say why existing is good or bad,
Actually, there have been pious people of various religions that argued pain and suffering can be a way of learning (thus good) or that compassion can be dangerous if perceived as weakness (thus bad), so the conception of God doesn't change a lot in that respect.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Some would argue you are God, hence no need for "eternal law/God/being".

Check out my "religion". :)

[Insuperable]

Morality is transcendental and can not be described purely based on evolution and physical world.
The very survival of the fittest for example (do not get me wrong I am not against evolution as a mechanism) is in conflict with morality and helping someone with out asking anything in return and without having any agenda behind like helping its own group or yourself directly or indirectly.

[Balmung]

What i hate is when people say "God". If man created god, and everything he stands for then that means man had a sense of morality before.

Simple reasoning, we have a conscious, we feel remorse, we have the brain power to rationalize. If we didn't have these basic attributes morality wouldn't mean shit, and we'd be just like every other animal.

God & Religion are just tools, possessing the qualities we've always had made us what we became.

[ficuscarica]

and what is that etarnal law that gives us the basis for the word 'worth' can it be proven in empirical way? if yes explain if not than its unworthy.

We already have the definitions what is bad and what is evil according to human experience.

The God of the bible can be experienced by everyone who truly wants it. So yes, it´s a testable moral.

Human experience can´t define an absolute good or bad, because it is based on relative, unreliable feelings and thoughts.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Ok, putting yourself as the absolute. But that is absurde, because I exactly know that I have a beginning and an end - a very small frame of time, and also abilities.

Some might say that you are an eternal soul whose nature can be made very Godly, but never equal to that Supreme Soul.

Others might say that you are essentially identical to Brahman. :)

I know it all sounds funny, but once one shrugs off the idea of the angry jealous Yahweh, with all his rules and restrictions it can be realised.

You are not your body or your mind; you are eternal and that can be realised. :)

[Germaniac]

Morality comes from the teachings of God and His son Jesus Christ.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Morality comes from the teachings of God and His son Jesus Christ.

That has certainly been once source, but there are other moral codes.

Yahweh seems a bit odd though. Getting angry and so on. Why would God become angry? He is God, he is beyond this world, surely.

[Drawing-slim]

It is relative but not worthless or baseless

@drawing have you read any of Richard Dawkins books, or you have seen just the debates? its really a big difference, and dont get it why you find him pointless, compared to his opponents he is the master.No, its not so much that i like their opponents on debates, actually i find dawkins and hitchens arguments more familiar, but Solin and Ficuscarica explained it better how i feel about this.

[Aura]

Morality is transcendental and can not be described purely based on evolution and physical world.
The very survival of the fittest for example (do not get me wrong I am not against evolution as a mechanism) is in conflict with morality and helping someone with out asking anything in return and without having any agenda behind like helping its own group or yourself directly or indirectly.

morality is complex issue but I dont think that we can define it as transcedental. you shouldn't just look up in present morality which is very complex, everything started from simplicity getting more complex. The same thing is with morality and the it have been proved with the animal primitive moral.
so the kinship and reciprocation are the pillars of the darwinian altruism, so we have evolutions arguments and reasons for being altruistic which later becomes moral, firstly is genetic kinship secondly reciprociation repayment for the given favour third the benefits of acquiring reputation for generosity and kindness after that the empathy, pity etc.Prehistoric humans were living in conditions who strongly favoured the evoluation of all kind of altruism. primitive brain genetically rule for sexuality, this passed through filter of civilization and it emerged into love it is called the misfire of that primitive brain, the same is with our complex morality today its just misfire of that primitive altruism.


The God of the bible can be experienced by everyone who truly wants it. So yes, it´s a testable moral. we are talking about science not religions. Two different things!

@drawing you dont have to fulfill the gaps with religion its wrong

[Fortis in Arduis]

If one experiences the divine through prayer, meditation, yoga asanas, good works or anything else I might have failed to mention, and one is pure, then morality is not required.

The divine is amoral, beyond morality.

The moral codes are useful sometimes, but they are a means of social control in many cases, and one can become too entangled in them.

Just my take on it. :)

[ficuscarica]

This whole Darwinian altruism theory is based on the baseless thought that "reproduction"/"evolution" is morally good.

Maybe it is good that we all die.

[ficuscarica]

That has certainly been once source, but there are other moral codes.

Yahweh seems a bit odd though. Getting angry and so on. Why would God become angry? He is God, he is beyond this world, surely.

Because otherwise he would be evil. Somebody who isn´t moved by terrible evil is evil himself.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Because otherwise he would be evil. Somebody who isn´t moved by terrible evil is evil himself.

I disagree because being angry would lead me towards evil.

So, am I evil?

[Caismeachd]

Morality comes from human natural altruism and gene survival + fear of nihilism.


There is something called the the prisoners dilemma that explains one of the reasons why people have morality.

If you continuously cheat people you yourself will eventually be cheated. If you are nice to people, even if people cheat you, generally people will be nice back and it's in everyone's interest in the long run not to cheat each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

[Drawing-slim]

Morality comes from human natural altruism and gene survival + fear of nihilism.


There is something called the the prisoners dilemma that explains one of the reasons why people have morality.

If you continuously cheat people you yourself will eventually be cheated. If you are nice to people, even if people cheat you, generally people will be nice back and it's in everyone's interest in the long run not to cheat each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemmaYou bring a good point on morality vs karma.
I'm more then convinced that good people when they do somthing wrong, cheat someone etc etc, karma comes back and bites them..I'm convinced they
never get way without paying for it somehow.
However, people who are not aware of doing anything wrong but they do even more often they seem to live without that guilty conscience and karma never comes back to bite them, as if karma is intimitaded to even confront these types..
How do we explain this!? Anyone else has observed this unfairness!?

[Anusiya]

You bring a good point on morality vs karma.
I'm more then convinced that good people when they do somthing wrong, cheat someone etc etc, karma comes back and bites them..I'm convinced they
never get way without paying for it somehow.
However, people who are not aware of doing anything wrong but they do even more often they seem to live without that guilty conscience and karma never comes back to bite them, as if karma is intimitaded to even confront these types..
How do we explain this!? Anyone else has observed this unfairness!?

There's no karma, if you persist in being an asshole you will get it. Pure probability. If you pursue good things, good things will come (mostly).

[Drawing-slim]

There's no karma, if you persist in being an asshole you will get it. Pure probability. If you pursue good things, good things will come (mostly).I seriously doubt this.
I've known some real shity souls that god karma whatever you wanna call it, never seems to touch them. They even lead a better existence, free of guilt and consistantly seem to be blessed, not only financially, but blessed with feel good about themselves type of existence.
On the other hand there're good people who torture themseves if they do anything wrong but never seem to catch a break in life.

[Caismeachd]

I agree with what you said Drawing Line.

[Anusiya]

I seriously doubt this.
I've known some real shity souls that god karma whatever you wanna call it, never seems to touch them. They even lead a better existence, free of guilt and consistantly seem to be blessed, not only financially, but blessed with feel good about themselves type of existence.
On the other hand there're good people who torture themseves if they do anything wrong but never seem to catch a break in life.

If both peoples starting line is the same, then obviously there is no karma. But nobody decides who will be more deprived than the other. We are all born with "deficiencies" and talents or advantages.

However I agree with you on this. There are people who live to be 100 years old and they have been the lowest scum of all. I guess here science explains them as "survivors" or "predators" based on instincts with no remorse. If that's the case, then we are not talking about "souls" to begin with. ;)

[arcticwolf]

Well, that depends what you call morality. There is an eternal moral/ethical law it works just like gravity, that means it don't give a shit what we think. What people understand about this law is a different matter altogether. We seem to grasp parts of it and disregard other parts because we have no full understanding how it really works.

To live in accordance with the law simple rule is this: what you do will come back to you, not necessarily when you think it should, but rather when the conditions are ripe.

If you think that you can get away with anything, think again, it's not gonna happen. The law doesn't give a flying fuck what you understand or think!

On the other hand WTF do you care? Live it up, you'll pay for it later! :D

[MagnaLaurentia]

Here is the answer to the question by other questions...!

Where does morality comes from? The answer : The humain being. lol
What is morality? The answer : What WE think is good or bad.

Now, the real question : Why do we have morality and when it happened in the history of mankind?

What is a human being or what characterized the human being? The answer: We are social or political animal (as Aristotle says). We have a large brain relative to body size, with a particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, making us capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, problem solving and culture through social learning. (You can read more on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human))

When do we become social? It seems that the social aspect to be developed in conjunction with the language. We don't develop language alone... we communicate together.

When is the language started? Around the same time as the fire some say. The first humans ate together around the fire and the language has developed. It is estimated that the first verbal laws were established after the discovery of fire.

What was the first laws? The first laws were warnings. We can imagine that the first laws forbade the stealing (do not take my food and tools) and the murdering (do not hurt me) in a tribe. Laws have become "culture" and "tradition" (or "how to do and how we do").

When is that laws (or morality) more "advanced" have emerged? Some scientists and philosophers have asking this question. It is impossible to know the exact time of this event, but they believe it is possible to establish a link between the onset of the morality and the first human burials. The first human burials represent the beginning of the human to differentiate the good (sacral) and bad (profane).

Is that the morality can be linked to God (or gods)? Yes and no. Rather, it is linked to the idea we have of God (or gods). Remember, humans are social (or political). In social relationships, there are power relations or hierarchy. It begins between parents and children. "There is someone who created me" or "There is someone who was there before me". Hierarchy in a family gave power to parents and elders. (Forget his last years in Western history and put yourself in the position of the first tribes of humans.)

The first humans had to ask whether there is something older than their ancestors, and if it were "greater" than them. Who is he? Who created the world? A he created the world as I make tools? Did he created me as I have children? Does he may get angry like me and triggers storms? I have created laws and I have may be offended his laws.

The first humans imagined that there was indeed someone who had done all this. He created me, he created the world, he punished me when I did not respect his laws... He must be a superhuman (=God). If this being is superior to me, what are his rules?His laws must be perfect if they governs his life. I will do like him.

Voilà, the "beginning" of the morality (good or bad).

[ficuscarica]

I disagree because being angry would lead me towards evil.

So, am I evil?

The righteous anger of a just judge is not an evil and uncontrolled, but a proper emotion, proofing the judge´s sanity and in the end leading to just punishment. God´s love - to our good - makes him carry his own just, controlled wrath, so that we can be saved from it. This is what Jesus´s teaching was all about.

[Fortis in Arduis]

The righteous anger of a just judge is not an evil and uncontrolled, but a proper emotion, proofing the judge´s sanity and in the end leading to just punishment. God´s love - to our good - makes him carry his own just, controlled wrath, so that we can be saved from it. This is what Jesus´s teaching was all about.

Why would the absolute have a human-like personality?

Surely, morality is human, and the divine universal consciousness is simply amoral.

You are not obliged to answer my questions.

[Insuperable]

morality is complex issue but I dont think that we can define it as transcedental. you shouldn't just look up in present morality which is very complex, everything started from simplicity getting more complex. The same thing is with morality and the it have been proved with the animal primitive moral.
so the kinship and reciprocation are the pillars of the darwinian altruism, so we have evolutions arguments and reasons for being altruistic which later becomes moral, firstly is genetic kinship secondly reciprociation repayment for the given favour third the benefits of acquiring reputation for generosity and kindness after that the empathy, pity etc.Prehistoric humans were living in conditions who strongly favoured the evoluation of all kind of altruism. primitive brain genetically rule for sexuality, this passed through filter of civilization and it emerged into love it is called the misfire of that primitive brain, the same is with our complex morality today its just misfire of that primitive altruism.


Well, the thing, started from simplicity is what (at least to me) is all about.

We know that there are the building blocks of matter like nucleons, atoms...
On their own, they are just that. They are not aware. To us it is obvious that they are just that. Atoms can not question morality.
So, how come it is possible that when these objects combined in a very very complex way create an aware moral being and how come that these objects make someone after years of evolution to open their eyes and question something like morality?

I could never understand what is the purpose of using sophisticated evolutionary psychology words, hypotheses to explain something deep as morality in an already developed social world where that seamingless band gap between unaware building blocks of matter and awareness has been breached? If we can not understand that what it the purpose of deductive thinking to explain something complex as morality?

But that is mostly irrelevant to this topic. I just do not see what satisfaction people see in saying going from the simplicity with all those band gaps on their way to complexity.


But lets go back to topic.
Tell me, how is altruism explained in the cases where people asked nothing in return but devoted their life for helping others no matter are they distant kin or not looking from the point of evolutionary psychology? One of the famous examples is Mother Theresa.

[Hayalet]

Tell me, how is altruism explained in the cases where people asked nothing in return but devoted their life for helping others no matter are they distant kin or not looking from the point of evolutionary psychology?
You pay $100 for goods and services: You get personal satisfaction. You donate $100 to charity: You get personal satisfaction (from the premise that you are a good person). What's the difference?


One of the famous examples is Mother Theresa.
Yes, Mother Teresa is often considered the epitome of goodness, but even she has detractors:


She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'.

The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast the term "hospice", on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not.

[Insuperable]

You pay $100 for goods and services: You get personal satisfaction. You donate $100 to charity: You get personal satisfaction (from the premise that you are a good person). What's the difference?


You should receive Darwin award or something. That is in some way also the center of discussion. It is a personal satisfaction, case closed:picard1:.

[Osprey]

Morality is relative. At the end only one thing is matter : And that is Your Work. The End.
Success and Failure often hinge on a lot of factors. But all of them are the result of the stress (as in consciously trying to accomplish some goals) you apply to the completion of a goal, as thought by your mind.
And the work is not mindless droning on anything. It is the highest possible alternative, that your mind can think of as a good means of accomplishing some task. Its like this : If you think that to become a bodybuilder, you have to follow a regime, lift heavier weights in a pre determined pattern, consume supplements, but you consciously avoid them because of the laziness to perform to your highest capability (that's also stress. The stress of studying the teachings of the masters, listening to the trainers etc), then you can't complain of losing.
Drawing Live : those people live a happy life, because they are prepared for sufferring (or getting whatever they inflict on people. According to them, its moral and they don't mind if people do that do themselves. They are already prepared for that. Plus, they give their hundred percent to what they do. Those who suffer, are suffering because they do NOT consciously follow those steps which lead out of suffering. At least those ones, which they know are beneficial.

[Kale]

Morals come from experience.