Where does morality come from?

[fetus]

I frequently encourage those around me to feel free to subscribe to their own, subjective view of morality. I'm generally very interested in the world through people's individual lenses. But I've been thinking a lot about what all that subjective morality could entail.

What if somebody's view of good includes pointless, flippant murder? Or what if somebody believes it's moral to commit genocide? Obviously those things are disgusting and atrocious...to us, that is. What makes us right and them wrong? And where does that come from?

The religious people around me suggest that the Bible is the basis for morality, but I vehemently disagree with that. We all know that atheists or non-Christians can be wonderfully upstanding people, just as Christians can be some of the scummiest people out there. If religion is clearly not the basis for morality, then what is?

I don't believe there is one hard, immobile standard to which we all must adhere. There is certainly an amount of subjective belief, I know it, but what do we make of the vast, grey area?

 

[GIjade]

I think morality is inborn. Two people could be raised in the same environment and each could end up with a completely different way of viewing morality. My way of thinking is, do as you wish, just don't harm others when you do it. That's where I draw the line from a moral point of view.

 

[fetus]

I think morality is inborn. Two people could be raised in the same environment and each could end up with a completely different way of viewing morality. My way of thinking is, do as you wish, just don't harm others when you do it. That's where I draw the line from a moral point of view.

I completely agree--in fact, that is basically the foundation of my personal morality. Do whatever as long as it doesn't hurt others. My question is, what makes us right? What makes us more moral than the person who thinks it's good to kill? How can we rationalize that we are right?

 

[GIjade]

I don't know, but if everyone who ever had a thought of killing another person actually did so, there wouldn't be much left of humankind. Maybe it's instinct, we need each other to survive. Unfortunately.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Basis of morality ?

Morality is build into humanity as a instinct during the evolution. The purpose of morality is/was to provide human species better chance of survival. If you heal a hunter the odds are that you will have more food tomorrow. If you build a house/shelter for a family there are better chances that they will survive and have more childern. If you give some extra unwanted food to a stranger you will have extra pair of hand tomorrow.
If you don't abuse and kill there will be someone here tomorrow that will work and give birth to another generation.


I trully think that it is that simple.

 

[Mole]

The basis of morality in the West is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and liberal democracy.

Fifty-seven Islamic nations have rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favour of Sharia. And these fifty-seven Islamic nations have openly and publicly rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the United Nations. So we can't say we haven't been warned.

And although the Universal Declaration was written by the USA and Oz, together with other countries of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration does not include the Right to Bear Arms.

But worse, the reduction of morality to personal morality is a sign of a great moral failure.

Reducing morality to the personal is a sign of the sickness of narcissism. In fact narcissism gives us no moral direction. Narcissism is publicly expressed by Nike who never tire of telling us, If it feels good, just do it. This slogan can be seen on T-shirts across the narcissistic world.

If we wish to destroy an army, we must first destroy its morale. And if we wish to destroy the West, we replace the morality of the West with narcissism.

 

[Tellenbach]

Rational empiricism. If one sees someone get beat up for stealing, one begins to associate punishment (or unpleasant consequences) with certain acts. That list of things (not to do) grows and grows and becomes a moral code.

We know this is the case because whenever the opportunity presents itself, when law enforcement is not around, crime spikes. Most people would steal, cheat, kill, etc if there were no consequences.

 

[magpie]

To an extent, I agree with the above post. We associate "bad" with what produces negative consequences. Some people can't relate to other people's suffering. They can only understand what they've experienced, so they wouldn't understand how murder or genocide would be bad. Because suffering (of other people) might be a means to an end. And the end might be a "positive consequence" to them.

Also, if you've always been punished for giving money to the homeless you'll think giving money to the homeless is bad. If you've always been praised or rewarded for it, you'll consider it a good thing to do.

 

[bigdavesellers]

The answer is "it depends". Morality is a question of 'time' and of 'place'. Some things that were moral 'here' 200 years ago are no longer moral. Morals are passed through generations in conscious and unconscious ways through 'Memes', 'conditioning', teaching (religious and formal/informal education) and also individually we need to satisfy our 'instincts' in ways that align with our own individual take the 'Morals' we and our 'community' hold (which may/will be the same in some ways and different in some ways)
i.e. It's really complicated.
If you want to find out what kinds of things lie behind this issue study 'Spiral Dynamics', Beck and Cowan, and 'The cyclical double helix model of adult bio-psycho-social systems development' by Clare Graves.

 

[Amargith]

It's beneficial for a social species to develop a moral code because it allows many individuals to live together in a packed manner, while minimising the level of head bashing and losing valuable members of the pack and taking advantage of that multitude of skills - due to squabbles over resources etc. An animal who doesn't live in constant fear, thrives and is free to become the best they can be. While certainly hard situations can show a person what they're capable of, building actual skill takes a lot of time and effort - and learning is inhibited when living in constant fear. Surviving =/= thriving, after all.

To take advantage of a diverse society of skills, you need a safe space so those skills can develop - without head bashing. Iow, in the long run, it supports not just our our survival, but our thriving in this world.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

The morality box

 

[geedoenfj]

I think religion (any religion) is the main source of morality, it's not that atheists do not have morals, but morals without a religion subjects only to a personal point of view, which makes values like good or bad, right or wrong only another opinion..

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I think religion (any religion) is the main source of morality, it's not that atheists do not have morals, but morals without a religion subjects only to a personal point of view, which makes values like good or bad, right or wrong only another opinion..

This is a chicken in the egg question. What came first, religion or morality? Which is built around the other? Is morality built around a religion or is religion built around a set of moral principles? Since humans constructed religion to exemplify their moral views ( and to deal with death) then I would say the latter is more true.

 

[geedoenfj]

This is a chicken in the egg question. What came first, religion or morality? Which is built around the other? Is morality built around a religion or is religion built around a set of moral principles? Since humans constructed religion to exemplify their moral views ( and to deal with death) then I would say the latter is more true.

The religion is built around the good of human being, the religion is supposed to protect and values the life of human being and accommodates his/her needs and imposes the duties that he/she must fulfill in every aspect of their lives (physically, morally , mindfully, spiritually), the more the religion is able to cover all of these aspects and fulfill their healthiness, the more it's values are worthy of following.

 

[Cellmold]

Your mum.

 

[Riva]

I think religion (any religion) is the main source of morality, it's not that atheists do not have morals, but morals without a religion subjects only to a personal point of view, which makes values like good or bad, right or wrong only another opinion..

Lolz. Religion has morality in it but it only touches on the morality of humans. We would have had the morality most religions try to advocate with or without their existence.

Watch the below video.

Also, I think most religions (especially certain abrahamic religions) blocks one's empathy and tries to feed you ideas such as 'succumbing to the will of god or being humble to the will of god' as good and right, whereas when you think about it those have nothing much to do with morality.

Humans are capable of morality without religions, infact humans are capable of more.

In our brains we have a part that deals with empathy. Religion (certain religions esp) tries to replace that with their understanding of a 2000 year old sense of right and wrong.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

The religion is built around the good of human being, the religion is supposed to protect and values the life of human being and accommodates his/her needs and imposes the duties that he/she must fulfill in every aspect of their lives (physically, morally , mindfully, spiritually), the more the religion is able to cover all of these aspects and fulfill their healthiness, the more it's values are worthy of following.

Right but this suggests that the (moral) values existed in the first place before religion. Thus, it doesn't really add up to say that religion is the source of morality. Religion is constructed to accommodate those already existing moral values. Moral atheists simply do not require a religion to facilitate or accommodate those values.

 

[Lark]

The Emperor who sits on the golden throne at the heart of the Imperium of Man.

 

[Lark]

Right but this suggests that the (moral) values existed in the first place before religion. Thus, it doesn't really add up to say that religion is the source of morality. Religion is constructed to accommodate those already existing moral values. Moral atheists simply do not require a religion to facilitate or accommodate those values.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I'm sure that moral atheists dont need religion, you can go on living without legs arms or eyes but I'm not saying anyone should lop them off.

 

[Lark]

Lolz. Religion has morality in it but it only touches on the morality of humans. We would have had the morality most religions try to advocate with or without their existence.

Watch the below video.

Also, I think most religions (especially certain abrahamic religions) blocks one's empathy and tries to feed you ideas such as 'succumbing to the will of god or being humble to the will of god' as good and right, whereas when you think about it those have nothing much to do with morality.

Humans are capable of morality without religions, infact humans are capable of more.

In our brains we have a part that deals with empathy. Religion (certain religions esp) tries to replace that with their understanding of a 2000 year old sense of right and wrong.

I'm sure.

Atheism is all hugs and kisses until you get around to social darwinism and malthusianism, from there its a hop, skip and jump to extermination camps and selective breeding.

So come of it, the whole religion wicked bad and atheism honest good is a false dichotomy of the first order, its the same old, same old, history repeating itself, superstition was superseded by religion and now a new paradigm is trying to supersede it in the old thesis, antithesis, synthesis style.