Where do our morals come from?
A species that kills itself is a species that is not exactly going to be around for very long. As such, it seems to me that there is a rather clear evolutionary benefit to the development of a natural aversion to murder, theft, and so forth. I think that would fairly easily account for most if not all of the moral judgments that are fairly universal in the world. The rest may be accounted for with other evolutionarily beneficial traits, such as the natural desire to be accepted into a group, or the natural fear of the unknown.
Several things. Ultimately, our morals come from our own fallible interpretations of God's laws ingrained within the creation and ourselves. Our understanding of those morals change due to our experiences, selfish/unselfish desires, social surroundings, and direct revelation from God.
While I do believe there is a moral law set in stone, we each have a unique morality defined by each individual. This individual morality may differ from one person to another and may or may not be influenced by God's direct or indirect revelation.
In other words, while there is a concrete moral law set in stone by God, we take a postmodern interpretation to those laws.
This is a very difficult question to answer. I've pondered the answer to this question many times and I've come up with basically three answers.
One of my answers would be the individual. It is the individual that perceives what is and therefore determines what ought to be. A problem with this is that any individual can propose ethics that are incoherent with reason, which is my second answer. An individual can reason and as such he can decide what is necessary for his life. One essential for life is life itself. You need to live to enjoy life. The second essential is truth. To make the right decisions on how to life our live, we need to be properly informed and we can only do that by not lying to ourselves. The third essential is property. We seek out and claim what is ours and only give it up for an exchange of something that we value more. It is an individual's property and only his alone.
These observations on the essentials of living can only be perceived by experiencing the world around us, which brings me to my third answer: nature. Nature is what surrounds us. We seek out in nature what benefits our lives, what is true, and what is ours to take. Nature is all there is metaphysically and as I was saying in another thread, metaphysics determines ethics. Likewise, what is determines what ought to be or what is nature determines what is natural law.
If I were to combine the three, I would say that morals come from reason which are sought after by the individual's insights of nature.
And let's not forget the natural desire to strengthen the group and keep it together. We humans are pack animals in the sense that once we have been accepted into a group, we adjust our behavior to meet the group's expectations as we understand them.A species that kills itself is a species that is not exactly going to be around for very long. As such, it seems to me that there is a rather clear evolutionary benefit to the development of a natural aversion to murder, theft, and so forth. I think that would fairly easily account for most if not all of the moral judgments that are fairly universal in the world. The rest may be accounted for with other evolutionarily beneficial traits, such as the natural desire to be accepted into a group, or the natural fear of the unknown.
GabuEx
And let's not forget the natural desire to strengthen the group and keep it together. We humans are pack animals in the sense that once we have been accepted into a group, we adjust our behavior to meet the group's expectations as we understand them.ChiliDragon
What I find kind of interesting is how selfish and self-destructive humans can be despite community being the sole reason why we survived this long. It is also kind of funny how contradictory the two ideas are, yet in conflict, a community can become much stronger if fighting against a common threat.
People seem to want world peace, but I don't think it can ever happen, since in many cases, community strength relies on the existence of conflict. Both are very human traits and both are unavoidable in most regards. How we deal with conflict however, it an entirely different issue.
Morality is best described as a force that regulates the interactions of members of a collective. Every collective exhibits morality in some fashion. To be considered moral a premise MUST benefit the survivability of the collective AND the individual (on a genetic level).
2. Is morality objective?
No. Morality is based on the interactions of collective members and individual rules are defined by their suitability towards that particular collective. Smaller collectives tend to have more restrictive moral standards and less tolerance towards individuals that exceed those standards, while larger collectives are generally more relaxed. Consider the interactions you have with your family versus friends and acquaintances versus strangers.
To answer the topic question, I think morality came from the evolving nature of our species. In light of the first of my two questions, this makes perfect sense. There has to be some sort of regulating force that protects a species that interacts socially. Consider the health of a society that does not consider murder or theft to be immoral. It would not function nearly as well as a society that considered those actions to be bad. If a society is not cohesive, members that depend on that cohesion have a reduced chance of surviving and passing on their moral standards.
Everyone likes to be happy and nobody likes to suffer. Even the most evil people in history did what they thought was right. Some things are pretty much universally looked upon as bad, but what brings us to that consensus? Where do you think our morals come from?dracula_16
I'm not sure I agree with your premise: I don't think everybody does want to be happy, or that nobody likes to suffer. Perhaps I misunderstand your meanings of "happiness" and "suffering", but I do know people that are happy to suffer - a seeming direct contradiction! I think people strive for "comfort" in their lives. Happiness, by virtue of its status in comparison to unhappiness, must be a transient emotion and not one to be expected at all times.
Suffering is also an inevitable condition of being human, thanks mainly to our nervous system responses - its in-built. I also believe that emotional suffering can be a motivation to exist - perhaps someone believes their suffering will make them transcend what makes them suffer. I see this as a primary motivation for religious belief.
The universality of morals may not be as wide as you think. For example, people in other continents may do things you personally find un-speakable. I (living in England), have a huge moral issue with American rights over gun ownership and the death-sentencing of offenders. There are places in the world (i.e. Vatican State) where you can marry a 12-year-old. Ayatollah Khomeini (who led the overthrow of the Shah during the Iranian Revolution) wrote about the acceptability of bestiality in 1990.
The current anthropological explanation for the origin of social morals is; our ancestors' move from hunter-gatherer into agrarian farming. This change in living had to be collaborative. The reasoning behind the move towards social groups may have been due to the increase in population, scarcity of hunted food and the benefits of re-purposing land, specialising and stock-piling of food. It seems entirely obvious to me how morals evolved to suit the needs of individuals in a society.
If you don't think that morals are a product of the human condition, then how do you explain the existence of Christian-like morals in pre-Christian faiths?
Several things. Ultimately, our morals come from our own fallible interpretations of God's laws ingrained within the creation and ourselves. Our understanding of those morals change due to our experiences, selfish/unselfish desires, social surroundings, and direct revelation from God.
While I do believe there is a moral law set in stone, we each have a unique morality defined by each individual. This individual morality may differ from one person to another and may or may not be influenced by God's direct or indirect revelation.
In other words, while there is a concrete moral law set in stone by God, we take a postmodern interpretation to those laws.
mindstorm
As i don't believe in your god, the explanation you just mentioned is invalid to me. Unless when you say "our" you mean christian?
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]Several things. Ultimately, our morals come from our own fallible interpretations of God's laws ingrained within the creation and ourselves. Our understanding of those morals change due to our experiences, selfish/unselfish desires, social surroundings, and direct revelation from God.
While I do believe there is a moral law set in stone, we each have a unique morality defined by each individual. This individual morality may differ from one person to another and may or may not be influenced by God's direct or indirect revelation.
In other words, while there is a concrete moral law set in stone by God, we take a postmodern interpretation to those laws.
THUMPTABLE
As i don't believe in your god, the explanation you just mentioned is invalid to me. Unless when you say "our" you mean christian?
Just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. :P
Could I phrase it better like this? If there is a Christian God that exists then ultimately, our morals come from ... etc. etc.
If the Christian God does indeed exist then I assume this view of mine would work with everyone, not just those who classify themselves as Christian.
Just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. :P
Could I phrase it better like this? If there is a Christian God that exists then ultimately, our morals come from ... etc. etc.
If the Christian God does indeed exist then I assume this view of mine would work with everyone, not just those who classify themselves as Christian.
mindstorm
Just because you do believe in God it doesn't mean he/she/it does exist!
If a Christian God does exist, then why is the universe amoral? Why the need for stellar, geological and biological evolution, the latter based on not morality, but on random mutation. I'd suggest this is one reason why I'd disagree with your assumption that a Christian God would work as the answer for everyone. Another reason would be the somewhat dubious moral decisions (to put it mildly) God him/her/itself made in the Old Testament. Then there's natural disasters ... etc. etc.
If a Christian God does not exist, then I'd assume the view that morals are dependent on human social evolution would work with everyone. Don't you agree that most of your morals are shared by far older religions? Don't you also agree that there is huge division within your own faith as to exactly what some "Christian" morals should be?
I'm not sure I agree with your premise: I don't think everybody does want to be happy, or that nobody likes to suffer. Perhaps I misunderstand your meanings of "happiness" and "suffering", but I do know people that are happy to suffer - a seeming direct contradiction! I think people strive for "comfort" in their lives. Happiness, by virtue of its status in comparison to unhappiness, must be a transient emotion and not one to be expected at all times.
Suffering is also an inevitable condition of being human, thanks mainly to our nervous system responses - its in-built. I also believe that emotional suffering can be a motivation to exist - perhaps someone believes their suffering will make them transcend what makes them suffer. I see this as a primary motivation for religious belief.RationalAtheist
Good points. When I said that nobody likes to suffer, I was speaking in the long term-- not in the short term. It's true that we need to suffer to some degree. Mistakes that we make can help us improve on whatever we failed at.
The universality of morals may not be as wide as you think. For example, people in other continents may do things you personally find un-speakable. I (living in England), have a huge moral issue with American rights over gun ownership and the death-sentencing of offenders. There are places in the world (i.e. Vatican State) where you can marry a 12-year-old. Ayatollah Khomeini (who led the overthrow of the Shah during the Iranian Revolution) wrote about the acceptability of bestiality in 1990.RationalAtheist
I'm not denying that we diverge on some things, but there are some things that most sane people can agree on (e.g. that the holocaust was a terrible event). I think the reason why most people agree on that is because we can sympathize with people who are unjustly persecuted.
Just because you do believe in God it doesn't mean he/she/it does exist!
RationalAtheist
Are you trying to deny my awesome ability to make things exist simply because I believe they exist? Heresy I say, heresy! :P
Â
If a Christian God does exist, then why is the universe amoral? Why the need for stellar, geological and biological evolution, the latter based on not morality, but on random mutation. I'd suggest this is one reason why I'd disagree with your assumption that a Christian God would work as the answer for everyone. Another reason would be the somewhat dubious moral decisions (to put it mildly) God him/her/itself made in the Old Testament. Then there's natural disasters ... etc. etc.
If a Christian God does not exist, then I'd assume the view that morals are dependent on human social evolution would work with everyone. Don't you agree that most of your morals are shared by far older religions? Don't you also agree that there is huge division within your own faith as to exactly what some "Christian" morals should be?
RationalAtheist
I suppose I'll just summarize my view of morality and evil (in a rather broad sense). It'll answer some of your questions but I'm sure it'll only make you want to ask more. :P
God created the world to be ordered and purposeful. This purpose being to eventually bring God glory in one way or another. It is a feature of this particular world that certain creatures possess volition that might be used for either good or evil. It was not God's desire that man possess knowledge of evil (Gen. 2:17), but God in his wisdom did create a good world with such a possibility. And he did so with the foreknowledge of the future actions of his creations.
Satan was one such creation (as well as his angels) with the ability to turn from that which is good. Satan lead the first humans to sin against God. Man's sin not only effected their relationship with God but also effected the rest of the creation by bringing natural evil into the world (e.g. natural disasters).
The above is the general belief of Christians who hold to biblical authority which I generally agree with. With that said, there certainly are questions I have about it, answers of which I may have answers to but not answers I am completely certain of. For example, if the earth is indeed old thus assuming millions of years of life beforehand, does that mean there was also millions of years of death and destruction before the fall of man? I'm not sure how to answer the question in such a way that does not lead to more questions but apparent is that sin itself existed before man's own sin (as seen from the fact that Satan was able to tempt man before man's own fall). Thus, sin itself seems to have existed before the existence of man.
There certainly are moral questions that I have such as this, but what I can say is that God is good, God is wise, God will do away with evil, and God is in control. I may not have every answer, but I can surely point to the one who does know. Do I know why God is good and sovereign yet allows sin to exist if only for a temporary time? Not as solidly as I wish but I can tell you that my sin and the world's destructive nature shows me my need for Christ. Romans 11:32 seems to point that either an answer or the answer is that God allowed our fall into sin so that God might have mercy on us. Does that make me have more questions? Absolutely. Do I have answers? I certainly have guesses but Scripture's response to the topic essentially says that God is wise and we are not.
Is the New Testament God the same one as seen in the Old Testament? But of course. He is not bound by time and thus does not change with time, he simply is as he is. God allows horrible things to happen in the Old Testament but he certainly does allow that evil to accomplish a good deed. I am not arguing that God has an "ends justifies the means" mentality but what men meant for evil, God meant for good. As an example, the evil actions of Joseph's brothers (Gen. 37) and of Potiphar's wife (Gen. 39) toward Joseph resulted in the placement of Joseph in a position from which he could aid his family and fulfill his role as God's greater redemptive purposes through the people of Israel. Another example is God's using the deception of man to bring about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, thus enabling the redemptive work of reconciliation between God and man.
As far as morality is concerned, God has had enough grace upon us to enable us to receive some of his law upon our hearts. Whether it be a Zoroastrian or a atheist, there certainly are differences in their morality (because of our fall into sin, our ability to recognize what is sin has been tainted) but there are also some things that are morally alike. Regardless of where they say they've obtained their morality, I am not aware that anyone would think it a "good thing" to rape his sister unless they were taught otherwise (such as how some were trained in Nazi Germany, not saying they specifically did this). Some amount of morality is inherent though incomplete, but it can be diminished by means of ignoring it, rebelling against it, or being taught against it.
In our notion that we are not as perfect as we can be (in any sense whether that be in a moral, biological, social, etc.), we realize we are in need of something. Example ways to find our "salvation" from our imperfection are beauty, fame, pleasure, intelligence, money, power, self-righteous morality, or as Christians say, Jesus Christ.
Our morality is merely a gage that displays to us our imperfection. The Law of the Old Testament intensifies this display of imperfection within us to ourselves. In realizing our imperfection, we realize our need for something to make us perfect. Any insecurity, guilt or not, shows us our imperfect nature and need for something greater. Different people seek after different saviors, all of which are merely creations by man or God. God himself is the only true savior that can quinch our imperfections and insecurities. God himself is the only true savior that can make us how we should be.
Looking over this, I may have dealt with the "problem of evil" a little bit but it was actually intentional, more a running of the mind than anything. :P
[QUOTE="THUMPTABLE"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]Several things. Ultimately, our morals come from our own fallible interpretations of God's laws ingrained within the creation and ourselves. Our understanding of those morals change due to our experiences, selfish/unselfish desires, social surroundings, and direct revelation from God.
While I do believe there is a moral law set in stone, we each have a unique morality defined by each individual. This individual morality may differ from one person to another and may or may not be influenced by God's direct or indirect revelation.
In other words, while there is a concrete moral law set in stone by God, we take a postmodern interpretation to those laws.
mindstorm
As i don't believe in your god, the explanation you just mentioned is invalid to me. Unless when you say "our" you mean christian?
Just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. :P
Could I phrase it better like this? If there is a Christian God that exists then ultimately, our morals come from ... etc. etc.
If the Christian God does indeed exist then I assume this view of mine would work with everyone, not just those who classify themselves as Christian.
Yes but how can you get your morals from something you don't believe in?
@ Mindstorm
Are you saying nazi Germans raped their own sisters? Where is your evidence of this? Rather than pour your heart out, why not try and answer questions analytically? I feel disappointed by your rambling and seemingly indirect answer.
I can't understand how you can believe in both Genesis and evolution
Yes but how can you get your morals from something you don't believe in?THUMPTABLE
You'd be born with them. For example, you're also born with some ability to use reason. Who's to say that you cannot determine, to some extent, good and bad?
Â
@ Mindstorm
Are you saying nazi Germans raped their own sisters? Where is your evidence of this? Rather than pour your heart out, why not try and answer questions analytically? I feel disappointed by your rambling and seemingly indirect answer.
I can't understand how you can believe in both Genesis and evolution
Â
RationalAtheist
I wasn't trying to say Germans did this, hense the reason why I said, "not saying they specifically did this" after the comment.
"Why not try and answer questions analytically?" There are simply some things I don't know for certain and wanted to express that. Certainly there are things within the post that I can try to argue an answer for, I just try to be careful/humble when trying to explain an infinite God or confine him to my own understanding. I do know the arguments and can argue it more "analytically" as you say but that's not always my goal when trying to learn about God. If you'd like to know my answer regarding something, I can certainly give my arguments and thoughts regarding the subject.
"I can't understand how you can believe in both Genesis and evolution." Well actually, I don't. I believe neither Young Earth Creationism to be true nor Theistic Evolution. Technically speaking, I am an Old Earth Creationist. Do I believe natural selection to be true? Mostly. Do I believe we all descended from a single organism? Not at all. My belief is some sort of mix between Historic Creationism and the Literary Framework view as you can read about here.
Â
I wasn't trying to say Germans did this, hense the reason why I said, "not saying they specifically did this" after the comment.
"Why not try and answer questions analytically?" There are simply some things I don't know for certain and wanted to express that. Certainly there are things within the post that I can try to argue an answer for, I just try to be careful/humble when trying to explain an infinite God or confine him to my own understanding. I do know the arguments and can argue it more "analytically" as you say but that's not always my goal when trying to learn about God. If you'd like to know my answer regarding something, I can certainly give my arguments and thoughts regarding the subject.
"I can't understand how you can believe in both Genesis and evolution." Well actually, I don't. I believe neither Young Earth Creationism to be true nor Theistic Evolution. Technically speaking, I am an Old Earth Creationist. Do I believe natural selection to be true? Mostly. Do I believe we all descended from a single organism? Not at all. My belief is some sort of mix between Historic Creationism and the Literary Framework view as you can read about here.
mindstorm
You used the nazi sisters as an example, saying this:
I am not aware that anyone would think it a "good thing" to rape his sister unless they were taught otherwise (such as how some were trained in Nazi Germany, not saying they specifically did this).
mindstorm
Sorry, but you can't state something, then state that you're not saying specifically that it happened. Can you see your flawed logic there? If not, then I could say that all Christians eat babies - not that I'm saying they specifically do. Anyway, since you've now invoked Godwin's law, I must add that Nazi German propaganda was based around a German interpretation of a Christian God giving them some inalienable rights for the expansion of their fatherland. (I'm interested in this stuff, since my Ma was an East Prussian war refugee).
I did ask two simple questions, that I couldn't find any direct answers to. By "analytical", I'm referring to analysis of the question. I shouldn't complain though, but I won't let a seemingly rambling evangelism brain-dump go unchallenged in an atheism union!
I read about the literary framework and how it conflicts with Exodus 20:11. There is also no scientific evidence I know of to support it. Then there's the arrangement errors of light before stars, plants before sun, and fish/birds before animals that don't fit with our understanding of genetics or physics.
From people who tell you what's wrong and what's right. It's the people who wanted law and order that were the saviors of humanity.Â
From what I can tell, there are several "sources" and "types" of morals. There are "practical morals" which improve our society's chances of survival - "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" being obvious examples of this kind. Then there are those which are fueled by the concept of dignity and the idea that we must defend it, such as "don't prance around the garden in your birthday suit" or "don't take a dump on your neighbour's car". Then there are those which aim to defend the status quo and tradition, such as "obey your elders" or "we must defend nature" and "support your country in all its enterprises". Finally, we have the totally arbitrary and irrational ones, like "you must not wear clothing made from two different materials".
So, really, "morality" has many different origins. That's probably why some of them are so bizarre that despite our society's fixation on appearing ethically strong and all that, we don't bother requiring that everybody wear a toga to retain elements of Greek society to strengthen our bonds with human history or something baseless like that.Â
I thought I'd bump this after watching a recent short vid from Edward Tarte - ex-Catholic priest, atheism You-Tuber and pianist extraordinaire (thanks to Dom for linking to his channel in the stickied videos/vloggers thread).
The vid highlights morally dubious verses from the bible, some of which I'd never even heard of.
At some point, these crazy views must have seemed reasonable to someone. It demonstrates the relativity of moral outlook within a faith, so that the faith itself must diverge from its doctrine to suit reason.
I'm not sure I have any morals anymore, and is it possible to have no morals?Lonelynight
If you saw me on the street and I had an icecream sandwich and you wanted that sandwich, would you kill me for it?
Â
[QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I'm not sure I have any morals anymore, and is it possible to have no morals?Frattracide
If you saw me on the street and I had an icecream sandwich and you wanted that sandwich, would you kill me for it?
Â
No[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I'm not sure I have any morals anymore, and is it possible to have no morals?Lonelynight
If you saw me on the street and I had an icecream sandwich and you wanted that sandwich, would you kill me for it?
Â
NoWell then It would seem that you have some morals. At this point, it would probably be good to define what morals are. As near as I can tell, morality is the set of premises that regulate interactions between individuals in a society. So not killing me for an ice cream sandwich would be a moral premise.Â
[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I'm not sure I have any morals anymore, and is it possible to have no morals?Android339
If you saw me on the street and I had an icecream sandwich and you wanted that sandwich, would you kill me for it?
What brand?
Klondike, of course.Â
At some point, these crazy views must have seemed reasonable to someone. It demonstrates the relativity of moral outlook within a faith, so that the faith itself must diverge from its doctrine to suit reason.
RationalAtheist
I had always sort of thought that Jesus' redefinition (or revolution) of Jewish morality was a bit of a kick in the arse to the notion that God's will absolutely prescribed normativity. I suppose God is a relativist afterall and Paul to an extent.
In any case my view of morality is fairly uncomplicated. Morality falls into the same category as aesthetics, taste, feeling and God. These are all things that do not objectively exist. They are subjectively occuring and arise from whatever evolutionary or cultural development formed them in our brains. So I'm a moral anti-realist and relativist as well as an aesthetic and God anti-realist and relativist.
For the subject of morality in general I've found that a study of metaethics is far more beneficial than a study of normative ethics. It is best to know first what morality is before you try to "know" (and I put that in scare quotes because I think that there is as much a thing as moral knowledge as there is aesthetic knowledge) what is moral.
[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]I'm not sure I have any morals anymore, and is it possible to have no morals?Frattracide
If you saw me on the street and I had an icecream sandwich and you wanted that sandwich, would you kill me for it?
Â
NoWell then It would seem that you have some morals. At this point, it would probably be good to define what morals are. As near as I can tell, morality is the set of premises that regulate interactions between individuals in a society. So not killing me for an ice cream sandwich would be a moral premise.Â
Just because he doesn't want to kill someone with ice cream doesn't mean he has morals. He may not want to kill him out of the fear of getting caught, in which case he would have to serve a life sentence in prison or even be executed, depending on his country's laws. However, if he doesn't want to live life knowing that he killed a man, then he does have morality. If he fears living life as a murderer based on emotion and not logic, then he is living life under a subjective moral code.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment