The Origins of Morality...

[Pyper900]

Where do yours come from?

Nature vs. nurture, Darwin vs. Jesus, good vs. evil.

[Chillax]

ultimatley from society

humans aren't born with morals

morals aren't much more than opinion

you feel good or bad because that's what you've and others have taught you to feel, again, it's something that is learned

I could go on, but I hope this is enough

[Bliss Sage]

Conscience

[newsbone]

I concur with Chillax,
We are born into a specific society(different ones) this societies have set social laws which they live by. It is this social laws that a constitution is based and it is this structure that a child is born and made to believe in. If one is born within cannibals then human flesh will ultimately be food, and without outside influence that is how one will grow up.

[Xanafax]

My morality is a very a personal thing. I believe atm that for an action to be moral it must rationally benefit me.

[David Cain]

I agree with Chillax too. Morality is conditioning.

I view morality as a way to contend superiority over other people and other cultures. I suspect even the biblical notions of Good and Evil have been manipulated to connote moral standing, when originally they only referred to the wisdom of acting in particular ways.

Empathy is the only 'compass' I need.

[aphorist]

For me, morality stemmed from the perception of society that a systematic way of doing things needed to be established. What the whole considered the best way to interact, the right and wrong way to interact.

But because I don't have the preception that we need a systematic way, and because morality is utilitarian by nature, I find very little use for it. It's totally limiting in my view.

The great philosophers of our time delt with this issue of morality because things were so atrocious when they were living. Some were killed for their ideas which prevailed. Today we benefit, but there's still more work to be done.

[Pyper900]

If morality is entirely nurtured through social interactions, then how do you explain the moral alignment of segregated aboriginal tribes to our modern culturally defined moral memes?

Segregated cultures inevitably acheive the same basic moral guides as the rest of the worlds population, seemingly independent of cultural contamination and outside influence.

Morality, it seems to me, is a culturally focused hereditary trait, favoured through natural selection for it's collective benefit of group satisfaction and survival.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by aphorist

For me, morality stemmed from the perception of society that a systematic way of doing things needed to be established. What the whole considered the best way to interact, the right and wrong way to interact.

But because I don't have the preception that we need a systematic way, and because morality is utilitarian by nature, I find very little use for it. It's totally limiting in my view.

The great philosophers of our time delt with this issue of morality because things were so atrocious when they were living. Some were killed for their ideas which prevailed. Today we benefit, but there's still more work to be done.

Some would say that these times, in which we live, are just as, if not more, atrocious than any other time on earth. Religious persecution and genocide are rampant, as is he predatory nature of the bourgois over the proletariat, in western culture as well as eastern, and materialism has reached an all time high popularity among all world populations.

I think it's time for some more philosophers.

[Cran]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

If morality is entirely nurtured through social interactions, then how do you explain the moral alignment of segregated aboriginal tribes to our modern culturally defined moral memes?

Segregated cultures inevitably acheive the same basic moral guides as the rest of the worlds population, seemingly independent of cultural contamination and outside influence.

This is not true. Segregated tribes might develop acceptable (for them) behavior like cannibalism or abandonment of unwanted/ill children.

Many social traits will be similar because they work well for the society: Care for others, hurt nobody without reason, contribute to the greater good, honor your elders etc. Without most of these basic rules, society will not work.

Therefore, their existence does not point to a source of morailty like conscious of man, genetics or even God. Put a man among wild beasts, and he'll be the worst of them after a short time.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Cran

This is not true. Segregated tribes might develop acceptable (for them) behavior like cannibalism or abandonment of unwanted/ill children.

Many social traits will be similar because they work well for the society: Care for others, hurt nobody without reason, contribute to the greater good, honor your elders etc. Without most of these basic rules, society will not work.

Therefore, their existence does not point to a source of morailty like conscious of man, genetics or even God. Put a man among wild beasts, and he'll be the worst of them after a short time.

Don't confuse cultural memes with morals. Cannibalism is not a moral, nor does it spesk to a lack of morals. Those tribes who participate in cannibalism do so as a part of a pseudo-religious ritual, which provides the justification for suspending in-group moral judgement. Those people still possess a moral objection to in-group murder.

It's also incorrect to say that they should possess a moral objection to out-group murder, of course, because most societies in the global culture lack that particular moral.

So, now we're back at the beginning again; morals cannot be a nurtured trait, at least in any appreciable way, as our societies continually act immorally, or in the very least, amorally, which would suggest a large amount of heriditary drift in the assimilation of moral values with each generation, which we apparently don't see.

Is there no validity to the argument that morals values are an ingrained genetic function of group survival. We judge certain behaviours to be wrong, because they cause harm to members of our particular group, which is bad for survival, our sense of empathy allows us to measure the severity of harm and to assign a moral value to behaviour.

Is empathy gained through birthright or socialising?

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by aphorist

For me, morality stemmed from the perception of society that a systematic way of doing things needed to be established. What the whole considered the best way to interact, the right and wrong way to interact.

But because I don't have the preception that we need a systematic way, and because morality is utilitarian by nature, I find very little use for it. It's totally limiting in my view.

Utilitarianism is basically the idea that there are goals for society which extend beyond your personal goals. They may not be in conflict with your personal goals, but they're not necessarily dependent on them either. What's wrong with that? For instance, many people who are working against climate change today are doing something that may not affect their generation at all.

And to be honest I think we already have a systematic way of doing things. Just look at all the laws and institutions we have in place today.

[Cran]

Originally Posted by Pyper900

Don't confuse cultural memes with morals.

You are making up this difference which has to be explained.
Where is the difference between cultural "memes" and morals?
The cultural memes a society has are the societies morals.
You are making the pre-judgement that there is a difference, that morals exist per se.

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Cran

You are making up this difference which has to be explained.
Where is the difference between cultural "memes" and morals?
The cultural memes a society has are the societies morals.
You are making the pre-judgement that there is a difference, that morals exist per se.

I'm not making anything up. A cultural meme is a group decision toward a certain group realised benefit.

Morals are individual, they are your own personal sense of right and wrong.

Within a group, there are certain institutions, religion for example, which provide the means to suspend personal morals for the greater good of the group (which is by no means to say that suspension of morals contributes to the greater good, see the crusades for instance)

The point being, that morals do not come from cultural memes, but often cultural memes come from morals. The twist happens when group goals conflict with memes.

The discussion at hand is one of deciding where morals come from. In my example, cannibalism cannot be considered a moral choice (one way or the other) because it is one that is sanctioned by the religious views of the group in question.

[Michael Chui]

My answer is written here: The Preacher and the Sage