-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the source of your morality?
- Thread starter FlyingTeaPot
- Start date
I see just the opposite.
Morality is learned behavior. We can learn how to live better than our non-sapient ancestors, but we're born with a batch of instincts that helped spread our genes. Those instincts, often subconscious, are what often cause us to choose destructive things. Things like theft and rape and murder.
It's when we operate out of our learned, conscious, mind that we choose things that are moral. Things that will result in a good life, not a short term benefit at the cost of degrading the human situation, which includes our own since we are all humans.
Tom
1. Objective and subjective.
2. Yes.
3. Not in texts but in the heart.
4. God is in the heart of all. The innermost promptings of the heart, if heard, form an inherent morality which is something reflected in various scriptures.
I believe people adopt a moral code that feels right to them. I think it's impossible exactly predict what actions are going to lead to a good life, short term benefits and degradation of the human situation. I know folks like to think they can but I don't believe life is that predictable.
They also feel that their feelings should be justified so they create what seems to them a plausible explanation for whatever moral code they've adopted.
In most circumstances people will act according to what they feel is right anyways which generally matches their adopted moral code since it matched their feelings about what's right and wrong in the first place.
Sometimes they won't, because for whatever reason, they felt at the time it was ok to act against this code. When they do, they are going to feel bad about themselves later, even though at the time they felt right in doing it.
So real morals is what people feel is the right thing to do at any given moment. A moral code is just a fictionalized idea of what they feel would be the right thing to do in most circumstances.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
There is a basic foundation to morality. If there was no evil we wouldn't need it. General morality is what most agree on, and specific morality is relative and individual.
Morality comes from experience and reason.
I'm non theist. But I love the idea of a God.
My experience tells me that people have heart, mind, and will, volition, understanding and intention. What they love, hate, care for, and are ambivalent to, becomes their nature. There are temporal choices, and permanent one's in regards to nature. I've come to a place that there is a general universal morality, or GUM. And I realize there is a Truth to life. Mercy, Love, and Deserve are the three guiding principles of that Truth. And discretion, and wisdom is a must in how to apply these three principles. And that comes from understanding.
Without understanding , or trying to understand, we are blind. Each situation is either common or unique.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
My source of morality comes from my stance in the world and to some degree one can say it is religious but it is also very introspective in how it is formed. I essentially take the Non Aggression Principle and invert its notion of aggression to mean cultivation of virtue. So I am a pacifist to a small degree but my moral stance is on the basis of cultivating as much self enrichment as possible and ensuring the progression of my mind as positively as possible.
So what I eat and do to myself is a matter of ethical concern because if I eat poorly and expect others to pay the result of it be it through tax dollars, care or charity then it is ultimately a failure on my part.
So what I eat and do to myself is a matter of ethical concern because if I eat poorly and expect others to pay the result of it be it through tax dollars, care or charity then it is ultimately a failure on my part.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
This is what I make of it:
Before learning can occur, we must first sense an effect and then wonder what caused it. That means that even before language was invented, our ancestors must have had moral instincts. Since they couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it, they must have felt something wrong when a member of the tribe was murdered; but when the killing was in self-defense, it did not feel wrong. We have those very same instincts today. We refer to them collectively as conscience. In other words, if not for conscience, we would know absolutely nothing about morality.
Morality is the province of conscience. We humans learned from conscience and then, with an arrogant pride in our ability to reason, we began making moral laws and rules which have done nothing more than create biases that throw the judgments of conscience off course.
Before learning can occur, we must first sense an effect and then wonder what caused it. That means that even before language was invented, our ancestors must have had moral instincts. Since they couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it, they must have felt something wrong when a member of the tribe was murdered; but when the killing was in self-defense, it did not feel wrong. We have those very same instincts today. We refer to them collectively as conscience. In other words, if not for conscience, we would know absolutely nothing about morality.
Morality is the province of conscience. We humans learned from conscience and then, with an arrogant pride in our ability to reason, we began making moral laws and rules which have done nothing more than create biases that throw the judgments of conscience off course.
I would like to know a few things from you:
1. Is morality objective? Yes.
2. Does morality come from a single source? Yes. Understanding nature properly. Many people have huge hang-ups though.
3. For theists: Are there any morals defined in your religious text you disagree with? If so, why?
4. What is your explanation for your morality? That the Universe is perfect for us and by understanding it we want to do everything right.
1. Is morality objective? Yes.
2. Does morality come from a single source? Yes. Understanding nature properly. Many people have huge hang-ups though.
3. For theists: Are there any morals defined in your religious text you disagree with? If so, why?
4. What is your explanation for your morality? That the Universe is perfect for us and by understanding it we want to do everything right.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
1. Morality is subjective, it can never be objective.
2. Morality comes from God and is outlined in all the scriptures, especially the Baha'i scriptures.
3. I disagree with none.
4. I don't understand the question.
HeatherAnn
Active Member
1. "Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare
We do have laws that we all agree on, so in that sense there is some objectivity, however, one is innocent until proven guilty, implying that there are also sometimes exceptions to laws, based on context.
2. Morality has come from collective unconscious (according to C.Jung) - a culmination of many years of belief, but most obviously, Moses is honored in the US Capitol building as one of the most significant law-makers. "Don't kill, don't steal" etc. seem obvious, only because they've been part of our collective unconscious for so long. But once upon a time, they were breaking-news.
3. I'm not really Theist - but I do appreciate some aspects of religious doctrine. I have a hard time with the condemnation of divorce, though I see its reasoning. Children are too precious to break up a family over trivial matters, however if children are not involved, I see nothing wrong with breaking up legally what is already broken up relating-wise.
4. My morality is based mostly on my parents' ideas of right and wrong, and collective unconscious, however, I try to use logic and intuition/spirit to figure out what is best for all involved in the big picture.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
I'll take a rain check. I haven't yet convinced myself that I am moral. Maybe we just take it for granted that we are moral creatures. Maybe that morality that we suppose ourselves to have is personal or maybe it is installed by society or perhaps it is something to which we aspire and, therefore, we must tell ourselves that we have it, so that we can acquire it.
syo
Well-Known Member
yes
yes
no
morality applies to all people.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I voted "other", though I was going to pick "personal convictions."
1. Yes and no. I believe there are objective reasons for certain moral goals, but the morals themselves will always be developed subjectively in different times and places.
2. Yes and no. I believe in a "divine reality", like a "cloud drive", but everyone has their own computer hard drives too.
3. It's easier to say what I agree with: The Golden Rule and "Judge a tree by its fruits". This is why I didn't vote for "personal convictions", because I believe it must be paired with objective verification to ensure true benevolence.
4. See 3?
Sleeppy
Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
1) Yes, and no. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
2) Yes. Free will is an illusion- a gift, but an illusion.
3) Yes. Ironically, because certain of the texts suggest that they be tested. *There are those in this forum that challenge my ideas, which prevents stagnation.
4) #2. Time is illusory, moving forward like an arrow, from conscious perspective.
Time is NOT real: Physicists show EVERYTHING happens at the same time
The idea that everything from spoons to stones are conscious is gaining academic credibility
1. Is morality objective?
Supposing it somehow is, I would find that to be irrelevant. True objectivity (of any sort) can only occur with omniscience and omnipresence, neither of which humans possess. At best, humans grasp at what they believe is objective and can never conclusively verify such claims. Whether or not objectivity is a reality is moot; human behavior reflects inevitable subjective realities of individual lives and diverse cultures (only some of whom are human). In my experience, human groups that claim "objective morality" are in it to forward their own agendas by using the authoritarian concept of objectivity to buttress their righteousness. It is an approach that works for some. It fails me.
2. Does morality come from a single source?
I doubt that anything comes from a single source, much less complex human social constructs. Everything is interconnected and interrelated; everything is the source of everything. I suppose if you want to conceptualize "everything" in monist, singular terms, you could make the case. Not really my thing, though.
3. For theists: Are there any morals defined in your religious text you disagree with? If so, why?
Being a theist doesn't mean one has a religious text, nor one that specifically prescribes morals. The question is not applicable to me in the manner you intend. The closest thing I have to what you are probably asking about is my Book; a manual of sorts for my own tradition. Considering I wrote everything in there myself, I don't disagree with any of it. When I do, pages get ripped out and revised. My religion is a way of life, a living tradition. It's not a fossil... in spite of historical attempts to relegate Paganisms to precisely that.
4. What is your explanation for your morality?
I don't have one, because I don't believe I have any (I'm a moral nihilist). What I have are standards that I like to keep myself to; a personal code of honor. That code hasn't been revised significantly since I wrote it over a decade ago. It was an articulation of that which I already was, as produced by all things around me. I am a product of my environs, after all, as are all things.
Supposing it somehow is, I would find that to be irrelevant. True objectivity (of any sort) can only occur with omniscience and omnipresence, neither of which humans possess. At best, humans grasp at what they believe is objective and can never conclusively verify such claims. Whether or not objectivity is a reality is moot; human behavior reflects inevitable subjective realities of individual lives and diverse cultures (only some of whom are human). In my experience, human groups that claim "objective morality" are in it to forward their own agendas by using the authoritarian concept of objectivity to buttress their righteousness. It is an approach that works for some. It fails me.
2. Does morality come from a single source?
I doubt that anything comes from a single source, much less complex human social constructs. Everything is interconnected and interrelated; everything is the source of everything. I suppose if you want to conceptualize "everything" in monist, singular terms, you could make the case. Not really my thing, though.
3. For theists: Are there any morals defined in your religious text you disagree with? If so, why?
Being a theist doesn't mean one has a religious text, nor one that specifically prescribes morals. The question is not applicable to me in the manner you intend. The closest thing I have to what you are probably asking about is my Book; a manual of sorts for my own tradition. Considering I wrote everything in there myself, I don't disagree with any of it. When I do, pages get ripped out and revised. My religion is a way of life, a living tradition. It's not a fossil... in spite of historical attempts to relegate Paganisms to precisely that.
4. What is your explanation for your morality?
I don't have one, because I don't believe I have any (I'm a moral nihilist). What I have are standards that I like to keep myself to; a personal code of honor. That code hasn't been revised significantly since I wrote it over a decade ago. It was an articulation of that which I already was, as produced by all things around me. I am a product of my environs, after all, as are all things.