• 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!

How Flexible are Your Morals?

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The research Everett and his colleague report suggest a different way of thinking about moral reasoning. Flexible morality may be a better guide to making difficult decisions in a complex world. But if you want other people to trust and cooperate with you, it’s better to let them know your moral values are absolute.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201611/where-does-our-moral-sense-come


I'm more of a morally flexible guy, still generally people see me as trustworthy. Usually I don't discuss my morals with most people so I imagine they assume a lot.

But when it comes to moral judgments like these, most of us aren’t swayed by argumentation. Our innate moral sense is absolute. It allows no exceptions, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Yet why should this be? Throughout history, humans have repeatedly faced situations in which they had to violate their innate moral code. They kill attackers to save themselves or family members. They lie so as not to hurt the feelings of loved ones. It seems that a flexible moral sense would be more adaptive.

In a recent paper, University of Oxford psychologist Jim Everett and his colleagues laid out a theory to explain the rigidity of our innate moral sense. They propose that our intuitive morality has been shaped not by the day-to-day dilemmas we face but rather by the opinions of other people. More specifically, Everett and his colleagues hypothesize that statements and behaviors consistent with an absolute moral code are signals of trustworthiness.

This is what I've generally assumed, that there is a genetic factor . . .

It seems you've already gotten into the this matter, but I didn't really see where it began.

In any case, there is nothing in what you quoted that says anything about "a genetic factor". And I don't understand from what fact one might draw a conclusion about "a genetic factor" being relevant to the issue of moral precepts among humans. After all, being a mass murderer and then producing and raising children would presumably be an effective way to differentially increase the frequency of one's genes in a population. But that does not suggest in any way that mass murdering is a moral act.

Anyway, I find it difficult to answer the questions you've asked about "flexibility," in the first place, depending on what is meant by "flexible". Additionally, every response I think of depends on what level of generality one is referring to. For instance, I have no difficulty saying (something like) that it is always immoral for a person to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for his/her own pleasure. But there could presumably be lots of discussion and dispute about what is meant by the terms "intentional," "harm," "sentient" and "his/her own pleasure". Depending on what those terms mean, it seems conceivable that there could be some specific act that could fall under the purview of the stated precept that might be not immoral--although, I can't think of any such instance or definitions offhand.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
It seems you've already gotten into the this matter, but I didn't really see where it began.

In any case, there is nothing in what you quoted that says anything about "a genetic factor". And I don't understand from what fact one might draw a conclusion about "a genetic factor" being relevant to the issue of moral precepts among humans. After all, being a mass murderer and then producing and raising children would presumably be an effective way to differentially increase the frequency of one's genes in a population. But that does not suggest in any way that mass murdering is a moral act.

Anyway, I find it difficult to answer the questions you've asked about "flexibility," in the first place, depending on what is meant by "flexible". Additionally, every response I think of depends on what level of generality one is referring to. For instance, I have no difficulty saying (something like) that it is always immoral for a person to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for his/her own pleasure. But there could presumably be lots of discussion and dispute about what is meant by the terms "intentional," "harm," "sentient" and "his/her own pleasure". Depending on what those terms mean, it seems conceivable that there could be some specific act that could fall under the purview of the stated precept that might be not immoral--although, I can't think of any such instance or definitions offhand.

Kind of more interested in what cause you to feel this way. For example there are sadist/masochist who have no moral issues causing and receiving pain for pleasure. So, what makes them different?

As I see it, not all moral proclivities are a matter of conscious choice. Granted, some are like an acceptance of the Ten Commandments for some religious folks or the constitution, Sharia law etc...

However, what you personally feel is right and wrong, where or how does that feeling originate? Unless you feel we consciously choose all of our feelings, it has to come from somewhere. If not genetics then where?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
That is absolutely dreadful......... to go anywhere near the concept that 'morals' might be genetically transferred. Horrible!

You're straying into territories so prejudiced as to be utterly........ 'Immoral'! :D

Each person is their own self, as individual as their fingerprints, and to even try to gauge a person's character because their Mum or Dad once did a bad thing is ... frightening.

Also, sorry if you've already responded to my previous post. Genetics is not always about your Mom and Dad. Many genetic traits can be hidden, suppressed for generations. There's also environment triggers that may cause some traits to surface while others remain submersed.

Genetics pertains to our whole history of human development. Genetically we share a lot of DNA with only a few minor differences but there are differences. We also have common behavior with other humans yet obviously we experience different upbringing. So why is that?

I'm not claiming that not all morals are a matter of conscious choice but some seem not to be. What's the cause of those feelings?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I see it in more simple terms. People choose to act because they feel that action is right in that moment. Justification usually come after the fact. Someone did what they felt was right at the moment of action but because of culture, opinion, maybe religious values they seek to justify what they did. IMO if the action was really wrong, immoral, in their view, they would have never done it in the first place.

It's peer pressure, consequence, cultural upbringing which causes folks to justify their actions. People always act IMO according to their true morals. IOW, a person lies, whatever, because they felt it was the right thing to do. Justification is a result of social constructs.

There's personal morals, which a person always acts by and there's group morals which is not the true nature of the person but the way the person has to behave to remain a part of the group.

So while the group view is that lying is always wrong, obviously detrimental to the whole of the group, individually a person lies because they felt it was the "right" thing to do.


I can see that. Someone may go against his own morals and try to justify it because of guilt. Killing is against my morals but my morals don't chain me from committing an action inside I would never commit. I think that's why some people have inner turmoil about, say, following a new faith because it's going against their inner feeling of what's right and what makes sense.

If someone chose to lie I wouldn't think that would be his morals is to lie. We aren't defined by our actions but our actions can give an impression of who we are not to others. So, basically, it's highly unlikely people should go against their morals. But if they felt another person's wellbeing is more important than keeping their morals a mother may kill someone attacking her child while at the same time know killing is bad.

I mean, someone can say I will do this because I think it's right is just the same as I did this because I'm right. If that makes sense. justifications used as an excuse to act in one case or to cover their actions in another.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It is. People do it anyways.

If you murder, it is wrong. If you killed in self defense (please out aside definitions. I mean take a life) it's still wrong but the American legal system justifies it as righteous given the circumstances aren't premeditated. Jesus Christ is another example. Saints another.

Legally it can. Morally it cannot. I understand the justifications for some people's situations that prompt them to take a life. Doesn't mean it's right but I understand it.

I think.

I assume there is a charge or something for taking a life but legal consequences would be dropped or less consequences given the nature of the crime. Take A Few Good Men, movie. Two officers killed their peer because their sargent told them. They weren't charged with murder but they still suffered minor consequences by being let go even though they did nothing wrong. I don't think the movie made the whole thing from scratch, but I think...

Shrugs. We use so many perspectives to justify our actions. I feel we are consequences by our actions regardless the legal circumstances. Every action has an effect.

Fair enough....... to all of your points.

For me there is only one kind of morality, although I don't use that word, and that is 'Integrity'. A wise person once told me that I must not judge other people by any standards that I might have, but to watch and listen in order to discover theirs, and then to judge them by their own standards. That works wonders, as many folks let themselves down as their actions migrate far from their words.

I just don't trust the word 'Moral' at all..... it has so many differing colours and facets. But that's me........ I guess I'm an old skeptic by now... :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Well, this seems an absolute for you.
True...... The Victorians thought that the children of convicts were automatically suspect, etc....... such blooming hypocrites ... :)

It's fine to disagree with the OP, but then where do you feel your morals originate from?
Well, a load of humans stuffed me with their ideas about morality right through my childhood, and it took me a lifetime to scour their hypocrisies and stupidities away.

I don't have any morals. I just keep the laws of the land which I live in, wish nobody any kind of harm and follow my heart, step-by-step, moment by moment. If I would live somewhere else then my actions would change to fit with that country's laws wherever possible. Even Saint Paul recommended that ... :D
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Kind of more interested in what cause you to feel this way. For example there are sadist/masochist who have no moral issues causing and receiving pain for pleasure. So, what makes them different?

As I see it, not all moral proclivities are a matter of conscious choice. Granted, some are like an acceptance of the Ten Commandments for some religious folks or the constitution, Sharia law etc...

However, what you personally feel is right and wrong, where or how does that feeling originate? Unless you feel we consciously choose all of our feelings, it has to come from somewhere. If not genetics then where?
I am confident that the issue of objective moral facts will always be a mystery to anyone who tries to arrive at moral precepts based on his/her own free-floating feelings. Identifying objective moral facts entails logical processes no less than any other matter does. Granted, the proposition that it is always immoral to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for one's own personal pleasure is most likely deduced from a negative premise--e.g., being unable to falsify the hypothesis by identifying an instance where it would be moral for a person to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for one's own personal pleasure. Beginning one's moral reasoning with a proposition whose factual basis is just that one cannot falsify it despite trying merely highlights the tentative nature of identify objective moral facts. Scientific theories are often no less tentative for the same reason--being unable to falsify them despite making a logical and concerted effort to do so.

In any case, the assumption that some behavior or set of behaviors is "genetic" in some sense should have a basis in fact--there should be a fact that you can cite by which to deduce the assumption that you speak of in the OP. Cite that fact.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I am confident that the issue of objective moral facts will always be a mystery to anyone who tries to arrive at moral precepts based on his/her own free-floating feelings. Identifying objective moral facts entails logical processes no less than any other matter does. Granted, the proposition that it is always immoral to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for one's own personal pleasure is most likely deduced from a negative premise--e.g., being unable to falsify the hypothesis by identifying an instance where it would be moral for a person to intentionally harm another sentient creature merely for one's own personal pleasure. Beginning one's moral reasoning with a proposition whose factual basis is just that one cannot falsify it despite trying merely highlights the tentative nature of identify objective moral facts. Scientific theories are often no less tentative for the same reason--being unable to falsify them despite making a logical and concerted effort to do so.

In any case, the assumption that some behavior or set of behaviors is "genetic" in some sense should have a basis in fact--there should be a fact that you can cite by which to deduce the assumption that you speak of in the OP. Cite that fact.

It's all supposition. I doubt we know enough about human behavior at this point to start claiming facts. While I've found supporting opinion I could point to, it's still opinion. The point of the OP was not to make claims but to invite discussion. Or even invite facts for or against such opinion that I'm not aware of.

If I had come across anything I thought could be claimed as fact I would have offered it in the OP. I have an opinion based on personal observation and somewhat supported by the opinion of others. I put it out there seeking opposing opinion and on the rare chance someone else has a fact or two to offer.
 
Top