Morality

[shunyadragon]

Thanks. Trying to understand. What do you mean by "morality is a choice..."? Where does that choice come from?

It depends on your religious belief, If you believe in God of course the origin of all existence down to our morals and ethics in one form or another are from God like everything else, and/or the science of the natural evolution of behavior, morals and ethics necessary for the survival of the human species. Morals and ethics are necessary for the family and community cooperation to reproduce and raise the next generation. There objective consistency of the morals and ethics of the different cultures of the world and humanity. For example; Virtually all cultures prohibit wrongful death, theft, and family and community structure. There is also a subjective diversity in morals and ethics that vary from culture to culture over the history of humanity. The desire for a sense of community and identity dominate human societies and determine that the majority of the members that society comply with the code of morals and ethics of that society.

There are elements of choice in morals and ethics, but also elements of limitations of choice in the evolving necessity of morals and ethics for humans to survive.

The evidence for the evolution of morals, ethics, and family and community structure are found in primates today, and our primitive primate ancestors and other higher mammals.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nature is a broad brush to paint with.

Morality is learned. We learn to paint, and we learn what to paint.

The evidence demonstrates that we both inherit and learn morals and ethics.

 

[Nakosis]

Is morality a natural tendency towards one particular thing or other? Please explain.

Morals IMO is mostly subconscious programming. It genetics, environment, culture, experience with a little bit of conscious choice thrown in.

Morals is how you feel about right and wrong with regards to ideas and behavior. Mostly on a subconscious level so we can't usually identify the source of those feelings. However we can to some degree govern those feelings. We can try to adopt a moral code, usually of the religious ilk, but that doesn't always work out as we think it ought to. People are driven by their subconscious programming often find themselves unable to live up to their moral ideals.

You ought to be familiar with trying to adopt the moral behavior you think you should have yet finding yourself tempted to act otherwise. Sometimes you are able to do the right thing. Sometimes you find yourself not consciously in control and acting otherwise.

I usually avoid adopting moral codes as these are usually ideas other people have of who I ought to be. They are not really who I am.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay thanks.
So you don't believe morality is a natural tendency toward any one particular way, but you believe we learn morality based on where we are located, and what we experience.

So each culture has it's own morality, which it gained from an earlier culture, and so on.

Yes. It's based on our past experiences and lessons and trial and error.

Seems like a root structure.
If we travel back far enough to the main root, does morality exist there, or is there no morality?
So that when we start the growth, experience creates morality, and shapes cultures...

Is that how you see it?

I don't see morality having a root cause. We were born a clean slate. If we had inherent morals, we would know right from wrong before we make mistakes. I feel our morals come "from" those mistakes which would be at first basic survival skills (don't touch the fire) to more values indoctrinated by the care taker(s) involved in that child's growth. That's why it's so hard to change your morals when you've been following them so long in your life and in adulthood you realize they aren't the best for you at present adulthood as was assumed growing up as a child.

 

[nPeace]

I don't think conscience is concerned with how we treat ourselves.

Since it's emerges from the unconscious mind, the source of it's wisdom is a mystery. Since it seems to align with the survival of our species, it might be evolved instinct.

How we choose to act is a matter of intent. That's the province of our ego, that being we refer to as "I." We can accept or reject the guidance of conscience.

Is it fixed? I'm not sure what you're asking.

Speaking of conscience, you said it's source is a mystery.
You earlier said, 'We humans have a conscience to guide us..... If an action we are considering feels wrong, we shouldn't do it. These feelings of wrongness are intuitive and immediate."

So, you are saying...
1) The conscious has a source.
2) The conscious is a guide.
A guide to what... morality? Why? Why do we have a guide that points to a particular way? Is that particular way fixed, so that that's where the guide points, instead of remaining silent, and saying, 'Whatever. I got better things to do than baby sit losers." Like the poles are fixed, and the compass points there instead of all over the place.

Can you give an example of how the conscience "seems to align with the survival of our species,"?

 

[nPeace]

Morality is an attempt to regulate our instincts.
We have, like almost all social animals, an instinctive tendency to work together and be helpful to our tribe but we also have destructive or selfish instincts. Our ability to reflect on our behaviour enables us to live in bigger groups and be more productive when we can regulate our selfish instincts.
So it is a natural tendency in a broad sense, in the sense of living together productively. That doesn't mean that there is only one particular morality.

I'm not sure I can follow you there.
If you are saying "morality is an attempt to regulate our instincts", how can it be a natural tendency?
If we have to reflect on our behavior, and make adjustments, and those differ in the same species of human... unlike animal, would that not mean, it's not natural, but rather a process created by choice?

Or perhaps you are saying, it is natural to make choices, hence what choices we make leads to a form of morality, thus it is a natural tendency.

The thing about that is there are many choices we make that are in no way linked to survival... unless one believes in a God that determines their future based on their choices... I think.

 

[nPeace]

Humans are a social species, so we do seem to have what you might call natural tendencies toward certain behaviors that benefit our group. Parents have a natural tendency to care about the well-being of their children for example. We have mirror neurons that enable us to empathize with others' feelings.

Obviously, the tendency is not absolute or completely universal, but it seems to be there in some measure for many of us.

Thanks.
So if I am antisocial...
"Towards certain behavior"? So if I go against those certain behavior...?
Seem we are getting a natural and unnatural. So do some humans have unnatural tendencies, or behavior?

 

[nPeace]

What helps is a coherent worldview. One man may have a worldview that promotes helping others and doing the right thing. Another may have a worldview that values tribalism and shunning those who are different from others. For example a white nationalist may avoid helping someone based on race or nationality. One of the important values the good Samaritan parable promotes is morality transcends race, nationality and even religion. But sure.... some worldviews promote tribalism and will see one group or person as inherently better than another and less worthy.

Understandably, you believe, unlike a quarter of the world, that there is "the right thing".
What I am trying to get from you, is what makes it "the right thing"... Who or what determines "the right thing".

 

[nPeace]

Nope. No national tendencies.

Oops. Sorry. Typo. Natural tendency.

Indeed. Morality is a 'fixed set' when we learn it. We add to and delete from the base set as we learn.

We grow.

It's fixed before we learn it, right? That's why we have to learn it, right? Not fixed after we learn it, right?
Just making sure I got you.

 

[Left Coast]

Thanks.
So if I am antisocial...
"Towards certain behavior"? So if I go against those certain behavior...?
Seem we are getting a natural and unnatural. So do some humans have unnatural tendencies, or behavior?

"If I am antisocial." That made me laugh.

Depends on how we're defining natural. I was interpreting your question to ask if certain moral tendencies are innate, ie instinctive, or maybe even genetic, as opposed to something learned. Did you have a different meaning in mind?

If that's your question, then yes, most humans seem to have some common moral instincts. Not all do, as you mentioned. Sociopaths, for example, have no remorse for doing horrible harm to others. Is that "unnatural?" One could argue it's natural to them - some studies have shown that sociopaths actually have brain differences from the average person. I tend to think our moralities are a function of both moral instinct and learning.

 

[nPeace]

Wisdom is knowing what morality is correct and all the ones that do harm to self and others. Morality comes from experience and seeing for yourself what is true and what is not.

People need to realize who they are and what they are capable of in order to learn good morality. If they don't know their own freedoms and capabilities of being then they will be utterly lost and ignorant.

It takes serious consideration to learn the higher morals. Basic morality is simple stuff though.

People are completely responsible for their morality. Because we can choose to delight in wrong, or worse, or right and better.

There is the cause and effect of a right morality. And the heart that wills and delights in a right morality.

Many of the moralities people like are nothing but poison. The morality that produces true love is the best one and it can be a hard road to walk. But the best morality is not fair weather love. Rather it is the kind that produces the love that persists no matter what and is based on all the virtues. Without virtues there is no genuine love.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if God exists!
But I'm looking at reality and seeing nothing from a God. Why nothing from God if there is a God is my impediment to believing in God.

A higher power might exist though. Otherwise it's a happy miracle that such a wonderful morality exists.

Interesting post. Thanks.
So you hold the view that there is right or good morality, and wrong, or bad morality. In other words, I think it's safe to say, morality, and immorality.

Hence you hold the view that there is an ultimate source to morality, though not making any assertions as to the source.... but asserting the source can't be God.

Since morality involves a mind, and a conscience, it seems reasonable to conclude, the source is of a mind.
Any objections?
Why is God not in the equation?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Humans are predisposed to forming social groups, and part of that is coming to an agreement on group goals based around things like fairness, empathy, happiness vs suffering and so on.

But each view of those overall subjects will be filtered through one's experiences (this includes people who believe they're getting their morality from something else. They must subject that data through their own ability to interpret. And if neuroscience has taught us anything, its that people will project their own beliefs on the information they think is coming from somewhere else). So there is never a 100% consistent idea of what those things are and how to best achieve them.

The individual struggle to answer those questions is morality. The group consensus/compromise is ethics. The ability for the group to regulate ethics is policy and law. In my view, all of them are natural (humans cannot do anything unnatural I don't think.) But not all of them will meet those societal goals.

 

[osgart]

Interesting post. Thanks.
So you hold the view that there is right or good morality, and wrong, or bad morality. In other words, I think it's safe to say, morality, and immorality.

Hence you hold the view that there is an ultimate source to morality, though not making any assertions as to the source.... but asserting the source can't be God.

Since morality involves a mind, and a conscience, it seems reasonable to conclude, the source is of a mind.
Any objections?
Why is God not in the equation?

I'm not seeing a God that I can say is God. I don't know a God. I have lived 49 years and have come to know what I feel are very high standards for a true God to meet.

There are claims of omnipotence but all I see is that reality causes a lot of suffering that is beyond toleration for a lot of people.

I cannot make heads or tails of any of these religious books. I don't see myself as having any responsibility to these books. Mercy, sin, karma, I don't get it. These books are making judgment on all of humanity. And then I have to buy into a substantial amount of information to get approval.

I have no objections that morality must come from mind. And there is some ultimate source somewhere. But honestly I don't see that an ultimate source has much control over reality.

 

[nPeace]

It depends on your religious belief, If you believe in God of course the origin of all existence down to our morals and ethics in one form or another are from God like everything else, and/or the science of the natural evolution of behavior, morals and ethics necessary for the survival of the human species. Morals and ethics are necessary for the family and community cooperation to reproduce and raise the next generation. There objective consistency of the morals and ethics of the different cultures of the world and humanity. For example; Virtually all cultures prohibit wrongful death, theft, and family and community structure. There is also a subjective diversity in morals and ethics that vary from culture to culture over the history of humanity. The desire for a sense of community and identity dominate human societies and determine that the majority of the members that society comply with the code of morals and ethics of that society.

There are elements of choice in morals and ethics, but also elements of limitations of choice in the evolving necessity of morals and ethics for humans to survive.

The evidence for the evolution of morals, ethics, and family and community structure are found in primates today, and our primitive primate ancestors and other higher mammals.

Thanks.
Could you give me the evidence of morals, "n primates today, and our primitive primate ancestors and other higher mammals", where stealing, lying, murder, etc., are morally wrong.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure I can follow you there.
If you are saying "morality is an attempt to regulate our instincts", how can it be a natural tendency?

There are multiple regulatory circuits that determine behaviour. Instincts regulate each other. In an older model that we now know is too simplistic we thought that different brain layers have different functions. Instincts were generated in the "lizard brain" and rational thought (and morality) came from the mammalian/primate/human brain of the frontal or neo cortex. The functions of the lizard brain are fast and hard wired. The functions of the neo cortex are flexible (have to be learned). The "higher" functions of the neo cortex are able to regulate functions of the lizard brain. (It's not that simple but as a model it's close enough.)
That's why it is much easier to train a mammal than a reptile.
You need a neo cortex to regulate instincts.

If we have to reflect on our behavior, and make adjustments, and those differ in the same species of human... unlike animal, would that not mean, it's not natural, but rather a process created by choice?

Or perhaps you are saying, it is natural to make choices, hence what choices we make leads to a form of morality, thus it is a natural tendency.

It is a natural tendency but more than that it is a natural ability. Based on your ability to use your rational brain, your education and your experiences, you are more or less likely to make conscious choices - or let your instincts make them for you.

The thing about that is there are many choices we make that are in no way linked to survival... unless one believes in a God that determines their future based on their choices... I think.

I don't know. I see no rational reason to include a god idea into the explanation of morality or behaviour. For me it seems that pareidolia is an older function of the neo cortex on a level between instinct and true consciousness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is morality a natural tendency towards one particular thing or other? Please explain.

Morality and ethics are the changeable ways in which a society thinks.
Like @Heyo said, there is no rational reason to include a god idea into the explanation of morality or behavior.

Could you give me the evidence of morals, "in primates today, and our primitive primate ancestors and other higher mammals", where stealing, lying, murder, etc., are morally wrong.

I have read that monkey mothers do not let incest happen.

Mercy, sin, karma, I don't get it.

I do not think you should include karma here. Karma is actions and its result. One reaps what one sows. Like you, I am an atheist, so I do not see any God or Goddess in the process. Our actions have material or mental repercussions. Also it is not necessary that all good deeds are rewarded and all evil deeds are punished in life. I do not believe in reincarnation /rebirth being a true atheist.
That is why Gita said "Don't look for results, just do your duty". Results depend on many other variables and not just one's action. There are other factors involved.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. at first basic survival skills (don't touch the fire) ..

An advice in India - "do not pass under a ladder'. Ladder is not fixed and may slip and injure you. However, I have not understood the reason for another saying. "Drink milk while standing, drink water while sitting." If it is a proverb, then it must have some reason. Can anyone help me to understand this?

 

[Heyo]

An advice in India - "do not pass under a ladder'. Ladder is not fixed and may slip and injure you. However, I have not understood the reason for another saying. "Drink milk while standing, drink water while sitting." If it is a proverb, then it must have some reason. Can anyone help me to understand this?

I have no idea of the original meaning but milk contains fat, protein and sugar. So, drink milk when you are working and burning those calories. When you aren't working (when you're sitting), drink water.
Just a random guess.

 

[joe1776]

Speaking of conscience, you said it's source is a mystery.
You earlier said, 'We humans have a conscience to guide us..... If an action we are considering feels wrong, we shouldn't do it. These feelings of wrongness are intuitive and immediate."

So, you are saying...
1) The conscious has a source.
2) The conscious is a guide.
A guide to what... morality? Why? Why do we have a guide that points to a particular way? Is that particular way fixed, so that that's where the guide points, instead of remaining silent, and saying, 'Whatever. I got better things to do than baby sit losers." Like the poles are fixed, and the compass points there instead of all over the place.

Can you give an example of how the conscience "seems to align with the survival of our species,"?

Our conscience is remarkable. It can give us an immediate judgment enabling us to discern right from wrong despite the fact that human acts vary in an almost infinite number of different situations.

We are born with a conscience. We don't learn to discern right from wrong as many think. The argument against that idea is complicated but the first clue is that, if learning was involved, intelligent people, on the whole, would obviously be morally superior. We've seen no evidence of that.

I'm only guessing that there's a connection to survival because, for example, conscience isn't bothered by killing in self-defense. Over the course of many generations that judgment would diminish the percentage of murderers in the human population. There is research confirming that the murder rate (as a percentage of the population) is going down.

 

[Heyo]

We are born with a conscience. We don't learn to discern right from wrong as many think. The argument against that idea is complicated but the first clue is that, if learning was involved, intelligent people would obviously be morally superior. We've seen no evidence of that.

We are born with instincts and the ability to develop a conscience.
One indicator of that is the average IQ of prison inmates. It is far below the average of the population overall.