Where does morality come from?

[say what]

I read this today on an Eco-Islamic site:

"If a person has no belief, one has to question where the morality comes from"

http://www.theecomuslim.com/2013/03/10-environment-quran-verses.html


I've read a lot of discussion on beliefs, ideologies, religion, etc. and I thought it might be interesting to see what you guys think of this.

At first I was offended...suggesting that because I don't subscribe to a particular ideology, that I don't have morality...but then I began to think, "Well, where does my morality come from? What do I base it on?" ... now I'm left quizzical, rather than offended.

I would be interested in hearing what you guys think!

 

[Akiko]

As I Christian, I believe that God instilled in us an innate sense of right and wrong (which can be-and often is--skewed, distorted, or smothered by sin, but still present), so while someone may not believe in God, they still have a sense of morality because that's how humans are designed. So belief does not cause morality; rather, morality is a part of human nature. Does that make sense? Just my two cents.

 

[Elis]

genetics and social structure?

 

[say what]

As I Christian, I believe that God instilled in us an innate sense of right and wrong (which can be-and often is--skewed, distorted, or smothered by sin, but still present), so while someone may not believe in God, they still have a sense of morality because that's how humans are designed. So belief does not cause morality; rather, morality is a part of human nature. Does that make sense? Just my two cents.

Interesting. So you would disagree with the quote- that regardless of beliefs, people are instilled with a core system of morality? Does one have a choice in skewing or distorting it? If I don't believe in a specific moral code, am I still sinning? Or do you need to believe in the right and the wrong to sin?

 

[say what]

genetics and social structure?

So both nature and nurture?

So people are both born with a sense of morality, but also their life experiences (e.g., environment, culture, social interactions) shapes their morality? So you would say morality has nothing to do with belief?

If that's the case, how do we know something is immoral or not?

 

[the]

Morality comes from a desire to provide security for yourself by controlling others.

 

[Elektra]

"If a person has no belief, one has to question where the morality comes from"

I'm assuming this quote implies religious belief, because we all believe in something. I disagree with this quote, if you take a look at history you'll see there where many evil deeds (defined in religious terms) done by religious people, who were acting in accordance with their beliefs, and you'll find atheists who were great humanists, (and the other way around) so I think this quote may have an element of truth for some individuals, but it's definitely a huge generalization. I have some other thoughts (and questions) on this subject, but don't have much time to elaborate now. In the meantime I have another quote for you kinda opposite of the one above(like to read your opinion):
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” ~Andre Gide

 

[Elektra]

As I Christian, I believe that God instilled in us an innate sense of right and wrong (which can be-and often is--skewed, distorted, or smothered by sin, but still present), so while someone may not believe in God, they still have a sense of morality because that's how humans are designed. So belief does not cause morality; rather, morality is a part of human nature. Does that make sense? Just my two cents.

I agree that at least these questions are immanent to human nature.

 

[Elis]

So both nature and nurture?

So people are both born with a sense of morality, but also their life experiences (e.g., environment, culture, social interactions) shapes their morality? So you would say morality has nothing to do with belief?

If that's the case, how do we know something is immoral or not?

Personally, I don't believe in objective morals.
Something that you see as morally correct, someone else might not.
As I see it, neither are right nor wrong.

I think that throughout human evolution, the concept of morality has greatly helped us, as we're taking others concerns into account when making desicions. I also think that our societies develope and shape our empathy.


Furthermore, I don't think(for example) a christian need to have the christian morals. If you don't hurt others because you're afraid of going to hell, then it isn't your morals, you're simply following set rules. If you instead don't hurt others because you believe that it is wrong, regardless of hell, then I'd say follow your own moral/s.

I don't know whether immoral by definition is when you defy the society's rules and idea of moral, but personally I think that if anything it would be not working it out yourself.

 

[say what]

Morality comes from a desire to provide security for yourself by controlling others.

This intrigues me.....
Do you think you would mind expanding on it? I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say!

 

[say what]

I'm assuming this quote implies religious belief, because we all believe in something. I disagree with this quote, if you take a look at history you'll see there where many evil deeds (defined in religious terms) done by religious people, who were acting in accordance with their beliefs, and you'll find atheists who were great humanists, (and the other way around) so I think this quote may have an element of truth for some individuals, but it's definitely a huge generalization. I have some other thoughts (and questions) on this subject, but don't have much time to elaborate now. In the meantime I have another quote for you kinda opposite of the one above(like to read your opinion):
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” ~Andre Gide

Yeah, the quote is from a religious text and is referring to religious belief- so there is bias there! But because I don't associate myself with a religious, this left me feeling upset, and that it was implying without religion and the belief that comes with it, one cannot be moral....but then I began to think, like you said, I must believe in something, and that something must be pushing my morals...but what is it? Am I basing my morality off of a religious belief because I've been indoctrinated with it? How do I know my own morals if I don't have something, such as a belief in an ideology, that I assess them to?

I do agree that just because you're religious, doesn't mean you're moral, or practice morality (whatever that might be defined as)! And as you said, if you look at history, there's been many evil deeds...but it goes back to 'how does one define a moral or morality? and how does that then define evil?'. I thin it's not black or white, but yet a lot of grey!

I was curious to think about it for my own practices and understanding, as I struggle with knowing what I believe and how that influences my life!

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and other questions!!

Personally, I don't believe in objective morals.
Something that you see as morally correct, someone else might not.
As I see it, neither are right nor wrong.

I think that throughout human evolution, the concept of morality has greatly helped us, as we're taking others concerns into account when making desicions. I also think that our societies develope and shape our empathy.


Furthermore, I don't think(for example) a christian need to have the christian morals. If you don't hurt others because you're afraid of going to hell, then it isn't your morals, you're simply following set rules. If you instead don't hurt others because you believe that it is wrong, regardless of hell, then I'd say follow your own moral/s.

I don't know whether immoral by definition is when you defy the society's rules and idea of moral, but personally I think that if anything it would be not working it out yourself.

I feel that I'm very much like you, in that I don't think morals ARE objective...but this bothers me, because it impacts the whole justice system and chaos arises.

You make an interesting point about how societies develop and shape our empathy - and I'm taking the leap that you're implying our morals as well....we have moved from being very conscious about the collective, to being very focus on the singular (Me me me)...this would then have massive implications on how morality will change.

How should one act? In accordance to the general morals (e.g., religion) or individual morals? How do we know that our individual morals aren't automatically subscribing to the general/popular morals?


And if we don't base our morals on a general set of ideologies, such as religion, what do we base them on? How do we set up these standards?

These are just questions that are floating in my head! You're welcome to tackle them

 

[Elektra]

Yeah, the quote is from a religious text and is referring to religious belief- so there is bias there! But because I don't associate myself with a religious, this left me feeling upset, and that it was implying without religion and the belief that comes with it, one cannot be moral....but then I began to think, like you said, I must believe in something, and that something must be pushing my morals...but what is it? Am I basing my morality off of a religious belief because I've been indoctrinated with it? How do I know my own morals if I don't have something, such as a belief in an ideology, that I assess them to?

I do agree that just because you're religious, doesn't mean you're moral, or practice morality (whatever that might be defined as)! And as you said, if you look at history, there's been many evil deeds...but it goes back to 'how does one define a moral or morality? and how does that then define evil?'. I thin it's not black or white, but yet a lot of grey!

I was curious to think about it for my own practices and understanding, as I struggle with knowing what I believe and how that influences my life!

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts and other questions!!

If you start opening these questions just more come up, yesterday while I read your thread an idea came up to me: maybe we derive our morals from different places, if you take a look at MBTI for example, the system basically implies that they are different types of people with different views on things, but usually when we talk about morality we try to find some moral principles that apply to all of us. (I believe despite that perhaps the biggest reason most thinkers(mbti thinkers) are atheists or agnostics because religion mostly conflicts with rationality, it's because most religions (or religious interpretations) would deem their values wrong. Also from my standpoint (I'm kinda in the same boat with you:these questions are still open for me, not religious as well:fish2I believe there is an element of social control that plays a role regarding all religions, in the end we are social creatures and as such we are compelled to find common ground to coexist, like [MENTION=4361]Elis[/MENTION] mentioned to develop empathy.

 

[barbad0s]

Morality is like art - people like to argue over the objectivity vs. subjectivity of it. Every single person seems to have a different opinion on morality, art, and religion, regardless of their external circumstances, and they usually think they are right. Is it not ironic how people are stubborn and self-absorbed concerning issues where things are meant to be shared with other humans.

So I think morality, as well as religion and art, comes out of each person's own ass.

 

[TinyBubbles]

it probably comes from an ability to empathize.

 

[say what]

If you start opening these questions just more come up, yesterday while I read your thread an idea came up to me: maybe we derive our morals from different places, if you take a look at MBTI for example, the system basically implies that they are different types of people with different views on things, but usually when we talk about morality we try to find some moral principles that apply to all of us. (I believe despite that perhaps the biggest reason most thinkers(mbti thinkers) are atheists or agnostics because religion mostly conflicts with rationality, it's because most religions (or religious interpretations) would deem their values wrong. Also from my standpoint (I'm kinda in the same boat with you:these questions are still open for me, not religious as well:fish2I believe there is an element of social control that plays a role regarding all religions, in the end we are social creatures and as such we are compelled to find common ground to coexist, like [MENTION=4361]Elis[/MENTION] mentioned to develop empathy.

Very interesting!

I also find that more questions come to the surface. I almost become more confused about the entire idea!

I think that morals can change and adapt across the lifecourse. They must be situational, and ever evolving. Hmm...I need to have coffee and then Ill be able to think more about it haha!

 

[say what]

Morality is like art - people like to argue over the objectivity vs. subjectivity of it. Every single person seems to have a different opinion on morality, art, and religion, regardless of their external circumstances, and they usually think they are right.

I like this!

I makes me feel that the quote is inherently flawed, because it accepts the objectivity in morality...when, people like myself, believe in the subjectivity of it.

 

[say what]

it probably comes from an ability to empathize.

hmm! very interesting!

so less on what you believe, and more on one's ability to empathize.

I wonder how this will change, as we see empathy an aulturism decline at a global level!

 

[nuhash]

For me, when it came to doing "bad" stuff, the only thing that would hold me back is the consequence of other people getting involved or finding out. I spent some time thinking about it and I concluded that I didn't have a conventional sense of morality because hypothetically I would commit crimes etc. as long as I was sure I could get away with it.

Also, the definition of morality is in a sense subjective, most people can't backup their ethics and morals with sensible logic, if someone says that you can objectively say something is right and wrong according to some random rules they just made up then they best be prepared to explain the logic behind it.

 

[LucyJr]

Whith the honest desire to avoid a debate here, I would leave my thoughts on the table.

1. If there is no objective morality, there is no subjective morality either. So those who are saying "Morality is subjective", what they are saying actually is that there is no morality at all. Subjectivity implies vanilla vs chocolate, crime vs inch on the foot, and so on.

2. Objective morality means something is wrong and bad EVEN IF everyone on this planet would believe is right. For example, to torture a little child for fun is wrong EVEN IF in this entire Universe nobody believes so. It is objectively wrong, independent of our beliefs. If Hitler would had succed to convince everybody that the Holocaust was good, independent of what people would believe, the act was wrong, in this world and in any other possible worlds.

3. Traditionally, morality is based on the existence of God, especially the Monotheistic God, like in Judaism, and Christianity. A classic argument for the existence of God goes like this:


1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

 

[LucyJr]

it probably comes from an ability to empathize.

What if I empathise with Stalin?