Where do our morals come from?

[Rebel]

Where does empathy come from, TNO? It's not an instinctive trait among most people, at least, not a dominant trait. I don't think the Aztecs, the Incas, or the Huns, were very empathetic, ifen you know what I mean.

[MrsSmith]

Behaving morally and ethically does not determine where a person "ends up," so...

You might not believe that behaving morally and ethically determines where a person ends up in the afterlife, but a lot of people do and those people feel compelled to live their lives a certain way because of that belief.

...this idea is even more false than the empathy idea.

Do you honestly believe that empathy does not, in many instances, compel moral or altruistic action? If someone is lying bleeding to death on some city street, do you honestly believe that no one who sees him or her will have enough empathy to want to help the person?

Some people believe that they need to do more good than evil to earn a happy afterlife...but this belief does not form their morals.  The difference between a good act and an evil act must be decided before the belief can come into play.   The moral basis must come before the need to act morally.

As for empathy,  humans have always been very good at separating those that are worth empathy from those that are not.  If empathy explained anything, there would be no abortion, there would have never been slavery, there would never be any huge number of people willing to commit horrors upon other people - or anything else.  Empathy is learned, a product of your upbringing and the pressures of society.

The basis for Christianity, the greatest commandments, are to love the Lord your God, and, like unto this, to love others as yourself.  These commandments, The Golden Rule, if you will, are the basis for all morals.  Anyone who follows these commandments perfectly is a completely moral person.  Anyone who breaks them in any way, as we all do, is not.  These commandments were not man-made.

[The Night Owl]

As for empathy,  humans have always been very good at separating those that are worth empathy from those that are not.  If empathy explained anything, there would be no abortion, there would have never been slavery, there would never be any huge number of people willing to commit horrors upon other people - or anything else.

The basis for Christianity, the greatest commandments, are to love the Lord your God, and, like unto this, to love others as yourself.  These commandments, The Golden Rule, if you will, are the basis for all morals.  Anyone who follows these commandments perfectly is a completely moral person.  Anyone who breaks them in any way, as we all do, is not.  These commandments were not man-made.

So, your basic argument is that because empathy is not a 100% effective deterrent against immoral behavior, it cannot be the basis for morality. Well, guess what... neither God nor the Commandments have been 100% effective deterrents against immoral behavior either... and yet you descibe those things as the basis for morality.

Empathy is learned, a product of your upbringing and the pressures of society.

I disagree. I think we have a lot of scientific evidence that even though empathy is refined by reason and learning, it is, like language, an innate faculty in humans. As Christopher Hitchens points out, to suggest that human morality came from the Commandments is to suggest that before the Moses and the Israelites got to Sinai, they thought that murder, theft, and rape were okay.

[Rebel]

I disagree. I think we have a lot of scientific evidence that even though empathy is refined by reason and learning, it is, like language, an innate faculty in humans. As Christopher Hitchens points out, to suggest that human morality came from the Commandments is to suggest that before the Moses and the Israelites got to Sinai, they thought that murder, theft, and rape were okay.

No one said it always comes from the 10 Commandments but it is, in fact, a learned trait. All one needs to do is look to any species in the animal kingdom as we are, in fact, just the highest pecking order of animal.

[The Night Owl]

What people? I would like to have them identified before I comment on them.

I'll use an example I'm familiar with... Catholics are an example of people who believe that immoral or unethical behavior can lead to eternal punishment in the afterlife.

I was brought Catholic. As a Catholic boy, I was taught that if one hopes to gain entry into Heaven, one must repent for any "mortal sins" one commits.

I also do not see how empathy could have evolved naturally in nature. It does not stand to reason that what may appear as empathic behavior in some animals will eventually evolve into the animals exhibiting moral behavior. If this was true and since some species of animals have been around far longer than primates I would think that empathic behavior would be more common if it evolved naturally and was a trait conducive to survival in the wild. Also empathy implies the ability to anticipate potential future conditions and that ability is a sign of higher intelligence. Empathy also implies emotion and emotion is not regarded as a positive evolutionary trait.

You don't think that a family which consists of a mother and father who empathize with each other and with their children are more likely to survive and to thrive than a family which consists of a mother and father who don't empathize with each other or with their children? Come on.

[Rebel]

You don't think that a family which consists of a mother and father who empathize with each other and with their children are more likely to survive than a family which consists of a mother and father who don't empathize with each other and with their children? Come on.

My parents really didn't empathize with one another until they were remarried after a short hiatus. Didn't mean they didn't teach their kids right and wrong.

[The Night Owl]

My parents really didn't empathize with one another until they were remarried after a short hiatus.

Your family aside, I think we can safely say that most marriages are empathic relationships. There are always exceptions to any rule.

Didn't mean they didn't teach their kids right and wrong.

Right. I'm not suggesting that learning doesn't play a role in the development of morality in a person. All I'm saying is that the framework for the learning is already there.

[Rebel]

Right. I'm not suggesting that learning doesn't play a role in the development of morality in a person. All I'm saying is that the framework for the learning is already there.

Leave a 5 Y/O out in the wilderness for 15 years. If he survives, he'll have no concept that killing, raping, etc. are immoral.

[djones520]

I'm writing another article for my blog and I was wondering about morals and moral behavior so I thought I would purpose this question to the minds at the Cave. Where do our morals come from. I have my ideas but I want to hear everyone elses. If you feel they come from God then how are we made aware of them. If you feel that God doesn't provide our moral standards to us then how does man work that them out? What criteria did man use to detemine that murder was wrong and why is do some morals seem universal to all humans? I am very interested in everyone's input.

I believe that morality is rooted in the human ability to empathize. Empathy, like language, is an innate faculty in humans which has evolved over many hundreds of thousands of years out of a survival need for it and because human societies benefited greatly from it. Empathy, merged with reason, produced abstract concepts such as ethics, morality, and justice. And humans used those concepts to create rules and laws.

What evolutionary benefits are their to morality and empathy? Why would nature perfer moral behavior and empathy over, let's say, merciless behavior? And why does man seem to be the only product of evolution to benefit from the behaviors? If these are evolved traits and they are beneficial to survival wouldn't they be more common in nature?

Man is not the only product of evolution that has "morals".  Most apes exhibit morals.  They care for the sick and injured of their groups.  They know when they do wrong, they exhibit sadness and remorse.  Dogs are like that.  Elephants are like that.  Almost all animals that live in social groups have that.

A fossil found of Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) showed that this particular subject had suffered severe trauma.  Several broken ribs, a severely fractured skull, and some other injuries that escape me.  These wounds did not kill him though.  He was treated back to health, and died years later.  This happend tens of thousands of years ago.  When mankind lived in groups of 5 to 10, and no more then several hundred thousand of our species populated this planet.

Since human beings are not exactly the best physically equipped predator, compaired to the others at the time of our evolution, we had to learn differant traits to fight our way up the ladder.  Social communal behavior is one of those traits.  It's an established fact that humans survive better as a group then alone.  Groups can't hold together if everyone is cut throat, stab you in the back to get ahead.  Communities cannot grow and thrive that way.  Empathy, morals, etc, must develop.  The need to survive, thrive, and reproduce has caused us to grow to depend on our fellow man.  To treat them with kindness, love, and compassion.

You could say our need to fight and kill is rooted in the same evolutionary process.  Look at the rest of the animals on this planet.  Nearly all of them exhibit forms of hostilities to "strangers" of their species.  The need to survive and thrive forces them to fight for territory, rights to mate, etc...  This stuff is hard wired into our system.  It's in our DNA to fight and protect what is ours.  But since our brain has grown and evolved to such astounding levels, we take it further as well.

"Morals" are easily explained through the evolutionary system.  They are probably our biggest means of survival, and the largest reason we are as advanced a society today as we are.

[FlaGator]

Man is not the only product of evolution that has "morals".  Most apes exhibit morals.  They care for the sick and injured of their groups.  They know when they do wrong, they exhibit sadness and remorse.  Dogs are like that.  Elephants are like that.  Almost all animals that live in social groups have that.

I would disagree with this. Non human primates exhibit responses to stimuli and I would not call these emotions in the same why that humans experience them. In almost all cases the sadness or remorse is forgotten in less than a day and only another similar stimulus will reactive the "emotion" The animal will not recall the sadness or remorse on its own. As for a dog knowing that it has done something wrong, that again a conditioned response. The dog would not be remorseful if you didn't act upset to begin with. Next time your dog craps on the carpet pretend not to notice and see how remorseful he is. If this was more than response to you're being up set then the dog would show remorse before you even you responded to the mess.

A fossil found of Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) showed that this particular subject had suffered severe trauma.  Several broken ribs, a severely fractured skull, and some other injuries that escape me.  These wounds did not kill him though.  He was treated back to health, and died years later.  This happend tens of thousands of years ago.  When mankind lived in groups of 5 to 10, and no more then several hundred thousand of our species populated this planet.

Neanderthals where basically modern men so they would have the emotions and mental capacity of modern humans. They were not some sub order of humans. They were human and the fact that anthropologiests believe that the two groups mated is proof that both were of the same species. Animals not of the same species can not cross breed. Even two frogs of different species can create viable offspring. The use of Neanderthals in your example simply points back to the point that I am attempting to establish that humans emotions came for some place other than evolution.

Since human beings are not exactly the best physically equipped predator, compaired to the others at the time of our evolution, we had to learn differant traits to fight our way up the ladder.  Social communal behavior is one of those traits.  It's an established fact that humans survive better as a group then alone.  Groups can't hold together if everyone is cut throat, stab you in the back to get ahead.  Communities cannot grow and thrive that way.  Empathy, morals, etc, must develop.  The need to survive, thrive, and reproduce has caused us to grow to depend on our fellow man.  To treat them with kindness, love, and compassion.

What you point out is true, but you are presupposing that the moral behavior developed after communities were formed. I would say that morals would have needed to come first otherwise the communities could never have started to begin with for the reasons that you stated above.

You could say our need to fight and kill is rooted in the same evolutionary process.  Look at the rest of the animals on this planet.  Nearly all of them exhibit forms of hostilities to "strangers" of their species.  The need to survive and thrive forces them to fight for territory, rights to mate, etc...  This stuff is hard wired into our system.  It's in our DNA to fight and protect what is ours.  But since our brain has grown and evolved to such astounding levels, we take it further as well.

"Morals" are easily explained through the evolutionary system.  They are probably our biggest means of survival, and the largest reason we are as advanced a society today as we are.

Your claim that Morals are easily explained via evolution is not a simple of an argument as you believe. Biologist are still debating what you and I are debating and those more learned that us can't come to any conclusions. There is still an open question as to if intelligence could have evolved seeing that in a survival of the fittest world it seems to give very little evolutionary advantage. I would suggest that intelligence would need to be the precursor for moral evolution... if morals are something that can evolve. I think that I am going to stick with Imanuel Kant's view on this until science can offer me something tangible enough to make me doubt my belief in God.

[Mary Ann]

Personally, I think there is a "common sense" element to morality. Cultures that abided by certain rules have lasted longer than those that don't. Take families, as an example. It has always been considered "moral" for a man to take care of his family--and for centuries, those families in which the father provided for his wife and children tended to flourish, while those families which were without a male provider, did not.

JMHO.

[Jim]

They come from God.  On the assumption that there is a God, getting the message to us should not be much of a trick.  And then its up to the individual to accept it or not and to what percentage.

Animals do not have morals, IMO.  They have beneficial responses to their form of society.