The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: FlaGator on May 19, 2008, 10:28:11 AM
-
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.
fixed typo in title --dixiebelle
fixed puncuation cuz WE pointed it out :-) --dixiebelle
-
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.
fixed typo in title --dixiebelle
and you left the punctuation problem? :-)
-
I couldn't resist fixing the typo in the title. Sorry! :-)
Okay, let me think about the questions. I'll be back.
-
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.
fixed typo in title --dixiebelle
and you left the punctuation problem? :-)
:tongue: :-)
-
I know where my morals originated, so I am not trying to speak for the general masses here.
My morals formed from my inherent understanding of what is right and what is wrong. The fact that my religion dictates what I already know tells me I am on track.
It is my thinking that people are not born as blank slates. We are born with intuition and the ability to know good from bad, right from wrong, which we, through trial and error, reinforce for ourselves throughout our lives starting at a very early age.
-
I think that many of us were taught our basic morals by our parents, and they by theirs, and so on. I believe the originator of morals is God, but He uses the authorities of our childhood to enumerate most of them to us.
I also believe that it is the responsibility of an adult to search for true morals and apply them to his or her life. Many people think they are doing this in high school and college, when those in charge of their classes push things like ecology and "safe sex." This is how we've ended up with so many people that feel their morals instead of knowing them...resulting in the kind of "moral person" who is pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage, anti-"poverty" (but not with their own money), pro-taxation, anti-war, and in favor of teaching kids about "safe" sex instead of abstinence.
Those who have removed or lost their blinders and found God know that the only workable, solid, unchanging morals are His.
-
What a great question!
It is, I think, fair to assume that morals are absolute, for the most part. Every major religion, for example, has some form of the Golden Rule. I think morals are hard-wired in. We have souls, therefore, we know right and wrong.
-
I stand behind the absolute truth concept. The whole moral relativity theory seems too much like fence sitting and to be honest I feel that the pluralism that is so prevalent today has lead to the wholesale moral decay that we see not only in America but all over the world. People commit crimes and go to court where some new age-like mumbo jumbo gets used by the defense to explain why the perp does evil things but shouldn't be punished for it. That whole "what's morally right for you isn't morally right for me" schtick makes me sick and I think people use it to justify doing things that they suspect are wrong to begin with.
For me I believe that I was born with the knowledge of right and wrong because God gave that to all of his adopted children. The fact that my basic moral views didn't change when I converted from Taoism to Christianity more or less proves this point for me. The main thing that Christianity has given me from a moral perspective is a keener sense of the rightness or wrongness of my actions and has led me to be more diligent in striving to do the right thing.
One think I think that we can all agree on that it hasn't done for me is made me less prone to typos...
-
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.
-
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.
Or it could be part of that "created in God's image" thingy.
-
Or it could be part of that "created in God's image" thingy.
Right... One can view empathy as an attribute of God which was given to humans as a gift.
-
Morals?
I tend to make them up as I go along.
You are like my one cat. He seems convinced that taking food from the other cats is moral.
-
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?
-
What evolutionary benefits are their to morality and empathy? Why would nature perfer moral behavior and empathy over, let's say, merciless behavior?
Having empathy benefited humans because it enabled them live and thrive as a society. Humans were and are much stronger as a society than as solitary creatures.
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?
I think we are starting to see some animals exhibiting the beginnings of what might evolve into empathy and empathic behavior. Consider food sharing behavior in chimp society. Chimps share food not because they are altruistic or even because they have some sort of understanding of the benefits of sharing food but because the benefits of sharing food has given them, over time, the instinct to share food.
An interesting study about food sharing behavior... http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html
-
What evolutionary benefits are their to morality and empathy? Why would nature perfer moral behavior and empathy over, let's say, merciless behavior?
Having empathy benefited humans because it enabled them live and thrive as a society. Humans were and are much stronger as a society than as solitary creatures.
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?
I think we are starting to see some animals exhibiting the beginnings of what might evolve into empathy and empathic behavior. Consider food sharing behavior in chimp society. Chimps share food not because they are altruistic or even because they have some sort of understanding of the benefits of sharing food but because the benefits of sharing food has given them, over time, the instinct to share food.
An interesting study about food sharing behavior... http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html
Interesting theory. Now what proof do you have that mankind followed the path you have just presented? I understand that this is based on conjecture and speculation, but what evidence is there that would lead someone to spectulate that humans exhibited empathy? Also, is empathy truly a precursor to an evolved moral code?
Also, I don't see how empathy would help a fledgling society survive. Supporting the weakest members would seem to hold back the healthy. Elephants are known to do this up to a point but even they will leave older weaker members behind when it comes to protecting the heard. From a survival of the fittest point of view,what you are describing contradicts many of Darwinistic concepts.
-
Also, I don't see how empathy would help a fledgling society survive. Supporting the weakest members would seem to hold back the healthy. Elephants are known to do this up to a point but even they will leave older weaker members behind when it comes to protecting the heard. From a survival of the fittest point of view,what you are describing contradicts many of Darwinistic concepts.
The following article sheds some light on the evolution of empathy as a survival tool...
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf
Interesting theory. Now what proof do you have that mankind followed the path you have just presented? I understand that this is based on conjecture and speculation, but what evidence is there that would lead someone to spectulate that humans exhibited empathy? Also, is empathy truly a precursor to an evolved moral code?
http://www.empathogens.com/empathy/animal.html
-
If morals were based on empathy, no one would feel OK with abortion.
-
If morals were based on empathy, no one would feel OK with abortion.
Perhaps we're de-evolving.
-
If morals were based on empathy, no one would feel OK with abortion.
Considering that the fear of eternal punishment is not a 100% effective deterrent against wrongdoing, I don't see see why anyone should expect human empathy to be a 100% effective deterrent against wrongdoing.
-
If morals were based on empathy, no one would feel OK with abortion.
Considering that the fear of eternal punishment is not a 100% effective deterrent against wrongdoing, I don't see see why anyone should expect human empathy to be a 100% effective deterrent against wrongdoing.
You misunderstand Christianity if you believe that people become Christians for fear of eternal punishment. The destination after death is not determined by fear in this life but is the inevitable outcome of responding to the calling of God to His son Jesus Christ.
-
You misunderstand Christianity if you believe that people become Christians for fear of eternal punishment. The destination after death is not determined by fear in this life but is the inevitable outcome of responding to the calling of God to His son Jesus Christ.
I didn't argue that people embrace Christianity out of a fear of punishment in the afterlife. What I wrote is that the fear of punishment in the afterlife, like empathy, compells some people to behave morally and ethically but that neither is a 100% effective deterrent against immoral and unethical behavior.
-
You misunderstand Christianity if you believe that people become Christians for fear of eternal punishment. The destination after death is not determined by fear in this life but is the inevitable outcome of responding to the calling of God to His son Jesus Christ.
I didn't argue that people embrace Christianity out of a fear of punishment in the afterlife. What I wrote is that the fear of punishment in the afterlife, like empathy, compells some people to behave morally and ethically but that neither is a 100% effective deterrent against immoral and unethical behavior.
Behaving morally and ethically does not determine where a person "ends up," so this idea is even more false than the empathy idea.
-
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?
-
I'd say mine are based in my upbringing from my parents, what I was taught in church, and my own parent's upbringing.
-
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.
What people? I would like to have them identified before I comment on them.
...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?
I believe that empathy does compel moral behavior in humans who already have a set of morals which define what humanity expects from individual behavior, but I don't believe that empathy was a root cause to the development of a moral code that humans live by. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.