Where did Morality come from.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 52
Topic's author
#1
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Morality is something that all humans possess. People say that we have a sense of morality imbedded in us. Others say that we only have morals, for the goal of survival, and thriving. 

I believe that Morality is a distinctively human trait. Sure, other animals and creatures hold some sort of kindness and generosity for certain things, but those creatures have been proven to do it for survival or thriving.

But we are different. 

Imagine you are in paradise (meaning a place where everything is perfect) with another person. You have no reason to kill that person, but you also don't have any reason to not kill that person. Killing them wouldn't affect your survival, or the state of thriving that you are in. Nothing would change, except for that person dying. 

Now be honest. Killing in this situation would be a (so to say) sinful thing to do, or a bad thing to do obviously. But why would it be bad? After all, nothing bad would happen except for that person losing paradise.

But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you are not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad? 


#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Snuff kink probably is legal in paradise, paradise is probably more satanic than holy if it exists.

People got shit backwards.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Morality is a label we apply to acquired behaviour.

Acquired behaviour relative to survival.


(Though morality tends to be an add on to a conceptual fantasy.)


And hypothetical paradises abound.


In a hypothetical situation, everything is hypothetically possible and permissible.

And I would suggest, that hypothetically killing people is a commonplace occurrence.

Though the consequences of putting thoughts into practice is often deterrent enough.

Though we know all to well that consequences are not a strong enough deterrent for everyone.

And neither is "morality" a deterrent for everyone.


And of course, survival requires a raft of solutions.

Some seemingly less moral than others.

Though sometimes we are content with morally justifying killing in the name of survival.


So a simple conclusion would be.......Moral is, as moral chooses.


#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Good and bad arent made through logical reasoning. Rather, they are values from which we do some logical reasoning.

So asking "why" will never give you an answer.

You either accept that its wrong to decrease life, either you dont.

You either accept that its wrong to increase pain, either you dont.

You either accept that decreasing other person's bodily autonomy is wrong, either you dont.

Basically, depending upon which moral values you accept, different situations can be bad or good.
#5
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,998
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you or not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad? 
Because God says it’s bad?
#6
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Imagine you are in paradise (meaning a place where everything is perfect) with another person. You have no reason to kill that person, but you also don't have any reason to not kill that person. Killing them wouldn't affect your survival, or the state of thriving that you are in. Nothing would change, except for that person dying. 

Now be honest. Killing in this situation would be a (so to say) sinful thing to do, or a bad thing to do obviously. But why would it be bad? After all, nothing bad would happen except for that person losing paradise.
Right, it wouldn't be.

The problem is that in this world it is a bad thing. 

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Unfortunately there is no known GOD to make such decisions.

Just humans making decisions in the name of a make believe God.

Or sometimes, just humans making decisions.



Nope.....Just humans making decisions.
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,812
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Humans exhibits ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of the three necessary, and jointly sufficient, conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgements; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequence of man's eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection.
#9
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Morality is something that all humans possess. People say that we have a sense of morality imbedded in us. Others say that we only have morals, for the goal of survival, and thriving. 
I believe that Morality is a distinctively human trait. Sure, other animals and creatures hold some sort of kindness and generosity for certain things, but those creatures have been proven to do it for survival or thriving.
But we are different. 
It was quite intriguing to see you point this out. However, I believe morality falls into one of these categories: Conscious (Premeditated), or Unconscious (Not Meditated). I describe Conscious morals as being decided by humans, we decide what should be right and wrong or good and bad, while I describe Unconscious morals as being semi-decided for humans. We don't decide what we fear, most people have a natural biological fear of heights. You could tell them they are fine, and the glass elevator could hold a car, but they would still practically die of fear because the floor is clear (I'm talking about the external elevators on skyscrapers). Similarly, a person could say it won't harm anyone other than this one person, or maybe no one would even notice, in this case you could claim it as okay to do using Conscious morality, but you may still feel it is wrong (knowing it would be fine and no one would notice), I would consider this as Unconscious morality.

Aside from being the most intelligent species on the planet, I don't see evidence that Homo Sapiens are different from other species.
#10
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,851
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Reece101
But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you or not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad? 
Because God says it’s bad?
That wouldn't answer the question of "Why", the question would just become  "Why does God say it's bad?".


#11
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
The most common response I get to a question like that is "God's plan and wisdom is ineffable."
I think it's an excuse not to understand the world around us or comprehend why things work. For most people it's simpler to just claim it incomprehensible.
#12
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,851
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
The most common response I get to a question like that is "God's plan and wisdom is ineffable."
I think it's an excuse not to understand the world around us or comprehend why things work. For most people it's simpler to just claim it incomprehensible.
There is noreason that we cannot arrive at objective moral knowledge in the same way thatwe arrive at other types of objective knowledge, by the discernment ofunderlying principles which are then tested by examining how well thoseprinciples align with further observations of the world of our experience.

Moral knowledgeis objective because it is based on human nature, and the observed human experienceincludes qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, and these ethical intuitionsindicate the existence of a moral dimension of reality open to our exploration.
#13
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
I agree. However, I thought giving you a view into their perspective might help you better understand who you're talking to and how the conversation might proceed. Sometimes it's better to recognize early on in a conversation that a person is incapable of accepting a certain view rather than doing what I have in the past and continuing to think it is possible. Religion is a very sensitive thing mostly to do with its incredible association with emotion and can be overpowering when it comes to logic or empirical evidence. For myself, I often keep the two separate and do not ask someone to explain common sense of their religion. Do as you will, I was merely providing something potentially insightful.
#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Morality isn’t a product of our instinct to survive, our survival is a product of our inherent moral system. If we didn’t care about one another, we probably would have never made it this far and thus we wouldn’t be here having this conversation.

The only thing that separates us from other animals is our intelligence. No other species on earth has the capability to sit here and debate morality and come up with systems and rules to follow. Morality is really nothing more than empathy and compassion combined with basic logic. Why is killing someone else wrong? Well, do you want to be killed? If not, there’s your answer.

We can get into complexities and moral dilemmas, but at its core it’s very simple.
#15
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Why is killing someone else wrong? Well, do you want to be killed? If not, there’s your answer.
Thats not a logical answer. Thats just you assuming that two different people are same person. Its just an appeal to virtue of justice.

Morality isn’t a product of our instinct to survive, our survival is a product of our inherent moral system.
So you reject teleology, that says how the cause of something is also its result? 

For example, morality is caused by that morality causes us to survive, and survival is caused by morality.
Topic's author
#16
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
So a simple conclusion would be.......Moral is, as moral chooses.
So, where does it come from then? 
Topic's author
#17
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Best.Korea
You either accept that its wrong to decrease life, either you dont.

You either accept that its wrong to increase pain, either you dont.
But why are those things wrong, and not good?

There has to be a reason for all humans congruently agreeing that certain things are good, and certain things are bad. 
Topic's author
#18
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Intelligence_06
Right, it wouldn't be.

The problem is that in this world it is a bad thing. 
The, so called, Paradice, in this situation would be in this world, but in a specific place in this world. 
Topic's author
#19
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@FLRW
Humans exhibits ethical behavior by nature because their biological makeup determines the presence of the three necessary, and jointly sufficient, conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgements; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action. Ethical behavior came about in evolution not because it is adaptive in itself, but as a necessary consequence of man's eminent intellectual abilities, which are an attribute directly promoted by natural selection.
Ok, well, how are all humans able to determine the same things as good and bad? I mean, even a 7-year-old would know killing is bad. 
Again, what gave humans those abilities, and better yet, what gave all humans all those abilities?
Topic's author
#20
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Critical-Tim
You're a bot, Tim, so I don't really take you seriously in actual debate. 
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But why are those things wrong, and not good?
I already said that I dont know the answer to that. I dont think there is an answer. The only way you could answer it is by using God as an answer. However, some people dont believe in God. So for them, its not a valid answer.
#22
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
It's not like you didn't know it beforehand, I didn't do anything different in the debate as opposed to beforehand. My only wonder is why you waited till being in a debate to make a big deal out of it. Regardless, I understand many are against the technological age and this is understandable. However, I wish people would recognize logic based on its merit, rather than saying that it is too logical, so it must be a bot therefore, I won't listen. It sounds rather self-depreciating, don't you think? On the other hand, I will continue to learn at a much faster rate as I'm exposing myself to many new perspectives and understandings rather than boxing myself in.

Note that I understand your feelings about highly structured and literate responses, so I will refrain from entering into debates with you in the future per your request.
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,363
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Thats not a logical answer. Thats just you assuming that two different people are same person. It’s just an appeal to virtue of justice.
It wasn’t supposed to be a “logical” answer, it was an example to show how simple the concept of morality really is and how easy it is to figure out.

If you however don’t care whether a stranger comes up to you and kills you then you’re right, we are two different people and there may not be any resolution to that. Fortunately, the vast majority of people on earth share the same basic instincts and desires which is why morality is able to work for us.

So you reject teleology, that says how the cause of something is also its result?

For example, morality is caused by that morality causes us to survive, and survival is caused by morality.
Two things can play off each other, but my post was in response to the OP who seemed to have looking for a more simplistic kind of answer. Truth is survival can’t be the motivator of morality because anything that is done for the purpose of self preservation is by definition not moral. If you put a gun to my head and tell me to donate to charity or else and I do it, then I wasn’t acting out of a sense of morality, I just did whatever I needed to save myself.
#24
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,082
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
If you however don’t care whether a stranger comes up to you and kills you
What if I only value my own life, while considering lives of others to be meaningless?

#25
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,567
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Everything is relative and everything is in the mind. In the past, children sacrifice was considered morally good because people thought it would soothe the "madness" of the gods, until someday people realized that children sacrifice was all bullshit because it didn't work most of the time.

I remember a social experiment in a pair of twins that were seperated and raised in different environments, one was raised in a regular family, I guess he was taught the christian morality, and the other was raised in a criminal environment with no moral. The results were what we can expect, one ended up being a "model" person and the other a fucking criminal.

The conclusion I can draw from that is that morality is in an ongoing process of trial and modification according to the results. If it's convenient for humanity in a specific time, people keep it, but if not, people modify it at convenience. For example, it was thought that homosexuality was inmoral, but now it's not. Moral is not natural but artifical. Same with religions.
#26
FishChaser
FishChaser's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 234
2
4
6
FishChaser's avatar
FishChaser
2
4
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Your understanding of morality is stupid and you are confusing it with empathizing with and caring about other beings which animals can do.
#27
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,851
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
I agree. However, I thought giving you a view into their perspective might help you better understand who you're talking to and how the conversation might proceed. Sometimes it's better to recognize early on in a conversation that a person is incapable of accepting a certain view rather than doing what I have in the past and continuing to think it is possible. Religion is a very sensitive thing mostly to do with its incredible association with emotion and can be overpowering when it comes to logic or empirical evidence. For myself, I often keep the two separate and do not ask someone to explain common sense of their religion. Do as you will, I was merely providing something potentially insightful.
Maybe I'm  slow on the uptake, but it's unclear to me what you are saying with this, it does not help me understand "who I'm talking to and how the conversation might proceed."

What do you think I was saying that elicited this resp[onse?  Please elucidate.


#28
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Sidewalker
In a past response their reply was as follows:
But that's just it. Harm to the other person, whether it affected you or not, is still bad. But why? Why is it bad? 
Because God says it’s bad?
I was suggesting perhaps avoiding religion for the origin of morality unless morality's origin is religion.
Do you believe there is an answer behind someone's thoughts that are founded in personal beliefs? - I believe not, that's why it is called faith.
Thus, I was recommending to avoid the confusion by navigating towards a more verifiable approach to understand the origin of morality.
There is nothing wrong with religion, it just isn't a foundation to make any sort of verifiable conclusion.
#29
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,441
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@FishChaser
What about YouFound_Lxam's interpretation do you disagree with?
And why say you, that he is 'confusing it with empathy, care, of other beings?
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,193
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So where does any concept come from?

As I stated, morality is a derivation of the survival instinct.

Kill your enemy, protect your friends.

Hence morality is a variable and selective thought process, which we are taught how to utilise.

Fast forwards 300,000 years and things are still basically the same.