Morality
 

From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes one behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?

Third question first:

Context matters a great deal.

You say "behavior", and I read that as "action". A given action can be right/good in one context and wrong/evil in a different context. I don't know if a non trivial list of actions that are absolutely good or bad can be generated.

First question:

Since I believe that context matters so much, and that requires judgement and discernment, completely intellectual exercises, mental exercises that is, I think the source of morality is our own judgement. Our own heads.

I like your answer, V...
 

...but before I weigh in, I'd like others to respond.

Thanks, though...again: nice answer.

Thank you sir.

I think this is a very good question, though likely unanswerable in this form, at least for me. For such questions I face in my life, the absence of context is not an obstacle. This makes the question answerable, though sometimes it is still difficult.

Me.
You.
Whether or not you and me agree.

To be moral one must have a will to be "righteous." Immorality is a conciquence of a lack of "righteous" judgement.

Good responses: all.

Thanks!

Anyone else?



JB, would you expand a little on what you mean by "righteous"

Doing the right thing. Now if one has no will to do the right thing, he will end up in places like jail. So to be righteous in it's most basic form is to not be a "crook".

JB
 

I hate to be a nudge, but "Doing the right thing": what do you mean?

As I asked, 'What makes one behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?'

V says, "the source of morality is our own judgement. Our own heads.", which I agree with.

Sex says, morality's source is "me (&) you", with the labels of 'good' and 'evil' applied as "me (&) you" agree or disagree. Again: I agree.

I guess I'm looking for something more definitive from you, JB.

Care to oblige?

I would say that morality is a code of conduct.

The "group" decides the conditions of this code of conduct.

Various groups have different, although often overlapping morals.

Groups can be religious, political, cultural, or a larger society.

For example, if I believe that eating meat is "bad", and I find other people that agree with me, then to us, in our group, eating meat is immoral.

Personally, to me, something is immoral if it harms innocent or vulnerable individuals. Rape, child abuse, elder abuse, theft, dishonesty, and assault are examples of conduct that I find immoral. There may be people who believe such acts are perfectly fine, but I won't be a part of any group who believes so. Which is, of course, my choice.

At its very core, I think our 'morality' and sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is a sophisticated child of social monkey/primate behaviour.

Certain areas of the brain (can't recall exactly which off the top of my head) have developed to operate impulse control, delayed gratification, and 'moral' understanding. It isn't fully developed until late teens, and in some damaged individuals never develops at all.

It's this, I think, that gives us that sense of unease, bordering on revulsion, around some of the people who lack those things (I'm thinking mainly of psychopaths and sociopaths). We instinctively recognise the threat posed to group survival by people who aren't coded to co-operate smoothly. An unfortunate by-product of this instinct is, I suspect, at the root of much of the social unease and stigma around non-threatening mental or neurological conditions.

How each group of humans codifies their particular moral understanding and structures will vary enormously according to the particular social, political, economic and historical factors that have shaped their world and culture. The extent to which that group morality will be accepted and acceded to, or rejected and resisted, by any one sub-group likewise.

But certain core themes seem present across the board. Mostly they seem to be the kind that support group survival. Laws and customs that either prohibit, or reduce the limits of acceptability on, acts of fatal violence. Laws or customs that prohibit or place agreed boundaries around responses to acts of fatal violence. Against acts of theft, or, to borrow HQ's terminology, attempting to take a bigger monkey's bananas without permission. Laws and customs protecting various elements of marriage or partnering, and care of children.

We've added a lot of refinements as our need for organisation and increased co-operation expanded, but that's the core of it I think.

To answer all three at once: Social acceptance, or the lack thereof.

Yer welcome.

From his comments and questions in several threads, I've come to think HQ basically denies "morality".

"Envy" seems to be his only justification for inter-group dischord,
and this 6th Sin is the problem for the "envy-or", not the "envy-ee"

So, by following a survivalist path, one sets themself apart from all groups,
and, therefore, from criticism or intra-group responsibility.

I think what you missing here is the word "will". Having the "will power" to do the right thing means that ones heart is "motivated" by a passion to be moral. Morality is more of a heart Issue than a Head issue. There are three possible ways a man can think.. with his Head his Heart or His Penis. If you want to be moral you have to think with your heart. My heart is week so I have no real understanding of morality. Except that believing in Jesus Christ makes me righteous enough to make it to heaven. ANd since my Goal is to make it to heaven and take as many people UP with me as possible I will strive to do the right thing.

Storm, Dana, Grave: thanks for the responses.

Lamp, while you're certainly free to assess me (wrongly, in any thread you like), I'm far more interested in hearing your answer to...

'From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes one behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?'

JB, thanks for the clarification.

Anyone else want to weigh in before I piss someone off (again)?

From people (I'm going to avoid the neurological explanation). I'll explain in the following fashion.

100 people with their own unique moral code come together to form a community. After dealing with each other, the 100 individuals had to update their own moral code to survive, fit in, and keep a stable society. Eventually, the moral codes of the 100 individuals become more and more similar until you could make generalizations about the society's moral code (keep in mind that everyone's moral code was still unique, and everyone's differed in different ways, but they were close enough that they could agree on many key issues to guarantee the survival of the community).

Now children are born and they are influenced from the morals of the community and their parents. As the children grow older, they keep their childhood moral influences, to varying degrees, while updating their individual moral code for various reasons (free thinking, environmental influences, and the change of the generalized "society morals).

Morals come from people and represent our reaction to our environment. Our moral code is how we interact with our society and environment.


There is no clear answer to this one. Usually someone is evil when they go against the moral code of an individual. That can include people that are going against the moral code for sadistic pleasure, people that are forced to break society's moral code for whatever reason, or people that have a different perspective of what is right or wrong.

Chimpanzees sometimes indulge in "child" hunting.
And killing.
And eating.
They are omnivores after all.
It is only males that participate.

Male dolphins - sometimes called the most intelligent mammals - will gang rape.

Rape, Kill, Pillage and Burn we're gonna Rape, Kill, Pillage and Burn EAT BABIES: Rape, Kill, Pillage and Burn we're gonna RAPE, KILL, PILLAGE and BURN!

Diet and exercise.

i take that back.. there are four ways a man can think.. his head his heart his penis or his "stomach"..

On a very basic level, morality is socially constructed. All societies have values; norms develop from those values. Values are shared beliefs about what a group considers worthwhile or desirable - those guide the creation of norms. Norms are the formal and informal rules regarding what kinds of behavior are acceptable and appropriate within a culture. Folkways, mores, and taboos develop from those norms.

Our ideas about what is "good" and what is "evil" are based on our experiences, what we have learned is acceptable in our own culture - whether that is the culture of our country or the culture of our family.

What is moral in one place might not be in another. Totally driven by societal factors.

re BOLD:

Technically, this is the poster child for NOT thinking; it is *acting*.

Exactly...actually on all of them except 'head'.

The only part of anyone that's thinking is a person's brain. A man might be constantly thinking about his penis but it's not really going to solve any of his problems or do math or write a book...

disclaimer: if you're a man who doesn't constantly think about his penis I apologize to you and applaud you. :lol:

Thinking about sex around once a minute...

Joke aside, morality depends heavily on context.

I have done things that are considered by a lot of people to be bad. Yet, at that time and in that context, it was only normal. I didn't say it was good, but something I had to do.

The main problem when trying to discuss those things with other people is that they will look at you now and not "then". They will judge without context for the most part.

For example : Canibalism is anathema for a lot of civilizations. Yet, it can be seen as acceptable as a means of survival. In some civilizations, it was a way to honor your dead and, by doing so, a moral thing.

how the hell would SHE know?

I KNOW i don't think about sex every 52 seconds. that's ridiculous. I'm 41 now, and not as horny as I was at 18, but c'mon... even then I didn't think about sex that much.

You can't count subliminal thought as thinking.

I'd like to see what led her to that conclusion. She must be hot... I'd like to see her naked.

*grits teeth*

That's just not true though. It's another of those mega myths.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...sex-more-women

Oh...it's just men around ME who think about sex all the time. You can't really blame them. (Kidding!)

I figured it was an Old Husband's Tale, but it's a good one to tease men about. ;)

She and her ilk are amongst my current bugbears.

Here's a nice little rebuttal to her pseudo science:

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003668.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003419.html

and here
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003530.html

There['s other stuff as well, but I have found some of the blogs on that site really interesting to read.

From the first link:

As per this series of blogs, the author now examines in depth both the claims and the evidence. beginning with reading the cited papers. I'll not post all of them, but here's what two of the sources have to say, and how they relate to the studies they've been cited in:

Yay for thread drift!

It always comes back to sex, doesn't it?

WHO ain't thinkin' about the sexies every hour? I mean, less than 19 times a day.

:lol:

*grins*

tha's a lot of reading, Dani....

do you thin' you coulda sum up?
____________/
Attachment 35247

85% of statistics are just made up.
The person claimimg the numbers says they are based on several sources, two of the sources do not mention frequency of sexual thought, and the third that does has the opposite conclusion.

Sure thing Jim:

Most of the sources cited by the author of The Female Brain, to back up her suggestion that men think about sex all the time and women hardly at all, relate to papers that said nothing about frequency of sexual thoughts in men or women. One of the very few studies whch the author of the rebuttal was able to find that seemed to show a higher frequency of sexual thoughts amongst men than women was a very small study, and fundamentally disagreed with the other author about those levels of frequency, with women thinking about sex around half as much as men (as opposed to the book under discussion, which suggests men think about sex once a minute and women once or twice a day).

Even the few studies that have been done into this and have shown any kind of a disparity, cannot answer to the complex reasons for that disparity, which may include different levels of comfort both in accepting/going with sexual thoughts and reporting said thoughts to researchers, both of which are far more likely to have a social or psychological basis rather than simple girl brain - v - boy brain chemical differences.

There are differences between the typical female and the typical male brain. But those differences, in almost every case are not as extreme as the differences between individual brains of either gender. Often when it's said that a particular characteristic is more common in women than in men, that basically means if you pick a random woman there's a X% chance she'll have that characteristic, and a X% chance for a random man. That percentage figure is often much less startling than the headlines would suggest. So, a characteristic that is considered 'male' and set out in such books as 'typically male' and given a great deal of weight as proof of vastly different male and female brains, may actually only be expected in a random male with a 55% probability. The fact that if you were to select a random woman you'd have a 45% likelihood that she'll show that characteristic, or a characteristic level of something, is conveniently ignored.

I did see a stat that said men use 7,000 words per day, where women more than double that. lol.

:p


http://www.science20.com/news/do_wom..._more_than_men

my turn...
 

My questions: From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes one behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?


The 'where', the 'source', the standard establishing 'right'/'good' and 'wrong'/'evil', is the human individual as he or she susses out what's what for him- or her-self, as he or she determines what he or she values and what he or she does not value.

In many cases (for the lazy, weak, and stupid) there is little 'sussing' and a whole lot of adopting (of the values of others).

Nothing to be done about the lazy, weak, and stupid except tolerate them (or, as one can and will, end them).

Many of the responses in this thread (with the exception of two, and, before it degraded into a 'sexy party') are right on the money so I'll leave those be.


The two...


JB, in essence, points to God as source and arbiter of morality.

Which god? Whose god? What god?


Dana (and I maybe I'm misinterpreting her) believes morality is rooted in biology. In a sense, she's right...after all, each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)...the problem with reductionism is it so often degrades into a greedy reductionism.

The human individual (I), to date, cannot be dissected down into piece, part, and process with any real hope of understanding anything beyond organ function.

The particular and peculiar complexity that is 'I' can only be understood by way of an assessment of the 'I' as a whole...to understand morality, then, one must contend with the individual (talk, debate, war).

Certainly: all the pieces, parts, and processes contribute (as influence) but none of these evolutionary inertias 'determines'.


Again: morality (a sometimes useful fiction) exists solely in the head of the one who susses such a thing out for him- or her-self, or, who adopts the thinking of another.

As I said over in the 'occupy' thread: 'you' should value what you like, as you like and can, just don't expect others to share your sentiment.

What you 'should' expect is for others (with views opposing yours) to as viciously defend themselves against you as you do against them.

Again: competing values (or 'might makes/is right').

Done.

I believe the origins of morality to be a product of biological evolution. But that isn't the whole story. The nuances of morality are cultural/tribal/individual.

If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity.

"If morality exists within the individual mind, or 'inside the head of' an individual, then it is a function of brain activity."

A sterile way of saying, 'I think and choose'.

Again: greedy reductionism.

And again, envy and greed. Aren't they part of the 7 Deadly's ?

HQ: Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion ?

That you, Lamp, interpret my use of 'value' and 'valuing' as envy and greed is your bag (says way more about you than me).

That's not what I meant; not how I used the word(s).

I formally reject your interpretation (and encourage you to offer your own explanation for morality).

#

"Is this where you are coming from ultimately - Sin / Religion?"

As I've described (more than once), reality (the world) as amoral, what makes you think I give a flip about sin or religion (hooey, crafted by others for the express purpose of 'control')?

How is it sterile? How is it greedy reductionism?

Are you trying to say that things that go on 'inside the head of' individuals aren't the result of brain activity? Do they not take place in the brain, using the cognitive functions of that organ?

hq, you and I have a number of points on which we disagree, and they seem to revolve (mostly) around vocabulary. This is one of those times. In a recent post regarding Paterno's firing, you described your thoughts about child sexual abuse. And then you added the caveat that it was not a moral distinction.

???????

I disagree. Just as in this post above, your thoughts about it might be your own, but those thoughts *are* your expression of your morals. The feelings you expressed about child sexual abuse are widely shared among practically everyone in our society. That they exist "inside the head of individual you" doesn't make them less moral.

It is only greedy reductionism when you collapse the numerous posts and thoughts seen in this thread as "I think and choose". That is *not* the be all and end all of morality. I seriously doubt you believe that, and I'm even more certain that the other posters here believe that.

Dana, there's is nothing about an EEG reading of my brain activity, as I think about pizza, that will tell you or anyone 'why' I like pizza, why I prefer the pizza from Joe's over Sal's, or why I prefer pepperoni to sausage.

To discover those things you must talk to 'me', not dissect or reduce me.

More generally: to determine why I value this or that, you must consult the source of the valuing (me), not my components.

Yes, it's all brain (embedded in body) function...electricity and chemicals and whatnot...but consulting parts and process tells you nothing about the person, the 'I'.

Even a casual review of the state of neuroscience (and all the eggheads looking to build HAL) illustrates there's no understanding of how 'self' works...yes, again, it's all electricity and chemicals (but working in most mysterious ways).

As I say 'each of us is wholly biological (no in-dwelling spirit that I can detect)', but I-ness (subjectivity, recognition of self, self-editing, self-determination, self-de-liberation, etc.) has yet to be explained (though many attempt to 'explain away').

All beside the point.

Morality is an esoteric tool (crafted or adopted) one uses to navigate the world according to personal preference and choice (the preferences and choices of the 'I', not the preferences and choices of an organ collection, though that, indeed, is what each is).


And: for the record, I never 'try to say' anything...I say exactly what I choose to, in the way I choose to...read the words for what's there, not what you think 'might' be there.

"not a moral distinction"
 

In the sense that there is no absolute or universal morality to consult or rely on.

That is: I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.

#

"...collapse the numerous posts and thoughts..."

I did no such thing...I barely commented on any one's post (except for Dana's and JB's), beyond saying you lot are on target.

Nothing I said disagrees with any of that.

You were asking where morality comes from. I answered with what i believe to be its ancient and biological origin. You didn't ask where likes and dislikes come from. And looking at a scan of your brain activity whilst you eat pizza won;t tell you why you like pizza or where those preferences come from. But a scan of your brain chemistry taken whilst you are subjected to a number of 'moral' situations or queries will show activity in particular parts of the brain. Parts of the brain which develop at particular ages and without full function, result in humans who have difficulty in connecting their actions with potential moral consequences, and in inhibiting, or self-policing their actions.

The human brain has evolved in particular ways and performs a range of functions, some of which we share with other primates, others of which we don't. Social behaviour (which some would argue is the absolute root of morality) is something we do share with primates. There is an argument that can be made which draws an evolutionary path from primate sociability, to human (and moral) sociability.

Now: unless I have said that this is all there is to the understanding of morality, or what it is to be human, then it is not reductionist to recognise this part of the whole picture.

What is reductionist is to dismiss every opinion that you don't share as either wrong, or a sign of 'laziness' in thinking.

According to what measure? Whose target? Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?

All you've put forward is some airy-fairy pseudo-philosphical ramblings about how all morality is essentially a construct in our own minds. Well, whoop de frikken do. Hold the front page. Ain't nobody ever had that thought before. Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are.

"Nothing I said disagrees with any of that."

Then, as I say up-thread, I misinterpreted...my apologies.

#

"Who made you lord high arbiter of what is or is not factually correct about morality?"

No one. This is thread of opinion (having one, defending one, disagreeing with others)...sorry if you didn't get that.

#

"Your understanding of morality is just that. Your understanding. It is not for you to measure how correct the rest of us are."

Yes, exactly...as I say up-thread, 'I have a 'morality' that is idiosyncratic to me, based on my valuing of this or that, but that's just 'me'. I’m not arrogant enough to assume my way is the right way for any one else, or that my way has a root any place other than in 'me'.'

This can be said for my opinion as to the 'source' of morality as well...sorry if you didn't get that.

Then referring to some posters as being 'on the money' or 'on target' is perhaps just some unfortunate phrasing. It certainly gives the impression that you are sitting in judgement as to which of the opinions expressed in this thread are the 'correct' ones.

"unfortunate phrasing"
 

Indeed...what I should have said, 'Many of the responses in this thread (with the exception of two, and, before it degraded into a 'sexy party') are right on the money, in my opinion, so I'll leave those be.'

As this 'is' an opinion thread, it seemed redundant to write 'in my opinion' as preface or justification for things posted here.

My mistake.

Ohhhh, secksy party. Me love you long time. Thread drift makes me HOT. pant pant drool drool. :cool:

:p

All threads in the Cellar are 'opinion' threads, essentially.

IMHO, my username contains the word "sex"; therefore, I should be the sole arbiter of morality in this thread. I decree that henceforth we shall live and let live excepting that DanaC and JBKlyde shall not be permitted to have children together since the resulting offspring would be genetically predisposed to morally cancel itself out and any morality is better than no morality at all, IMHO.

Dana and I shall splice our eggs (or somesuch) and have perfect babies.
To be raised by Clod.

And here starts a new wave of evolution.

Yea, the Morning Show goes on ! Past noon no less. Yea again :D

That trinity would give rise to the most important woman in the universe. Brilliant!

That's exactly right! 100%! Truth!

This thread is lousy with shitmen and shitwomen.