Where did morals come from?

[GePap]

I agree with Che. Man can't be separated from his origin- human beings are social apes- our basic common humanity flows from our basic shared ancestry. Our core values are those rules needed to have a succesful band of social apes. Obviously, even in Ape bands there is always a tension between the Individual and The Group, because in the end every individual is driven to survive and spread their genes, but being in a group improves their chances against even greater forces around.

This is why all societies have rules against murder, which invariably always begin as ules against killing members of your own group, with little regard to others outside. The same for rules about theft (which before trinkets obviously applied to basic needs like food) and sexual mores (probably the biggest headache given the biological imperative).

Our intelligence not only has allowed human beings to make up all sort of new tools and gadgest, but perhaps our greatest strength was the ability to make up new rules and structures to organize ever larger social groups. In most animal species, there is a limit to size of the group before it collapses under its weight. BY being able to conceptualize new rules for behavior human beings have been able to inhabit groups in the millions. These greater concepts are not standard, as there are multiple ways to solve the various problems that having massive human groups create amongst themselves.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I take it you oppose abortion and euthanasia then? Unless you are willingly fooling yourself into believing these killings aren't murders.

No. I don't oppose those types of killings. And I believe that I know what is wrong and right. Some other people believe differently from me. Someone is fooling their own mind. I don't believe that it's me though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


Think that one up all by yourself? Whaddya got, a team of monkeys hooked up to your keyboard?

But what the hell, I'll respond in a serious manner:

First off, the USA =! IJ or the Nazis. Putting aside the differences between, say, the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking and the current operation in Fallujah (why even bother debating that if you think they are comparable?), let's look at it from another angle. The Nazis and the IJ had policies which led directly to them facing major world powers in open warfare. Thus far, our policies are not set up that way. In fact, much wailing and gnashing of teeth has resulted from our tendancy to "pick on" weak and/or failed countries. Terrorism, the irritation we are much preoccupied with, is the result of wackos without political power trying to hurt us. Tactics of the weak, Kid. We're not fighting the USSR here.

Now, one could claim that a continuation of our current policies might result in our downfall, but that's far from certain. Personally, I do think our government has made several policy mistakes that have hurt us - but that's a far cry from the concept of Lebensraum which led the Nazis into the Russian winter and to their doom.

-Arrian

The only difference between us and the Nazis is that we don't attack enemies that can fight back. What does that have to do with morality anyway?

[David Floyd]

I do believe that morality is either right or wrong. Whether morality is right or wrong has a limited effect on what people believe however.

OK, I see the confusion. What you are calling "right or wrong" - that is, the overriding standard for judging what you term "morality" - is actually what the rest of us mean by morality. Where does THAT come from, and how can different conceptions of THAT be measured?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
I agree with Che. Man can't be separated from his origin- human beings are social apes- our basic common humanity flows from our basic shared ancestry. Our core values are those rules needed to have a succesful band of social apes. Obviously, even in Ape bands there is always a tension between the Individual and The Group, because in the end every individual is driven to survive and spread their genes, but being in a group improves their chances against even greater forces around.

This is why all societies have rules against murder, which invariably always begin as ules against killing members of your own group, with little regard to others outside. The same for rules about theft (which before trinkets obviously applied to basic needs like food) and sexual mores (probably the biggest headache given the biological imperative).

Our intelligence not only has allowed human beings to make up all sort of new tools and gadgest, but perhaps our greatest strength was the ability to make up new rules and structures to organize ever larger social groups. In most animal species, there is a limit to size of the group before it collapses under its weight. BY being able to conceptualize new rules for behavior human beings have been able to inhabit groups in the millions. These greater concepts are not standard, as there are multiple ways to solve the various problems that having massive human groups create amongst themselves.

I agree with you that humans are social animals out of self-interest. However, I disagree that that creates 'basic' morality. Morality changes as our interests change and the power structures within society changes. For example, murder is considered immoral until the rulers find it in their interest that in certain cases it should be moral, specifically when someone pisses them off enough or threatens their status.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Where does THAT come from, and how can different conceptions of THAT be measured?

I don't know if it comes from anywhere, and I don't find where it came from important. But I believe that if human beings all had the same interests with no biases and were treated equally that they would have similar morals. That's true morality for me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I agree with you that humans are social animals out of self-interest. However, I disagree that that creates 'basic' morality. Morality changes as our interests change and the power structures within society changes. For example, murder is considered immoral until the rulers find it in their interest that in certain cases it should be moral, specifically when someone pisses them off enough or threatens their status.

The precursors of human beings were also social beings-humans did not "have a choice", Humans have always been social- the very fact that human babies are utterly helpless for so long smacks of a social being.

The core human values never change-human beings have always been able to break them if some temporary situation made them think such an action was worth it, but again, the basics remain.

As for Murder, as i said, the idea always begins as not killing anyone in your group- human beings, by being sentient, can always conceptualize groups of any size, even ones with just one member, and retionalize killing anyone outside of it.

The notion that Law= morality comes after the creation of complex societies in which laws are necessary. It then becomes an imperative to cement the bonds of the bigger group, and a great way to do so is to make Law and morals mean the same.

[Kidlicious]

Gepap,

True, no one believes that they should kill anyone who is part of their group, because they get benefit from those people. As soon as they don't get a benefit from members of that group killing those exmembers becomes possible. It's nothing but self-interest. That's no kind of basic morality. That's just making and breaking alliances.

[David Floyd]

But I believe that if human beings all had the same interests with no biases and were treated equally that they would have similar morals.

Interesting. That's VERY similar to the argument presented by Berzerker (and the argument I most agree with) - that is, objective morality defined by the universal shared desires of life and liberty.

[Berzerker]

But I believe that if human beings all had the same interests with no biases and were treated equally that they would have similar morals. That's true morality for me.

After months of denying that a true morality exists, you've adopted my argument, albeit put in less cogent words.

God is almighty Berz. Everything that he wants to happen, happens

It ain't happening...

That's VERY similar to the argument presented by Berzerker (and the argument I most agree with) - that is, objective morality defined by the universal shared desires of life and liberty.

That's gotta hurt Kid though...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
After months of denying that a true morality exists, you've adopted my argument, albeit put in less cogent words.

What? It wasn't too long ago we had a thread on moral relativism. I was one of the most vocal opponents.

It ain't happening...

Well that's what the Bible says. If your going to argue about the Bible you have to accept that.

That's gotta hurt Kid though...

Eh.... We're not suppose to agree. Not even sort of.

[Berzerker]

What? It wasn't too long ago we had a thread on moral relativism. I was one of the most vocal opponents.

Kid, we've debated this issue ad nauseum and you've always taken the side that says there is no absolute (or "true") morality. Hell, in this thread you said morality was imposed upon on us by rulers looking out for themselves.

Well that's what the Bible says. If your going to argue about the Bible you have to accept that.

Where in the Bible does it say I'm God and everything happens because I want it to happen?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid, we've debated this issue ad nauseum and you've always taken the side that says there is no absolute (or "true") morality. Hell, in this thread you said morality was imposed upon on us by rulers looking out for themselves.

I never said whether that morality was true or not. And I have never said that morality is only relative.

Where in the Bible does it say I'm God and everything happens because I want it to happen?

There are many places where God is refered to as the Almighty.

[Berzerker]

I never said whether that morality was true or not.

I asked you repeatedly if it was true in this thread. But since you agree with me that these rulers weren't imposing ("true") morality on others with rules, then how do you explain where true morality comes from?

And I have never said that morality is only relative.

I didn't participate much if at all in the moral relativism thread so I have only our past debates to go on and you have consistently argued that morality is relative to the society, i.e., society defines morality.

There are many places where God is refered to as the Almighty.

That's nice, now answer my question.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I asked you repeatedly if it was true in this thread. But since you agree with me that these rulers weren't imposing ("true") morality on others with rules, then how do you explain where true morality comes from?

I don't know if it comes from anywhere. I just believe that we would all believe the same way if it weren't for our prejudice and self-interest.

I didn't participate much if at all in the moral relativism thread so I have only our past debates to go on and you have consistently argued that morality is relative to the society, i.e., society defines morality.

Societies have different moralities, yes. Actually, what I learned in college is that morality is an individual thing, and ethics is a social thing, but whatever. Anyway, that doesn't make those moralities true or false.

That's nice, now answer my question.

I don't care about this. You win.