Where did morals come from?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It doesn't matter. If a ruler decides to promote rules which conflict with basic human norms, then that society doesn't last very long. No society which has violated the basic rules of humanity lasts more than a short period of time.

Basic morality isn't arbitrary. It is ingrained in our nature. Those actions which enhance social bonds reinforce the group and strengthen it and make it more able to survive. The reverse does the opposite. We just happen to label those actions which enhance social bonding as "good" and the reverse as "bad." Alex's quote from Nitzsche is pretty much on the mark. So we call these rules morals, but they aren't really. They are survival traits.

When you get to more advanced "morality" like whether abortion is good or bad, only the Emperor can wear yellow (in China) or purple (in Europe), etc., you're in a whole different discussion.

Subjects under rule have their own interests, and they know what moral codes will help them achieve those interests. However, most people don't have the capability to understand the power structures of society and how morality affects society. They simply accept what they have been socialized too accept.

Now if a movement comes along that challenges the accepted morality, and that movement has charasmatic, brave leaders. Those leaders can influence people. They have a kind of power. Usually, however, the rulers prevail in maintaining their moral code.

People will accept all kinds of moral codes that are not in their interest, and which most reasonable people would not accept in other cultures, as long as rulers have enough power and they use it wisely.

When kids get to a certain age, I think around 4 or 5, they seek out order. They readily obey their leaders (parents, teachers etc.). Kids who don't get in a lot of trouble, and pay the price.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's not true. People who have no conscience are quite rare and actually have a psychological condition refered to variously as: psychopathy, sociopathy, or disassociative behavior. Conscience is a fancy word for empathy, and empthay is another one of those important survival traits. Without it, we wouldn't care for other members of our social groups, and we'd have never survived.

To me conscience means having your own sense of right and wrong. To me people with a true conscience are able to choose what is right and wrong for themselves. When authority figures tell them what is right and wrong them are able to question it. Most people don't have this ability. They can be conditioned, or socialized, to accept any morality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Subjects under rule have their own interests, and they know what moral codes will help them achieve those interests. However, most people don't have the capability to understand the power structures of society and how morality affects society.

Irrelevent. The question is the origin of morals. Basic morality does not originate with rulers. If that were the source of morality, then morality would be as arbitrary as language, philosophy, and religion. The fact that nearly every human society has the same basic morality tells us that it comes from something more deeply ingrained than the arbitrary whims of a despot.

Basic morality is the profound and yet simple stuff: do no harm to others, do not kill, help thoe in need, honor your parents, do not steal, do not cheat with anothers mate, do not lie, etc. Why are these morals universal? Because any human society which allowed these rules would quickly break down and be overwhelmed by others forces, natural or human. Anything which helps the group survive is good. Anything which hinders group survival is bad.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious


To me conscience means having your own sense of right and wrong. To me people with a true conscience are able to choose what is right and wrong for themselves. When authority figures tell them what is right and wrong them are able to question it. Most people don't have this ability. They can be conditioned, or socialized, to accept any morality.

You have a very Randian view of humanity. The fact is, we are social creatures. Of course we get our morality from others. That's natural. We learn everything from each other, including morality. I get my morality from others. I may have a better understanding of its origins, but I share the same basic morals as those who are my poltical opponents. Justn cuz I don't think it was given to some guy by his invisible friend doesn't mean they aren't good ideas.

[Kidlicious]

I just took a big test, and I've been studying Accounting all day. Too tired right now, but I'll get back to this. It's interesting so far.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Yes, rulers like to have things.

PEOPLE like to have things, whether they're the mightiest king or the lowliest serf.

They like also like to maintain their power. It is in their interest to use their power to influence their subjects values.

So do you think that the earliest socieites were run by terrible and wonderful philosopher-kings? Wise enough that they created these ways to living out of nothing except for a self interest to keep power? How did they get their power in the first place? By your way of thinking, the first rulers had to come out of a society in which there was no morality and therefore no concept of moral behavior or any other guidelines for human interaction. (after all, how could people have morals if there were no leaders?) They were lucky that they had any subjects over which to rule, with there being nothing to prevent people from killing each other for any reason. These first rulers must have been visionaries to be able to determine two things : that there needed to be a code to allow them to rule over people AND to determine what types of things that code should consist of. That would be a tough task for the would be ruler, as no such code existed before. This scenario of a ruler developed morality does not seem plausible

I think a more reasonable explanation is that morality developed between people as society developed. Its hard to work together if your partner might kill you at any second. People had to work together to survive, and the first moral codes arose from their working relationships. Yes, later on in the process of social evolution rulers used morality to create laws designed keep subjects in line, but the basis of those legal systems developed before their was a master-subject system.

[Berzerker]

Whether I believe in their morals has nothing to do with it.

Can you just answer the question please? If you don't think it was moral for a king to slaughter people, then morals were not the basis of that rule.

My point is that their morals are accepted by society to the extent that they had the power to make that so.

Were their morals, moral? If not, what's the point of arguing that society's rules were based on morals imposed by rulers who were immoral?

And if you say no, that system was immoral because it was an oligarchy, then would you argue that morality is defined by a democratic system? What's the difference? More people, the majority gets to decide how to define morality? Well, I go a step further. I think that virtually everyone agreeing on a definition of morality is better than a simple majority.

[OzzyKP]

Where did morals come from?

Mine have 'Made in Taiwan' stamped on the side.

[Sandman]

The basic stuff is innate, to help humans live in modest social groupings. But to live in the complex societies we have now, we've had to invent lots of new social arrangements. It's just as well humans invent things like crazy, then.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
Law --> Moral
Moral --> Law

I think it is a wrong question. Law and moral are intertwined, and are two forms (among others) of the regulation of human behaviour.

A society must have rules to function correctly, and these rules must be obeyed. Obediance to the rules can come from fear of punishment, from fear of supranatural punishment, or from agreement with the rules (= rules that appear as legitimate).

Moral is a way to make rules appear as legitimate. It's a great way to have unenforceable rules obeyed. In older times, the moral-derived legitimacy and the fear of supranatural punishment were the best ways to have the rules obeyed, because those societies insitutional power (king, State...) had far fewer means to enforce those rules than today.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Wycoff
PEOPLE like to have things, whether they're the mightiest king or the lowliest serf.

That's not true. People only started to like to have things after the artificial concept of "posession" had been developed. Before that, people happily live in communes where everything was shared.

IIRC, the African Bushmen still live like that, even today.

[St Leo]

Nature's sieve. You don't get a society without rules even though rules aren't society and society isn't a set of rules. Rules and society evolve in tandem, influencing each other's development.

Secular humanism uber alles!

[Cruddy]

I would say that morals come from the desire of people to avoid disharmony within society and to be seen as regular people.

The need for recognition as a human being seems inbuilt from child hood.

Perhaps fear of shame is the origin of morals?

All quite distinct from rules and regulations laid down...

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not true. People only started to like to have things after the artificial concept of "posession" had been developed. Before that, people happily live in communes where everything was shared.

I don't buy that. It sounds like a Communist version of the Garden of Eden, a Communist version of the perfect world that existed prior to some fall from grace. Whereas Christians and Jews would have us believe humanity fell from grace when man disobeyed God, Communists would have us believe that man fell from grace when someone came up with the idea of personal property. Both stories give man a basis for a perfect society that we should work to regain. They're myths designed to give the rest of the doctrine a purpose.

Toddlers and animals take possession of thing. One of my dogs has a toy that he doesn't let the other dogs touch. Has he been "corrupted" by some artificial construct? No.

IIRC, the African Bushmen still live like that, even today.

I've never seen evidence that any society has ever had no personal property. They may share things, they may pool resources, but they still take some objects for themselves, objects that don't lend themselves to be shared. For example, a bushman finds a colorful feather that would be useful for personal decoration. This feather isn't something that can be divided. Its a single unit. He goes back to the tribal home. Does he then go back and set up some sharing schedule to ensure that each tribesman who wants to could equally adorn themselves with that feather, or does the bushman go back wearing that feather, proud of his new find?

I don't think its clear that he would automatically share this thing. He may share it, but, since the value of the object lies in personal adornment rather than some other survival value, he'd likely keep it. The value of adornment is that it differentiates you from others. This value would disappear if the man would give the feather for communal use. Just like my dog guards his toy or a toddler would guard something it found, the primitive man would guard his find. This discovery hypothetical is something that would happen frequently in a wilderness based society. People would naturally pick things up that they find in the woods. Would they then always and uniformly give up any of their findings to some commercial pot? I doubt it. I think that there's always been private property of some sort.

[Ramo]

Morals are prescriptions for determining whether social interactions are beneficial or not, and come directly from our minds (particularly, our sense of empathy and the reasoning that follows from it), but are certainly shaped by the society we live in and its common wisdom to some extent.