Where did morals come from?

[johncmcleod]

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.

Actually, I believe Daniel Quinn's theory on the fall from grace. Humans lived within the ecological system just like any other organism. Then, they ate the apple that made them like God. They became aware of the nakedness, etc. This represents them discovering that if they become sedentary agrarians, they can step out of the system and instead control it. In essence, they were becoming God by doing this. This is what eating that apple was.

" LAND, n.
A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy; and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognized. It follows that if the whole area of _terra firma_ is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

"Property is theft." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

I will say that yes, some form of private property has always been allowed, but not much, and once property got to be a major concept and everything became property, that is when utopia turned to hell. Read my sig.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

It is just as arbitrary.

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.

First of all, every human society does not have the same 'basic' morality. Second, where ever societies have similar morality, that does not prove your point.

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?

Those morals aren't universal at all. Those morals are only common with those who find them either beneficial or blindly accept the ethics of the group that they are a part of.

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.

No it wouldn't. Even if that were true all that it would show is that the ruler is dependent on his subjects, and any moral code enforced on the subjects would therefore be beneficial to the rulers. The morals that you have listed are not always beneficial to the rulers of a society though. Rulers can make up variations to those morals, justify them, institutionalise them, and make the variation part of that societies ethical code. There are many examples of that in the real world and throughout history.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You have a very Randian view of humanity.

Marx believed in rational self-interest comrad. He believed that the self-interest of the working class would lead to communism. I believe in that assumption. Yes.

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.

The thing is that people with power over you have much more influence over you than just someone who doesn't have any power over you because you are dependent on him. And if you are an everyday Joe, and he has charisma you are going to follow him even more.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by johncmcleod


Actually, I believe Daniel Quinn's theory on the fall from grace. Humans lived within the ecological system just like any other organism. Then, they ate the apple that made them like God. They became aware of the nakedness, etc. This represents them discovering that if they become sedentary agrarians, they can step out of the system and instead control it. In essence, they were becoming God by doing this. This is what eating that apple was.

We still live within the ecological system. Human intelligence developed naturally. Progess is a function of our intellect. Progress didn't take us "out" of the ecological system. People weren't stepping out of the system when they became farmers, they were using their natural talents and adapting them to fit the world around them, just like any other organism. Our society is just as natural as any other animal society.

[Sandman]

Communists would have us believe that man fell from grace when someone came up with the idea of personal property.

They're pretty clear that each stage is superior to the one preceding it.

Anyway, personal trinkets are quite different from ownership of land, factories, patents etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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.

I'm not arguing that there is a true morality, but a universal morality there is not. People have morals that benefit them. That's human nature. Their morals may not be right, but they are morals.

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?

They are moral according to the rulers, but not necessarily moral for me. Yes, people CAN have different morals.
[QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE]
I'm not saying either of those things.

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.

I'll go for that, but when is everyone going to agree. I think the answer to that is when there are not rulers.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Sandman

Anyway, personal trinkets are quite different from ownership of land, factories, patents etc.

Yes they are, but ownership of personal trinkets is first step to other types of ownership. Its hard to imagine a society in which there are no personal trinkets of any kind.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sandman
They're pretty clear that each stage is superior to the one preceding it.

No. Only communism is better than the rest. Actually, some consider capitalism to be the worst, followed by feudalism, but you can't really say that that is most of us.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Our society is just as natural as any other animal society.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious

What's not natural about it? Its all a product of humanity's natural traits. We used our natural traits to create a society. Other animals have socieites (take Chimps for example), ours is simply more advanced and complex. That complexity has developed from our intellect, a natural trait. Its not supernatural, unless you believe that humanity developed this way because of some supernatural influence.

[Kidlicious]

Here's the relevent part of the definition of nature that you are missing

A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality:

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Here's the relevent part of the definition of nature that you are missing

I'm not "missing" it. There's more than one definition to natural. The synonym to the definition that you listed would be "primitive" or "wild" i the sense of untouched/ unchanged by man. I agree, our society is not primitive, and we have certainly changed the landscape.

However, nothing we have done has surpassed the bounds of nature. We've taken the traits that our species has developed over the millenia and applied them to the world around us. We've changed things; the world is not wild. However, we're still animals. We're still working with the tools that we've naturally developed. If some other species develops a level of intelligence capable of agriculture, then I'm sure they'll change the world as well. Just because we've modified other aspects of nature doesn't mean that we ourselves are unnatural.

We're still using the tools nature gave them to adapt the world around them in an effort to produce food and ensure the survival and continuation of the species. No matter what else humanity does, those things are still and forever will be our basic goals as a species. We've modified the wild landscape to help us more easily meet those goals. That doesn't make what we've done unnatural. Rather, that's the natural outcome of the use of the human intellect, our natural tool.

[Kidlicious]

If you don't include that part of the definition of 'nature' you really don't have a word at all. There's no use for it. Of course civilization is dictated by natural laws, and we have to follow them, however, we use the natural laws to change nature. So using the natural laws to change nature is not natural.

[Fake Boris]

It is inconceivable that a mammal wouldn't follow any sort of interiorized rules.

As social structures evolved, so did morals.

[Sandman]

Yes they are, but ownership of personal trinkets is first step to other types of ownership. Its hard to imagine a society in which there are no personal trinkets of any kind.

Those other types of ownership haven't 'always existed' and can not be justified by pointing to Bushmen, dogs and toddlers.

No. Only communism is better than the rest. Actually, some consider capitalism to be the worst, followed by feudalism, but you can't really say that that is most of us.

What about socialism (in the Marxist use of the word)?