Where did morals come from?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sandman
But societies don't follow the rules of evolution. Not only do they have now-useless social structures and customs, but they also have stuff which was NEVER useful. Like ballet. Or people who collect Barbie dolls. Or the belief that vitamin C cures colds.

Societies very much do follow the rules of evolution. How many slave or feudal societies do you see lying around? As for structures and customs which aren't useful, evolution is driven by traits which aren't useful (and aren't harmful) which become useful when the environment changes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
People believe that it's moral to kill other people is the right circumstance,

Jutifiable homocide isn't murder. Murder is unjustified homocide. No society has every said it's okay to kill someone because you simply want to do so. Societies which have stretched the limit as far as they could go, say, the Aztecs, who were sacrficing huge swathes of their subject peoples, soon become unstable and unable to withstand internal and external pressures. The Spanish pushed over a tottering empire. They didn't crush it with superior arms.

No society has ever said it's okay to steal on a whim. It might be okay to steal from certain groups, and it might be okay for certain people to steal, but no society ever made universal theft legal. Any society which did so would collapse in a universal feud.

Our morals are grounded in concrete reality, and not the ideas of some enlightened mind. They describe the relations we need as a social band to be able to survive and grow. That fact that our social bands now number in the hundreds of millions doesn't discredit or detract from the origins of our morals in small social kin-groups of 20-30 scavangers.

[Kidlicious]

Societies have their own rules about killing and taking things. If you think that the rules are wrong then you call the acts murder and theft. To maintain power you have to make people either believe that your rules about killing and taking things are just or you punish the people who disagree with you.

Relations have more to do with power than justice.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Societies very much do follow the rules of evolution.

This has more to do with economics than morals, but different morals are needed to justify the different economic systems usually.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Irrelevent. They are part of society. Just because society may have a morality that puts different constraints and obligations on different people (for example, men and women, or adults and children) doesn't mean that those people's morals are part of societies from the view of natural selection.

I don't understand what you are saying.

[Kidlicious]

Who has more power to influence people's morals, a bum or the President?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't understand what you are saying.

That whether the rulers are the ones enforcing or "creating" the morality has no bearing on my point and Che's.

[Kidlicious]

We're suppose to disagree.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Who has more power to influence people's morals, a bum or the President?

Both.

The President may enforce a morality, but has precious little power to compel the people to believe in a certain morality, or even to convince them.

In most cases, morality gets decided by society as a group, with no apparent attachement to any one person. Only in rare, exceptional cases does one person have a signficant effect, and these people are (rightly) viewed as great figures of history.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Societies have their own rules about killing and taking things.

You're losing the forest for the trees. Has there ever been a society where it's okay to steal? Has there ever been a society where it's okay to murder? No in both cases. While a specific ruler here or there may have the right to take what he wants or kill whom he pleases, that's a detail. Even then he doesn't let his subjects go around committing murder or stealing willy-nilly. Why? Because regardless of the exceptions, people need to be safe and secure or society will (and did) collapse.

To maintain power you have to make people either believe that your rules about killing and taking things are just or you punish the people who disagree with you.

Irrelevent. That has nothing to do with the origin of morals. It only has to do with who has the power to enforce them and provide exceptions to the morals. Without the basic moral code of humanity, society becomes dysfunctional and collapses. It doesn't matter who's ruling, except in that he won't be ruling very long.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Both.

The President may enforce a morality, but has precious little power to compel the people to believe in a certain morality, or even to convince them.

I see. All that campaigning and speeches for nothing.

In most cases, morality gets decided by society as a group, with no apparent attachement to any one person. Only in rare, exceptional cases does one person have a signficant effect, and these people are (rightly) viewed as great figures of history.

I'm not talking about one person. I'm talking about groups. People have various degrees of power in a society. Those with power have more power to influence people's morality.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kidicious
Societies have their own rules about killing and taking things.

You're losing the forest for the trees. Has there ever been a society where it's okay to steal? Has there ever been a society where it's okay to murder? No in both cases. While a specific ruler here or there may have the right to take what he wants or kill whom he pleases, that's a detail. Even then he doesn't let his subjects go around committing murder or stealing willy-nilly. Why? Because regardless of the exceptions, people need to be safe and secure or society will (and did) collapse.

To maintain power you have to make people either believe that your rules about killing and taking things are just or you punish the people who disagree with you.

Irrelevent. That has nothing to do with the origin of morals. It only has to do with who has the power to enforce them and provide exceptions to the morals. Without the basic moral code of humanity, society becomes dysfunctional and collapses. It doesn't matter who's ruling, except in that he won't be ruling very long.

I'm not suggesting that a society where anyone could take what ever they had the physical power too or kill who ever they could would survive. Of course, a society like that would collapse, and would not benefit the rulers of the society. But more often than that taking things from people, including their life is legal and moral within a society. Society doesn't collapse, because the rules benefit enough people with power. The victims without power would like to do something about it, but can't. Because they don't have the power to do so. Only when the rulers lose their power can there be a revolution and a change in morality that benefits the new rulers.

There is no 'basic' morality in a society where people have unequal power and special economic interests. Each special interest has a morality that benefits their own interests. The rulers of the society are able to tie more people to them with economic interests, and affect morality that way.

[Dr Strangelove]

There are some hunter - gatherer tribes which do not seem to have a concept of property. Objects are available for anyone to take and use. I think the concept of property develops parallel with the development of agriculture - when people have to labor to produse their substinannce they develop a certain degree of possessiveness.

The ancient tale of Gilgamesh, thought to be the oldest known myth describes a powerful man who essentially brutalizes the people of the city at will. He encounters the sacred beast and fights it over and over. Having found an opponent worthy of his prowess he becomes a better citizen. He and the beast become great friends. When he finally slays the beast he deifies the critter and requires that the people worship as he does. What puzzles me is why archaelogists haven't seen the obvious truth about this important historical document. Not only is it the oldest known religion, but it describes the invention of sport and provides a valuable insight into the psyche of ancient man and also the psychology of violence.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
a society like that would collapse, and would not benefit the rulers of the society. . . . Society doesn't collapse, because the rules benefit enough people with power.

Rulers are perfectly capable of being deluded. Note my previous example of the Aztecs. The fact that it would not materially benefit the ruling class doesn't mean that they might not believe otherwise or that the leadership might be crazy. There is a significant section of the ruling class in America that believed it would be better off with a nuclear war against the USSR. That fact that that was utter madness didn't preclude them from holding that conviction deeply.

There is no 'basic' morality in a society where people have unequal power and special economic interests.

Yes there is. It's just that the exceptions are "justified," either for the greater good or by some religious or ethical reasoning.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I see. All that campaigning and speeches for nothing.

Not for nothing; to convince America that Bush represents their morality.

Even if Bush doesn't, and he enforces something different, he won't change their morality. He'll just force them to live under a morality not their own (which is obviously possible).

I'm not talking about one person. I'm talking about groups. People have various degrees of power in a society. Those with power have more power to influence people's morality.

Power in general really doesn't translate into power to change the underlying morality of society. People who do change that are often effectively powerless. Jesus, for example.