Where We Get Our Morals From

I get my morals from a child's brittle old folded paper fortune teller I found singed in a broken E-Z Bake oven hidden in the dimly lit attic of an abandoned farmhouse overlooking fields in which no wholesome living thing would grow.

It's worked out well so far, except for that one time I chanted the softly glowing words it revealed and Mr. Near Laffy-tap crawled out of the oily shadows and told me I had to kill them all before he could give me the present he brought.
 
Piscivore said:
I get my morals from a child's brittle old folded paper fortune teller I found singed in a broken E-Z Bake oven hidden in the dimly lit attic of an abandoned farmhouse overlooking fields in which no wholesome living thing would grow.

It's worked out well so far, except for that one time I chanted the softly glowing words it revealed and Mr. Near Laffy-tap crawled out of the oily shadows and told me I had to kill them all before he could give me the present he brought.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you must have recently eaten some bad seafood. :p
 
plumjam said:
Yes. Your 'ethical intuition' sounds like my 'conscience'.. so it seems we pretty much agree. Yay! First time for everything ;)
I describe conscience as a form of perceiving truth.. so your sociopath equates to someone with impaired moral perception. In the same way that blind people don't perceive, say, the truth of chairs, as well as the sighted.
Click to expand...


First, conscience is a little more complicated than simple moral intuition since it often depends on internalized societal rules. You can feel that you've done something wrong when speeding, but that is not part of our original make-up as human beings.

Second, I would not use the word 'truth' in this situation. These are not truths, but moral intuitions, tendencies, guides, feelings. Truth implies that that particular way of acting is a part of the universe as a whole -- like gravitational force.

I know that you claim to be an idealist (though I think you are really a dualist) and can see why you would use that word, but I would not.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
I had an American History teacher who emphasized the fact that right and wrong is not only culturally relative but relative to the times.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I wonder how a christian could agree to such relativism without relativizing christ. What do you think?
 
We need guidelines for our behavior in order for us to live together. The better the rules the better we do. This is what morals are. Rules to guide our behavior so that we can have a better life.
 
Herzblut said:
Yeah, but I wonder how a christian could agree to such relativism without relativizing christ. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I don't think he was a Christian.

As for Christians in general - Jesus doesn't appear to be a relativist.
 
Last edited:
The moral argument seems like a sneaky way to try to prove God.

"If there are absolute morals, where did those come from, huh?"

Prove God, first. Provide evidence.

...

In a universe with an absence of God, all moral systems, including religious, are human fabrications.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
First, conscience is a little more complicated than simple moral intuition since it often depends on internalized societal rules. You can feel that you've done something wrong when speeding, but that is not part of our original make-up as human beings.
Click to expand...
Well, not really. The speeding law originates from conscience, in that the people who were instrumental in introducing the law were acting on the moral perception provided to them via conscience, of the moral truth that it is important to protect innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians from the increased likelihood of suffering injury or death due to the inconsiderate desire of some people to speed.

Second, I would not use the word 'truth' in this situation. These are not truths, but moral intuitions, tendencies, guides, feelings. Truth implies that that particular way of acting is a part of the universe as a whole -- like gravitational force.
Click to expand...
They are moral intuitions of what?
To intuit something, there has to be something there to intuit in the first place; otherwise we're just engaging in completely subjective fantasy.
If you believe that these are not truths.. well, that contradicts your earlier statement that you believe slavery to be morally wrong. If truths in morality are not possible, then you can make no meaningful statements on morality.. and therefore we should all just shut up (which I can sometimes see the appeal of ;) )
Yes, moral truth is out there in the same way that gravity is out there. No one has ever seen gravity, only its effects. No one has ever seen moral truth/falsehood (only via conscience, not visually), only their effects. It's exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
I usually don't have much to say in these origin of morality discussions once they've gotten underway and all the good points have already been addressed. But there is one simple explanation I've heard for where we get our morals.

Morality evolves, and I use that term loosely as an analogy, just like everything else. We as a society keep which behaviors work and do away with those that don't. It's simple trial and error. Behaviors such as cooperation and altruism aid our survival, while those such as murder, stealing, and sacrificing babies do not. Any society that advocated killing its own young for a sustained period of time would be outcompeted and overrun by a more sensible society. Keep in mind that these are very general examples, and it's not difficult to come up with exceptions or gray area.

The belief in absolute morality found in many religions is a reinforcing factor for existing morals, not a source of morality itself. For a source of morality, human suffering vs. human well-being seems to be a good place to start looking.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
I don't think he was a Christian.

As for Christians in general - Jesus doesn't appear to be a relativist.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean. Christ's words are plain, simple and universal. And that's my problem. What's unclear about "Love your enemy"? How could a christian become a soldier and kill people on profane secular orders, pissing on Christ's word?
 
Last edited:
Herzblut said:
That's what I mean. Christ's words are plain, simple and universal. And that's my problem. What's unclear about "Love your enemy"? How could a christian become a soldier and kill people on profane secular orders, pissing on Christ's word?
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know ... Maybe if they took Christ at his word, and went out and bought a sword..:rolleyes:
 
Herzblut said:
That's what I mean. Christ's words are plain, simple and universal. And that's my problem. What's unclear about "Love your enemy"? How could a christian become a soldier and kill people on profane secular orders, pissing on Christ's word?
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent. But to have "love your enemy" as something we rely on socially and internationally would be pretty unrealistic, and in fact highly irresponsible. If you have a world where everyone except one person loves their enemy, (no soldiers), then it would only take one psychopath with a kitchen knife to work their way around the globe slitting everyone's throat, and bye-bye humanity.
So I see no objection to there being Christian soldiers.. so long as they are only used in self-defence or morally justifiable intervention.
 
plumjam said:
Well, not really. The speeding law originates from conscience, in that the people who were instrumental in introducing the law were acting on the moral perception provided to them via conscience, of the moral truth that it is important to protect innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians from the increased likelihood of suffering injury or death due to the inconsiderate desire of some people to speed.
Click to expand...
The drive to develop that law could have come from any number of motivations aside from conscience.

Rather than seeing it as a 'moral truth', the lawmakers could have put themselves in the position of those being hit and sought to avoid it from a more 'that could have been ME!' position of self-interest.

Equally, from the standpoint of a functioning society (in which, let us not forget, these people have a privileged position as lawmakers), they may have decided that the social contract should include reductions in the risk of death to others through the lowering of the speed limit; one of the many measures which cumulatively prevent the breakdown of society and help them retain this privileged position.

These things could be considered 'for the best' from a purely rational standpoint without having to go into 'right' and 'wrong', with the idea of what is best relying entirely on self-interest.
 
plumjam said:
Yes, moral truth is out there in the same way that gravity is out there. No one has ever seen gravity, only its effects. No one has ever seen moral truth/falsehood (only via conscience, not visually), only their effects. It's exactly the same.
Click to expand...

So absolute humour is out there in the same way gravity is out there, simply because we have never seen it, only its effects?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
So absolute humour is out there in the same way gravity is out there, simply because we have never seen it, only its effects?
Click to expand...
Exactly. That and justice, sadness, acute embarrassment and any number of other intangible nouns whose existence is relied upon by those who've heard of them and assume that someone must have a remaindered boxful somewhere, rather than ascribing their existence to human invention and the capacity for self-deception.
 
Welcome hughnon!

There is also no such thing as an absolute stink. Some people use a flippant phrase such as 'That is the worst smell in the world', but we don't regard there to actually be an ultimate stink. And yet, hotel staff still do not pump awful smells into the reception area, as they do not want their guests to walk out.

Simply because there is no ultimate stink, there are still laws and rules worked around the social construct 'bad smell'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom