On the Nature of Morality

[Asclepias]

The people you learn from put that voice inside you. I'm sure there are somethings that are natural but you are by and large a product of what others that teach you believed to be moral.

Animals have shown examples of morals as well which confirms the point that you are taught most of your moral code.

Where did the voice come from? It had to have a beginning. For the people you learn from to put a voice in you they must have had the voice to begin with. How did they get it inside you?

Thought process. You do realize that once you become self aware you are constantly talking to yourself? You are observing whats going on around you and categorizing it in order to identify it in one of 2 ways. Harmful or beneficial. This is the result of people influencing you to believe one way or the other. If you are asking the chicken or the egg question I dont buy into the religion angle.

Just as I thought. No real answer to my question as to where the voice came from in the beginning. POOF!! It appeared out of nothing. LOL!!

I just told you it came out of the thought process. Were you not reading along? You think in whatever language you learned to originally speak in.

Where did the thought process come from? Does serial murderers have the same thought process or is it missing in them? Is the thought process present in serial murderers but the voice missing?

The thought process comes from your brain. If your brain does not produce enough of chemical X or too much of chemical Y then you have a person that may interpret their environment differently. This can be caused by trauma or a birth defect. Everyone hears the voice in their head. Some may think its someone else instead of recognizing it for their own voice like say prophets or disciples.

 

[Asclepias]

no
parents, peers and everyone involved in teaching you how to survive in society
sometimes

Was it an ACME kit like the coyote always uses against the roadrunner? You still haven't explained from where the voice had its beginning.

The voice speaks english or whatever is your native languge. That should clue you in that it is a product of your environment.

I can change my environment easily and often. Does the voice change easily and often?

No it doesnt.

So were the city to pass a law saying one can make a right on red after a stop, my voice would not allow me to make a right on red after a stop? Interesting.

There is a reason you can tie your shoe without thinking about it or drive home without remembering how you got there. Its called practice. Practice is not easy which was what your question was about. Changing a habit requires conscious thought.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The question I pose for discussion is whether morality [our sense of right and wrong] is inherent in us from birth or indoctrinated in us by society.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone might be watching [H. L. Mencken]. I am inclined to this cynical view of human nature. Morality is neither innate nor divinely inspired. Morality is governed by laws which reflect the morals of the society in which we live.

In law, for example, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, because of mental disease or defect, he cannot distinguish LEGAL right from wrong. Thus, if a person knows that killing is legally wrong, even though he operates under a delusion that it is morally right [eg, to kill prostitutes], he cannot avail himself of the insanity defense. The courts hold that criminal laws reflect the morals of society; thus, knowing that an act is legally wrong assumes knowing that the act is morally wrong.

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

Morality changes with society. Slavery was once embraced in American society but is now abhorrent. Divorce was once taboo but now is commonplace. Were morality inherent in us from birth, then society would remain stagnate.

For these reasons, I believe morality is a product of societal indoctrination.

I invite your opinion.

6th commandment reads "you shall not murder." Not "kill." Murder is an illegal or otherwise unsanctioned slaying, whereas killing is (as soldiers do in a war, self-defense of self of a third party, etc..) Much is lost if you think the difference doesn't matter.

I think some moral values are either inherrent from birth, or babies learn very quickly what not to do because it illicts a negative reaction. Like not taking something from another baby because the baby lashes out angrily or cries. Much is learned quickly I think by observation and imitation. Parental reactions like positive or negative ones teach what's good or not early on. Whether it's this, or something biologically inherrent is perhaps impossible to know since experiments to figure that out would be unethical (i.e. raising a child with no human contact at all to observe what they do minus observation and imitation cues.)

Worth mentioninig too that what a textbook says is morality and what an individual might may be different. Thus morality may be reliigous in nature, or not depending on the respondant. Could also be something a neuroscientist would describe differently than someone with no understanding of such things.

In general, I think much of our awareness of morality comes from what our parents teach us. Some from whatever society we find ourselves in. Some from personal experience. But ultimately I think it's simply a word we've come to use in place of the more accurate reality of learning. We learn what to do and not do to be accepted by society and our peers. Wanna call it morality go ahead, I call it learning not differentiating it between everything else we learn. Learning's a lifelong process and we continually update what we think of as right and wrong.

 

[Youch]

The question I pose for discussion is whether morality [our sense of right and wrong] is inherent in us from birth or indoctrinated in us by society.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone might be watching [H. L. Mencken]. I am inclined to this cynical view of human nature. Morality is neither innate nor divinely inspired. Morality is governed by laws which reflect the morals of the society in which we live.

In law, for example, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, because of mental disease or defect, he cannot distinguish LEGAL right from wrong. Thus, if a person knows that killing is legally wrong, even though he operates under a delusion that it is morally right [eg, to kill prostitutes], he cannot avail himself of the insanity defense. The courts hold that criminal laws reflect the morals of society; thus, knowing that an act is legally wrong assumes knowing that the act is morally wrong.

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

Morality changes with society. Slavery was once embraced in American society but is now abhorrent. Divorce was once taboo but now is commonplace. Were morality inherent in us from birth, then society would remain stagnate.

For these reasons, I believe morality is a product of societal indoctrination.

I invite your opinion.

Among other definitions, ethics (or morality) is knowing the difference between knowing what you have the right to do, and knowing what the right thing to do is. Some such...forget who said that, doesn't matter.

To your point, morality is a ratified desire of a civil society, the contractual agreement we have with one another, bound by agreed-to law. As a corollary, or perhaps a basis for the aforementioned, morality is a consequence of natural law. Pointing to human sacrifice and slavery as being "normal" does not describe nature in the sense that it pertained to harmony amongst life......one was a religious/cult perversion, and the other a subjugation, neither otherwise naturally found in nature. Thus, one can conclude the rational man, apart from the rest of nature, requires a set of boundaries so as to (ATTEMPT to) live in peace and harmony. Thus, the articulation of morality. Some of the best articulations of morality come from religious texts, but perhaps none more sufficient than our own U.S. Constitution, the civil contract known as the rule of law.

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

In sum, I think we mostly agree.

You invited my opinion, there you have it.

 

[PratchettFan]

The question I pose for discussion is whether morality [our sense of right and wrong] is inherent in us from birth or indoctrinated in us by society.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone might be watching [H. L. Mencken]. I am inclined to this cynical view of human nature. Morality is neither innate nor divinely inspired. Morality is governed by laws which reflect the morals of the society in which we live.

In law, for example, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, because of mental disease or defect, he cannot distinguish LEGAL right from wrong. Thus, if a person knows that killing is legally wrong, even though he operates under a delusion that it is morally right [eg, to kill prostitutes], he cannot avail himself of the insanity defense. The courts hold that criminal laws reflect the morals of society; thus, knowing that an act is legally wrong assumes knowing that the act is morally wrong.

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

Morality changes with society. Slavery was once embraced in American society but is now abhorrent. Divorce was once taboo but now is commonplace. Were morality inherent in us from birth, then society would remain stagnate.

For these reasons, I believe morality is a product of societal indoctrination.

I invite your opinion.

I think there is a difference between morality and mores. Mores are the standards set by society, morality are internal standards we each attempt to live by. If you see a wallet on the street and discover a large amount of money along with clear identification and you return it to the owner because you think that is right thing to do, that is morality. If you return it because a police officer saw you and knows who you are, that is mores.

Mores change with society. Morality can certainly be impacted by that, but there is often conflict between the two. Someone standing on the street wearing a white sheet handing out KKK literature may consider themselves extremely moral, but probably won't be seen that way by the community.

 

[Asclepias]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

 

[the_human_being]

Where did the voice come from? It had to have a beginning. For the people you learn from to put a voice in you they must have had the voice to begin with. How did they get it inside you?

Thought process. You do realize that once you become self aware you are constantly talking to yourself? You are observing whats going on around you and categorizing it in order to identify it in one of 2 ways. Harmful or beneficial. This is the result of people influencing you to believe one way or the other. If you are asking the chicken or the egg question I dont buy into the religion angle.

Just as I thought. No real answer to my question as to where the voice came from in the beginning. POOF!! It appeared out of nothing. LOL!!

I just told you it came out of the thought process. Were you not reading along? You think in whatever language you learned to originally speak in.

Where did the thought process come from? Does serial murderers have the same thought process or is it missing in them? Is the thought process present in serial murderers but the voice missing?

The thought process comes from your brain. If your brain does not produce enough of chemical X or too much of chemical Y then you have a person that may interpret their environment differently. This can be caused by trauma or a birth defect. Everyone hears the voice in their head. Some may think its someone else instead of recognizing it for their own voice like say prophets or disciples.

Suppose one hears TWO voices. One voice telling him it is wrong to do something and as soon as that voice has finished speaking another voice says, "Go ahead and do it. It'll feel good and nobody else will ever know." Does hearing two voices denote one has a split personality or that one's thought or learning processes are skewed?

 

[the_human_being]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

Do you simply have to turn even this thread into a racial one? Can't you discuss anything at all without turning it into a racial issue?

 

[Asclepias]

The question I pose for discussion is whether morality [our sense of right and wrong] is inherent in us from birth or indoctrinated in us by society.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone might be watching [H. L. Mencken]. I am inclined to this cynical view of human nature. Morality is neither innate nor divinely inspired. Morality is governed by laws which reflect the morals of the society in which we live.

In law, for example, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, because of mental disease or defect, he cannot distinguish LEGAL right from wrong. Thus, if a person knows that killing is legally wrong, even though he operates under a delusion that it is morally right [eg, to kill prostitutes], he cannot avail himself of the insanity defense. The courts hold that criminal laws reflect the morals of society; thus, knowing that an act is legally wrong assumes knowing that the act is morally wrong.

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

Morality changes with society. Slavery was once embraced in American society but is now abhorrent. Divorce was once taboo but now is commonplace. Were morality inherent in us from birth, then society would remain stagnate.

For these reasons, I believe morality is a product of societal indoctrination.

I invite your opinion.

I think there is a difference between morality and mores. Mores are the standards set by society, morality are internal standards we each attempt to live by. If you see a wallet on the street and discover a large amount of money along with clear identification and you return it to the owner because you think that is right thing to do, that is morality. If you return it because a police officer saw you and knows who you are, that is mores.

Mores change with society. Morality can certainly be impacted by that, but there is often conflict between the two. Someone standing on the street wearing a white sheet handing out KKK literature may consider themselves extremely moral, but probably won't be seen that way by the community.

There is very little difference between mores and morality and that difference is basically semantics. Society/environment determines or teaches both. While your morality may be different from larger society in general you didn't come up with the concept on your own and your "society" or social group determines your morality. There is a saying that you are the sum average of the 10 people you spend the most time with. People are social animals by instinct. Thats why people that are isolated or left alone for extended periods of time become crazy.

 

[Asclepias]

Your perspective if a bit off, however. Slavery was not "embraced in American society".....early America had long previously inherited the practice from elsewhere in the world, more especially in Africa (and the middle east and elsewhere) where slavery had been embraced for thousands of years. The foundation of American, the civil society, clearly laid the foundation for the end of slavery. It is more appropriate to state that America did not embrace slavery so much as grew out of/away from the immoral practice. Thanks be to our Framers, some of whom inherited the immoral practice they set upon to end.

I disagree. Slavery was embraced and changed to chattel slavery by American society. Before the US was officially formed, Black people in the states were either free or indentured servants. There was a social and economic need to make Black people slaves and the equivalent of animals. The social need to do so was to deal with the cognitive dissonance that resulted from the hypocritical stance of christians owning slaves. The economic reasons are obvious as it resulted in the US becoming and economic power. One only needs to look at the 3/5 compromise to see the US embraced the concept of slavery even after debating its merits among the slave owners that created the constitution.

Do you simply have to turn even this thread into a racial one? Can't you discuss anything at all without turning it into a racial issue?

Youch brought up slavery. I never mentioned it. I know you can read so why are you claiming I turned it into a racial one?

 

[Asclepias]

Thought process. You do realize that once you become self aware you are constantly talking to yourself? You are observing whats going on around you and categorizing it in order to identify it in one of 2 ways. Harmful or beneficial. This is the result of people influencing you to believe one way or the other. If you are asking the chicken or the egg question I dont buy into the religion angle.

Just as I thought. No real answer to my question as to where the voice came from in the beginning. POOF!! It appeared out of nothing. LOL!!

I just told you it came out of the thought process. Were you not reading along? You think in whatever language you learned to originally speak in.

Where did the thought process come from? Does serial murderers have the same thought process or is it missing in them? Is the thought process present in serial murderers but the voice missing?

The thought process comes from your brain. If your brain does not produce enough of chemical X or too much of chemical Y then you have a person that may interpret their environment differently. This can be caused by trauma or a birth defect. Everyone hears the voice in their head. Some may think its someone else instead of recognizing it for their own voice like say prophets or disciples.

Suppose one hears TWO voices. One voice telling him it is wrong to do something and as soon as that voice has finished speaking another voice says, "Go ahead and do it. It'll feel good and nobody else will ever know." Does hearing two voices denote one has a split personality or that one's thought or learning processes are skewed?

No. It illustrates the struggle people have deciding which path to take when they have 2 equally strong philosphies combating for supremacy in their minds.

 

[dilloduck]

Thought process. You do realize that once you become self aware you are constantly talking to yourself? You are observing whats going on around you and categorizing it in order to identify it in one of 2 ways. Harmful or beneficial. This is the result of people influencing you to believe one way or the other. If you are asking the chicken or the egg question I dont buy into the religion angle.

Just as I thought. No real answer to my question as to where the voice came from in the beginning. POOF!! It appeared out of nothing. LOL!!

I just told you it came out of the thought process. Were you not reading along? You think in whatever language you learned to originally speak in.

Where did the thought process come from? Does serial murderers have the same thought process or is it missing in them? Is the thought process present in serial murderers but the voice missing?

The thought process comes from your brain. If your brain does not produce enough of chemical X or too much of chemical Y then you have a person that may interpret their environment differently. This can be caused by trauma or a birth defect. Everyone hears the voice in their head. Some may think its someone else instead of recognizing it for their own voice like say prophets or disciples.

Suppose one hears TWO voices. One voice telling him it is wrong to do something and as soon as that voice has finished speaking another voice says, "Go ahead and do it. It'll feel good and nobody else will ever know." Does hearing two voices denote one has a split personality or that one's thought or learning processes are skewed?

No

 

[PratchettFan]

The question I pose for discussion is whether morality [our sense of right and wrong] is inherent in us from birth or indoctrinated in us by society.

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us someone might be watching [H. L. Mencken]. I am inclined to this cynical view of human nature. Morality is neither innate nor divinely inspired. Morality is governed by laws which reflect the morals of the society in which we live.

In law, for example, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if, because of mental disease or defect, he cannot distinguish LEGAL right from wrong. Thus, if a person knows that killing is legally wrong, even though he operates under a delusion that it is morally right [eg, to kill prostitutes], he cannot avail himself of the insanity defense. The courts hold that criminal laws reflect the morals of society; thus, knowing that an act is legally wrong assumes knowing that the act is morally wrong.

The bible [eg, the ten commandments] is not the source of morality but only a reflection of the morality of ancient jews and christians. The law code of Hammurabi pre-dates the ten commandments Moses gave to his people. ''Thou shalt not kill'' is not a universal inherent precept, as the Mayans practiced human sacrifice.

Morality changes with society. Slavery was once embraced in American society but is now abhorrent. Divorce was once taboo but now is commonplace. Were morality inherent in us from birth, then society would remain stagnate.

For these reasons, I believe morality is a product of societal indoctrination.

I invite your opinion.

I think there is a difference between morality and mores. Mores are the standards set by society, morality are internal standards we each attempt to live by. If you see a wallet on the street and discover a large amount of money along with clear identification and you return it to the owner because you think that is right thing to do, that is morality. If you return it because a police officer saw you and knows who you are, that is mores.

Mores change with society. Morality can certainly be impacted by that, but there is often conflict between the two. Someone standing on the street wearing a white sheet handing out KKK literature may consider themselves extremely moral, but probably won't be seen that way by the community.

There is very little difference between mores and morality and that difference is basically semantics. Society/environment determines or teaches both. While your morality may be different from larger society in general you didn't come up with the concept on your own and your "society" or social group determines your morality. There is a saying that you are the sum average of the 10 people you spend the most time with. People are social animals by instinct. Thats why people that are isolated or left alone for extended periods of time become crazy.

I think there is a significant difference. Though I did say personal morality is impacted by society. I don't think morality is instinctual, I see it as requiring both learning and thought. Morality is a decision. Mores is a group thing. You can have a conflict between morality and mores, but you won't go to jail because you violated your personal moral code - only if you violate the group moral code.

An example of this would be a vegan who is morally opposed to eating animals. If they decide to go ahead and have a steak then no one is going to raise an eyebrow. They have violated their own moral code but not social mores. However, if they decide meat is meat so they might as well chow down on Grandma's leg (who just died of natural causes, of course), then society is going to take a different view even if the person sees no moral conflict at all.

 

[RandomVariable]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

No one is moral because they read the Bible.

 

[Asclepias]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

The old testament allows slavery and other immoral things. Thats how we know god is a man made construct.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

 

[RandomVariable]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

The old testament allows slavery and other immoral things. Thats how we know god is a man made construct.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Please try reposting that from the KJV.

 

[RandomVariable]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

No one is moral because they read the Bible.

Did I say that?

 

[Asclepias]

There is no little voice in our head we can go by and if there is it needs to be nurtured into something we can make decisions by. The way to make wise decisions and have at least a little comfort in knowing you tried is to read the Old Testament and ask for an understand of God.

The old testament allows slavery and other immoral things. Thats how we know god is a man made construct.

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)"

Please try reposting that from the KJV.

Any specific reason? Looks about the same to me....well actually a little worse.

Leviticus 25:44-46New King James Version (NKJV)
44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. Looks like there is a difference. Still says the same thing though.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

King James Version (KJV)