Where do morals fit in?

Well, morals is an argument I decided to bring up. I'll finish it later, g2g to VBS... But bottom line: where do you think they come in from? I think, our conscience, which is given by God.

Correct SA... morals are the law of God which He has written on the hearts of men as a testimony of Himself. All law is a testimony to Him in fact, scientific law, Moses' law, etc. When you do right or wrong, regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, you feel in your conscience that same moral law.

I was talking with an atheist at work and asked him where he got his morals from if he didn't believe in God. He said he got them from himself. They consisted of stuff like don't steal, don't murder, etc. and even though he looks at pornography he knew it was "bad." These morals remind me of something?? Oh yeah! The 10 commandments!! Everyone has them written in their conscience, whether you obey or not.

Essentially I am in agreement. I believe that our moral system is part of human nature, ingrained into our very being. That is why I believe our moral systems across the globe are fundamentally the same. You are taking it one step further and saying that God gave us all the same morals, but as I do not believe in a God, the point is moot.

I disagree utterly. The Human animal is NOT a moral animal. If you were raised in a box then you would have no morals at all when released as a teenager (or adult if you prefer). Morals are things you are raised to believe in - codes of conduct that you learn are considered admirable.

Positive reinforcement alters your self-image - everybody likes to be good.
Negative reinforcement reminds you of the price of dissent.

I'm with Eon on this one.

You can have morals without religiousity. How do I know? Because I consider myself a moral person. Being a Freethinker, I base all my decisions and actions void of religious dogma.

Morals are a product of society and culture. They aren't absolutes, they evolve with society.

Do you honestly want me to believe that your religious morals today are the same as the religous morals of God's follwers in the OT?

I would explain the "living in a box" scenario by simply stating that a human in those conditions hasn't been given the chance to reach his or her full cognitive potential, and so he or she hasn't the mental capacity to understand and utilize something as complex as morality. It is true that we are animals, but what makes us different from other animals is our intelligence. If a girl was locked in a room for the first 12 years of her life without being spoken to, she would be more inhuman than human, for her intelligence just wouldn't be there.

Likewise, positive and negative reinforcement is most often used with animals and with small human children, both of which lack the cognitive capacity for a moral system. I suggest that our intelligence allows us to use logic to determine right from wrong. Logic is the great and secret path to morality. That is, after all, why philosophers spend so much time on the topic. That may not be what you first think of when I use the phrase "very being," but essentially that's what it comes down to.

Morals and intelligence have NOTHING to do with each other. Smarter people are not necessarily better people at all.

You could raise somebody in complete isolation from others whilst feeding her growing mind and have her develop her language skills, mathmatic skills, spatial skills etc She wouldn't learn morals unless you specifically made that part of her instruction course.

Morals, as I said, are learned through either positive or negative reinforcement. And they are learned, not inherited.

But, is raising a child in a box, right or wrong?

What about the people who grow up in societies where we get close to the "in the box" test? Like China, Russia, 3rd world countries in Africa and South America (who have not contact with anybody outside of their tribe), where the government controls everything? Why are so many people, who are not brought up with Western ideals of morality (many are still brought up being taught that Western morality is evil), displaying, Western ideals, or more specifically, Christian ideals of morality?

Native Americans believed in the sanctity of life, property, even the dominion vs. repression of the animal kingdom long before ever seeing a bible. It seems there is a universal moral development just by using general observations.

So, the reasoning is: with no external influence one would not develop morals.

I think then we can all then conclude something external exists, no? Look at the logic:
1) without external influence man would not develop morals
2) man currently has and passes on morals
3) the origin of morals must therefore be external

Plainly put, morals could never have developed if man were an animal. Where would they come from? How and why would homo sapien ever repress his own instincts of survival for a "higher code" which essentially is counter-survival. It would not happen. If once there were no morals then man has essentially been in a "box" and thus our current morals must have come from an external source. If there has always been morals then man is not an animal. If man is not an animal, he is something else: a creation made in the image of God.

Jericho_falls said:

So, the reasoning is: with no external influence one would not develop morals.

I think then we can all then conclude something external exists, no? Look at the logic:
1) without external influence man would not develop morals
2) man currently has and passes on morals
3) the origin of morals must therefore be external

Plainly put, morals could never have developed if man were an animal. Where would they come from? How and why would homo sapien ever repress his own instincts of survival for a "higher code" which essentially is counter-survival. It would not happen. If once there were no morals then man has essentially been in a "box" and thus our current morals must have come from an external source. If there has always been morals then man is not an animal. If man is not an animal, he is something else: a creation made in the image of God.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. I've been thinking about it, and I think there's more truth to Eon and DV's point of view than I've been allowing. Morals could easily be complete human constructs.

Let's take a look at your logic:

1) without external influence man would not develop morals
2) man currently has and passes on morals
3) the origin of morals must therefore be external

I've no problem with your second premise, but let's assess your first. First of all, that's not what Eon and DV are saying. True, a single human living by himself in the wilderness would probably not develop his own code of ethics. But that's not how humans live, is it? Humans are communal creatures. We like to live in groups. If you think about it, all of our typical moral codes involve interaction with other people. Without other people, morality does not have appeal.

But when humans live in groups it is an entirely different story. As systems of governments rise in popularity and complexity, so do moral codes. In order for society to be functional, certain rules need to be laid down. If people in a community ran around killing and stealing and raping, there would not be much appeal for community. Humans gathered together for the first time thousands of years ago for symbotic relationships. Humans could survive better and have a higher standard of living if they worked together with fellow members of their species. Thus, humans wanted to make their communities work.

Moral codes arose from the logical conclusions that certain activities (like killing and stealing) would be detrimental to society. These customs were then passed on to newborn children so that they could learn the ways of the world, and when they grew up and had children, the process repeats itself. So you see, this would be a perfectly feasible way for morality to have originated in internally. God does not have a role.

I believe morals are given to u by your parents. Be kind, don't steal, don't kill.

If there has always been morals then man is not an animal. If man is not an animal, he is something else: a creation made in the image of God.
Reply With Quote

Click to expand...

Can animals have morals. Just like man wolves stay in packs, they hunt and share their food. They work together to protect their young. Could that be considered morals.
I think Mr. Bills post makes the most sence, its survival of the fittest. If u wanted to survive u would join together with other men and help each other. If u went and attacked or killed other men in your (group) people would leave and u'd be left by your self.

wow. i havn't checked in since my first post. if you haven't caught on the point is dealing about WHERE we get them. Not whether we have them or not. That's pretty much assumed and established, otherwise you are an oddball if you don't have ANY sort of morals.

It's actually quite simple and the answer, I'm afraid, is evolution.

I know, I know... Hear me out.

Everyone's heard the phrase "Survival of the fittest" and these days we understand that phrase to mean "Survival of the fittest to spread their genes". However, this is not the whole story - the true success stories are those creatures that develop strategies to ensure the survival of passed on genes.

This is where the mothering instinct comes from, and it is why intelligent and self aware creatures like mankind can pick up a gun and march calmly into death. Because we have developed the ability to sacrifice ourselves in order to protect not only our progeny but our culture or our tribe. Tribes that developed these abilities flourished and prospered - and tribes that didn't have foundered.

What you call Morals are the rules that allow us to live in groups bigger than a tribe. Without them we'd be squabbling family or extended family groups. So it's no wonder that morality seems common across our species. Look at the ACTUAL rules - they all promote survival. Look at the 10 commandments - they are all designed to promote unity and trust. Even if that unity is gained at the price of stoning the free thinker.

I disagree with your conclusion about morals being means of survival. Morals are fundamentally rooted in wrong and right, righteousness and wickedness. I would ask how the following commandments implement survival:
1) You shall have no other God's before me.
2) You shall not make any graven image.
3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3) You shall honor the sabbath.

These are rooted in our relationship with God, not with man. Also, I fail to see how these commandments relate to survival:
1) Do not commit adultry (that is: no sex with another's spouse, no sex outside of marriage).
2) Do not lie (lying even to your enemies).

These commands are rooted in what is "right" to do and what is "wrong," or what is "appropraite." THing also like modesty, chastity, piety, and sobriety are not rooted in survival. I believe your efforts to explain morals by evolution is a good attempt but falls short.

Jericho_falls said:

I disagree with your conclusion about morals being means of survival. Morals are fundamentally rooted in wrong and right, righteousness and wickedness. I would ask how the following commandments implement survival:
1) You shall have no other God's before me.
2) You shall not make any graven image.
3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3) You shall honor the sabbath.

These are rooted in our relationship with God, not with man. Also, I fail to see how these commandments relate to survival:
1) Do not commit adultry (that is: no sex with another's spouse, no sex outside of marriage).
2) Do not lie (lying even to your enemies).

These commands are rooted in what is "right" to do and what is "wrong," or what is "appropraite." THing also like modesty, chastity, piety, and sobriety are not rooted in survival. I believe your efforts to explain morals by evolution is a good attempt but falls short.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't fall short. It just wasn't taken out to its full extent.

You are mistaking that morality and the 10 commandments are synonymous, when they are not. Morality came first, primarily as a means of survival, both physical and social survival. It was later merged with spirituality, likely because the two are both intanglibles. This is why the 10 commandments, which was created, as you know, many years after the origin of species, contains references to both morality and spirituality.

The four commandments you mentioned as being spiritual (Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, ect.) are all means to sustain the Christian faith. They are not "morals" so much as they are cultural customs. The other two you mentioned (Do not lie and Do not commit adultery) may not at first seem like they deal with survival, but in fact they do. I mentioned social survival before. That is what they deal with. If everyone in a society lied and commited adultery, the society would have difficulty in functioning at full efficiency. If everyone lied, you could not trust anyone, including the government, and so all governments would be inherently unstable. If everyone commited adultery, there would be an inadequate family structure.

Morality came first,

Click to expand...

How can there be morality without law?

Genesis1315 said:

How can there be morality without law?

Click to expand...

How can there be law without morality? The two are very similar. Sometimes interchangible, as in the case of the wrongness of murder and stealing. Laws generally deal with day to day protocol, while morals deal with the more complex and intangible situations like adultery. Both are systems that promote social stability, as that is their primary function. It is safe to say that the two developed simultaneously, as they both serve this same important purpose, the survival of society.

But again my question stands.

For example, how can one know that it is wrong to lie if it is not previously set that lying is wrong by a law?

Because lying harms someone. Would you want someone to lie to you? No? Then don't lie to someone else. You don't need a law for that.

Genesis1315 said:

But again my question stands.

For example, how can one know that it is wrong to lie if it is not previously set that lying is wrong by a law?

Click to expand...

Lying is one that is difficult to be handled by a law, though the law does make an attempt, as you can be persecuted by giving false testimony. But you are right--someone probably would not learn that lying is wrong from the law. And yet, most all people do know that lying is wrong, so where does it come from?

This is how I would explain it. A child is raised by his or her parents as is taught certain moral lessons once he or she comes of age (say, 2 or 3). One of these lessons will likely deal with why it is wrong to lie. The child will also learn from interaction with his or her peers that lying is discouraged, as the basic moral principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" holds true in all moral circumstances. But I believe your question deals more with the origin of the moral lesson of lying. For it had to begin somewhere.

I would explain that by saying again that most all of these morals are just logical conclusions of the most efficient way to interact with others. If everyone lied, communities would be less trusting of each other and so they would not function as efficiently. They would not survive, or have as high a standard of living. As people came to realize this, they began to indocrinate their children and their peers with the custom, passing it on from generation to generation. It was never a law, and yet it was widely known. It was not inherent, but our keen intelligence allowed us to realize the social solution. Lying was declared "wrong."