Where do you think we get that shit?

 

Discuss.

Your background, upbringing, education, sometimes culture

Well, it depends on the scale, I guess. Do you mean personal morality or morality on a big scale, like the laws of a country?

discuss.

Your background, upbringing, education, sometimes culture

 

True enough, but the basics of our morals is the same all over the human race. So I think it's safe to say humans all have morals naturally...

 

Well, it depends on the scale, I guess. Do you mean personal morality or morality on a big scale, like the laws of a country?

 

I guess personal morality is more of what I'm thinking of, but big-scale morality is up for discussion too.

True enough, but the basics of our morals is the same all over the human race. So I think it's safe to say humans all have morals naturally...

Yeah, I would agree. All human beings have some sort of morals one way or the another. Doesn't always have to be the same though

But that's my point, a lot of the natural morals we have are the same across all of humanity.

Such as?

All right, there's the trolley example.

 

There's a runaway trolley/train that is on some tracks. Ahead of it is a split in the road. On one side of the split are five unsuspecting workers. This is the side down which the trolley is going to go if no intervention is taken. On the other side, there is one unsuspecting trolley worker.

 

You stand right next to the switch that will cause the trolley to go one way or another. Is it morally acceptable to pull the switch so that the set of five workers are saved but the one worker dies?

 

Assuming the problem is adapted to various cultures/communites/whatever so that it is analogous, almost everybody says, "yes it is acceptable."

 

 

 

Then there's a second part of that. Say you are standing on a bridge over a straight piece of track. If the trolley continues moving, five unsuspecting workers at the bottom will be killed. Next to you is a large man who if pushed onto the track, would stop the train through only his large body mass. (You are not allowed to jump down yourself to stop the train.) Is it morally acceptable to push the man off the bridge to save the five workers' lives?

 

It's the same problem essentially, but far less people say that that's acceptable, and those who do hesitate more. And similarly, when adapted to be analogous to each culture, there is a same response all over the world.

 

(I forgot where I found the studies but I might be able to find them again as references.)

Interesting examples. I guess in such forced situations where you have the choice of saving peoples lives most people would say yes.

 

However, in regards of the second situation, there are several ways for how people may act. Would they think in the sensible way (as viewed by many, I'd assume) of "one life taken better than 5" or you would think he doesn't deserve to be thrown into it by force and without his consent? I would probably ask him before throwing him. Cause eventually it's not his fault those 5 workers are there from the first place. And so the right and wrong in this one can differ and can't be agreed on by the majority. That's where background, upbringing, religion and whatever can show their true nature.

 

Conscious can play a role in the morals we have to, I think. Or how we act. That's also debatable, imo.

I think that morals originally came from religion, and because the majority of religions uphold similar morals (murder is wrong, etc.), most humans have the same morals as a result. And even if someone is not religious, chances are that their parents or grandparents or ancestors did follow a specific religion, therefore those morals have been passed down through generations.

 

That's my opinion. :shrug:

Hmm, I doubt it.. It can't only be religion. Though I am a religious person and all but there's more to human beings than what they're told in religion. It's human nature and instinct sometimes.

Go back to times where there was no religion to tell them what to do. I think they'd act the same.

(this is about the first situation Sara mentioned.)

I think it's personal. You can get your education, and shit, but in the end, you're the one who ends up questioning yourself if some things you learned through the years are good or wrong

we are social animals and we need other people around so we have "rules" about what is acceptable and what is not. so the rules got institutionalized and are being educated so we act by them now not just to get what we need but because we've also been taught what is right and what is wrong.

I think that morals originally came from religion, and because the majority of religions uphold similar morals (murder is wrong, etc.), most humans have the same morals as a result. And even if someone is not religious, chances are that their parents or grandparents or ancestors did follow a specific religion, therefore those morals have been passed down through generations.

 

That's my opinion. :shrug:

 

 

 

I believe in Émile Durkheim's theory, that the power of society ( social pressure idk) has risen above us and we all act by the same social rules; it feels like our acts have been controlled by something external and that's how we started believe that there's something supernatural controlling us . So that's how we got religion and church so then we got something concrete watching us .

 

sorry I'm not good at explaining what I want to say, my head's always a mess anyway

 

here's wiki page about Durkheim

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

 

so morality came first.

Interesting examples. I guess in such forced situations where you have the choice of saving peoples lives most people would say yes.

 

However, in regards of the second situation, there are several ways for how people may act. Would they think in the sensible way (as viewed by many, I'd assume) of "one life taken better than 5" or you would think he doesn't deserve to be thrown into it by force and without his consent? I would probably ask him before throwing him. Cause eventually it's not his fault those 5 workers are there from the first place. And so the right and wrong in this one can differ and can't be agreed on by the majority. That's where background, upbringing, religion and whatever can show their true nature.

 

Conscious can play a role in the morals we have to, I think. Or how we act. That's also debatable, imo.

Yeah but (and I think this is the most interesting part) there have also been studies done of brain activity given these two examples; in the first one the part of the brain associated with analyzing risk/reward things was the most active in analyzing the situation; in the second example the part of the brain associated with personal loyalty and emotions was analyzing the situation.

 

The data suggest that the reasons we make distinctions like that are purely biological, and reasons like "the workers must know the inherint risk of working on a train track" and "it would be bad to not ask for his consent" are more of inventions used to placate the risk/reward sectors of the brain.

I think that morals originally came from religion, and because the majority of religions uphold similar morals (murder is wrong, etc.), most humans have the same morals as a result. And even if someone is not religious, chances are that their parents or grandparents or ancestors did follow a specific religion, therefore those morals have been passed down through generations.

 

That's my opinion. :shrug:

I've always found this argument to be bullshit, no personal attack intended, but seriously, think about it; the fact that almost all religions preach that it is bad to kill, or at least bad to kill the in-group, hints deeply at a biological origin, there can't be such similar morals springing up all over the world without a biological origin.

 

In fact humans are starting to show that they are actually too inherently moral to follow religious codes; take the example of Jesus saying to stone homosexuals, people are too moral to do that these days. (ALTHOUGH the fact that they would do so in the past DOES suggest that that is more of a cultural evolution than a biological one -- possibly having to do with humanity disassociating itself from religious/authoritarian control over the years)

 

I don't believe religions are responsible for human altruism and sense of moral right and wrong, you can also look at other animals and see similar group mentalities and apparent altruism all the time, bees sacrificing themselves for the hive is one example.

Hmm, I doubt it.. It can't only be religion. Though I am a religious person and all but there's more to human beings than what they're told in religion. It's human nature and instinct sometimes.

Go back to times where there was no religion to tell them what to do. I think they'd act the same.

(this is about the first situation Sara mentioned.)

Yes. Basically what I mean.

I believe in Émile Durkheim's theory, that the power of society ( social pressure idk) has risen above us and we all act by the same social rules; it feels like our acts have been controlled by something external and that's how we started believe that there's something supernatural controlling us . So that's how we got religion and church so then we got something concrete watching us .

 

sorry I'm not good at explaining what I want to say, my head's always a mess anyway

 

here's wiki page about Durkheim

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

 

so morality came first.

More of what I meant.

yeah the rules in religions are based on old social standards and in today's moral code some of them seem plain wrong.

 

etc.

 

..

In fact humans are starting to show that they are actually too inherently moral to follow religious codes; take the example of Jesus saying to stone homosexuals, people are too moral to do that these days. (ALTHOUGH the fact that they would do so in the past DOES suggest that that is more of a cultural evolution than a biological one -- possibly having to do with humanity disassociating itself from religious/authoritarian control over the years)

 

When exactly did Jesus endorse stoning homosexuals?

When exactly did Jesus endorse stoning homosexuals?

 

Jesus, God, same difference. Not sure Jesus technically said anything but there are numerous examples of God condemning homosexuality in the bible.

 

the most prominent of quotes relating to this subject is:

 

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

 

(I don't want to get dragged into an argument here about how the bible isn't about homosexuality or whatever. I doubt Jesus said anything specifically about homosexuals, so I misspoke. [sorriez] My point is the Bible tells its followers to kill all sorts of people and its followers are too moral to do so.)

take the example of Jesus saying to stone homosexuals

lol. Nathan-esque.

lol Chris I hate you. :nice: I was in a hurry while I typed that anyway. :sad:

Jesus, God, same difference. Not sure Jesus technically said anything but there are numerous examples of God condemning homosexuality in the bible.

 

the most prominent of quotes relating to this subject is:

 

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

 

(I don't want to get dragged into an argument here about how the bible isn't about homosexuality or whatever. I doubt Jesus said anything specifically about homosexuals, so I misspoke. [sorriez] My point is the Bible tells its followers to kill all sorts of people and its followers are too moral to do so.)

 

do your almighty wisdom let you know that Lev is a book of Laws for the priest of Jew people in first place, and only as an added book to the Christian book/people, so is not a must of rules to follow for Christians? (and yes i've read Lev for curiosity and i admit some Laws there are way severe, extreme and weird)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus

 

so far as i know regarding sexual stuff, Jesus said very few and more less about homosexuals, he kinda said more about other social stuff and morals, but few about sex -if we exclude the famous part when he save Madelaine to be stoned for the adultery accusation if i am not mistaken, the only thing he changed from the Jew part of the bible was regarding adultery-.

 

a very different thing is what his priests later said or did some case just in their own benefit.

 

but it is going a bit off topic to the main point of this thread, question you came up with was:

what originates the morals we have.

 

personal morals i can agree with what imaveryneatmoster said, at the end is what we choose to believe or follow, you can be told dozen times to not set a fire at random, and you decide to set it anyways, ignoring the warnings society made you, first your family, then your friends, and even the law. you decide to act freely and then you have to face your 'mistake', as you broke a rule that society established punishing people that set a fire. (i choose that as a random example).

 

i think family is a small part of society but very important as is the first we know of society, is our main refence for good and bad. at early age people tend to follow the established rules that they know as normal (family), then you grow up and get to know more things on your own (read philosophers and so on), then you know more about your culture (today rules and old rules, different life styles and so) and nowadays other cultures aswell even though you are not properly living them (which can make you question your previous beliefs and more when you noticied that your instructors (family/teachers/town) were liars to your eyes, as told you not to cheat on a exam but they do that repeatedly -example- so you can come up as a rebel after that, and come easily 'expanding' your personal experience about one person making a general rule about that blaming them, as if a doctor was not good and you generalize that ALL doctors are bad people -i think that depends on the madurity that the person have-), and once you are adult you have to deal with the big rules that is Laws, that punish you more severely.

 

social morals i think depend on trends and fashion, i mean today is forbidden and punished -in some societies- that a minor work in a mine, but not that long ago was a 'normal' thing.

Yeah I'm sorry if I offended you religion, I'm not an expert on it. So, sorry. >.>

I had to sit in with my friend's religion class,

the teacher went on about on how god's inscribes it in you :wtf:

And how you wouldn't steal from a shop because of this "inscription"

 

 

 

 

:lol:

Wait, what?