It seems like it's been a while since there was a Morality topic (sure there is, what makes Sin, Sin, but I contest that has little to do with morality and more to do with organized religion).
So what creates morality? What causes actions to be good and bad? Or does morality exist at all?
Given morality is a subjective matter we "create" it in a sense. Though there may be evolutionary and sociological reasons why certain things tend to often be regarded as moral over other things.
Morality is simply an established group of behaviors which are beneficial to social animals. Moral and immoral really only boil down to what is beneficial and detrimental. Social and environmental pressures upon a group of social animals demands that they adapt, particularly with their behaviors, to survive.
Over time these behaviors become the 'norm' and 'taboo' of that society, and this can be seen from the lowest to highest of the social animals, from insects to the higher mammals. Our concepts of right and wrong, moral and immoral, are a by-product of our evolution as a social animal. Many of these concepts are ingrained in us even from birth and are necessary to establish a cohesive and productive social group.
@E1337 In respect to the heteronomous morality. Even this coming from such external sources such as an adult or god would still be that adult's, or that god's subjective views of what is right and wrong. Not something that is objective and absolute.
Morality is simply an established group of behaviors which are beneficial to social animals.
It's important to note that the benefits aren't to the animal itself. Cold pragmatism can often help an individual more than altruism. However, morals help the group survive and therefore aid the individual pass its genes on. This is also how we get those immoral convictions like racism and zoophili-phobia.
Morals come from chemical evolution. I'm a humanist.
Given morality is a subjective matter we "create" it in a sense. Though there may be evolutionary and sociological reasons why certain things tend to often be regarded as moral over other things.
We create Morality? Can a person's moral views be "better" or "worse" than another's?
E1337's Quote
Heteronomous Morality vs. Autonomous Morality picture
The section under Autonomous Morality contains a contradiction: "Moral relativistic...Morality is not a matter of obeying external authorities ... and we must respect other peoples' point of view" This is necessitating an absolute in itself - that we must respect other peoples' point of view.
Morality is simply an established group of behaviors which are beneficial to social animals. Moral and immoral really only boil down to what is beneficial and detrimental. Social and environmental pressures upon a group of social animals demands that they adapt, particularly with their behaviors, to survive.
You are saying that our perceptions of "right" and "wrong" are the result of our evolution.
Now, you have two people - A and B, which have differing views on morality. Are their views necessarily equal in merit? Or could one of their views be better than the other?
Xzeno's Quote
Morals come from chemical evolution.
You're seeing "Morals" as society's views as a whole. Is there something that makes racism and zoophili-phobia wrong (or right)?
We create Morality? Can a person's moral views be "better" or "worse" than another's?
Depends on your perspective on the matter. For example, someone might not have a moral issue with stealing food because he's starving. The person selling food might see stealing food as morally wrong no matter what. The thief would see his morals as better then the salesman and the salesman would see his morals as being better then the thief's.
For example, someone might not have a moral issue with stealing food because he's starving. The person selling food might see stealing food as morally wrong no matter what. The thief would see his morals as better then the salesman and the salesman would see his morals as being better then the thief's.
In this situation, both the person selling food and the thief may have their own ideas concerning morality, but this in itself does not make either person correct.
Second, you're assuming that a hypothetical morality applies only to the adherence of rules. This is not necessarily true.
Morality is not an intrinsic trait of an object. There is no substance or force that denotes the morality of any object.
Morality does not deal with objects at all - it deals with actions.
Morality deals with thoughts an intentions, both of which are objects.
I don't "see" what you mean.
Thoughts and intentions: 1. Are not necessarily part of morality. 2. Are not objects at all.
They don't exist physically (not really - if they are the product of the atoms and neurotransmitters and chemicals in the brain, they still don't exist).
CountingTime has destroyed my typing ability. No idea why.
2. Are not objects at all.
Yes they are.
They don't exist physically
Yes they do.
if they are the product of the atoms and neurotransmitters and chemicals in the brain
They are.
they still don't exist
How do you figure? You just explained how they were physical objects. Everything is an object.
1. Are not necessarily part of morality.
So intentions don't matter at all? Is it just as wrong for a doctor to accidentally kill a patient while trying to save him as it is for a serial killer to murder someone? Both actions have the same result, but the intentions are different.
