What Is The Source Of Morality? Why Should We Be Good To Each Other?

[Alexandrian]

Why do we have an obligation to moral to each other? Humans, from a purely physical standpoint, are merely a combination of chemicals which happen to be balanced together in a certain manner. Why are these chemical combinations any more valubale then the chemical combinations that make up a rock? Is it rational to be compassionate to others, even when said compassion violates your own self interest?

 

The Christian has an answer for that. According them, humans are made in the image and likeness of God. God is the source off all good and value in the universe, and by being made like Him, we are also made good and valuable like him, and thus we should be good them. That'd be the Christian philosophical theory of value.

 

That, of course, is an easy cop-out answer which uses an imaginary friend to get around what is a tough philosophical question that philosophers have pondered for years? Since I've left the faith, I've tried to act morally towards others, but the justification part is something I've still been pondering over. So, I was wondering, how do you (Or, do you at all) justify the existence of a duty to be "good" to other people?

[Ouroboros]

My opinion is that moral has grown out of the process of evolution. Animals that killed or didn't treat their own in well would eventually die out. Simple as that. If your tribe don't eat enough, they'll starve and the offspring would be weak. So over time, the animals with the mindset to somewhat care for their tribe and not kill their own species, survived, and that kind of wired brain evolved faster and better. So I do think we (normally) have a built in "function" in the brain to control "moral" or "ethics", and it's a survivor instinct. (Survival of the species)

[Thurisaz]

Cooperation has its advantages. Especially in our modern times. Imagine you'd start to kick everyone's arse whenever it's to your own advantage. Just how long would it work before word spreads around and people start to greet you with an assortment of big and heavy items in hand, and with the welcome words "don't even THINK about it!!!111!!!!"?

 

Coldly, inhumanly logical thought: You're one. They're many. It's not a good idea to take on the rest of society.

[chefranden]

Why do we have an obligation to moral to each other? Humans, from a purely physical standpoint, are merely a combination of chemicals which happen to be balanced together in a certain manner. Why are these chemical combinations any more valubale then the chemical combinations that make up a rock? Is it rational to be compassionate to others, even when said compassion violates your own self interest?

 

You are a moral being because you are a social being. You are hard wired, and socialized to cooporate. Receprocity is important to social animals. Compassion is one emotion that compells you to act socially. It is an emotion that acts in your best interest whether it may seem rational or not.

 

Humans seldom act rationally, and in large measure it is a good thing that they don't. You never act against your self interest. It only seems so because we have been taught that self interest ought to be rationally driven. It seldom is. Think of your favorite color, or flower. What rational reason is there for a color to be a favorite? Why paint your room with your favorite shade of blue when your least favorite color is on sale for $1/gallon less then the blue?

 

If you were a loner animal, wolverine, you wouldn't have a compassionate bone in your body, and if male you would eat your own kids if you had the chance.

[HadouKen24]

Why do we have an obligation to moral to each other? Humans, from a purely physical standpoint, are merely a combination of chemicals which happen to be balanced together in a certain manner. Why are these chemical combinations any more valubale then the chemical combinations that make up a rock? Is it rational to be compassionate to others, even when said compassion violates your own self interest?

 

You seem to be assuming that a "purely physical" standpoint is the correct one to view human behavior from. I'm hardly convinced that that is the case. From a "purely physical" standpoint this cup I have here is a clump of polymer chains that just happens to take a particular shape. But that standpoint is useless for anyone but a chemist. From where I'm sitting, the cup is something else: a thing to drink from.

 

In the same way that we never encounter a cup first as a clump of polymers, we never encounter other people first as sacks of pure chemistry. We encounter them as people. We encounter them as moral beings, beings to which we have obligations, and beings from which we might be able to demand certain duties.

 

Whenever you view something, it is done from a certain standpoint. A great deal of how one must act depends on one's standpoint. One must be sure to choose the appropriate one. In dealing with other people, one must choose to do so as a person.

 

The ultimate "reality" standing underneath our perceptions is far more primary than such considerations as "physical" or "non-physical."

[AtheistMommy]

Why do we have an obligation to moral to each other? Humans, from a purely physical standpoint, are merely a combination of chemicals which happen to be balanced together in a certain manner. Why are these chemical combinations any more valubale then the chemical combinations that make up a rock? Is it rational to be compassionate to others, even when said compassion violates your own self interest?

 

The Christian has an answer for that. According them, humans are made in the image and likeness of God. God is the source off all good and value in the universe, and by being made like Him, we are also made good and valuable like him, and thus we should be good them. That'd be the Christian philosophical theory of value.

 

That, of course, is an easy cop-out answer which uses an imaginary friend to get around what is a tough philosophical question that philosophers have pondered for years? Since I've left the faith, I've tried to act morally towards others, but the justification part is something I've still been pondering over. So, I was wondering, how do you (Or, do you at all) justify the existence of a duty to be "good" to other people?

 

Number one, morality is taught. I agree with HanSolo, our brains have gone though a hell of a lot of evolution, they actually got bigger. What we consider to be "moral" has a lot to do with what hurts or harms. You (generally if you don't have some kind of brain damage) don't want to see another person hurt. Why? Because you can visualize yourself in their position. Morality is just another way for humans to survive.

[kellyb]

My opinion is that moral has grown out of the process of evolution. Animals that killed or didn't treat their own in well would eventually die out. Simple as that. If your tribe don't eat enough, they'll starve and the offspring would be weak. So over time, the animals with the mindset to somewhat care for their tribe and not kill their own species, survived, and that kind of wired brain evolved faster and better. So I do think we (normally) have a built in "function" in the brain to control "moral" or "ethics", and it's a survivor instinct. (Survival of the species)

That's how I see it.

It "means" more to me in practice, though. Fulfilling you evolutionary destiny and satisfying your herd instincts feels right, because it is right.

[Asimov]

Why do we have an obligation to moral to each other? Humans, from a purely physical standpoint, are merely a combination of chemicals which happen to be balanced together in a certain manner. Why are these chemical combinations any more valubale then the chemical combinations that make up a rock? Is it rational to be compassionate to others, even when said compassion violates your own self interest?

 

The Christian has an answer for that. According them, humans are made in the image and likeness of God. God is the source off all good and value in the universe, and by being made like Him, we are also made good and valuable like him, and thus we should be good them. That'd be the Christian philosophical theory of value.

 

That, of course, is an easy cop-out answer which uses an imaginary friend to get around what is a tough philosophical question that philosophers have pondered for years? Since I've left the faith, I've tried to act morally towards others, but the justification part is something I've still been pondering over. So, I was wondering, how do you (Or, do you at all) justify the existence of a duty to be "good" to other people?

 

We don't have to be good to each other, nor do we have any 'obligation' to do so. You can do whatever the fuck you want...there are just consequences to that.

[sonofspong]

In my opinion, I think morality stemed from a simple principle:

 

"If I want it to happen to me or my loved ones, its immoral/wrong"

 

Now, a persons definition of wrong can greatly differ from another, but for most people throughout history, some things have been universal.

 

-You dont want to be killed/murdered. Its safe to assume the next guy doesn't either

-You dont want your loved ones to be harmed. Im sure the next guy feels the same.

-You dont want other people taking your stuff. Neither does the next guy.

 

These are pretty much universal for every person on the planet. Now, other things may be universal for a particular culture/ethnic group. Adultery is looked down upon here in the US. Another culture may find it less "wrong". And another may view it as completely ok, or at least justifiable depending on the situation.

 

And of course, the individual person himself may have a different view from his peers, for whatever reason.

 

And finally, there will always be total deviants of the norm; people who have no problem with killing others, or taking from others, and have no internal sense of right and wrong.

I remember a book that talked about how 1 in 20 people are completely devoid of any sort of ethical code; even if they were born into a moral background. Maybe its true.

 

If that is true, then what if most of ancient history's leaders/warlords/conquerors had been those type of "moraless 1in20's"? If you dont care about harming others, how far can you get ahead, if you had the smarts or the strengh?

 

Scary thought.

[Shadoe]

I've come to the realization that people as a whole do better when everyone is doing better. Sort of the philosophy that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." So it is moral to help others and care for each other because that makes everyone in the group better off.

 

From a spiritual standpoint, I've been taught that the energy you send out into the world - negative or positive, good or bad - comes back to you. Well, that may or may not be actually true, but I've found it's true for me (whether I subconciously bring it on myself or there is some kind of cosmic karmic energy out there), so I try to send more positive than negative.

[Amethyst]

My opinion is that moral has grown out of the process of evolution. Animals that killed or didn't treat their own in well would eventually die out. Simple as that. If your tribe don't eat enough, they'll starve and the offspring would be weak. So over time, the animals with the mindset to somewhat care for their tribe and not kill their own species, survived, and that kind of wired brain evolved faster and better. So I do think we (normally) have a built in "function" in the brain to control "moral" or "ethics", and it's a survivor instinct. (Survival of the species)

 

I agree. Tribes that didn't work together would have died out quickly. The morality issue probably got somehow brought into ancient nature worship, which eventually evolved into the religions we know now.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

We don't have to be good to each other, nor do we have any 'obligation' to do so. You can do whatever the fuck you want...there are just consequences to that.

 

And people do. It is my belief that people only look out for themselves and thier own. That's the whole thing about altruism. Anyone who does something for someone else outside their own could very well have reasons they don't even know about themselves. And by doing these things that benefit others the root cause is that it benefits themselves. Even those who sacrifice their own lives could very well be fulfilling an emotional benefit, to be remembered as a hero, duty, honor, sacrifice, fulfillment or reward in an afterlife, and so on.

[greasemonkey]

somewhat applicable statement I made on another thread...

 

Different cultures tend to place emphasis on different aspects of life. A glaring example of this is in how middle eastern culture places an extremely heavy emphasis on "hospitality." I'm sure Islam has a fairly sizable impact on this, but we get into a "chicken or the egg" dillema if we were to say that Islam is a reason for this particular emphasis. Being largely from a desert culture, the importance of this custom in a larger societal context is a little better defined in how it came into being, rather than focusing on a guy who made some "rules" about it. When survival in an inhospitable environment becomes difficult, the "golden rule" would carry a much larger weight than it would in an extremely fertile environment. "Every man for himself" wouldn't be a logical attitude to accept in a hostile environment if the society as a whole were to have any chance of survival.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Alex...

 

Simple.

 

Really..

 

I don't want to have to kill you.

 

Don't want to have to look over my back and be in a state of Condition Red all the rest of my life.

 

Want to live, and in that process willing to leave others alone to the degree they don't want me in their lives.

 

k, points go out, L

[Manta]

I've come to the realization that people as a whole do better when everyone is doing better. Sort of the philosophy that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." So it is moral to help others and care for each other because that makes everyone in the group better off.

 

From a spiritual standpoint, I've been taught that the energy you send out into the world - negative or positive, good or bad - comes back to you. Well, that may or may not be actually true, but I've found it's true for me (whether I subconciously bring it on myself or there is some kind of cosmic karmic energy out there), so I try to send more positive than negative.

 

If you're talking figurativley about energy, then I agree, if only because everyone hates a greedy bastard (how most people define "evil"). But I feel that your feeling good from being nice is a result of being influenced by how other people feel. In order to be nice to other people, you generally have to be in a good mood yourself, so you put yourself in one even if you aren't in a good mood already. Also, Your mood is influenced by those around you, If everyone you meet is smiling, then chances are it'll make you smile too.

[kellyb]

We don't have to be good to each other, nor do we have any 'obligation' to do so. You can do whatever the fuck you want...there are just consequences to that.

 

And people do. It is my belief that people only look out for themselves and thier own. That's the whole thing about altruism. Anyone who does something for someone else outside their own could very well have reasons they don't even know about themselves. And by doing these things that benefit others the root cause is that it benefits themselves. Even those who sacrifice their own lives could very well be fulfilling an emotional benefit, to be remembered as a hero, duty, honor, sacrifice, fulfillment or reward in an afterlife, and so on.

I agree, but I think that strengthens morality, rather than detracting from it.

When instincts such as charity and compassion are seen for the mutually advantageous thing they are, it becomes an inherent, self-evident attribute, rather than an abstract concept of supernatural origin "owned" by religion.

 

This is kind of off topic, but you know those Christians who believe "globalization" is part of a satanic plot to usher in the antichrist?

I almost wonder if part of their bristeling is the fact that secular humanism is stealing "their territory"?

It calls for a compassion and an active *plan* more tangible and realistic than the return of Christ to heal the world.

Just a random thought....

[Alexandrian]

If I could just play devil's advocate here...

 

Evolution might explain why we have innate tendency to act morally towards eithers, it doesn't really explain why we should act morally towards each other. Just because you have a natural instinct to do something doesn't mean it's rational to do it. After all, some people might have an instinctual love for religion, but it'd be better if less people followed instincts like that.

 

It is true that if everyone acted mean towards each other, it wouldn't be a very good world. But how is that a reason for you to not be mean? Yes, you might like if everyone else was nice, but that's outside of your control. Your decision to be nice or mean will not determine if the rest of the world will be. So why shouldn't you try to maximize your own advantage?

[kellyb]

"So why shouldn't you try to maximize your own advantage?"

 

Because you'll contribute to a societal norm that in the end will be disadvantageous to yourself and your own offspring.

[Manta]

It's called a capitalist society, you're living in it.

[chefranden]

If I could just play devil's advocate here...

 

Evolution might explain why we have innate tendency to act morally towards eithers, it doesn't really explain why we should act morally towards each other. Just because you have a natural instinct to do something doesn't mean it's rational to do it. After all, some people might have an instinctual love for religion, but it'd be better if less people followed instincts like that.

 

Where do you get the idea that reason is better than instinct?

 

Reason is never a compulsion to action. Compulsion to action is always emotional. You may act according to a rational plan, but only if you feel you should do so. Being moral is emotional not rational.

 

It is true that if everyone acted mean towards each other, it wouldn't be a very good world. But how is that a reason for you to not be mean? Yes, you might like if everyone else was nice, but that's outside of your control. Your decision to be nice or mean will not determine if the rest of the world will be. So why shouldn't you try to maximize your own advantage?

 

Aren't you glad that reason doesn't (yet) rule the world? If you are glad did you notice that being glad is not rational but emotional? And if instead you are mad that reason doesn't (yet) rule the world did you notice that being mad is not rational but emotional?

 

 

Just as an aside: If God were real and if God were one, then God could not be a social being and therefore would not be moral.

[RHEMtron]

everything is done out of self-interest and survival. i dont go out and kill someone cause i dont want them to kill me. i dont steal from my neighbor cause i dont want them to steal from me.