Where do morals come from

[s0teric]

Where do morals come from? Why should we listen to them? What is to keep us from doing right/wrong? What if your opinion of right and wrong is different than someone else's? Who's right? What if all of society has a different opinion than you? Who's right?

Some questions for you to think over

[Clockwork]

To me, I could care less what the universal right or wrong is. I only care about what feels good, and what hurts.

[s0teric]

To me, I could care less what the universal right or wrong is. I only care about what feels good, and what hurts.

If everyone came to that conclusion would you be okay with someone murdering you? If someone wanted to they would and that's not in your best interest. You have to have rules and organization to maintain order. In this case what feels good directly effects what hurts. Meaning you do whatever you want and you'll get hurt.

[Clockwork]

If everyone came to that conclusion would you be okay with someone murdering you? If someone wanted to they would and that's not in your best interest. You have to have rules and organization to maintain order. In this case what feels good directly effects what hurts. Meaning you do whatever you want and you'll get hurt.

Well this may be a bit irrelevent but there is a difference between someone mudering me and them trying then failing.

Besides, I am the one at fault which I accept. Rules and organization are made to benefit the majority of a population and allow others to see what is expected of them. That I accept but I still feel that there is something really wrong with the whole system. It is because of these current rules that we have undesirable conflicts. The Vietnam war and the civil conflict in Korea are a good example. People killing others because they think it would be best for them to use their system. I don't find those rules very logical. That is why I do not accept being governed by these contradicting rules.

Finally, getting hurt is a punishment I will gladly accept if my actions come down to it. I always weigh every single possibility and the most beneficial is the one I will take.

[s0teric]

Well this may be a bit irrelevent but there is a difference between someone mudering me and them trying then failing.

Finally, getting hurt is a punishment I will gladly accept if my actions come down to it. I always weigh every single possibility and the most beneficial is the one I will take.

considering all possibilities if the consequences of your actions may result in eternal punishment, then isn't it in your best interest to avoid that outcome at all costs or will you gladly accept it? Since you weigh EVERY possibility you can't leave this one out. It is definately most beneficial for you to avoid eternal punishment, as well, no matter how small the possibility in your own mind, because it is the worst possible outcome. If your entire life you weighed every single possibility and always took the most beneficial one how is it possible you end up with the worst form of suffering? And if you by some stroke of bad luck, end up in that situation that means you did not choose the possibility that was most beneficial. So either you're stuck with a conflicting viewpoint of avoiding what hurts and getting what hurts, or you choose the most beneficial viewpoint of ACTUALLY avoiding what hurts.

[PseudoSage]

For me, morals are a combination of genetic endowment and contingencies of reinforcement. Now that is not to say a person can be born a perfectly moral person, but they may have some physiological features (for example, structure of their brain) that may predispose them to behave in certain ways.

However as radical behaviorism will tell us it is the factors of reinforcement that solidify these ideals. One can be made believe that murder is no big deal as long as he has been reinforced to think that consistently. It is for this reason that morals are something that are crafted, not created.

Going to John Locke we see social contracts that benefit groups of people who agree to give up a degree of freedom (i.e. freedom to kill and eat whoever you want for whatever reason) so you obtain protection from these other creatures (i.e. protection FROM being killed or eaten by somebody else). This can be seen as a type of contingency that could be very reinforcing. Thusly these social contracts, these "morals", are the contingencies of reinforcement that "reward" a person who decides to engage in this behavior of making social contracts and upholding them.

[s0teric]

However as radical behaviorism will tell us it is the factors of reinforcement that solidify these ideals. One can be made believe that murder is no big deal as long as he has been reinforced to think that consistently. It is for this reason that morals are something that are crafted, not created.

Going to John Locke we see social contracts that benefit groups of people who agree to give up a degree of freedom (i.e. freedom to kill and eat whoever you want for whatever reason) so you obtain protection from these other creatures (i.e. protection FROM being killed or eaten by somebody else). This can be seen as a type of contingency that could be very reinforcing. Thusly these social contracts, these "morals", are the contingencies of reinforcement that "reward" a person who decides to engage in this behavior of making social contracts and upholding them.

if morals are crafted then couldn't I decide to craft my own set of morals that go completely against the interests of yours? It's a dog eat dog world isn't it? That's what I see as a basis in our culture, so if we're gonna talk about social contracts, that doesn't work so well when everyone is trying to get what they want. It leads to struggles and wars. Based on this system mankind can never know peace, because man is flawed. In a perfect world the system could work. But not here.

[nellawin]

in truth there is no right or wrong because it is not the action we say that's right or wrong it's how we perceive it.

for example a man steals food from the market in order to feed his starving children (just don't think "why doesn't he have a job or something or why does the kids stay with him because i'm only proving one point)

then my question to this is if laws are made from morals but why then morals suggest that laws be broken right?

in all others the ends doesn't necessarily justify the means but how people see that means that makes action right or wrong.

[† Anras Rune]

morals are just what a society thinks is right or wrong. in my opinion social morals are a waste of time in the modern age as people of all walks of life are starting to mix together. this means that social morals often conflict with other morals (especially in most religiously based morals) and cause fights (legal and actual). it bothers me that people can inflict so much pain over something as patetic as not drinking alcohol or the amount of prayers someone does a day...*sighs* but thats just my opinion.

[s0teric]

in truth there is no right or wrong because it is not the action we say that's right or wrong it's how we perceive it.

for example a man steals food from the market in order to feed his starving children (just don't think "why doesn't he have a job or something or why does the kids stay with him because i'm only proving one point)

then my question to this is if laws are made from morals but why then morals suggest that laws be broken right?

in all others the ends doesn't necessarily justify the means but how people see that means that makes action right or wrong.

But then if I see the means of creating the perfect race a worthy goal, then is it right?

morals are just what a society thinks is right or wrong. in my opinion social morals are a waste of time in the modern age as people of all walks of life are starting to mix together. this means that social morals often conflict with other morals (especially in most religiously based morals) and cause fights (legal and actual). it bothers me that people can inflict so much pain over something as patetic as not drinking alcohol or the amount of prayers someone does a day...*sighs* but thats just my opinion.

I agree with you that legal fights can be petty. However, if society says its morally good to kill yourself, you'd do it, right? The fact is society changes and is very fickle. Will you endorse the morals of tomorrow even if they are completely contradictory to ours, today? If society says so it's right...

[nellawin]

[deleted due to mistake] Wrong post...

[nellawin]

But then if I see the means of creating the perfect race a worthy goal, then is it right?

what ever means you may choose it up to you, you may see it right because of your reasons but it will all depend on how you execute your means that will be perceived as right or wrong

[s0teric]

what ever means you may choose it up to you, you may see it right because of your reasons but it will all depend on how you execute your means that will be perceived as right or wrong

And what makes how I execute those means right or wrong. Perceived as wrong? It's right because I think it's right, remember? If we're all staying consistent in our relativism there's nothing wrong with me killing you or anyone else, because I think it sounds good.

[AaronScythe]

Morality comes from what you would wish upon yourself and your children.

That is why murder,rape,assault and the like all instantly fall as morally wrong to 99% of the populace.

The remainder are those who even admit their set of morals are wrong, and include the sociopaths not afraid of their own death at all.

[s0teric]

Morality comes from what you would wish upon yourself and your children.

That is why murder,rape,assault and the like all instantly fall as morally wrong to 99% of the populace.

The remainder are those who even admit their set of morals are wrong, and include the sociopaths not afraid of their own death at all.

how is the rule true for most people but not all people? What defines a sociopath? What if I'm not a sociopath and I just have different morals then you? What if I was simply raised to sacrifice children to Molech? Why is that wrong? What if my ultimate goal is to sacrifice myself?

[PseudoSage]

if morals are crafted then couldn't I decide to craft my own set of morals that go completely against the interests of yours? It's a dog eat dog world isn't it? That's what I see as a basis in our culture, so if we're gonna talk about social contracts, that doesn't work so well when everyone is trying to get what they want. It leads to struggles and wars. Based on this system mankind can never know peace, because man is flawed. In a perfect world the system could work. But not here.

Yes, it is a dog eat dog world. However people quickly realize that being the one being eaten hurts. They'll do whatever it takes to avoid aversive stimuli and likewise so will the other people inflicting the pain. To avoid aversive consequences such as pain (which he has likely experienced before) or even death he will negotiate to avoid and escape the possibility of pain. Man is flawed and that is why we cooperate.

There is also the natural biological force know as altruism. Sure, we can go it alone and hope we survive to pass on all of our genes, or we protect our family members in the hopes that some of our genes pass on since they're shared. Now I'm probably oversimplifying this as I don't want to get technical, but the short version is that there is an inherent instinct in nature to ensure others like our family survive. Otherwise how would creatures care or nurture their children? Children are an awfully big burden, why waste the energy and time on them? Let the bugger die, doesn't benefit you immediately.

[s0teric]

Yes, it is a dog eat dog world. However people quickly realize that being the one being eaten hurts. They'll do whatever it takes to avoid aversive stimuli and likewise so will the other people inflicting the pain. To avoid aversive consequences such as pain (which he has likely experienced before) or even death he will negotiate to avoid and escape the possibility of pain. Man is flawed and that is why we cooperate.

There is also the natural biological force know as altruism. Sure, we can go it alone and hope we survive to pass on all of our genes, or we protect our family members in the hopes that some of our genes pass on since they're shared. Now I'm probably oversimplifying this as I don't want to get technical, but the short version is that there is an inherent instinct in nature to ensure others like our family survive. Otherwise how would creatures care or nurture their children? Children are an awfully big burden, why waste the energy and time on them? Let the bugger die, doesn't benefit you immediately.

So if man will go to such great lengths to avoid pain, then why not look at it in every sense. If there is possibly eternal pain waiting for him after his death, shouldn't he go to any length to avoid it? It is not consistent to say that man avoids pain whenever possible, and he ends up with pain forever. That is the exact opposite. So in order to truly avoid pain one needs to strongly consider this outcome.

[Kamskun]

I Don't Mean to be rude or anything but there is no such thing as good and bad . . . Moralities are just something humans created to make a sane living in this world just like how they created "Gods" ofc thats how i feel atleast and the way i see it theres nothing wrong with being a nihilist and its all dependant on perspective . . . and id also like to make another point that Just because a MAJORITY of people believes or encourages something it isn't wrong take SATI for example ofc i dont expect the populace to be in harmony with my views and no one should

[PseudoSage]

So if man will go to such great lengths to avoid pain, then why not look at it in every sense. If there is possibly eternal pain waiting for him after his death, shouldn't he go to any length to avoid it? It is not consistent to say that man avoids pain whenever possible, and he ends up with pain forever. That is the exact opposite. So in order to truly avoid pain one needs to strongly consider this outcome.

Ah, eternal pain after death. I think I understand your point: if man wants avoid pain and death whenever possible to ensure his survival and that of his family's genes, then why create a concept that says there will only be death and suffering in the next world? It would seem counter-productive wouldn't it?

However humans are complex to be sure. These morals and laws that we create are preached by forces such as religions or other such organizations dealing with the here after to reinforce them. Originally they may have served some reinforcing purpose beyond scaring the daylights out of people with talk of Hell, reincarnation into lower forms, or the alien overlord Xenu, but all things tend to happen things become complicated. Simple rules relayed by stories and ideas of the world to help us understand the social contracts we must abide by become destructive aversive stimuli that act as punishment for wrongful actions. But why would one person create aversive stimuli that punishes another for breaking from these agreed upon morals? Simply because the Laws of Science and the Laws of Government&Religion exist under different contingencies resulting in different repertoires of behavior. As such, over the millenniums, these people with different, but not mutually exclusive behaviors, have created a sort of warped social contract. I use once again B.F. Skinner in this argument.

[s0teric]

Ah, eternal pain after death. I think I understand your point: if man wants avoid pain and death whenever possible to ensure his survival and that of his family's genes, then why create a concept that says there will only be death and suffering in the next world? It would seem counter-productive wouldn't it?

However humans are complex to be sure. These morals and laws that we create are preached by forces such as religions or other such organizations dealing with the here after to reinforce them. Originally they may have served some reinforcing purpose beyond scaring the daylights out of people with talk of Hell, reincarnation into lower forms, or the alien overlord Xenu, but all things tend to happen things become complicated. Simple rules relayed by stories and ideas of the world to help us understand the social contracts we must abide by become destructive aversive stimuli that act as punishment for wrongful actions. But why would one person create aversive stimuli that punishes another for breaking from these agreed upon morals? Simply because the Laws of Science and the Laws of Government&Religion exist under different contingencies resulting in different repertoires of behavior. As such, over the millenniums, these people with different, but not mutually exclusive behaviors, have created a sort of warped social contract. I use once again B.F. Skinner in this argument.

You're misunderstanding me. I don't use the argument as a hammer. I simply use it to reveal inconsistancies in a typical Athiest's viewpoint. It's not used to scare you into escaping a hell. In fact, I discourage that. But if you believe that your ultimate goal is to avoid pain, and ultimate pain is possible, even if in the least likely situation, then you should go to every length to avoid it. That is an Athiest form of logic and that would be consistent with an Athiest viewpoint. You can't just say that you avoid pain, when you aren't considering the most concerning possibility. That doesn't make sense.