Discussion Where do morals come from? Poll

[Forever Sleep]

I watched an interview between some religious guy and Christopher Hitchens (a very clever and witty atheist.) They were discussing where morals came from. Christopher Hitchens was saying he felt it was a great disservice to humankind to say that morals have to come from a divine source. I certainly agreed with him. In fact- I would say of the people I know, it's the atheists who are kinder in thought and action towards their fellow human beings! (In my own experience- I'm not saying this is a fact!)

I was actually disappointed that in this particular interview anyway- that Christopher Hitchens didn't go on to say where he thought our moral sensibilities come from.

I think they largely come from our upbringing- at least initially. I think we do tend to learn what's considered right and wrong from our care givers. Their source could of course be religion but it could just as well be based on what they feel is right and wrong themselves. Even- what worked for them. For example- it may be morally right to always let other people go first but in this day and age- that doesn't always work so well- you just end up getting trampled all over.

I also think empathy come into play- especially as we mature. We (ought to) realise that some of our actions may hurt other people- so- out of empathy, we try not to do them.

I don't personally believe that our moral sense is innate though. I'm pretty sure it is something that is learned. Perhaps empathy IS innate though and I feel like the two are linked.

How about you? What do you think?

 

[247sadgirlhours]

hi! i voted that i thought it was innate, however i suppose i follow your line of thinking more with empathy being innate. i think that the majority of us humans are born with empathy. i think that some of us need to be taught, but 99% of us all have the capacity to gain it or have it. for that reason, i picked upbringing/innate.

from a very initial google search, source, studies have been found that empathy is a "genetic and inherent trait." obviously, this is not a fact and a few studies isn't enough to say for sure. however, to me it seems... decently plausible. it makes sense to me that emotions are genetic. the way i think of it - everyone is different physically, in slight ways. it makes sense to me that our brains can be physically different in slight ways, and thus affecting how we feel things, experience things, our opinions, etc. i think you're also right to say that upbringing has a lot to do with it. people can be taught empathy, and if children aren't taught then they may never pick it up.

one thing i do not agree with is that religion is a source of morality. i just don't believe this. i'm a certified edgy athiest though, so i'm definitely biased. i just don't believe in god, so i could never see god as a source of our morals.

all in all, i agree with you! really good post - i enjoyed thinking about it.

 

[Pluto]

It will be a combination of factors, nature and nurture.

Based on my engagement with atheist thinkers in the past, they aspire to a world based on reason and sensibility. They note the dysfunction and conflict of highly theocratic societies and the possibility of evolving to a culture based on rationality.

Despite, or because of, moral preaching, religion can cause trouble at many levels. Because particularly Western religions each promise the favour of God as 'chosen people' so long as certain rules are followed, the problem of immorality is merely concealed. Followers can feel holier than thou and this perceived superiority can ironically form the basis of immoral conduct against others. Alternatively, the mindset can be one of behaving badly whilst still technically conforming to their religion's code of conduct, like a child who has figured out how to evade being caught. Thus, it has been said that you can judge a person's character by how they treat animals.

In my own case, I became hyper-empathetic because of maltreatment in childhood. I noticed that the dehumanised way I was treated was near identical to the way animals are treated by humans - shamelessly exploited and discarded. Experiencing it first hand became the basis of my feelings about morality in general. Hasn't made me a success in the material world, but so be it.

 

[Forever Sleep]

hi! i voted that i thought it was innate, however i suppose i follow your line of thinking more with empathy being innate. i think that the majority of us humans are born with empathy. i think that some of us need to be taught, but 99% of us all have the capacity to gain it or have it. for that reason, i picked upbringing/innate.

from a very initial google search, source, studies have been found that empathy is a "genetic and inherent trait." obviously, this is not a fact and a few studies isn't enough to say for sure. however, to me it seems... decently plausible. it makes sense to me that emotions are genetic. the way i think of it - everyone is different physically, in slight ways. it makes sense to me that our brains can be physically different in slight ways, and thus affecting how we feel things, experience things, our opinions, etc. i think you're also right to say that upbringing has a lot to do with it. people can be taught empathy, and if children aren't taught then they may never pick it up.

one thing i do not agree with is that religion is a source of morality. i just don't believe this. i'm a certified edgy athiest though, so i'm definitely biased. i just don't believe in god, so i could never see god as a source of our morals.

all in all, i agree with you! really good post - i enjoyed thinking about it.

Thanks for such a thoughtful response. That's REALLY interesting that empathy may be an innate and inherited trait. Do you suppose it is a human phenomena? I suppose that goes the same for morals also... I don't think we see much of it in the animal kingdom. Animals seem to be quite happy to eat each other alive... When it DOES appear- it's often seen as a malfunction- eg. a lion protecting an antelope.

I suppose it's because there is just SO many of us. Richard Dawkins argued that we have evolved to be altruistic- that it helps the species as a whole if we help one another- rather than being in constant competition. I suppose empathy and morals also link to altruism.

Because particularly Western religions each promise the favour of God as 'chosen people' so long as certain rules are followed, the problem of immorality is merely concealed.

Definitely- or- even weirder to me- you can have your sins 'forgiven' by confessing them... I mean- maybe- if you are TRULY remorseful perhaps but surely- you can't just keep committing the same sins and saying you feel really bad about it! How is that TRULY sorry?!!

 

[ksp]

that's a great question! it made me think - for a long time

i think morality and ethics are concepts that help us navigate our existence. they're just tools used by our minds. the main problem is that religion is twisting minds into thinking that morals are generated by religious leaders (the great 'deep thinkers' - basically gods that don't fart), and society would be lost without the teachings of the church; i think that some people might be tamed by fear, but most will not

to bo honest, religion is full of shit - arrogant and ridiculous, assuming the moral high-ground (as in: mere mortals don't have the capacity to differentiate between good and bad). but if all people would be content, with all basic needs met (white-picket-fence comfortable house, nice car, etc) most people would not attack each other, and would be empathetic and civil (of course there would be exceptions as always, but religion turned it upside down: most people would attack each other, and there would only be few exceptions - arrogant leaders that refuse to give credit where credit is due)

(if you haven't noticed - religion makes me slightly bitter:)

so religion is out of the question!

but where do they come from? i don't know - i need to keep thinking about this

for now, i want to guess; are we born with it? nurture? empathy? selfishness?

convoluted logic related to selfishness: selfishness generating moral conflicts - i don't want another person to inflict pain on me (i'm selfish), and if that person is considerate towards me, then i want to be considerate towards that person - not to inflict pain on them either (if i can help it) - empathy and kindness

normally i try to keep things simple; eliminate all unnecessary variables: society and emotional attachments; my favorite example is a deserted island, and in this case - another stranded person
with no previous knowledge of region, and no sense of morality in social setting; just contentment

what would influence me to behave towards the other person in a certain way? (or vice versa)

this question made me think when you posted it, but it inspired me to analyze hidden instincts and desires
i was re-watching the movie "passengers" (2016) - for another reason, but i remembered that it made me uncomfortable - a very unsettling question about morals (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, but with selfishness and loneliness)

i think my judgement was made easier by the fact that i don't really feel loneliness
i would be very happy to be alone, on that ship - for the rest of my life
most people wouldn't be happy, like me (i just realized that i'm seriously damaged, lol)

i still don't know… maybe a combination of reasons, like @247sadgirlhours and @Pluto mentioned - nature + nurture (and 'religion can cause trouble at many levels' - i refuse to acknowledge that religion has any role here), and your initial choices: Society, Upbringing, Sense of Empathy, Innate, Unsure/Other are a good start (i added my own reason based on the movie: selfishness as deep conflicts in morals)

but i like that it took me out of my comfort zone, without a definite answer - thank you :)

 

[Forever Sleep]

that's a great question! it made me think - for a long time

i think morality and ethics are concepts that help us navigate our existence. they're just tools used by our minds. the main problem is that religion is twisting minds into thinking that morals are generated by religious leaders (the great 'deep thinkers' - basically gods that don't fart), and society would be lost without the teachings of the church; i think that some people might be tamed by fear, but most will not

to bo honest, religion is full of shit - arrogant and ridiculous, assuming the moral high-ground (as in: mere mortals don't have the capacity to differentiate between good and bad). but if all people would be content, with all basic needs met (white-picket-fence comfortable house, nice car, etc) most people would not attack each other, and would be empathetic and civil (of course there would be exceptions as always, but religion turned it upside down: most people would attack each other, and there would only be few exceptions - arrogant leaders that refuse to give credit where credit is due)

(if you haven't noticed - religion makes me slightly bitter:)

so religion is out of the question!

but where do they come from? i don't know - i need to keep thinking about this

for now, i want to guess; are we born with it? nurture? empathy? selfishness?

convoluted logic related to selfishness: selfishness generating moral conflicts - i don't want another person to inflict pain on me (i'm selfish), and if that person is considerate towards me, then i want to be considerate towards that person - not to inflict pain on them either (if i can help it) - empathy and kindness

normally i try to keep things simple; eliminate all unnecessary variables: society and emotional attachments; my favorite example is a deserted island, and in this case - another stranded person
with no previous knowledge of region, and no sense of morality in social setting; just contentment

what would influence me to behave towards the other person in a certain way? (or vice versa)

this question made me think when you posted it, but it inspired me to analyze hidden instincts and desires
i was re-watching the movie "passengers" (2016) - for another reason, but i remembered that it made me uncomfortable - a very unsettling question about morals (and it doesn't have anything to do with religion, but with selfishness and loneliness)

i think my judgement was made easier by the fact that i don't really feel loneliness
i would be very happy to be alone, on that ship - for the rest of my life
most people wouldn't be happy, like me (i just realized that i'm seriously damaged, lol)

i still don't know… maybe a combination of reasons, like @247sadgirlhours and @Pluto mentioned - nature + nurture (and 'religion can cause trouble at many levels' - i refuse to acknowledge that religion has any role here), and your initial choices: Society, Upbringing, Sense of Empathy, Innate, Unsure/Other are a good start (i added my own reason based on the movie: selfishness as deep conflicts in morals)

but i like that it took me out of my comfort zone, without a definite answer - thank you :)

I always love your responses...

Have you read the book: 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins? It was a while ago I read it but as a counterpart to selfish genes- he suggests that human beings have evolved altruistic genes. Makes sense really- given that we live in such big communities. 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' type deal. I think empathy and morals do link to this- a recognition that if I treat this person well- hopefully they will do the same in return.

I do love your desert island thinking! I agree- it strips it all back to the basics. From a personal perspective (how I might behave,) I see it like this:

Firstly- I think it would be better if the 'subjects' weren't given everything they needed to survive comfortably. I think in all scenarios- people need to take care of themselves in order to see how they would REALLY behave- we're not pets at the end of the day. We wouldn't even need that much autonomy if all our needs were met- unless I suppose we were still unhappy and wanted to escape! Still- if something was looking after us- we wouldn't be making quite so many choices.

Anyhow- I reckon if two humans were marooned together at the same time- with no knowledge of religion or morality- I reckon they would in fact work together to survive. I expect they would even be grateful for one anothers company and I think- despite a few inevitable disagreements- they likely would treat each other with a degree of respect. I think because there would be that NEED from the start to work together.

Now- I picture the two humans being marooned on SEPARATE islands and then being brought together after say 5 years. I'm not so sure things would be so harmonious then. They had already learnt how to survive on their own. They would likely BOTH want the same resources. Would they become territorial maybe? I guess it's hard to know. Still- what are the chances that they both do things in the same way? What if one thinks their method of building a shelter is better than the others? I don't know. Maybe they would still be grateful for the company but I think being socialised is also a part of developing respect for others and morality.

By the way- I loved the phrase- 'God's who don't fart'! Who's to say God doesn't fart? Maybe that's what thunder is.

 

[ksp]

Have you read the book:

this was a bit embarrassing, because i don't like reading and i didn't explain the reason before:

i don't read much: first off - i'm lazy, secondly my current condition, and thirdly:
i used to read a lot, and i mean abnormally: in one of my vacations i picked up a large book! !1k pages or more, and i got so fascinated and engulfed by the subject that i couldn't stop reading it until i finished it (barely got any food or sleep). when i realized how crazy i can become, i stopped reading all together (i chose sanity over cultural knowledge :)

anyway, i take your word for it, and i'd love to see it (in a movie )

so: no, i didn't read the book unfortunately…

but, i like TV ! all hail TV ! (complete shock:)

this is my religion: logic + knowledge + science + evidence + studies + common sense + intelligence + reflection + psychology + philosophy + proof + and + 'question everything!'

my bible is represented by this documentary: "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman
i've watched this series more than 3 times, (probbly 5 times) - i find each and every episode fascinating
(61 episodes, starting from 2010, all the way up to 2017)

---

reckon if two humans were marooned together at the same time- with no knowledge of religion or morality- I reckon they would in fact work together to survive. I expect they would even be grateful for one anothers company and I think- despite a few inevitable disagreements- they likely would treat each other with a degree of respect. I think because there would be that NEED from the start to work together.

agreed ! (i also like how you see accep/tolerate imperfections)

Now- I picture the two humans being marooned on SEPARATE islands and then being brought together after say 5 years. I'm not so sure things would be so harmonious then. They had already learnt how to survive on their own. They would likely BOTH want the same resources. Would they become territorial maybe? I guess it's hard to know. Still- what are the chances that they both do things in the same way? What if one thinks their method of building a shelter is better than the others? I don't know. Maybe they would still be grateful for the company but I think being socialised is also a part of developing respect for others and morality.

very interesting: you like to add intrigue whenever possible, and possible conflicts - obviously you're too creative for your own good ; but you do bring up great mental thoughts and experiments :)

---

back to my 'bible', the relevant episode (if you get a chance to watch it) will answer an important aspect: are we born with morals? and the answer is YES, from about 5 month-olds. these are scientific studies (at yale university) over 20 years, with hundreds of children; from 4 month-olds to 5 years-olds (not sure). and these tests were designed to study morals - very scientific methods, with 80% to 90% confirmations, so they are very representative and quite conclusive

i hope you get a chance to see it; it's called: season 3, episode 7: "Can We Eliminate Evil":

Paul Bloom tells Morgan Freeman that very early in life, everyone has a moral sense. Bloom further elaborates that if a person is brought up in a culture that rewards bad behavior, then "your sense of empathy can be blunted."

The indiscriminate killings of Charles Whitman is discussed. Freeman reviews the importance of willpower.

• Interviewed experts: Christian Keysers, Karen Wynn, Paul Bloom (psychologist), David Eagleman, James H. Fallon, Christian Ruff is Full Professor of Neuroeconomics and Decision Neuroscience at the Department of Economics of the University of Zurich, Owen D. Jones,[25]​ Steven Pinker.

i'd be very interested to read your opinion! (no pressure )

ps. subliminal message (very subtle, and very hidden): " watch it ! " (and again: no pressure:)