Morality - where does it come from?

[Skepdick]

I'm agnostic. I have nowhere claimed there is no such thing as true and false.

That's a contradiction in terms, Gary.

Agnostic means "lacking knowledge".
If you don't know there is a difference between right and wrong
Then you know that there is NO difference between right and wrong.

It's nihilism all over again.

It sounds to my ears that what you want is someone who will do something with the confidence that what they are doing could not possibly be the wrong thing to do because if there is a God and they believe that, then there is no wrong that they can do

Exactly, Gary. If you are doing something wrong God (your family, your friends, your society, your justice system, your country, the entire world) will tell you.

Stop being so afraid of making mistakes. There's nothing wrong with being wrong.

Otherwise, I don't know what disadvantage there is in someone who thinks that something can be true and false but is unsure if there is a God versus someone who thinks that something can be true and false but is sure that God exists.

Those are mutually contradicting beliefs in the limit.

You can't believe there is true and false (which basically means right and wrong), but then NOT believe that there is a source of morality.

However, as I have said, enjoy your power. I want no part of it other than to just have to deal with the consequences.

And what about the consequences of NOT dealing with it? And keeping other people's power in check?

There's nothing more for me to competently do in this world. Staying out of the way and not fucking things up is plenty difficult enough for me to accomplish. You all can have at it. If there's a God, then as far as I'm concerned, putting me in this world was God's mistake.

The part of God you want to blame there is called "your parents".

[Sculptor]

Morality can't come from God, can it?

When there is a claim that an already known concept like morality comes from God, we must then ask ourselves, well, if morality comes from God, then where does God come from.

This is pointless and senseless circular reasoning, because for any concept to be known at all, every concept must first have to exist, must already be here within knowing knowledge that is already, evidently, always available.

So if the claim that... what is always readily available here in the knowledge we already have, has come from some thing or from somewhere other than what is already here, then that is a pointless and non-sensical claim to make. Only sense can make sense. Not non-sense.

Morality, and God come from the same place.
Before there were humans there was no concepts of god and morality., just like there was no such things as baroque music, or knowlege.
Humans invent such things.
DO you think Baroque music predates the human idea of it? Same with morality. They are both a collection of similar things, clumped togther for easy and convenient prejuedice.

[Gary Childress]

I'm agnostic. I have nowhere claimed there is no such thing as true and false.

That's a contradiction in terms, Gary.

Agnostic means "lacking knowledge".
If you don't know there is a difference between right and wrong
Then you know that there is NO difference between right and wrong.

It's nihilism all over again.

What? A person can't lack knowledge of what is true and false without also not knowing the difference between right and wrong? Where did I say there's no difference between right and wrong? Who is this person who says there's no difference between right and wrong?

[promethean75]

That's what "objecive" means, cupcake."

Don't call me cupcake unless u mean it becuz I'm very sensitive.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's why people who say that morality "comes from God" make more sense than those who say that it is "naturally evolved behavior".

Why does it "make more sense" to believe that morality comes from God? What about reality better fits the picture of a God actually existing in the world?

God is a higher being, a being that not only knows better than you but a being that knows the best. He's also not a human being -- nor any other natural living being. He's a supernatural being, a being that is above nature. To say that "morality comes from God" is to say that "God knows the best what is right and what is wrong". As such, what a natural being, such as you and me, believe to be right and wrong is not necessarily true. It is only true if it aligns with the beliefs of God. If you then accept that the term God refers to the metaphorical being -- not a literal one -- that creates the state of the universe at each point in time by applying the laws of nature to the state of the universe at a prior point in time, it becomes clear that "God" and "reality" are practically interchangeable terms. Thus, "morality comes from God" becomes "morality comes from reality".

Compare that with the idea that "morality is a naturally evolved behavior". What's the problem with that? The problem is that a naturally evolved behavior is not necessarily the right behavior. It reinforces the idea that what is right and what is wrong is what you instinctively or naturally believe to be right and wrong. What's right and what's wrong, in other words, is within you, and you're either connected to that part of your brain or you are not. It's basically what Veritas Aequitas is arguing for. It's an anti-intellectual position because if all you have to do is get in touch with your instincts and follow them then there is no need for any kind of conscious thought. That's why "Morality is naturally evolved behavior" can be roughly translated to "morality comes from animals".

[Skepdick]

If all you have to do is get in touch with your instincts and follow them then there is no need for any kind of conscious thought.

That's pretty much true for the majority of your daily life, for the majority of humans.

You don't make any long-term decisions that matter all that much, and the system has a shitton of guard rails to make sure you don't totally screw this up and basically all the socio-economic things that provide a stable platform are out of your control.

Just wake up every day and don't be dumb and you'll make it to at least upper-middle class and you'll even make a positive difference along the way.

This obviously changes as you get more influence/power/responsibility.

And if you are a dumb ass chances are your damage is localized so - play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Magnus Anderson]

If there's a god, the nature of rightness and wrongness would be determined by that god, and we don't have to worry about what anyone thinks. Spares us the trouble of having to debate about it.

You have to worry about what God thinks. And the Bible is merely a book . . . not necessarily a reflection of what God really thinks. It's like listening to what scientists have to say -- not necessarily a reflection of reality.

So this idea that you no longer have to think is simply erroneous and it's actually the other way around. If all you have to do is follow your instincts, or adopt the beliefs of those who carry the right set of instincts, then there is no need for thought.

Becuz this solves what Agnus Manderson believes to be a problem; that morality can't just be what we think is right, but has to be about what is objectively right.

It's Magnus Anderson, not Agnus Manderson, Mr. I Am Rude Because I Think That Makes Me Look Cool.

It's indeed a problem. You're born with a goal to pursue and whatever is inside you isn't sufficient to help you attain that goal, evident in the fact that your parents haven't achieved it, so you have to build upon it, but also, change it when it's necessary to do so.

[LuckyR]

Morality can't come from God, can it?

When there is a claim that an already known concept like morality comes from God, we must then ask ourselves, well, if morality comes from God, then where does God come from?

This is pointless and senseless circular reasoning, because for any concept to be known at all, every concept must first have to exist, must already be here within knowing knowledge that is already, evidently, always available.

So if the claim that... what is always readily available here in the knowledge we already have, has come from some thing or from somewhere other than what is already here, then that is a pointless and non-sensical claim to make. Only sense can make sense. Not non-sense.

The origin of the metaphysical was invented by the first human who wondered about the underlying workings underpinning a physical process, didn't know the answer and could not fathom a physical answer. His options at that point were two: "I don't know" and a metaphysical answer. It was a (very) short hop from the metaphysical in general to gods in particular.

[Gary Childress]

That's why people who say that morality "comes from God" make more sense than those who say that it is "naturally evolved behavior".

Why does it "make more sense" to believe that morality comes from God? What about reality better fits the picture of a God actually existing in the world?

God is a higher being, a being that not only knows better than you but a being that knows the best. He's also not a human being -- nor any other natural living being. He's a supernatural being, a being that is above nature. To say that "morality comes from God" is to say that "God knows the best what is right and what is wrong". As such, what a natural being, such as you and me, believe to be right and wrong is not necessarily true. It is only true if it aligns with the beliefs of God. If you then accept that the term God refers to the metaphorical being -- not a literal one -- that creates the state of the universe at each point in time by applying the laws of nature to the state of the universe at a prior point in time, it becomes clear that "God" and "reality" are practically interchangeable terms. Thus, "morality comes from God" becomes "morality comes from reality".

Compare that with the idea that "morality is a naturally evolved behavior". What's the problem with that? The problem is that a naturally evolved behavior is not necessarily the right behavior. It reinforces the idea that what is right and what is wrong is what you instinctively or naturally believe to be right and wrong. What's right and what's wrong, in other words, is within you, and you're either connected to that part of your brain or you are not. It's basically what Veritas Aequitas is arguing for. It's an anti-intellectual position because if all you have to do is get in touch with your instincts and follow them then there is no need for any kind of conscious thought. That's why "Morality is naturally evolved behavior" can be roughly translated to "morality comes from animals".

Fair enough. You think there's a God. Hopefully, there is. I haven't seen much evidence of any such being. Apparently, some of us are more ignorant than others. I obviously fill the more ignorant requirement of that statement. So be it.

[promethean75]

"It's Magnus Anderson, not Agnus Manderson, Mr. I Am Rude Because I Think That Makes Me Look Cool."

In my culture being rude is a sign of affection. So u just offended me by not accepting my insult.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Compare that with the idea that "morality is a naturally evolved behavior". What's the problem with that? The problem is that a naturally evolved behavior is not necessarily the right behavior. It reinforces the idea that what is right and what is wrong is what you instinctively or naturally believe to be right and wrong. What's right and what's wrong, in other words, is within you, and you're either connected to that part of your brain or you are not.
It's basically what Veritas Aequitas is arguing for.
It's an anti-intellectual position because if all you have to do is get in touch with your instincts and follow them then there is no need for any kind of conscious thought. That's why "Morality is naturally evolved behavior" can be roughly translated to "morality comes from animals".

Yes, that is what I have been arguing for, i.e. "morality is a naturally evolved behavior" that is inherent in all humans as a function with potential unfolding slowly within humanity.

All humans are evolved with the killing potential to facilitate their survival, i.e. killing for food and against threats; this can be redirected to kill humans [any] for various reasons and incontrollable impulses.

"The ought-not-ness of humans to kill humans" is an inherent inhibitor as a standard that has been naturally adapted via evolution for its goodness; otherwise humans could have been extinct long ago if not for this inherent instinct and standard.

That inherent standard and adaptation is already active [spontaneous without conscious thoughts] in 'you' and the majority; that is why you don't simply go out and kill human arbitrary.
Those who kill humans has immature, weak or damaged moral inhibitors to stop or enable them to manage their impulses from killing other humans.

This is why I argued humanity must recognize the above neural moral inhibitors as objective moral facts which can then be targeted to expedite its maturity and unfoldment; this necessary so that all [if not majority] humans naturally do not have the impulse to kill without being conscious about it at all times; if any thoughts of killing human arise, then it will be mindfully modulated and inhibited.

OP: Morality - where does it come from?
Morality is an adaptation from evolution of over 4.5 billions years and in 300K years in humans.

[Iwannaplato]

Morality can't come from God, can it?

When there is a claim that an already known concept like morality comes from God, we must then ask ourselves, well, if morality comes from God, then where does God come from?

This is pointless and senseless circular reasoning, because for any concept to be known at all, every concept must first have to exist, must already be here within knowing knowledge that is already, evidently, always available.

So if the claim that... what is always readily available here in the knowledge we already have, has come from some thing or from somewhere other than what is already here, then that is a pointless and non-sensical claim to make. Only sense can make sense. Not non-sense.

The origin of the metaphysical was invented by the first human who wondered about the underlying workings underpinning a physical process, didn't know the answer and could not fathom a physical answer. His options at that point were two: "I don't know" and a metaphysical answer. It was a (very) short hop from the metaphysical in general to gods in particular.

1) I think metaphysical tendencies are built in
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm
And also that children's tendency to personify and anthropomorphize (or to accurately recognize conscious entities, just to keep this conclusion neutral about the metaphysical beliefs) means that these beliefs arise out of natural tendencies.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 085942.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6243028/

I should have added also that there is no non-metaphysical stance. There may be assertions that are not related to metaphysics, but if you go back through the justification you're going to hit, eventually, ideas about ontology and metaphysics.

[Skepdick]

Yes, that is what I have been arguing for, i.e. "morality is a naturally evolved behavior" that is inherent in all humans as a function with potential unfolding slowly within humanity.

You will have much better luck at understanding if you focus on what "immorality" is.

Words are words are words.

Why did we need the idea of "false" words?
What does falsehood (when permitted to replicate) do in a society?

Morality is not unfolding slowly or quickly. It's just unfolding.
What's unfolding is your understanding of what morality is.

[Magnus Anderson]

Fair enough. You think there's a God. Hopefully, there is. I haven't seen much evidence of any such being. Apparently, some of us are more ignorant than others. I obviously fill the more ignorant requirement of that statement. So be it.

It doesn't look like you carefully read what I wrote. I defined what the word "God" means.

[..] the metaphorical being -- not a literal one -- that creates the state of the universe at each point in time by applying the laws of nature to the state of the universe at a prior point in time [..]

As such, God exists by definition.

You can argue that's not the original meaning of the word "God", sure, but arguing against the existence of such an entity is a bit pointless.

[Walker]

This is pointless and senseless circular reasoning, because for any concept to be known at all, every concept must first have to exist, must already be here within knowing knowledge that is already, evidently, always available.

What is evident depends on the intrument of perception.