Thread: Morality and its source

Originally Posted by AZrider

Okay, I have two cents. Here they are.

I'm of the opinion that there is a constant, absolute morality, but I don't believe it is a universal morality of the cosmos. The universe doesn't much care what we do on our ball of mud.

I believe morality derives from our chromosomal imperative to survive as a species. Being frail, squishy creatures, it's to our advantage to work together in societies. We can't effectively work together without empathy, rules, standards, and so on, but, within that framework, there's a tremendous amount of wiggle room.

Good is whatever helps our chromosomes to survive. Evil is whatever hinders our chromosomes. All the other seemingly shifting morals are really societal mores which are highly fluid and situational. They're sometimes relevant, often times not.

Or, I could be wrong.

Reasonable POV, I think.

Question: How much of that is understood instinctively and how much must be learned culturally?

Originally Posted by TexasBob

Reasonable POV, I think.

Question: How much of that is understood instinctually and how much must be learned culturally?

That's a very good question.

I don't know.

For example, empathy may be an instinctual behavior but it can be nurtured or thwarted by cultural influences. The instinct for altruism can likely also be heavily influenced by culture. A primary instincts seems to be to observe and mimic the behaviors of the members of one's society.

I'm inclined to say that culture (society) can, largely trump any instinctive sense of morality but that for a culture to sustain itself any length of time, it must mostly adhere to that basic morality.

If falls back question of the chicken and the egg.