Thread: Morality and its source

"My mom got drunk on stout,
My dad couldn't stand on two feet,
As he lectured about morality."
Partial lyrics from the song "Sea and Sand" by "The Who"

The above is just a little priming for the thread...

So here I sit, beer in hand, ready to speak of morality, or rather where we derive our morality.


Here is an online dictionary definition of morality:
mo·ral·i·ty (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.




It is the first and third definition that I am mostly concerned with.



I have read that some members here see it as an idea coming from society, Others from their particular brand of religion, some believe there are no such thing as morals. I believe it comes from neither of these.
Assume for a moment that it does come from society as a whole. Society can change its idea of morality at any time. We may wake up one morning after a long sleep finding that our society now deems eating human flesh a prerequisite for high moral standards and sex with ones own relatives the pinnacle of moral standards.
What of religion? There are many to choose from. All have slightly different to radically different ideas as to what morality is. Religion is also a man made construct which means it may also change over time. The idea and belief in a God lends a certain stability to religious morality. This is a good thing, but mans hands are still involved...it will decay in time leaving us again to be so much flotsam and jetsam in the changing tides of man made morality.
If, as some believe, that there is no such thing as morality then that leaves us to do as we please...or for anyone else to do to us as they please. To me, this is not a world I would wish to live in.
My belief is that true morality comes from a deep well within each of us, unchanging and always constant. This well that I speak of is the same well that all mankind has access to. We are all conduits for this well. some choose to deny this well while others embrace it. I also believe this is what Jesus was trying to get across when he said that the kingdom of heaven is within.

Thats my view. How do you see it?

As always, act as gentlemen please.

As I also replied to 59Caddy in the NC thread:

I derive my morals from the simple principle that I treat others as I want to be treated myself. It's amazing how far that one principle will get you.

Would I want people to beat me, kill me, rob me, sell me, discriminate against me, etc?
No. So likewise, I don't do those things to other people. And I didn't need any deity to come to those beliefs. It is perfectly possible to live life by a strong moral compass without ever needing to resort to a deity.

Originally Posted by Bruno

As I also replied to 59Caddy in the NC thread:

I derive my morals from the simple principle that I treat others as I want to be treated myself. It's amazing how far that one principle will get you.

Would I want people to beat me, kill me, rob me, sell me, discriminate against me, etc?
No. So likewise, I don't do those things to other people. And I didn't need any deity to come to those beliefs. It is perfectly possible to live life by a strong moral compass without ever needing to resort to a deity.

But whatever your source for morality, don't you agree that it needs to be consistent and constant?

And to add to that, what about lesser but just as respected morals? such as smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, honesty, diet, dress, treatment of property/animals and others?

Does society or self preservation or instinct control those too?

Originally Posted by JokiJo

lesser but just as respected morals? such as smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, honesty, diet, dress, treatment of property/animals and others?

Does society or self preservation or instinct control those too?

These aren't necessarily morals but acts that can be either appropriate or harmful depending on the circumstance. Without sex the human race would become extinct, we need to eat and of course there are drugs which prolong life. Dress code, to some degree, depended the climate.
Even honesty, sometimes a completely honest answer may not be entirely helpful, it depends on the situation.
Self-preservation is usually seen as a basic instinct, but there are those that sacrifice their own lives for the good of others.

I think to some degree we are born with the correct instincts and these are further shaped by our upbringing and the society in which we live.

There are those who know how they should behave but choose not to, for a multitude of reasons.

Yes. And that simple principle is constant and unchanging to me.

What if society deemed driving a car with small children in it were immoral?

What if living in a house made from trees were immoral?
Would you accept that, just as society frowns upon smoking or drinking or wearing fur?

Or is there maybe a deeper drive for good morals despite your beliefs?

There's tons of things deemed immoral in society that aren't bad for your health or others. Yet the constants, such as stuff we know are harmful, we have very strong belief in, whereas the other ones, deemed immoral such as it is by society, we care less about or don't follow at all.

Society as a whole seems to view morality as "do unto others what you don't wish them to do unto you, but do it first"... it is not new, it has been the case throughout history in most civilizations. Even if it declares having higher moral value, society as a whole always finds justifications to go back to that view.

I am normally of the "And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them likewise."... even tho it can be very hard.

Originally Posted by JMS

But whatever your source for morality, don't you agree that it needs to be consistent and constant?

I'm going to paraphrase a couple of authors I like who give good points of view on this sort of thing.

In The Fifth Elephant by Terry Pratchett, Sam Vimes is given an axe by the Dwarven King and the King says that, over the years, the axe will get a new handle, or new blade and its design will change. But in every way it will be the axe that was given to Vimes that day.

In Day of the Triffids, Coker and David Masen are talking about why some people are clinging to their traditional moral and social views despite the post apocalyptic scenario. David Masen says that change doesnt happen overnight, but little by little, and that people dont realise that they are slowly changing to fit the environment. And as they do change they will believe that they are not changing, and moreover that they are showing steadfast strength of character.

Its the same with morals. They change over time to suit the situation and the prevailing desires of society, or if the current set of moral rules isnt working.

Back in the middle ages, people used to be publicly beheading or hanged for theft, but now we dont have capital punishment at all. Many people believe that this is morally right, for example.

Originally Posted by JMS

But whatever your source for morality, don't you agree that it needs to be consistent and constant?

no.

I think your moral compass can change like the wind. Nothing in this world is constant.