What is the Source of Morality?

[Varun]

Okay, here is what I think.

First and foremost, I don't think that morality is due to religion. Religion did not give birth to morality but rather preached it over the years. It is up to us whether to follow it or not. Neither is morality a byproduct of government or the fear of punishment and so on.

I believe that morality is a sense that comes from mercy, happiness, requirement for company and so on. You can say it is a derived sense. I mean, in the days bygone, humans used to hunt for food. Now, everyone in that time period knew Death. That is a universal constant. They knew that it occurs on its own or someone can bring it on something. This means that they feared. They feared Death. Even now, people do. The sense 'morality' probably first came from humans showing mercy to each other. I mean, suppose Clan A meets Clan B for the first time. Both clans see that both have equal skill. Obviously they can figure out themselves that both can benefit. That is something that even animals have. I suppose that would be the base of morality. Morality of not hurting each other.

Then humans began to see that animals could be tamed and made to use and such. That makes the second step. Morality towards other creatures.

Then as time passed humans began to settle, marry and raise children. This induced a whole lot of moral codes.

So, as civilization progressed, moral codes were made and slowly people wrote them on books, parchments and so on so that they or their future generations wouldn't forget. Now you may ask why? The reason is simple. It saved them of the fear. Fear of being hunted, which was prominent in those days. They recognized that their strength lied in numbers and that probably was the root cause of morality.

Then slowly, morality integrated itself into humans. Became a part of the DNA, you could say.

 

[DeletedUser]

As a response to the post before Varun's, I never said that morality came from religion, only that it can be gained from religion, more or less. Second, water can be obtained from a lake or river, can it not? I do see how our differences in the definition of source can cause a problem. I also suppose I did make it sound like water originates from a lake or river didn't I? My apologies.

I think I've run my course in this debate though. When it really comes down to it, only the most persuasive can change my beliefs here

(same with most Grepolis players )

 

[DeletedUser]

(Warning, not for the faint of heart. Violent paragraph follows. Rated R post.)

Just did, and if anything that would back up the 'gun has not killed the most people' theory. BUT I completely disagree with that source. Image, being a soldier in, for instance, Vietnam. Image yourself witnessing a friendly fire incident. The air support hit their own men. Image yourself watching those poor souls burn up. Image their pain. While at the same time, image your friends and foe alike being shot down, blood every where. Now sure, medieval war was violent, but it was nothing compared to that. Face it, bombs and guns create something more violent then bows and melee weapons. Sure, if you compare a sword wound to a bullet wound, the sword wound is probably gonna be more gruesome, but compare a gun and bomb battle to a sword and bow battle. Bombs and bullets demolish someone in such a more gruesome way then the sword and bow. This can all fall under 'violent'. But since this can be debatable between violent and just gruesome:

Think of AL Capone. His gang was brutal and very violent. He didn't just kill, he brutalized and massacred. (Not him himself but his gang.) Most of the things he did used modern technology. The tommy gun, other forms of guns, and the stiletto knife, which in fact can be considered modern, seeing as it's no ordinary knife.

I could make up graphic examples of violence throughout numerous times in history. That doesn't disprove my source. You cannot simply take two instances and say that they are proof of an increase in violence due to technological advances.

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't say it disproved your source. I also didn't say it's proof. I just posted something to support my theory. I apologize if I made that unclear and um insulted you.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I didn't say it disproved your source. I also didn't say it's proof. I just posted something to support my theory. I apologize if I made that unclear and um insulted you.

Erm... But you did say that it disproved his source...

BUT I completely disagree with that source.

So, I would definitely say that with the increase of technology, the increase of violence.

And if your theory wasn't to contradict his source, then what was your theory in that case? I don't mind if you have changed your mind since then, but it would be interesting to know what your theory was if it wasn't that violence has increased.

 

[DeletedUser]

I said I disagreed, not disproved. I also never said it didn't contradict his point. Sigh...

To disprove, my theory would have to become fact, etc. My theory is still just a theory, an opinion if you will. Hence I disagreed, not disproved. Second, when did I say it didn't contradict? I was more or less stating my opinion. I disagreed and I stated my opinion/theory. My opinion/theory contradicts his. Follow?

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I said I disagreed, not disproved. I also never said it didn't contradict his point. Sigh...

To disprove, it'd have to be a fact, etc. My theory is still just a theory, an opinion if you will. Hence I disagreed, not disproved. Second, when did I say it didn't contradict. I just didn't use it as proof. I was more or less stating my opinion. I disagreed and I stated my opinion. Follow?

Now I'm really confused. Why did you make an argument which you could not prove? Anyways, we are getting off track.

 

[DeletedUser]

*facepalm* Argh... I didn't say I couldn't prove! Where did I say 'I can't prove it'? I also never said 'I can prove it'! I'm saying neither!

But also why does anyone make an argument they can't prove? It happens all the time! Most, if not all, of the things people have said here so far 'proved' anything. To me at least.

Ugh, trying so hard to drop out of this thread debate yet the urge to respond is irresistible! :supermad:

 

[Varun]

As a response to the post before Varun's, I never said that morality came from religion, only that it can be gained from religion, more or less.

Well, actually that religion thing wasn't to debate on your point. I mean, that I just stated the general beliefs of morality that are out there. It was never intended to be a contra to your theory.

 

[DeletedUser]

I didn't intend to say that Religion is the source of morality, more that it encouraged its growth somewhat.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe the source of morality is the being itself. You will find morality only by looking inside, and searching within yourself. It is well acknowledged that we as humans share a connection with each other. People find solving a day old crossword puzzles much easier, since more people are aware of the correct answer at the time, and hence the answers comes to us more easily. Similarly, our shared connection allows us to, at the heart of it, share the same code of values and ethics which we would respect and which is called morality. Of course some of us are just more in tune with ourselves than others.

If i am to understand correctly, its been pointed out that religion is the source of morality. but i disagree. Simply because if we were to believe the books, of say for example the Bible or the Koran, it would mean that religion and its prophets were sent to the people at a time when they had digressed from what was moral practices. The prophets, and the messengers have come to us to correct us, so obviously the source of morality predates religion, for had we remained largely moral, there would be no messengers. Religion encourages morality, but it is not the source, the source of morality is embedded in each one of us. If the answers of religion were immoral, they would have been rejected outright or at least over generations for fear cannot be the catalyst of this devotion. It was is because the morality which exists inside us which recognizes the morality of the religion. Religion is a guide, not the source. Long back, I had read that the Buddha had once said, that when struck with a question try and remember the answer for the answer lies within. the question might seem new, but the answer is old, it just needs to be remembered.



I also do not agree that violence is immoral, after all how else do you stop an ongoing violent act but by violently confronting it? it is not just the act which must be judged but the intention along with it. Having said that, i believe since modern nations are mostly democratically elected representatives of the people, the actions of their government is a moral responsibility of the people, and the actions/sins of these governments should be shared by the people. And governments today behave pretty damn immorally..

Any bomb, or weapon, which can kill so many people irrespective of their moralities, sins or affiliations is nothing other than a portrayal of the lack of empathy among us today. In older wars, when the weapons of choice were melee or bows and arrows, soldiers could spare the children. They could spare the women. They could spare the old They could spare the infirm and the unarmed. where is that choice with modern weaponry? wanton killing of innocents and bystanders is norm of warfare today. there have been millions of children who have died because of these modern weapons and we speak about personal morality when these acts are committed by those sworn to represent us? a suicide bomber takes no prisoner, neither does drone strikes and nukes... which is more moral.. or less?

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I believe the source of morality is the being itself. You will find morality only by looking inside, and searching within yourself. It is well acknowledged that we as humans share a connection with each other. People find solving a day old crossword puzzles much easier, since more people are aware of the correct answer at the time, and hence the answers comes to us more easily. Similarly, our shared connection allows us to, at the heart of it, share the same code of values and ethics which we would respect and which is called morality. Of course some of us are just more in tune with ourselves than others.

Please provide actual evidence (ie, a valid, peer-reviewed scientific study) explaining how it is that we all share a universal psychic connection.

If i am to understand correctly, its been pointed out that religion is the source of morality. but i disagree. Simply because if we were to believe the books, of say for example the Bible or the Koran, it would mean that religion and its prophets were sent to the people at a time when they had digressed from what was moral practices. The prophets, and the messengers have come to us to correct us, so obviously the source of morality predates religion, for had we remained largely moral, there would be no messengers. Religion encourages morality, but it is not the source, the source of morality is embedded in each one of us. If the answers of religion were immoral, they would have been rejected outright or at least over generations for fear cannot be the catalyst of this devotion. It was is because the morality which exists inside us which recognizes the morality of the religion. Religion is a guide, not the source. Long back, I had read that the Buddha had once said, that when struck with a question try and remember the answer for the answer lies within. the question might seem new, but the answer is old, it just needs to be remembered.

For the most part, I agree with this. I would quibble with some of the wording, but for the most part I agree.

I also do not agree that violence is immoral, after all how else do you stop an ongoing violent act but by violently confronting it? it is not just the act which must be judged but the intention along with it.

I agree that violence is not necessarily immoral, but I think your arguments are invalid. You need not fight fire with fire. Consider Gandhi or MLK. Neither of them were violent, yet they managed to face down a significant degree of violence.

Having said that, i believe since modern nations are mostly democratically elected representatives of the people, the actions of their government is a moral responsibility of the people, and the actions/sins of these governments should be shared by the people. And governments today behave pretty damn immorally..

I'm not entirely sure that I agree. It is true that, should the government be immoral, it is a person's duty to fix it. On the other hand, a democracy only need represent 51% of the people, not 100% of the people.

Any bomb, or weapon, which can kill so many people irrespective of their moralities, sins or affiliations is nothing other than a portrayal of the lack of empathy among us today. In older wars, when the weapons of choice were melee or bows and arrows, soldiers could spare the children. They could spare the women. They could spare the old They could spare the infirm and the unarmed. where is that choice with modern weaponry? wanton killing of innocents and bystanders is norm of warfare today. there have been millions of children who have died because of these modern weapons and we speak about personal morality when these acts are committed by those sworn to represent us? a suicide bomber takes no prisoner, neither does drone strikes and nukes... which is more moral.. or less?

On the other hand, one could argue that, with more powerful weapons, people are more reticent about using said weapons. I suggest looking at the article which Jarpenguin referenced. And please consider that, in different societies, there may be different ethics about the killing of civilians. Most of the Western world tends to view the killing of innocents as bad, but some societies may consider there to not be any innocents.

 

[DeletedUser]

If electricity comes from electrons, doesn't that mean morality comes from morons?

 

[DeletedUser]

Argh, again with the religion! If there was only one source of morality, we should all have the same morals. But we don't. Hence suggesting multiple sources of morality. One being religion. From religion, your principles of right and wrong, good and bad can be formed, hence morality, hence religion is a source of morality. I'm not saying the book of that religion, such as the Bible, is a source, and I'm not saying the prophets and priests are a source, I'm saying the beliefs are the source.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not saying the book of that religion, such as the Bible, is a source, and I'm not saying the prophets and priests are a source, I'm saying the beliefs are the source.

I'm not disagreeing, but I have a question. Does that mean people with no religion have no source, since there are no beliefs?

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm not disagreeing, but I have a question. Does that mean people with no religion have no source, since there are no beliefs?

No, because they are brought up in a society with religious morals, and choose to take them on as their own. Therefore their source is their society, and society's source is based on religious ideals.

Kind of off topic, i believe there are no people with no-religion, hell, you atheists have more faith than anyone else to believe in us surviving and evolving into the beings we are... Those odds lol

 

[DeletedUser]

hell, you atheists have more faith than anyone else to believe in us surviving and evolving into the beings we are... Those odds lol

Compared to the odds of a deity that allows world hunger/murder/etc and gives more privileges to those born in certain countries.... That's a discussion for another day...

I can guarantee that both myself and my parents haven't been brought up religiously, though my grandparents were on one side. Faith in evolution equals morals? Damnit Jono you're not making sense! Because I think we, as well as every other animal and plant has slowly adapted to it's environment to benefit, that tells me I shouldn't murder people? No, it doesn't. Sure, religion might tell you not to murder people, and that's absolutely fine, and I agree that it's enforced it. However, animals of the same kind (Just for examples sake we'll have two turtles), they both know not to murder each other, and they're not religious, NOR do they know about evolution.

 

[DeletedUser]

Compared to the odds of a deity that allows world hunger/murder/etc and gives more privileges to those born in certain countries.... That's a discussion for another day...

I can guarantee that both myself and my parents haven't been brought up religiously, though my grandparents were on one side. Faith in evolution equals morals? Damnit Jono you're not making sense! Because I think we, as well as every other animal and plant has slowly adapted to it's environment to benefit, that tells me I shouldn't murder people? No, it doesn't. Sure, religion might tell you not to murder people, and that's absolutely fine, and I agree that it's enforced it. However, animals of the same kind (Just for examples sake we'll have two turtles), they both know not to murder each other, and they're not religious, NOR do they know about evolution.

So tempted to go off topic about that Kanga, stop baiting me

I can guarantee that both myself and my parents haven't been brought up religiously, though my grandparents were on one side.

Exactly, so you personally are not influenced by religious moral teachings, but because you are brought up in a society of which religion is a major cornerstone, you have a number of religious morals.

Faith in evolution equals morals?

What? No. I meant in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe everything in this universe came about by chance than by a "God." I feel the odds of there being a "God" are smaller (more likely) than the billions of decimal places scientists use to explain how we came to be. Each to his own though.

Im going to leave this thread again, but just so im not misunderstood, this is what i think:
Religious person gets morals from religion.
Non-Religious person (Even though the term is flawed ^^) get their morals from their society, of which religion is a major cornerstone.

And as explained, Society takes its morals mostly from religious ideas. I think this religious influence is slowly disappearing, legalization of same sex marriage in a few western countries is a example of this. However the founding principles of society are still based in religion. (Not completely, but significantly)

 

[DeletedUser]

And as explained, Society takes its morals mostly from religious ideas. I think this religious influence is slowly disappearing, legalization of same sex marriage in a few western countries is a example of this. However the founding principles of society are still based in religion. (Not completely, but significantly)

If you do end up reading this Jono, please explain the bolded bit. I'd love a good explanation of that, since I think it's a completely absurd claim. It's not decaying, it's becoming unstable. People are leaving the churches and mosques, and some of the remainder are becoming so extreme that they bomb places for their beliefs.

I don't mean to come on so strongly, but this is something that really rustles my jimmies.

Perhaps same sex marriage should be another topic too if it isn't one already. Kim Kardashian can have a marriage for a few months and then ditch the fella and that's legal, but Neil Patrick Harris has an honest relationship with another bloke for 8 years and that's NOT legal? Come on...

 

[DeletedUser]

If you do end up reading this Jono, please explain the bolded bit. I'd love a good explanation of that, since I think it's a completely absurd claim. It's not decaying, it's becoming unstable. People are leaving the churches and mosques, and some of the remainder are becoming so extreme that they bomb places for their beliefs.

I don't mean to come on so strongly, but this is something that really rustles my jimmies.

Perhaps same sex marriage should be another topic too if it isn't one already. Kim Kardashian can have a marriage for a few months and then ditch the fella and that's legal, but Neil Patrick Harris has an honest relationship with another bloke for 8 years and that's NOT legal? Come on...

To further support his I'm religious and I support same sex marriage.

I don't care about the sex, just the circumstances that marriage or divorce is conducted in.