Origin of morality

[Esoteric]

Our 'moral sense' we have, as Steven Pinker would put it, that has evolved through out the course of history through experience from reason(logic; grasping the interchangeability of our interest and others), knowlegde(learning of the advantage of cooperation over the long term), and sympathy(having experiences that allows us to feel other peoples pain).

 

[JustARide]

Morality is humanity's agreement with God.

Damn. I must have missed the meeting where we sat down with God and discussed this. Did they say anything about masturbation? Heh.

 

[Logically Unsound]

that would have been an interesting meeting. thered be all three trillion of earths inhabitants and god, talking about wanking. hmmmm interesting.

 

[Dreamwalker]

Man, I just want to meet god once. I suppose he will just say

 

[Jenyar]

Damn. I must have missed the meeting where we sat down with God and discussed this. Did they say anything about masturbation? Heh.

Basically, anything done in excess, anything addictive (in other words, an act that has control over you), or beyond the natural limits, are immoral. God created a certain order, and "morality" is our interaction with that order. It's a living process, like a dialogue, but it's principles remain the same: to remain in obedience to love. By that law, we "know" that infanticide, suppression and genocide are wrong (the Israelites had a rudimentary understanding of this - but only God gave it persuasion, and as we know, they didn't obey God all the time; they were still getting to know Him). Today, history, experience and global awareness through the media gives that persuasion, but it still doesn't explain the origin of morality. Nobody can pretend their ancestors didn't act like barbarians at some time. History never pleases everybody.

 

[everneo]

Blanket morality is a consolidated (often by the religious sanctity and next by social convention), readymade safer code.

Why Dante 'condemned' Judas and Brutus to the lowest strata of Hell as the eternal food for satan.? 'Betrayal of trust' was the common, 'ultimate' sin of both. Does Brutus deserve to share the same fate of Jusdas ? Through centuries both were depicted by poets as the epitomes of treason.

In every day life, every individual faces persons, like Judas who could sell of his/her beloved for pennies; and like Brutus, the romantic type who for the general good and personal conviction kills his/her beloved ones. An objective mind always sees through debris of treason charges heaped on Brutus and does not fail appreciate his conviction not withstanding his 'betrayal'.

Morality is chain of assessing the options down to the premise where one finds the basic fact what he/she values. God helped to consolidate / comfort the actions based on general morality (or its violation). On the other hand, New Gods [or new, 'true' attributes of God(s) ] were always found/discovered when people were dissatisfied with the 'immoral gods'.

God can 'survive' long among people if only He is moral or seemed to support morality.

 

[JustARide]

By that law, we "know" that infanticide, suppression and genocide are wrong (the Israelites had a rudimentary understanding of this - but only God gave it persuasion, and as we know, they didn't obey God all the time; they were still getting to know Him).

God gave it persuasion. How? By <i>ordering</i> genocide once or twice just to show us how bad it is?

Nobody can pretend their ancestors didn't act like barbarians at some time. History never pleases everybody.

Though some can certainly defend their barbarism by saying God endorsed it, huh? Handy for them.

 

[Esoteric]

Why don't you people just read Steven Pinker's book, "Thew blank slate," and stop making this so hard on yourselves. Maybe read some articles on nueroscience, or evlutionary pychology... Micheal Shermer also has good book.

And Jenyar, there is absolutely no evidence for anything you said. I respect it, that is your belief based on religion. But it is not based on any testable science, and not objective truth to anyone but you.

 

[Jenyar]

God gave it persuasion. How? By ordering genocide once or twice just to show us how bad it is?

As I said, the Israelites only had a rudimentary knowledge of what morality implied. They knew God didn't tolerate evil or injustice, and consequently moved to eradicate it. They did that in a way that was morally responsible by the standards of the day. Do you think the Amalekites, after having ambushed the women, children and old people from behind - the stragglers as Israel was fleeing Egypt - would have stopped at killing also the other men and soldiers? God didn't declare war on them because He deemed them inferior (as a matter of fact, He made clear that Israel was the inferior nation), but because He couldn't tolerate their sins any longer.

The same is true until this day, but our moral compass has swung. We can't go back to the way things were objectively anymore. If you did, you'd realize Israel was no worse for obeying God than any other ANE culture were for disobeying Him. The difference is that Israel were learning, the others (the Amalekites were still marauding terrorists 400 years later) weren't.

Though some can certainly defend their barbarism by saying God endorsed it, huh? Handy for them.

Um...no, they can't. That's the point of having a system of morality.

And Jenyar, there is absolutely no evidence for anything you said. I respect it, that is your belief based on religion. But it is not based on any testable science, and not objective truth to anyone but you.

Test it for yourself. Next time you think about whether something is warranted or not, ask yourself why you would think either way. We measure things by an order that most people just assume is universal. For example, "love" is a general term we use for a lot of things that we assume we should share with each other - but few people really think about how much that assumption and others influence the way we act. Love certainly isn't based on "testable science" or "objective truth" (if you think it is, what then what would you classify as "subjective"?) - but I don't see you holding out on it until it has been "proven".