Morality

[Solomon Zorn]

Here's something else to think about, Johnny: You yourself have shown a propensity to pick and choose, at least a little, what commands of God apply to us from the Bible. So then what are your objective criteria for deciding what parts of the Bible to follow (love thy neighbor), and what parts you can violate (stoning)?

If your honest you will find that your morality is subjective too. You use your own conscience to figure out what is acceptable, even from God. And your conscience has grown or evolved from a combination of factors, like anyone else's.

[undercoverbrother]

After reading more of what most people are saying, it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it. I think it was Solomon Zorn who said something to the effect of, "they are just people who learned to get along." Could morality be the simple, emergent product of how people have learned to get along? Then someone comes along and takes that practical wisdom and makes a god out of it so they now have a divine authority with which to demand behavior that will benefit them according to their values.

Morality has much to do with values. Wherever there is value, there will moral rules to protect it.

The religious claim is really just one that proclaims ultimate value. Ultimate value is ultimate worthâ€"i.e. worthy of worship. If something has ultimate value, then human behavior should accord with what is valued.

To me, this seems to be what morality is at this moment.

[Solomon Zorn]

After reading more of what most people are saying, it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it. I think it was Solomon Zorn who said something to the effect of, "they are just people who learned to get along." Could morality be the simple, emergent product of how people have learned to get along?

That's a very simplified perspective, but your not wrong. I called it an evolved sensibility, meaning it has come through the ages as we adapt to social interaction. It is passed on in our genetic disposition as well as learned behavior.

I think that qualifies as an emergent property.

Morality has much to do with values. Wherever there is value, there will moral rules to protect it.

The religious claim is really just one that proclaims ultimate value. Ultimate value is ultimate worthâ€"i.e. worthy of worship. If something has ultimate value, then human behavior should accord with what is valued.

To me, this seems to be what morality is at this moment.

In a similar vein, I've always said that the one thing all definitions of love have in common, is that they all hold an object of elevated value. The degree of love depends on the value of the object, from your subjective viewpoint. It almost makes passion reasonable to me.

[aitm]

it looks more and more like morality has an emergent quality to it.

IT really is this simple. If a god imparted morality we could shit babies that would share and play with strangers immediately, but no, every child born has to be taught "morals".

Now if we took 40 little rug-rats and placed them in a large forest it would not take long for two things to happen. One, the most dominant one will use that power for their own benefit and he/she=he will start to gather followers who can gain the crumbs from his droppings. Then soon among those who are at the lower end of the scale will start to work in concert for the sake of themselves under the guise of altruism. It is better to share a little with another so he will share some with you, this becomes morality among them. A give and take and shared protection, they gather others and soon you have your two sides. Depending on how much stronger the toughest really is and how needy the rest are, it won't take long for a conflict to either establish a new order and a stable type of morality by shared responsibility or it will become a "monarchy" ruled by one and he alone will determine the fate and allowance of the others, but this will/has/and always will spawn a succession of attempts to usurp the "throne".

Morality is easy to see and study. Most of it is simple common sense to understand, but to religious 'tards they think god diddit.

[undercoverbrother]

IT really is this simple. If a god imparted morality we could shit babies that would share and play with strangers immediately, but no, every child born has to be taught "morals".

Now if we took 40 little rug-rats and placed them in a large forest it would not take long for two things to happen. One, the most dominant one will use that power for their own benefit and he/she=he will start to gather followers who can gain the crumbs from his droppings. Then soon among those who are at the lower end of the scale will start to work in concert for the sake of themselves under the guise of altruism. It is better to share a little with another so he will share some with you, this becomes morality among them. A give and take and shared protection, they gather others and soon you have your two sides. Depending on how much stronger the toughest really is and how needy the rest are, it won't take long for a conflict to either establish a new order and a stable type of morality by shared responsibility or it will become a "monarchy" ruled by one and he alone will determine the fate and allowance of the others, but this will/has/and always will spawn a succession of attempts to usurp the "throne".

Morality is easy to see and study. Most of it is simple common sense to understand, but to religious 'tards they think god diddit.

This, of course, leads to the question of what has any intrinsic value. Many philosophers have thrown their hands up in the air and say, "What's the point?" Does life have any intrinsic/objective value? Mind you, only people value things. Beyond that, there is the cosmic, impersonal ecosystem of all things.

[stromboli]

the only way you can have a consensus objective morality is to have an egalitarian society where there is universally equal access to all things. Barring that, subjectivity is a guarantee; there will always be haves and have nots. There will always be those who receive more, achieve more and expect rewards. And conversely always be those who believe that there are people who don't deserve it.

Witness the Christian lawmakers who actively work to deny people in poverty or single mother homes welfare, even school lunch. Any Christian claiming  an objective morality can only do so by being totally blind to their own religion.

[undercoverbrother]

Any Christian claiming  an objective morality can only do so by being totally blind to their own religion.

...or to other denominations of their own religion.

Even in Christianity, morality is subjective. Although many Christian denominations would say they subscribe to the Bible as their absolute authority, what they get out of reading it is pretty subjective. One interprets the Bible one way and another does so another way.

If a believer finds anyone who agrees with them, that person is right. If the same believer finds anyone who does not agree, that person is wrong. Who is the measure of right in this scenario? God in the Bible or that believer?  Answer: That believer. Of course, that believer would go on to say that they are not in charge because such and such mandate is from God. "See?" they say, "it is written in the Bible right here." Later, that same person (the one who has objective truth, you see) grows in their sanctification and learns that his understanding is wrong. They change their mind. Learning. Well, now they really have the objective this time. This is how a believer grows up. The whole time; mind you, they have objective truth.

[aitm]

? Mind you, only people value things.

yeah, I have to disagree with that, the examples of self sacrifice among animals for no other reason than the survival of another is well documented. If your point is that only humans value things such as a teddy bear, again I would argue that many animals favor inanimate objects that certainly suggest they "value" things. But keep going, I am enjoying your thinking process.

[undercoverbrother]

yeah, I have to disagree with that, the examples of self sacrifice among animals for no other reason than the survival of another is well documented. If your point is that only humans value things such as a teddy bear, again I would argue that many animals favor inanimate objects that certainly suggest they "value" things. But keep going, I am enjoying your thinking process.

Thanks. That is what I am doingâ€"thinking out loud.

I used to own a dog. I recall him expressing value when presented with food.

[doorknob]

I think what the OP is missing is that morality is still subjective even with god. After all try getting a group of different christians to agree 100% across the board what the bible meant by this or that. Also if the bible has the ultimate guide to morality then why was it so misused to excuse bad behavior? Such as slavery as one example. I'm sure other people can add to the list.

[Mike Cl]

Thanks. That is what I am doingâ€"thinking out loud.

I used to own a dog. I recall him expressing value when presented with food.

I used to say I owned dogs.  But I no longer do--I have furry children.  Why say that?  Because they are much more than what I considered a 'dog' when I was growing up.  Mind you, I've always loved animals, but thought that dogs were really pretty much living by rote.  All dogs were basically the same.  I have owned/been owned, by almost a dozen dogs in my life.  And each and every one was different and had different values.  Some loved toys and some ignored them.  Some were dedicated watchdogs and some not.  All picked a principal person to be around most.  But they also showed great love for those who were in the 'family' to varying degrees.  Each interacted within their environment differently.  All had differing values--differing personalities.  Animals are much more complex than we have given them credit for. 

[undercoverbrother]

At its heart, morality is concerned with expedient relations. I'm sure, IF given a voice and a certain wherewithal, a cow would not think we were moral creatures. How did we consider the machines in the Matrix movie? Monsters? Evil? Certainly not good! And to the Muslim radicals, we are all a bunch of evil people. Therefore, morals, at the most basic level, have to to with the subjective perspective of an individual.

Yet, at the same time, the same people who have their own differing, subjective opinions form a population that generally agrees on many issues. For instance, most of the population agrees that it is wrong to murder someone. This is that emergent quality I noted earlier.

For the Christian to say that the world is going to blow up or get worse because unbelievers cannot point to an absolutely objective, moral foundation dismisses that emergent quality I just mentioned. That emergent quality is formed out billions of subjective and differing opinions.

The words that seem to be lurking behind the polite question in the OP are, "What is the ultimate foundation of your morality? What right do you have to your moral claims?" Because values have so much to do with how we define our morals, asking where I derive my ultimate moral authority or ultimate moral foundation is like asking what authority I have to be alive with different preferences and various tastes. As I understand it, my morals are an expression of what I value. This, I believe, where EVERYONE gets their morals.

[stromboli]

For the Christian to say that the world is going to blow up or get worse because unbelievers cannot point to an absolutely objective, moral foundation dismisses that emergent quality I just mentioned. That emergent quality is formed out billions of subjective and differing opinions.

The words that seem to be lurking behind the polite question in the OP are, "What is the ultimate foundation of your morality? What right do you have to your moral claims?" Because values have so much to do with how we define our morals, asking where I derive my ultimate moral authority or ultimate moral foundation is like asking what authority I have to be alive with different preferences and various tastes. As I understand it, my morals are an expression of what I value. This, I believe, where EVERYONE gets their morals.

Well said.

If you haven't read "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance", the author, Robert Pirsig, explores at length the concept of values (quality) as a fundamental idea in our thinking, equating it to a universal constant that can be both static and dynamic. Two books of philosophy I can recommend are that and "Lila", also by Pirsig, that explores the concept. Very thought provoking. Two very good reads that are also quite entertaining.

[undercoverbrother]

... a universal constant that can be both static and dynamic.

YES! That's it. That is what I was trying to put my finger on and didn't have words for it. When applied to morals, we have a dynamic population of subjective views and values. The static aspect of morals is the consensus humans have that certain things are just wrong. It looks more like a continuous wave rather than a fixed dot.

[Mike Cl]

Morality is formed and honed by evolution.  Not individual evolution, but by a process similar to it.  As societies formed and grew, they developed values that helped them survive as a group.  As the group grew and changed, so did the values and 'morals' of that group.  When societies grew so large that they bumped into each other and had to blend, then those values changed.  The rules and regulations that helped the group grow or be strong we kept and the rules that did not help were discarded.  Morals developed so that members of a group could interact with one another without stepping on each others toes.  Morals did not come from an 'authority' but from group actions.  Our system of common law was designed to codify in words those morals or values that keep us from stepping on each others toes, and so that one individual could not impose his 'values' upon the rest of his society. 

People who what to know what authority you have for your morals just don't understand how human society grew or operates.