Origin of morality

[thomask]

From where do moral absolutes originate?

I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..

No god means no sin, no good, and no evil

For there to be evil, one must assume there is good.  If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...

So, where does morality originate?

[JonathanG]

From where do moral absolutes originate?

The bible.  Duh.

[thomask]

So why is it wrong to kill another person?

[JonathanG]

But seriously.

This is something with which I've struggled.  I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy both sides.

The best I've been able to come up with is: Morals are a manifestation of our internal struggle between self-preservation and the realization that what's best for me -- as an individual -- may not be what's best for the everyone else.

[MrsSassyPants]

I would like to think common sense had a begining somewhere thru this evolutionary period.  What is so hard to understand about right and wrong?  Do u really believe a sky man must telepathicaly give us morals?

[aitm]

If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver.

I won't address the previous points but:

Why? Why MUST there be a moral law giver? If we eliminate any type of god and lets say we "guess" at how morality came about we find it a rather easy study. Humanity finds that it is better to be helped than not to be helped, and thusly it must be better to therefore help than not to help. So we can surmise that survival for oneself is easily compatible to helping others survive as well. It is not that hard to see the rise in altruism as a pointed selfish act. In order to better my chances of survival I will help others survive so they will help me. In order to make my life easier, better, more fulfilling I will help others so they can help me. Really, why is this so hard to understand? It is perfectly sensible, and rational, and common sense.

[stromboli]

It doesn't begin with the bible. The Ten Commandments was predated by both the Codex Hammurabi

The Code of Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian law code, dating back to about 1772 BC. It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code, and partial copies exist on a human-sized stone stele and various clay tablets. The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (lex talionis)[1] as graded depending on social status, of slave versus free man.[2]
Nearly one-half of the Code deals with matters of contract, establishing, for example, the wages to be paid to an ox driver or a surgeon. Other provisions set the terms of a transaction, establishing the liability of a builder for a house that collapses, for example, or property that is damaged while left in the care of another. A third of the code addresses issues concerning household and family relationships such as inheritance, divorce, paternity and sexual behavior. Only one provision appears to impose obligations on an official; this provision establishes that a judge who reaches an incorrect decision is to be fined and removed from the bench permanently.[3] A handful of provisions address issues related to military service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

And the Codex Ur Mammu

The Code of Ur-Nammu is the oldest known law code surviving today. It was written on tablets, in the Sumerian language c. 2100–2050 BC. Although the preface directly credits the laws to king Ur-Nammu of Ur (2112–2095 BC), some historians think they should rather be ascribed to his son Shulgi. The first copy of the code, in two fragments found at Nippur, was translated by Samuel Kramer in 1952; owing to its partial preservation, only the prologue and 5 of the laws were discernible.[1] Further tablets were found in Ur and translated in 1965, allowing some 40 of the 57 laws to be reconstructed.[2] Another copy found in Sippar contains slight variants.
Although it is known that earlier law-codes existed, such as the Code of Urukagina, this represents the earliest extant legal text. It is three centuries older than the Code of Hammurabi. The laws are arranged in casuistic form of IF (crime) THEN (punishment)—a pattern followed in nearly all later codes. For the oldest extant law-code known to history, it is considered remarkably advanced, because it institutes fines of monetary compensation for bodily damage, as opposed to the later lex talionis ('eye for an eye') principle of Babylonian law; however, murder, robbery, adultery and rape were capital offenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

It has been observed in primates

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists' bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/scien ... d=all&_r=0

This is one of those recurring debates we have on here. It appears first of all that there is an inbuilt understanding in the nature of primates, humans, and other animals that a species needs to "learn to get along" to survive. Morality and  ethics is apparently what we have named that inherent need of a species.

 If in fact there were no code of conduct, chaos would become the norm; in tribes of baboons there is an understanding of hierarchical needs, the place of mothers and dominant males and females in the group. Any member of the group that disobeys or usurps the hierarchy can be punished, or even banished from the group. That these groups survive shows there is a need for the ranking, the hierarchy and the conduct of members.

Not a complete answer, but start there.

[The Whit]

Monkeys?  Let's get real about altruism.  This developed VERY early in the (mammilian at least) evolutionary tree as the act of risking one's life to preserve the life of another has been observed in members of a wide range of species.  

We had something like what we currently consider morality WELL before we started inventing religions.

[billhilly]

Empathy.  Even rats have it.  Next question.

[Poison Tree]

Personally, I find the "is" of science looking at morality far more interesting than the "ought" of religious morality. Do you realize that even babies show affinity to in-group members while displaying hostility to out-group members--even showing affinity to those who punish out-groupers.

There were a set of though experiments contained in (if I remember correctly) Evolution for Everyone:

1) Imagine taking a group of "good" people and dropping them off on a island, what's going to happen?
[spoil:sdma2xby]Likely there are going to work together to gather food and water and build shelter and "civilize" the island as much as possible. They could all work together to fight off any external threat[/spoil:sdma2xby]
2) Imagine taking a group of "bad" people and dropping them off on a second island, what's going to happen?
[spoil:sdma2xby]It is certainly possible that they will spend most of their time stealing from each other and fighting and each trying to avoid work at the others expense. They would likely not work well together to fight off an external threat with each one of them selfishly protecting himself at the expense of others/the comunity[/spoil:sdma2xby]
Which island is going to have a better overall standard of living? Which one will have highest high and the lowest low? Which one would you prefer to live on and why?

3) Now the real clincher. Imagine taking one of the "bad" people and moving him to the "good" person island, what happens?
[spoil:sdma2xby]Does this "bad" guy use strong-arm tactics, deceit, theft, ect to skip out on work while living off the work of everyone else, effectively becoming Czar while the other become his serfs? Can the "good" group force this "bad" guy to join in, act good and pull his weight? Would the "good" community be best served by acting "bad" to this "bad" guy by shunning, driving off or even attacking/killing him?[/spoil:sdma2xby]

[stromboli]

As indicated, altruism and caring behavior have been exhibited in many different animals. Like the gorilla that protected the child that fell into the compound it was in until help arrived, or dogs and cats that adopt other animals and protect them and nurture them.

[aileron]

Why does morality have to be absolute or not at all?  Why can't it be a guidelines?  In that case, what we call morality fits in perfectly with what we know about evolutionary biology.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh, it's this topic again is it?

Morality = subjective. Like society, politics, economics, and everything else about humanity, it's fluid and constantly evolving.

There is no objective morality, and no objective moral framework. There is no good, and there is no evil. It's all relative to context and the individual.

The end.

[stromboli]

Oh, it's this topic again is it?

Morality = subjective. Like society, politics, economics, and everything else about humanity, it's fluid and constantly evolving.

There is no objective morality, and no objective moral framework. There is no good, and there is no evil. It's all relative to context and the individual.

The end.

^ this.

[Triple Nine]

Morality is a set of rules we made up so we can have civilized life without having random murders.