The nature of morality

What informs your moral system? And more broadly speaking, where did morality come from and what purpose does it serve?

We speak of good and bad as qualities intrinsic in the actions we make, as if something is good just as an object is red or heavy or wet. But we know that morality is malleable and susceptible to change and contradiction. This is why slavery was once acceptable - and abortion is such a difficult issue today because of overlapping moral characteristics. If that's true, then how do we even define "good and evil" or "right and wrong" - are such things relative? Are they individual or societal?

So where exactly does this judgment come from? Plants seem to have no moral system, but other animals appear to have some semblance of ethical code. Is care for cubs in a wolf pack equivalent to human morality? Is that all that morality is - a system for ensuring survival and maintaining social cohesion?

The poll only pertains to personal morality, but discussion is open to the nature of ethics in general.

My moral system comes from myself 62
My moral system comes from society 22
My moral system comes from religion 9
Tofu. 18
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 59 )
  • Chillpill

    Simply put, I think morality originates from a feeling of compassion towards other sentient beings. Humans as social animals have developed the ability to recognise suffering in their fellow creatures (human or non-human). Where other carnivores would look at a wounded animal and see an opportunity to feed, a human would additionally be able to feel pity for it. I believe that this is something that is inborn in most people (although psychopaths prove that it isn't an essential human trait). I think this awareness led to the first moral ideas, wanting to prevent suffering and to treat others the way we would want to be treated ourselves. What do you think?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • InvadingPotatoLeader

      I think our moral system comes from our rolemodels and society, we learn from our parents and older brothers and sisters what is right and what is wrong, we learn at school and at our first job what is tolerated and what not.
      On the inside we do have feelings but many people would steal and murder if they were not teached it is wrong.
      Also society is what built the law.
      You said "a human would feel pity for a wounded animal".
      This might be true now, but not long ago when we simply killed to survive.
      Now we get food from the stores and are no longer used to having to hunt ourselves, therefor we feel pity when we do see a wounded animal, but that is what society has done.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Katywompus

      I'll tell ya what I think! I'm not sure I'll finish reading all the comments after this one. That was a fabulous answer and I feel like I'm done here :)

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Although I disagree that this is the origin of morality, I think it's an incredibly interesting way to think about it. I'm not sure why I disagree but I may elaborate later. Very fascinating though.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dappled

    It's personal for all things. The larger "morals" such as not committing murder, obviously overlap with other humans (not that this makes them immutable). But the smaller "morals" such as not interrupting someone when they are on the phone vary from person to person and often comes down to individual personality.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Is that an argument for the individual or societal?

      Also, I meant to make this the focus of discussion but I must ask again: what is morality?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dappled

        First question, both. Why would something be entirely one thing or another? It's more complex than that.

        Second question, I don't know.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • What is morality? Is it instinctual or something learned? Something in between that begins first as a primal notion but then comes to fruition with gained knowledge?

    ^I'm of the last line of thought. That the general notions of good and evil are native to our characters but can be chipped away at (or solidified) by our culture's constantly evolving ethos.

    Think of someone born having instinctual knowledge (or morality) that outsiders are not to be immediately trusted. That instinctual morality could be then taken and used to keep ourselves safe, or else warped into an irrational hatred as it happened for the Slavs in the middle ages.

    TL;DR- Morality is known to us by nature but can be bent one way or the other.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I think this *perfectly* answers what informs our moral conditions, but the question of how to define morality is still unanswered, and perhaps unanswerable. We can't keep talking about it if nobody is willing to define it. What is morality?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • It's knowledge essentially. What is knowledge? Something confirmed by many perspectives to be a consistent in nature.

        All of man's actions go back to one thing alone: Self-Interest. It's the reason you wrote that comment, why I'm writing mine, why this site exists, and also why I'm getting up to make a cup of coffee.

        The purpose of morality then is to fulfill our self-interest without destroying ourselves or our fellow man. The very ability to deny our impulses, through knowledge (morality), is the very thing that makes us human; to do otherwise is to be enslaved to our desires just as the animal is and thus destroy ourselves.

        So basically the end goal of morality is to achieve symbiosis in society. To give us the ends of Self-Interest without taking away from life but rather giving back to it.

        Where did it come from? I think God. I can't give you the "how" but that's my belief.

        *Re-worded

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • So... superego is morality is humanity?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Not exactly. It's not about the denying of our self-interest which is essentially good, but fulfilling it in a healthy way. The directing of raw energy like how a car engine is directed by a wheel.

            What do you see it as?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • No I mostly agree with you, but you're adding an element that I don't think is necessary to the definition, namely, self-interest.

              I think it's clear if we put it in Freud's terms. The id represents our base desires (fulfilling self-interest), our ego is that which acts upon it, and our superego judges, conditions, and justifies.

              I'd argue that morality is solely the superego, but instead of it being some sort of Freudian paternal manifestation, the motives of the superego are concerned with upholding social fluidity.

              I'm not yet sold on morality as a purely human construct, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature.

    What people class as "morally corrupt" in this world is ridiculous. There is a user on here that says that she's "morally pure" while everyone else isn't, simply because she's a virgin and others aren't. Ofcourse, this person only thinks that way because she hasn't been given the chance to lose her virginity.

    People change the whole moral thing in the ways that fit and benefit them personally.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Also, I'm going to hide your latest comment (and pumpedupkicks' first response) for what I think are obvious reasons. I don't care to discuss personal gripes here.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • "You have to remember that humanity created "good and evil" before we became civilized, what we call good an evil was what we called out nature."

      This statement is sort of nonsensical to me - I feel like you are using undefined terms. I'd appreciate an explanation.

      What do you mean by "humanity" and "civilized"? Are you referring to homo sapiens which predated behavioral modernity? They certainly did not "create" moral duality because they did not have the linguistic capabilities to inform such advanced cognitive categories.

      What do you mean by "good" and "evil"? I think that's the crux of this issue. Are you saying that it's purely a human social construct? If so, what differentiates it from an animal protecting members of its pack? Is "good" just a conceptualization of "advantageous to human survival"?

      Lastly, what do you mean by "our nature"? From what I understand by your last sentence, morality to you is a malleable concept - doesn't that contradict your original sentiment? Also, is there such thing as morality that DOESN'T fit and benefit us?

      Again, I may be misinterpreting so I'd appreciation some clarification.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • It's purely for survival. Nature existed far before morality did. Many animals will have their child and then leave them to live their life. In the past (Early days of man), if we killed something with our own hands to feed on them (even our own species) there was no question or morality, it was survival. Now that we're civilized, such actions would be seen as "evil".
        What is classed for humans as moral is far different from what is classed as moral for animals. If an animal eats it's own kind, it's natural, if humans do, it's evil. These are the rules of our morality that "we" created.
        Surely you know that if an animal of a pack is injured and can't continue, the pack would often kill their pack member. Animal packs aren;t made out of compassion, they're made as a survival group. Humans wouldn't do that. Comparing the morality of other animals and humans is not really a good way to prove a point, obviously you know why.
        Yes, being "good" is our way of surviving in "our" habitat. If you are not "good" and are evil and put your evil thoughts into action, you get shipped to a place outside of our natural habitat (prison).

        What we call morality isn't malleable, it takes time but is still possible to shape it. Do you think there were consequences for killing another of your species to protect your pack was moraly correct back then? In todays world,if you do that, you get classed as morally corrupt aswell.

        I could be wrong, but I believe in what I'm saying, that doesn't mean you have to.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • wigsplitz

          You've obviously never killed or birthed anything. Or been to war.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • I've killed two animals before.

            So, you're saying that people don't accept deaths in war to be acceptable and needed?
            That's news to me.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • wigsplitz

              No, I'm just saying that there's something to having 'been there'.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • I think this is an issue of your wording, which is very confusing, but I think I understand now. It sounded like you were trying to argue that humans, unlike animals, are morally opposed to killing. That's why I brought up war, but I realize that this isn't what you were saying. Correct?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
        • I think there's one thing you're forgetting about. I'll just leave it here.

                                                                      War

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • What about it? I'm talking very early days of humanity, not just one hundred or two hundred years ago.

            War is a perfect example as to how easily our morality is pushed around. If a single person kills another single person, it's murder. When in war, each killing is needed.

            See how easily our morality is shifted?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • I feel like you're dealing in undefined absolutes -- you say things like "nature existed far before morality did" and "there was no question of morality", and then say "obviously you know why" or "surely you know" as if they're obvious axioms. Nothing about this is obvious to me, nor should it be. I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points, but when someone speaks in supposedly self-evident aphorisms, it's usually because they have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing personal, I do the same. I can admit it if you can. This isn't a simple subject.

              Let's start over, because I feel like we're beginning to run in imprecise circles. What do you propose as a definition of a morally good act?

              Here's what I suggest, and you are free to agree or disagree:
              What we call morally good is that which is helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • AnaBanna

    what about what your parents teach you? would that be put under society? Parents are pretty much in charge of teaching their children the basics on right & wrong, then its up to us to decide how we behave.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Smartasscookie

    I think we learn a large proportion of our morals based on what we read/see/hear around us as we grow up. We are influenced a lot by the society we live in.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • So then the issue becomes: where did society's collective morals come from?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dom180

    It really gets on my imaginary tits when people talk about sex and morality as if there is any link at all. Some people feel better about themselves being a virgin, and that is fine. Other people feel better by having sex, and that is fine too. These views will probably change back and forth with time. It doesn't make you a better or worse person, or a more morally correct person, whichever way. We all know the views on sex of just about everyone who comments frequently here, and while I agree with some and disagree with others, it pisses me off when people fight about it in terms of "morals", as if any personal choice someone made between consenting adults is any more moral, or otherwise, than another.

    Sex and morality are unrelated, so please stop bitching about it with stupid, personal attacks in a thread made for the purposes of discussing "the nature of morality" when the OP never even mentioned sex in the first place.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • dom180

      Ah. I see those comments are now hidden. Good show. Forget I was here...

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Well I do think that there is a link to be discussed between sex and morality, but the way it was brought up was definitely aggressive and irrelevant.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • dom180

          Well, there is a link when it comes to cheating, but other than that we have to enter into the realms of dogmatic religious arguments, which to me qualify as immoral in themselves by the very nature of them being dogmatic, historical and untestable.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Interesting. I see several problems with that.

            1) There are plenty of issues of sexual ethics - rape, health, consent, age of consent, prostitution, procreation, pornography, sexual deviation, etc.

            2) A moral issue with cheating necessitates a moral component to sex.

            3) I don't think religion is necessary to discuss sex.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • dom180

              To me, all sexual contact comes under one of two categories: consentual and non-consentual. If there is consent it is okay, if there is no consent it is not. Everything else is either religious or dogmatic, and should be exempt from any reasonable discussion. That is as far as any sexual ethics discussion need go.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • AmvEditor

    Read the Mysterious Stranger by Mark Twain
    it has some really good stuff relating moral sense and more. It's a small book and one of my fav ones, you wont regret reading it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I'm actually really glad you mentioned that.. I had been intending to read it a long time ago but I'd completely forgotten about it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • For years my morality came from society and religion. I've had immoral thoughts in my mind but I shunned them down because they were 'wrong' then I got older and I'm more aware of things now and learning everyday about how things work and so now my morality system comes from myself.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Shackleford96

    I was going to vote that morality comes from myself, but tofu seemed like the better option, so I went with that :)

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • SoccerStud88

    no such thing as morality...just really really good sex

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Darkoil

    I would like to say myself but this isn't entirely true. We are all born into the prison that is society, to stay in this society we have to follow certain rules. On the most part we only see the person on the outside who is following these rules, on the inside everybody is capable of breaking these rules if the stakes are high enough.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • wigsplitz

    I don't know. My morals don't tell me it's wrong to kill an animal, yet every time I do it's no more easy or less guilt free (I'm talking about farm animals raised for meat, not cats or something, so don't freak out). So....there MUST be something we're born with. I was raised exposed to this. AND my parent's religion says it's OK and encouraged even for non-food purposes (Christianity....sacrifice and all), so where else could this feeling of guilt come from besides being born into me?

    It would differ with an individual, only that individual knows if they are just following rules or if they truly believe what they are doing is wrong, or if it's some unknown source of guilt.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • dappled

      I honestly don't mean this to sound antagonistic, but by what rationale do meat-eaters judge bulls and pigs to be fodder and yet not judge cats and dogs the same way?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • The same way vegetarians differentiate between animals and plants, and everyone else differentiates between animal and human. An arbitrary one.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
      • wigsplitz

        Oh, there's no difference to ME...besides taste/availability. I was simply saying I didn't go around killing cats for sport or fun. I was just basing my comment on my experiences...I don't see/feel any difference between killing and gutting a cat from a pig aside from the taste when it comes down to it, so no difference....except choice/avaliabiltiy/taste.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • lisac1919

    i took an ethics class in high school and we were taught that you are born with a 'moral compass', therefore youre not taught morals. im not sure what i believe

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • i330

    My morality comes from all of the above. Originally it came from family/society, but as I grew up I discovered that this was insufficient and started to develop my own code. Then as I became exposed to world religions, I began to borrow from them to supplement my morality.
    And then there was tofu. Don't get me started on tofu. Basically I think that tofu (ethical vegetarianism/veganism) is the ultimate morality. If you have those values in place (a deep-seated respect for all other beings, the planet and yourself), you don't really need any other moral code. You can get all of your answers from that.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I agree. I don't really think that there's an answer to the question of what defines our personality morality. But I think the more interesting issues are how we define morality, where it comes from, and what purpose it serves.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • RomeoDeMontague

        My moral system is based on what is logical. I also believe in Karma. Everything in this world requires equal exchange. This goes for money, laws, everything.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • bananaface

    I think morality is learnt whilst we are being raised, and although most judgement of "bad" or "good" come from potential harm which may be caused if you act a certain way, I think a lot of people just do what they're told from their parents or religion etc...

    Basically it's just an opinion.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • But that just raises the question I originally asked - where does it come from?

      That's like if I asked where humanity came from and you answered "from our mothers". It's self-referential logic.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • bananaface

        I see what you mean, but there really isn't a way to prove it, it's human nature to label things and "good" and "evil" come under that.

        Where the concept came from we can only guess, but if I were to guess it would be things which have a positive effect on people= good, and things which have a negative effect on people= evil.

        Who created the concept I have no idea, but I assume that it's something that every human does, and every human that has been does it.

        Just an extra point, if for some reason a bunch of kids who have no memory of anything, and no concept of good and evil were stranded on an Island or something, would they create the concept of good and evil? I think they would.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • But your use of "positive" and "negative" are just synonymous. I'd suggest that what we call "good" is that which benefits humanity and its social order, and what we call "bad" is the opposite.

          I think your island thought experiment is incredibly interesting, and one I've also pondered. I think a moral system would eventually emerge too, but don't you think it could be different from ours? What if their ideas of what is "good" and "evil" is completely distinct from what we believe? For that matter... what DO we believe? There are separate moral systems all across cultures and history.

          There were periods in time when slavery was morally acceptable (and in fact prevalent). Hell, American Jim Crow laws were overruled 45 years ago. Less than half a century ago! And it's not like prejudice, crime, corruption and rape are any less prevalent than they've ever been. So why are we so fervent in our morality? Why do we think of our morals as so concrete? That's what's weird to me.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • bananaface

            What do you think on the whole thing btw??

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Well I think there are three main questions at hand here.

              What informs your moral system?
              I think that people put far too much emphasis on their personal moral identity. Civilians in nazi Germany and followers of cults are not people of lesser moral fortitude - they were swayed by the incredible power of collective thought. We like to think of ourselves as these concrete entities, but I think we are much more liable to external influences than we think. That being said, I think that our moral identities are composed of a dialectic between biology and society, or individual and communal.

              What is morality?
              Like I've stated previously, I believe that what we call "morally good" is that which helps ensure the social cohesion (and by extension, survival) of one's own species.

              Is there such thing as objective morality?
              I can't answer this, but I don't think so.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
          • bananaface

            I agree, I think there will always be people who deviate from societies definition of morality (which obviously varies depending on culture etc, why it does I don't know, it's always confused me), and I think that's when we get rapists etc...

            Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Sweetz

    More and more ItDuz intrigues me.

    Comment Hidden ( show )