What is the source of morality?

Question

Open question to all. What makes us determine what is right or wrong.

Answer 1

What a great question. You're hitting on something that has been the subject of philosophers all over the world throughout history. Everyone has their own version of what morality is.

Here's my personal view: morality comes from the values and mores that developed over time as humans worked to survive in the world. Don't kill those in your group, don't steal from those in your group, work hard to ensure survival of the whole group.

As life has gotten less focused on simple survival, different charismatic people have taken it upon themselves to add things to this "morality" based on their own personal whims. Over time they combined it with their attempts to explain the world around them and called it religion.

But I feel that at the very basic level, morality is still based on survival of the tribe, clan, country, etc. This explains why it's considered immoral to kill or steal within your own social group (i.e. a country) but perfectly okay or even encouraged to do it in a war with another group.

Answer 2

The origins of morality are instinctive. Most humans are born with an instinct for empathy and an instinct for altruism. Empathy allows us to 'feel' another person's pain, altruism gives us a desire to help others.

Persons who lack the instinct for empathy are sociopaths, person who lack altruism are psychopaths. People who lack both are generally the folk we call monsters.

These two instincts, interpreted consciously, naturally formulate into a rule of morality that literally every single religion and culture on the planet has formulated in one form or another -- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Only two religious phrase it differently: Buddhism, which phrases it in the negative (Do not do to another what, done to you, would be unpleasant) and Satanism, which phrases it in the reactive (Do to others the same as they do to you).

The nature of the Golden Rule is that it forms the bedrock of the social contract, from which all other morality is interpreted and flows. That which is towards the social contract is 'good', that which is away from the social contract is 'bad'.

-----

only the Truth: Yes, there was a moral law giver. It's called evolution.

Answer 3

A lot of it has to do with what we've been taught, whether by parents, religion or faith, society, etc. At some point, though, we do just have to adapt to our own set of personal rules and personal morality...it goes along with growing up and discovering the way the world works for ourselves.

Answer 4

Society.

Answer 5

from the beliefs of the generations before us, the mores of society can be changed but that is a slow process, and is normally a battle, ex. womens rights was a long hard fought battle,

Answer 6

Instinct to continue the species and self preservation. Actions that endanger either or both are immoral. Actions that focus more on the one than the whole are immoral.

Answer 7

Your question assumes that there is right and wrong.

Since there is wrong or right, you are assuming a moral law.

Since there is a moral law, there must be a moral law Giver.

God (as revealed in the Bible) is the ultimate moral law Giver.

Answer 8

While some philosophers, psychologists and evolutionary biologists hold that morality is a thin crust hiding egoism, amorality, and anti-social tendencies, others see morality as equally a product of evolutionary forces and as evidence for continuity with other group-living organisms[1]. One approach argues that moral codes are founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were naturally selected in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness), and that they still generally prescribe behavior that enhances individual fitness and/or group well-being. Selected psychological and behavioral tendencies, and their abstraction in to moral codes or religions, are seen to be common to most or all human cultures. For example, the near-universal taboo against inbreeding encourages individuals to avoid producing defective offspring. Reciprocity ensures a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984).

Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. The evolution of abilities for deception and social 'politics' have also been studied, including in chimpanzees. These have been used, in combination with theories of indirect reciprocal altruism and the importance of reputation, to suggest possible evolutionary bases for moral hypocrisy and gossip in humans.

These explanations for the existence of morality do not, however, necessarily assist in deciding what is truly right for future actions. Should an individual's own morality really be determined by what is best for their genetic offspring (colloquially, but inaccurately, "the good of the species" see group selection) Viewholders counter that evolutionary psychology extends millions of years of empirical justification for our moral sense, provided that sense is indeed innate — more than recorded history could demonstrate. They claim sensible people would behave with morality knowing subconsciously that it has succeeded in the past. Still, an explanation of why and how humans could have a moral basis does not imply that they ought to hold these views.

Some observers hold that individuals have distinct sets of moral rules that they apply to different groups of people. There is the "ingroup," which includes the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race, and there is the "outgroup," whose members are not entitled to be treated according to the same rules. Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this ingroup/outgroup difference is an evolutionary mechanism, one which evolved due to its enhanced survival aspects. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this ingroup/outgroup boundary.

The evolutionary critique points to the radical ways which morality differs across times and cultures among human beings. Very few activities are always morally wrong across all human societies. For example, some groups still practice forms of infanticide or incest, activities that would be condemned harshly in most Western societies. It has been argued that morality is simply whatever norms are present within a given society at a given time, while the other argument lies in the existence of morality.

Answer 9

I've built my own moral code, drawing from many different sources. I think we all do, even if not consciously. See my answer to:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgNhJ._Nr4k.ZqLyoBog0fDsy6IX?qid=20070117012759AAa2BnM&show=7#profile-info-AA11910766

for more detail.

Answer 10

Evolution has hardwired much of what we call morality, so that and the society I grew up in and those I have lived in.