Where does morality come from?

[Moonbeam]

I would like to try to continue the discussion started in the closed God given rights thread, if possible, with some interesting modern thinking of the subject based on scientific analysis.

From moralfoundatons.org:

"Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:"

Take a look if you are interested in the basic moral foundations these researchers list and compare them to your own thinking. I believe that a great deal of the misunderstanding, particularly between liberal and conservative thinkers, can be better understood when different moral foundations are applied to different kinds of perception. I suspect that a bridge to better understanding between different kinds of moral perspectives can become clearer with such introspection and the application and consideration of such information. It seems to me that so many of the arguments and hurt feelings that folk have in dealing with each other are based on a lack of appreciation of the unconscious nature of our different moral strategies.

One of the facts that seem to arise out of this information is that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives because liberals lack an appreciation of the greater number of moral foundations operating in conservatives as a generality.

On the other hand a lack in liberals of several possible moral foundations may create a temptation to call them evil by those who hold to those foundations.

I am interested not so much is who is right or wrong, but how differences in morality create so much misunderstanding and hostility between human beings. Perhaps a better understanding of other people's moral foundations can create more tolerance of others viewpoints and less judgmentalism.

http://moralfoundations.org

 

[dank69]

For me, it all boils down to seeking pleasure without causing pain.

 

[woolfe9998]

How does one "tolerate" differences in morality? We can tolerate differences in many things. We *should* tolerate all manner of differences. But morality? If you're harming someone else, am I suppose to tolerate that on general principle of being non-judgmental? It seems to me that tolerating all moral systems is akin to not being moral at all.

 

[Moonbeam]

How does one "tolerate" differences in morality? We can tolerate differences in many things. We *should* tolerate all manner of differences. But morality? If you're harming someone else, am I suppose to tolerate that on general principle of being non-judgmental? It seems to me that tolerating all moral systems is akin to not being moral at all.

Well, as a liberal you probably lack a number of the moral factors presented by the researchers, that are quite common in many other people. Should they judge you as morally handicapped.

I don't think there is any need to tolerate what we might term immoral moral systems, but to understand that different moral principles are relevant to different people. We are speaking, I think, of folk who have principles, not ones that don't respect anything. To people on the right I think liberals look like they have a disease whereas they may be more morally exercised by different moral principles. The problem, as I see it is that we are bigoted when we believe that our unconscious moral motivations are just different than other people, not better, not worse, but having different emphasis.

An understanding of where people live morally casts a lot of light, I think, on how they will react to things. So, as long as one is unconscious of the moral factors that drive oneself, one could be said to respond unconsciously, to have a fixed response, an autonomic one, to external events. That, in my opinion, may not be a good thing.

There is no moral imperative to be tolerant that I can see other than what comes through conscious understanding and the sympathy that understanding brings.

 

[Moonbeam]

For me, it all boils down to seeking pleasure without causing pain.

The question that would seem to flow from that is 'what brings the greatest pleasure'.

 

[dank69]

The question that would seem to flow from that is 'what brings the greatest pleasure'.

I think it is the opposite. Pleasure doesn't need to be maximized, IMO. No, as I see it, the difficulty lies in prioritizing pain when some amount of pain is unavoidable. These are the decisions where there is often no clear cut answer.

 

[piasabird]

I dont see what pleasure has to do with mortality, but it is related. I am speaking of some of the core teachings in both Bible and the Book of Mormon. This my understanding of the concept of mortality. If you dont like religion or God feel free to explain it in your own way.

As the story goes when God created Adam and Eve when they were without sin in both a spiritual and a physical body. The Fruit of the tree of good and evil represents God's Heavenly plan. Philosophy about this point varies but God both forbade and gave the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil to Adam and Eve and told them on the day that they ate it they would surely die. Remember they were perfect and in that state time was longer. Day for a God is 1,000 years. However if they did not eat the fruit eve could never have children. The Fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil is also symbolic,it gives wisdom of both Good and Evil. To have one you have to have the other. Pleasure and Pain, Life and Death. There must be opposition in all things.

People are created in the spirit. That is the first estate.
People are born in pain of the mother. This is the Second estate.
People live they gain experience and wisdom and have a time of probation.
People Die and all that die are granted ressurection - Jesus broke the bonds of death and rose on the third day. Until he did this, Death had no escape and man could not gain an eternal reward.

When people die they either went to what is called in the Bible the Spririt Prison or the Prison or an alternete location. This Prison is where Jesus went when he was crucified for 3 days. However, those who are totally evil go to a place of fear and loathing to await their Eternal Damnation; Outer Darkness.

At the second coming Jesus will judge all who are ressurected.

The subject of the first resurrection and second resurrection is too complicated.

Mortality is part of life. Both are part of the Plan of God. Even the Jesus has a counterpart one being good and one being evil. The brother of Jesus is Satan. He turned against the plan of God and wanted to save everyone. For this act he and all of his followers, did not receive their Second Estate (A body of Flesh). You have to have a body of flesh with pain and mortality to gain perfection. Be thou Perfect as they Father in Heaven is Perfect. Other faiths may refer to this state as Nervanna.

Often Christians, even Laura Ingram have use the term perfect or perfection. Jesus also refers to this. It is a state of being which represents a person has overcome the physical world completely. It does not mean that christians are better than anyone else. It is a biblical term. Jesus commanded his apostles to be perfect. Do a word search on the Bible.

 

[piasabird]

One of the hardest things to come to grips is this Mortality. Why do people get sick and die? Why does one person die as a baby and another lives to be 100? Why do bad things happen. Not only is the world difficult, but the Devil has power over the earth. People can receive blessings from God but the Devil will lead those who do not obey God. Probably none of this can comfort people in their time of greef. However, knowledge of God's plan does give some relief to people that believe in God.

 

[v-600]

I was interested in the other thread, then got laid up ill in bed for a few days and came back online to see it'd grown beyond any of my initial thoughts. I did start to try and read through to reply to some bits but as the mods said, it appeared to get out of control (and unfortunately I can see this one going a similar way but lets hope not).

For what its worth, I think people are answering the wrong question, or doing so from the wrong context. I was reading The Hogfather recently (one of my favourite stories) and there is a bit that sticks in mind. To paraphrase: If you were to take the universe and grind it to its smallest particle and then sieve it through the finest sieve you would not find one particle or justice, mercy or compassion. I would add morality to this list. You ask where morality comes from, in the same view as where does where do trees come from, or where does gravity come from (most likely answers so far are seeds and gravitons, respectively).

To ask where morality comes from implies either that it is an intrinsic part of the universe, see the point above for why I disagree, or that there is are forces external to people that fit your actions into some pre-decided framework. Throughout human history lots of people have made (as many as there are different laws, religions and societies) guesses as to what, if there is this moral framework, this external morality might be but have never found a satisfactory (read this as irrefutably correct) answer.

I would suggest that something beyond the context of humanity is that we can never know or affect is for what of a better word pointless. Assuming its external to people/the universe, we can't know what it is and can't affect it, then it is inconsequential in matters of debate.

I'd suggest then that morality does not come from somewhere. It is a part of human consciousness in the same way as joy, embarrassment, and inquisitiveness are. People don't go around suggesting that embarrassment comes from somewhere to be enforced on people because we realise that ideas of what is embarrassing to people change with time and culture and there is no list of things that are/are not embarrassing.

Morality is something that develops with individuals and societies as we grow up, and changes throughout time, place and necessity. It is not something we choose to have, any more than I choose to be born into a culture speaking English. Similarly there are some people more adept at it than others, there are some that choose to ignore it and create their own versions and it imposes local constraints on what is allowed and what is not. However it is not imposed on us, it is developed by us and changes as each person lives and acts in the world.

Well, thats just what i think anyway.

 

[Mursilis]

For me, it all boils down to seeking pleasure without causing pain.

Pain to whom?

 

[soulcougher73]

I was interested in the other thread, then got laid up ill in bed for a few days and came back online to see it'd grown beyond any of my initial thoughts. I did start to try and read through to reply to some bits but as the mods said, it appeared to get out of control (and unfortunately I can see this one going a similar way but lets hope not).

For what its worth, I think people are answering the wrong question, or doing so from the wrong context. I was reading The Hogfather recently (one of my favourite stories) and there is a bit that sticks in mind. To paraphrase: If you were to take the universe and grind it to its smallest particle and then sieve it through the finest sieve you would not find one particle or justice, mercy or compassion. I would add morality to this list. You ask where morality comes from, in the same view as where does where do trees come from, or where does gravity come from (most likely answers so far are seeds and gravitons, respectively).

To ask where morality comes from implies either that it is an intrinsic part of the universe, see the point above for why I disagree, or that there is are forces external to people that fit your actions into some pre-decided framework. Throughout human history lots of people have made (as many as there are different laws, religions and societies) guesses as to what, if there is this moral framework, this external morality might be but have never found a satisfactory (read this as irrefutably correct) answer.

I would suggest that something beyond the context of humanity is that we can never know or affect is for what of a better word pointless. Assuming its external to people/the universe, we can't know what it is and can't affect it, then it is inconsequential in matters of debate.

I'd suggest then that morality does not come from somewhere. It is a part of human consciousness in the same way as joy, embarrassment, and inquisitiveness are. People don't go around suggesting that embarrassment comes from somewhere to be enforced on people because we realise that ideas of what is embarrassing to people change with time and culture and there is no list of things that are/are not embarrassing.

Morality is something that develops with individuals and societies as we grow up, and changes throughout time, place and necessity. It is not something we choose to have, any more than I choose to be born into a culture speaking English. Similarly there are some people more adept at it than others, there are some that choose to ignore it and create their own versions and it imposes local constraints on what is allowed and what is not. However it is not imposed on us, it is developed by us and changes as each person lives and acts in the world.

Well, thats just what i think anyway.

I'm going with this. Better answer then i could have given.

 

[dank69]

Pain to whom?

Well, that is a big question, and your answer to it will heavily influence your personal morality.

If you are asking for my answer, I am finding myself drawn more and more to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, although I admit, it is extremely difficult and there are probably many situations in which I would probably not be strong enough to adhere to it. So for now, I just have to hope that I am not subjected to many situations where I have to make that type of choice.

 

[Vaux]

Perhaps morality was a part of evolution. Over time the human species grew to realize that the decisions it made had a direct impact on it's way of life. Because of our advanced brains it began to reason that instead of fighting over this piece of meat, and perhaps dying or losing and getting none, it is more beneficial to share it. Human tribes learned that getting along was more beneficial than being at war, and so on.

 

[Bowfinger]

Very interesting MB, thanks for posting. I took their Moral Foundation survey and found myself in the middle, consistently between liberals and conservatives. On Harm and Fairness, I was closer to conservatives. On Loyalty and Authority, I was closer to liberals. The outlier for me was Purity, where I was substantially below both. I suspect that reflects my social libertarian streak; I don't really care what adults do as long as it is consensual and not harmful to others.

I did find it interesting that, according to their survey, conservatives are much more consistent in how they value the five moral factors. Conservatives scored everything at ~3, with Authority being only slightly higher and Purity only slightly lower. Liberals, in contrast, were more variable, believing Harm and Fairness to be significantly more important than Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. That seems the most clear-cut example of the difference in moral strategies you mention.

I also found it noteworthy that conservatives rate Authority somewhat higher than the other factors. Yet conservatives are also most vocal in railing against government, the most dominant source of authority in our daily lives. I don't know if this reflects some internal turmoil, or perhaps their respect for authority -- currently Democratic -- is diminished by their group loyalty to the Republican party. Or, maybe it's some combination of other things. I don't have an answer, it just seems odd.

 

[Mursilis]

Well, that is a big question, and your answer to it will heavily influence your personal morality.

If you are asking for my answer, I am finding myself drawn more and more to the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, although I admit, it is extremely difficult and there are probably many situations in which I would probably not be strong enough to adhere to it. So for now, I just have to hope that I am not subjected to many situations where I have to make that type of choice.

That's naive. You literally have to make those sorts of choices every single day. Did you drive a car today? I did. You understand that cars killed pedestrians on a daily basis, right? Yet you still operated one, as did I, to get to where I wanted to go quickly and in comfort. Say you were traveling down a residential street in your car, and a child chased a ball into the street, in front of your car, and you killed him. No one is saying it's your fault - you were paying attention, and the child failed to look before running into the street. You're not morally to blame according to society, yet it's also true that if you'd merely been walking, and not driving, the child would've lived. Still, most of use choose to drive, despite the heightened risk to others. Moral compromise is everywhere.

 

[sandorski]

Perhaps morality was a part of evolution. Over time the human species grew to realize that the decisions it made had a direct impact on it's way of life. Because of our advanced brains it began to reason that instead of fighting over this piece of meat, and perhaps dying or losing and getting none, it is more beneficial to share it. Human tribes learned that getting along was more beneficial than being at war, and so on.

IMO, it most certainly is something inherited through Evolution, at least the basics of it anyway. Other animals and even insects show the types of behaviours associated with Morality, ours is just more defined, fluid, and philosophical.

 

[dank69]

That's naive. You literally have to make those sorts of choices every single day. Did you drive a car today? I did. You understand that cars killed pedestrians on a daily basis, right? Yet you still operated one, as did I, to get to where I wanted to go quickly and in comfort. Say you were traveling down a residential street in your car, and a child chased a ball into the street, in front of your car, and you killed him. No one is saying it's your fault - you were paying attention, and the child failed to look before running into the street. You're not morally to blame according to society, yet it's also true that if you'd merely been walking, and not driving, the child would've lived. Still, most of use choose to drive, despite the heightened risk to others. Moral compromise is everywhere.

I am of the opinion that possibilities, especially remote ones, have no bearing on morality as it is impossible to account for all possibilites. We just do not have the mental capacity. If I cook a meal on a gas stove, and a worker dies in an accident on the job while extracting natural gas, does that mean I am partially responsible? I think making that type of case is nonsense.

 

[Mursilis]

I am of the opinion that possibilities, especially remote ones, have no bearing on morality as it is impossible to account for all possibilites. We just do not have the mental capacity. If I cook a meal on a gas stove, and a worker dies in an accident on the job while extracting natural gas, does that mean I am partially responsible? I think making that type of case is nonsense.

Is it a remote possibility that cars cause harmful emissions?

 

[dank69]

Is it a remote possibility that cars cause harmful emissions?

You seem to be interested in my personal viewpoint, which I am sure will differ in many ways from yours as well as every other poster here, so I 'm not sure if this line of questioning is relevant to the topic at hand. However, I will indulge this question for you anyway (even though I suspect you are asking because you are looking for some kind of "gotcha" moment) and if you want to continue further, maybe you can explain why you think my personal beliefs about specific moral dilemmas are relevant.

I'm sure you know I self-identify as a liberal, and I suppose you think that means I am an environmentalist even if I haven't expressly stated so on this forum. Well let me state it now in case I have not, yes, I think of myself as "concerned for the environment." I do not think of myself as an environmentalist. What that means to me, is that I do my best to limit my harmful emissions in practical ways, knowing that I cannot practically reduce my emissions to 0. I drive a car that acheives above average mpg. I don't drive an electric car because I realize that producing elctricity is also harmful to our environment. I cannot practically get to work without a car, so I have to work within that limitation. I think it is impossible for me or any other human to reduce our "harmful" emmisions to zero. Just breathing produces CO2, so again, where are you going with this? Please try to apply practicality to my statements. If you want to get pedantic, you could claim that if I am concerned about the environment then the only morally acceptable thing to do is to kill myself as soon as I obtain the capability to do so in order to not negatively impact the environment, and you will always be right.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well, since we can't really "test" and observe the origins of morality scientifically, the best we can do is guess at it since the capacity to be moral and immoral (I call it "choice") was already in us at birth.

Morals, or the lack thereof, are shaped by things like the Bible, society, legal syetems etc... or other "holy texts". By animals demonstrating some level of morality, we can safely assume humans and animals got them from the same place.

I think you'd find varying answers -- based on what we know about the origins of morality at this point, which is close to zero in my opinion, anything can be possible.

 

[sm625]

I am of the opinion that possibilities, especially remote ones, have no bearing on morality as it is impossible to account for all possibilites. We just do not have the mental capacity. If I cook a meal on a gas stove, and a worker dies in an accident on the job while extracting natural gas, does that mean I am partially responsible? I think making that type of case is nonsense.

Morality is heavily based on perception. If you dont know that what you're doing is hurting anyone then yes of course there is no motivation to stop. But as soon as you realize something is wrong, your brain presents its chemical reward for making the right choice.

 

[Murloc]

I think the basic morality comes from biology through evolution.
E.g. solidarity, no random murder etc.
then there are nuances, e.g. about gays and abortion, where the culture plays a role.

 

[Whiskey16]

Well, since we can't really "test" and observe the origins of morality scientifically...

Incorrect. It has been wrong philosophical assumptions that individuals have an innate and therefor a fairly shared set of morals rather such morals and actions are defined by the environment and social interactions.

Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology

Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error http://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Papers/Virtue.html​

Gilbert Harman​

Princeton University​

On this occasion I discuss a different kind of rejection of folk morality, one that derives from contemporary social psychology. It seems that ordinary attributions of character traits to people are often deeply misguided and it may even be the case that there is no such thing as character, no ordinary character traits of the sort people think there are, none of the usual moral virtues and vices.​

In attempting to characterize and explain the movements of a body, folk physics places too much emphasis on assumed internal characteristics of the body, ignoring external forces. Similarly, in trying to characterize and explain a distinctive action, ordinary thinking tends to hypothesize a corresponding distinctive characteristic of the agent and tends to overlook the relevant details of the agent's perceived situation.[1] Because of this tendency, folk social psychology and more specifically folk morality are subject to what Ross (1977) calls "the fundamental attribution error."
Empirical studies designed to test whether people behave differently in ways that might reflect their having different character traits have failed to find relevant differences. It is true that studies of this sort are very difficult to carry out and there have been very few such studies. Nevertheless, the existing studies have had negative results. Since it is possible to explain our ordinary belief in character traits as deriving from certain illusions, we must conclude that there is no empirical basis for the existence of character traits.
..
We ordinarily suppose that a person's character traits help to explain at least some things that the person does. The honest person tries to return the wallet because he or she is honest. The person who pockets the contents of the wallet and throws the rest of the wallet away does so because he or she is dishonest.​

The fact that two people regularly behave in different ways does not establish that they have different character traits. The differences may be due to their different situations rather than differences in their characters. To have different character traits, they must be disposed to act differently in the same circumstances (as they perceive those circumstances).
Furthermore, character traits are broad based dispositions that help to explain what they are dispositions to do. Narrow dispositions do not count. If fifteen year old Herbert is disposed to refuse to ride any roller coaster, but is not cowardly or fearful in other ways, his particular disposition is not an instance of cowardice or fear and indeed may fail to be an instance of any character trait at all. If​

4 Social Psychology​

Philosophers have begun to notice that recent social psychology challenges ordinary and philosophical views about character traits. Flanagan (1991) discusses the challenge at length, arguing that it is not as radical as it may seem. Railton (1997) thinks the challenge is more serious, as does Doris (forthcoming) in an important book length study.​

Let me begin my own account by emphasizing that the empirical results of contemporary social psychology can seem extremely counter-intuitive on first acquaintance. Students of mine who read parts of Nisbett and Ross' useful textbook (Nisbett & Ross, 1991) report that their parents express dismay at the "nonsense" they are being taught at Princeton.
Flanagan (1991), who is a philosophical pioneer in discussing the relevant social-psychological literature, does not seem to me fully to appreciate its radical import. He mentions what he calls the "extreme view," according to which "Good behavior is not the result of good character. It is the result of a certain kind of dominating environment. Take away the powerful external props, and what seems to be a consistently good character will evaporate into thin air." He continues, "Almost no one holds such an extreme view." However, contrary to this remark of Flanagan's, the "extreme view" is in fact widespread among social psychologists.
..​

Summary​

We very confidently attribute character traits to other people in order to explain their behavior. But our attributions tend to be wildly incorrect and, in fact, there is no evidence that people differ in character traits. They differ in their situations and in their perceptions of their situations. They differ in their goals, strategies, neuoses, optimism, etc. But character traits do not explain what differences there are.​

Our ordinary views about character traits can be explained without supposing that there are such traits. In trying to explain why someone has acted in a certain way, we concentrate on the figure and ignore the ground. We look at the agent and ignore the situation. We are naive in our understanding of the way others view a given situation. We suffer from a confirmation bias that leads us to ignore evidence against our attributions of character.
It is very hard to do studies that might indicate whether or not people differ in character traits, but the few studies that have been done do not support this idea. We must conclude that, despite appearances, there is no empirical support for the existence of character traits.​

Furthermore, it is clear that ordinary thinking about character traits has deplorable results, leading to massive misunderstanding of other people, promoting unnecessary hostility between individuals and groups, distorting discussions of law and public policy, and preventing the implementation of situational changes that could have useful results.

The paper the went into outlined the conclusions of a some experiments concerning 'Good Samaritans' and 'Obedience to Authority.'​

Morals, or the lack thereof, are shaped by things like the Bible, society, legal syetems etc... or other "holy texts".

Society shapes the remainder of your examples rather than the inverse of such having the primary influence and source

By animals demonstrating some level of morality, we can safely assume humans and animals got them from the same place.

What place is that? Are you inferring a fanciful supreme being, an innate sense of preprogrammed being, or results from that of social interaction?​

I think you'd find varying answers -- based on what we know about the origins of morality at this point, which is close to zero in my opinion, anything can be possible.

No, such knowledge is most certainly not 'close to zero.'​

Due to closure of the same conversation, it necessary to repeat what I already presented in the other thread:​

For starters, toss out any notion of any G*d being the author of any rights. To impose such is the authoritarian decree to deny religious freedom upon those who do not recognise said G*d.​

Religion is only that which is formed by society. Morality of society comes before that of any formulation and compilation of any religious doctrine. Such socially developed constructs are hardly isolated to that of human civilisation. Any socially interacting animal recognise the need for moral limits upon action and their acceptance within the community. The difference being the recording of such doctrines and the point of such recordings lending to lasting and transferable tales of morality.​

In brief -- to rationally discuss rights and morality, then one must honestly toss out religion and G*d as being the forbearer and necessity to realise such.​

Such rights never have been developed out of some vapid vacuum. That belief is for impossible fairy tales held by those who arbitrarily wish to neglect reality. No god nor religion being present before what a society constructs.​

Into the start of the 20th century, with the great advancements in communication and transportation, unlike never before a great global social change began upon once fairly isolated communities of states and even within those states. This brings us all to where as we have now, none are free from the influence nor compounding reactions to actions and interactions between us all.​

With the diplomatic, participatory, and continuity failure of the League of Nations, post-WWII states of this world recognised the need for and founded the far more representative, comprehensive, and lasting United Nations. Global trade, entertainment, communication, travel, etc., compounded at ever increasing rates that all certainly denies your stubbornly ideological stance of denial against the presence of our "global society."​

An interacting society brings pressure for change. Not immediate for all, to be sure. There will always be those who are so anti-social and individualistic as to go their own way. But over time, the reaction against he socially defining grain returns greater consequences, and thereby a greater pressure to adequately act and participate.​

That all said, here are the documented expression of contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society:​

The Foundation of International Human Rights Law

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is generally agreed to be the foundation of international human rights law. Adopted in 1948, the UDHR has inspired a rich body of legally binding international human rights treaties. It continues to be an inspiration to us all whether in addressing injustices, in times of conflicts, in societies suffering repression, and in our efforts towards achieving universal enjoyment of human rights.​

It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights. Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us.​

Foundation for Our Common Future​

Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed. Indeed, the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of human rights.​

Building on the achievements of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The two Covenants have developed most of the rights already enshrined in the UDHR, making them effectively binding on States that have ratified them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Incorrect. It has been wrong philosophical assumptions that individuals have an innate and therefor a fairly shared set of morals rather such morals and actions are defined by the environment and social interactions.

There are a number of objections or questions that your post and link raise for me here.

First off, what are we talking about when we say the origins of morality can or can't be tested. How you interpret that question makes a difference in how you would see it, it seems to me. I believe that what Rob is saying is that you can't go back in time and see how morals arose when they arose, etc, in the human or prehumen lineage. What you are saying is that new theories about what we call moral actions have been proposed that shed light on how what we think of as morality arise situationally.

Furthermore, it strikes me that a case can be made that the environment and social interactions people encounter fall within some range that we could conceptually consider fixed or even God given. It seems to me that no matter how you cut the issue, the only meaningful way to ignore the possibility that morals are God given, somehow or another, is Occam's razor.

A further issue I find that nags my thinking is the notion of conformational bias. It seems to me that almost any conclusion one could come to could be challenged by it.

Finally, all the psychological data we have is gathered from folk some of us might call asleep, folk whose experience of their inner self is the result of programming and isn't actually real.

 

[1prophet]

Morality is heavily based on perception. If you don't know that what you're doing is hurting anyone then yes of course there is no motivation to stop. But as soon as you realize something is wrong, your brain presents its chemical reward for making the right choice.

It seems many CEO's and high ranking corporate officers lack that chemical,:sneaky:

but in today's society we have been brainwashed to think morality is mostly about who or what you are having sex/marriage with while endless legalized gain at the expense of others shouldn't be judged.