Moral Law

[EdgedThesis]

Most of my nights have been spent, nowadays, simply debating with friends about religion and human nature.One of the questions I brought up was: "How exactly is Mankind's moral framework colored?"

 

I mean, the news projects different ideas upon all of us. So do the events the occur right outside our homes. They all point out that the human heart is stained either black or white, and all the mixed signals tend to be confusing.

 

There just seems to be so much bad in this world, but usually I can find another fact that renews my faith in our race.

 

No doubt humans are intelligent beyond measure (collectively), but the question that hangs in the air is whether this power will be guided towards good or evil in the future.

 

 

 

The main question I have for you is this: Do you think that there is a standard existent in all humans? A universal moral law for our species? And if so, how would this Law be bent or twisted to create the insanity seen everyday?

 

 

 

In case you were wondering, I believe that we will always exist in a state of gray. I think that our morals are handed down to us by our environment. But still, I have always wondered if, while I was formulating my own virtues, I actually twisted whatever I was originally hardcoded with.

[Zierro]

When we are first born, we only care about ourselves. We grow older, see things happen to other people, see things happen to ourselves, and then we get a much greater sense of empathy - making it easier to think of others rather than ourselves all the time.

 

 

 

Of course there will be the people who think that the world is against them and everyone has better lives than them. A lot of it has to do with what we see, and the rest is what we interpret.

[oegly41]

When we are first born, we only care about ourselves.

 

 

 

Actually, according to a documentary I saw on National Geographics, children down to the age of a few months are "programmed" into co-operating. A baby was looking for a sweet under three cups, and picked the one which a person was pointing at, because she understood the the person was trying to help her. A chimpanzee was not able to do the same thing.

 

 

 

This means that a part of human nature is co-operating.

[Zierro]

By "we only care about ourselves," I mean that, at first, we only do things that benefit us. The baby might have understood that the person was trying to help, but this means that the baby used the person's help to get what it wanted (the candy).

[EdgedThesis]

Hmm. Cool. The things listed, I'm sure, are things that we've inherited from our genetic past.

 

 

 

Cooperation? Bestial pack hunting. I'm sure chimps do this too, as do the more obvious animals like wolves.

 

 

 

And self-preservation is a given.

 

 

 

But I would have though that, with our self-awareness, we'd be hardwired with something else. Maybe it has something to do with the maturity of an infant's brain, maybe it's still too animal.

 

 

 

It might just be that Moral Law kicks in when your brain gets to grow, and the full implications of self-awareness (and awareness of your community) come into play.

 

 

 

Or, you know... not.

[Jimmyw3000]

Social Conditioning

 

 

 

Cant remember the exact details, but it's something along the lines of, as we are raised, we are taught how to behave by pur parents and the environment around us.

[Kilo]

I believe that evil will always come first, and good will only show it's face when evil has finally been seen.

 

 

 

That sounds all deep and mystical but you can apply it to a lot of things, like World War II. Good only came after Evil, not before. There is always a balance.

[EdgedThesis]

Couldn't the inverse hold true as well?

 

 

 

How many times have you seen someone, pure of heart and intentions strictly good, be exploited because of his core traits?

 

 

 

I'm sure good and evil stem from each other.

 

 

 

I'm not even sure the term 'evil' is ever correct. Maybe someone holds an opposing view, but he or she is not 'evil'. Who would ever desire to be that way?

[klankaos]

I believe that the human race is hardwired to behave as is good for the rest of the species. All animals are hardwired for species survival, and at the base of it, that's what we are - animals. If we didn't help each other out, then we'd die off, and that's not what we were made to do. The individual may be bad, but the species as a whole is trying to find a way to survive, which means cooperating and looking out for others' interests.

 

 

 

Overall, I believe that from another human's point of view, we'll always be considered 'good' if you look at the race as a whole, because we're working for survival. However, from the fish's point of view, for instance (aw, hell, choose any animal you want, it doesn't make a difference), we're not doing good at all. We're probably evil, because we take their friends and family and eat them. So does that make us good or bad? I'm still going with good.

[StrOwez]

Morals is instinct:

 

 

 

Good - Benefit for society

 

 

 

Bad - Negative effect to society

 

 

 

Bad: Murder, rape, robbery etc

 

 

 

Good: Helping, Supporting etc

[BlueLancer]

Morals is instinct:

 

 

 

Good - Benefit for society

 

 

 

Bad - Negative effect to society

 

 

 

Bad: Murder, rape, robbery etc

 

 

 

Good: Helping, Supporting etc

 

 

 

Some lone soul always finds a ridiculous quasi-philosophical argument to question "why" murder, rape, robbery, etc.. Are immoral, but from a common sense viewpoint you're 100% correct.

 

 

 

Human actions and morals can be labeled as 'positive' or 'negative' (or neutral) value, if you wish, "good", and "bad".

 

 

 

Helping an elderly person cross the street has a 'positive' value towards everyone in the society and also sets a positive example.

 

 

 

Robbing and beating an elderly person to death has a negative value towards society, plus it affects the people close to the dead person, they could want revenge, revert to alcoholism, so that action has only "bad" consequences.

 

 

 

A good moral indicator is: Would you do something to another innocent person, that you wouldn't want anyone to do to your own child? If yes, your morals are corrupted because it makes no logical sense: You practically give any person the right to retaliate with same force against people YOU love, and ultimately, everyone loses out.

[InkofDeath]

Using real life examples doesn't exactly portray what or how our morals are formed.

 

 

 

The things listed as negative things in life; murder, rape, drugs, are only thought bad to us because we've had so many parties tell us it's something you don't or should not do. We've had good and evil implanted into our heads, so how we comprehend anything is based on things we've been taught and then taught how to deal with such things by our own perceptions based on previous teachings.

 

 

 

Same with the positive things; hugging, relationships, marriage, religion, free speech, freedom...etc, it's all been told to us that its a positive, or good thing.

 

 

 

Yet how many people stay in a relationship to only get what they want out of it? Money? Insurance Rates...? And of course pleasure. Or how many people turn to religion to feel secure, with or without losing someone, or feeling depressed?

 

 

 

We turn to and do such things for our own benefit.It's an extremely cold way to think, but I really believe everything we know has been fabricated one way or another through the generations of society.

 

 

 

When looking at it it's definitely self-perseverance first before anything else, and that's the true moral maker.

 

 

 

If someone says that murder is fine, they will definitely get injured by others if it's public enough. Hence why no one would go and say such a thing disregarding right or wrong. It also shows why more people are more insulting on the internet, their self-perseverance is kept firmly intact while they relentlessly insult others.

 

 

 

Though BlueLancer finished my post off in the conclusion, he stated it a lot better than I would have.

[Giordano]

Overall, indivudially people are good. But when they go into a group, bad comes in. Things like peer pressure and the idea that 'everyone else is doing it' is in our nature. Back in 1908, one hundred years ago, you would never hear about a woman getting pregeant at twelve, thirteen years of age. But now it is common along with teenage pregencies. We know it is wrong to comit adultery, because most Americans believe in the Christian faith or their morals. So why do these girls have sex at early ages with guys who do the act as sport? Because it is labelled as popular and 'acceptable' by the majority. However, when you ask many people indivually, most will say such [bleep] are unacceptable. Another example is in the fascist countries of the 1900s. Germans knew that killing Jews and minorities were bad, but didn't do anything against it because most of the other people weren't against it.

 

The way to be in the Light, is to fight against the majority. Your actions can influence others to do the same thing and bring a brighter future into the world.

[warri0r45]

Ultimately, I could see why we tended towards cooperation rather than all out anarchy cooperating means pooling our resources and abilities. Anarchy means trying to fend for yourself while fighting off someone else. The cooperation is obviously advantageous and any population of social animals will tend towards it. This could be the basis of the moral standard in humans were talking about a genetic predisposition. This in turn could be the basis for the attitude of repulsion most sane people take towards murdering someone else. However, its not absolutely binding. Were still influenced by society and can break moral predispositions.

 

 

 

Another interesting thought is regarding the golden rule. If we do wrong by others, they tend to retaliate in self-defense. For example, if I come up and hit you and continue to hit you, youll probably hit back. Now I could see where the alternative (treating you as I would rather be treated) has an obvious advantage. If the former pans out, weve both lost energy and someone could even be dead. If the latter, no one is worse of and we have the opportunity to cooperate and become better off. Somewhat linked is the scientific discovery of Mirror Neurons, which may be linked with empathy. It seems to be pretty speculative at this stage in research, though.

 

 

 

Theres also a sense of in-group and out-group morals. Call it tribalism if you want. Before we were all one conglomerate international society, we would obviously have been little population blips around the world, where the world would allow us. This could be the catalyst for a cautious or even hostile attitude towards others coming near your turf to take your food.

 

 

 

Over time, we needed to learn to coexist with other tribes to survive as a race. Although we're not perfect (two world wars, for example), we seem to have been able to coexist, realising that we can get more done and be more successful by cooperating between tribes (or even by eliminating the whole concept of tribalism from our psyche) than by warring as factions. I for one stand for this social movement. I prefer to eliminate tribal thinking and rather see everyone as the same.

[assassin_696]

Yes, as warri0r pointed out I think ultimately any inbuilt morality would have to have had some kind of evolutionary advantage, and by and large cooperation and mutual good-feeling towards fellow man does give us an overall species advantage. However, those morals aren't imprinted strongly enough not be overwritten by a bad upbringing, because ultimately, selfish behaviour can also be of benefit.

[Sumpta]

I believe that evil will always come first, and good will only show it's face when evil has finally been seen.

 

 

 

That sounds all deep and mystical but you can apply it to a lot of things, like World War II. Good only came after Evil, not before. There is always a balance.

 

 

 

Huh? What?? So the Germans were Capital Evil and the Allied troops were Capital Good? That's way too simplistic and, dare I say, dangerous. The world isn't a Tolkien novel...

 

 

 

I don't think we have an inbuilt, intrinsic morality. However, we are a group animal, which means we have cooperating strategies to survive and to attain win-win situations. Physically, we are a pretty weak animal and our offspring takes awfully long to grow up, so we need care systems within the group. I would think that that's where morality stems from. I believe that we are genetically programmed to follow the rules made by the societies we live in. So it would be society that makes the morals, on the basis of what's best for the group.