Just curious to see what other people think about this idea. I mean it is obvious that we learn about them through language, but that doe not necessarily mean that all moral content is manmade. Trust is a fine example. We enact trust long before we actually comprehend what that is, or what it entails.

Is there any absolute good or bad? I mean there are certain human needs. Needs cannot be bad, can they?

Don't they grow on piles of cow dung?

Those are the silly ones which make colors reeeeeel bright.

The oldest known set code of human conduct is pulled from the devine code of human behavior collected by the devine scribe Tehooti and presented to man by Wsr(Osiris)

BTW 'Egypt' is way older than is often credited

Answering title question:

a) Cultural indoctrination
b) Practical self interest
c) Evolution


There are no intrinsic needs. There are only needs 'for' something - such as 'for one's own survival'.

The existence of needs is separate from the choices one makes to meet those needs.

Rarely does any 'need for survival' require a specific course of action.

I need food...but I don't need any particular food, so I cannot justify stealing food to meet my needs so long as there exists food I might obtain without stealing.

Morals... Trust is not a moral... It is a learned response to stimuli.

Morals (imho) are subject to the rules of the community. One quickly learns what the community will accept or expects of one.

Yet many 'learn' morals also by what they find they can do without becoming 'outcast' by they community.

and others 'learn' that in certian instances they can 'act' in ways the community does not accept as long as they hide those 'actions' from scrunity.

While still others learn that they can 'act' in ways that are unacceptable by the community but no one will 'react' because of 'fear' (If you are 300 lbs 'bigger' than all the little monkyee's around you you can beat 'acceptance' into them).

So the actual morals a person holds within are a 'self-learned' method of survival.

All "moral" content is humanmade. The existence of a deity cannot be proven and the concept of deity varies from culture to culture. However, most cultures have similar standards for what is moral or ethical.

At the most basic level, the "meaning" of life is to survive long enough to procreate, then to live long enough to ensure that our offspring survive long enough to procreate. Without this drive, our species would have become extinct long ago.

So as we evolved into into thinking, conscious creatures (and even before), we found the best way to ensure the perpetuation of the species was to live in groups. Canines live in groups, as do elephants and other animals; not all do, but their "plan" for survival was through other channels.

Living in groups causes problems, though, so over time, we came up with "laws" to help regulate ourselves and ease the friction. Don't kill your neighbor, don't steal, don't lie, etc. Of course, we have a hard time obeying these rules, but they still exist.

These rules didn't necessarily apply to those not within our clan, tribe, and later, towns and countries. You could raid the next village and steal a wife or goods. You could invade another country and kill the people there.

Religion and deity were probably used early on to control the populace; the control certainly existed within the earliest recorded history, and there is no doubt of the control of religious leaders before we invented writing. It sounds a lot better to say, "This law comes god" instead of saying, "Joe down the street says we should stop stealing." Gods are arbitrary, changing to meet the changing needs of humans.

In addition, the priest/esses or theocracy had the extra added incentive of punishment AFTER death.

The Aztecs believed that if they didn't perform human sacrifices everyday, the universe would cease to exist. This did not violate their sense of morality, but rather supported it. When the Spaniards came into MesoAmerica, they found this practice abhorrent, so they slaughtered thousands of indigenous people to stop the practice AND to take their land and goods.

So, who was immoral?

To me, most atheists exhibit more ethical standards than do Christians. Atheists choose to follow the laws of the land; they are not commanded to NOT kill, steal, or lie by the threat of punishment from a god. Is every atheist moral? No. Is every Christian or religious person moral? God, no.

I do distinguish between "morals" and "ethics," even though the dictionary would say they are synonymous. I connect morals with religiosity and ethics with cultural mores and standards. Morals largely have to do with sexual orientation, i.e. homosexuality.

By the way, those who control the sex lives of a populace, control the populace.

One more thing: I also think it is our empathy that makes us "moral," and it seems we are born with empathy. The moral edict itself is not inherent, but our ability to empathize with others is. Psychopaths seemingly are born without the ability to put themselves in the place of others. In other cases, abuse can blunt or even destroy our empathy.

In great part, I don't want to hurt another person because I KNOW how it feels to be hurt. Because I have empathy, I choose not to hurt someone MOST of the time. My basic survival instincts are still within me, though, and I (as will most people) will choose to hurt someone who has hurt me.

Altruistic acts make me feel good, so I want to be kind.

I have no morals, but I am a very ethical person.

Sounds like the definition of morals is up for grabs.

..personally i think they are inherent..

An interesting thing about moral claims are that they are supposed to apply to others as well as ourselves.



I'm curious about "practical self-interest", as it is often at odds with the sustainable overall well-being of humanity.



Intrinsic, as opposed to what? I'm not sure I follow this distinction. Could you lend me a little more meaning? I agree with the logical distinction between needs and methods to meet those.



Why not?

While trust is not "a moral" so to speaks, it underwrites the learning of language, and thus all adopted moral/ethical code. It is of moral import.



This seems to say that moral behavior is what society deems as such, and vice-versa.



A code of rules guiding one's behavior in order to survive?

Well, I strongly disagree. Reality, trust, and many other things are necessary in morality. Those are things which are not man-made. Therefore, all moral content is also not manmade. There is no need to invoke a diety. Morality does not rise or fall with 'God'.



These things have moral content as well. We are necessarily social creatures, and are completely dependent upon others for our very survival for an extended period of time. That fact plays an important role in our developing codes of behavior. The above suggests that codes of behavior increase the liklihood of the group's overall well-being. It also denotes the importance for the consideration of what constitutes acting right and/or good to be constantly under review and include newly gained knowledge/information.



I assume that you hold that these kinds of behaviors are wrong/should not have been done?



Are you suggesting that neither was, that both were, or that one or the other was?



So, who is... and perhaps most importantly, why is that the case?



All moral/ethical considerations involve establishing what constitutes good/bad and right/wrong. The only practical difference is not held in content, but in practice. Morals are usually considered personal, whereas ethical considerations are public applications concerning what is the best thing to do in the public/societal sphere.



so do you think hurting another just because you've been hurt is good?



I suppose it does not really matter what you call them. They are apparently there, judging by this response. You may find yourself talking past people though if you insist upon claiming that you have no morals. There seems to be several different things that you would call good/bad and would be ok with with everyone acted in those ways.

Empathy is another critically important moral element.

morals come from your mama's hand when she smacks the crap out of you when you do or say something stupid





that's why kids today have none

A 'code of rules' guiding a persons behavious when food is right around the corner at the supermarket may be quickly discarded in favor of a different set of morals when ones family is starving and food is not available by using the 'accepted' local community standards.

So there lies a distinction between social codes of behavior(ethics) and what is right?

Morality happens when one person sees something they deem as "wrong" for whatever reason they feel and they get others to agree with them and then societal action happens from there.

For example, child brides, arranged marriage, death penalty, removal of body parts for punishment, beating animals, female circumcision, more than one wife, etc..., is still accepted as moral in some parts of the world. Obviously no one or not enough of the people in that society has deemed it wrong enough to start the chain reaction in that society.

Morality is believed to be taught through a religion but this isn't true. People choose to believe that the religion has the moral high ground because they are taught that a fearful/unknown being says so.

Personal morality for a strong person comes from a person watching others act and deeming for themselves what is right. Personal morality for a weak or follower person is to be told this right and them taking it as gospel, no pun intended.

(Are we differentiating between ethics and morals? I'm being lazy today, and not doing so.)

I am motivated to some specific ethical behaviors, such as abstaining from meat, while feeling that its perfectly okay for other people to not be motivated to those behaviors. Some of my ethical decisions lie in a balance, a set of compromises, and the decision would change if the circumstances were different. Other people clearly experience different circumstances, so I don't project all of my beliefs regarding ethical behavior onto them.



(B) may not be a source of personally held morals, but its a source of moral behavior. One of our motivations to moral behavior lies in our awareness of practical consequences for ourselves - such as not stealing because we might go to jail.

This is different than what I meant by (a); by (a) I meant the process by which we take our culture's values and make them our own, and then make corresponding decisions with sincere belief that its 'the right thing to do'.




Before developing a conversation on:



I think its important to examine what people think of needs, and how they relate to the idea of needs.

People often speak of 'needs' as if they existed onto themselves, absent of the real cause and effect reflected by their statement of need. "I need companionship." "I need food." "I have needs." "I need quiet right now".

People often use their perception of 'having needs' as a justification for their behavior. I deny that these kinds of 'needs' exist. There are no needs, onto themselves, only needs for something else - prerequisites. "I need companionship in order to be more fully happy." "I desire comfort, and companionship would bring me comfort." "I am hungry, and food would eliminate that discomfort". "I will need food eventually to continue living, but I don't actually need for for survival right now."

Call something a 'need' is often a short cut to rationalizing extreme selfishness; an honest and ethical person will look more deeply into what they supposedly need the 'need' for, and why.




I meant: if we assume that stealing is bad.

Also, I think you know why not, and want me to explain my answer for the benefit of the discussion.

But are those things good? Discussing morality is all about establishing what is good/bad and right/wrong. There are several different ways to go about discussing it.



How does one deem "for themselves" what is right though? I mean, there must be a foundation from which to compare.

So those kinds of things are more like a personal preference, and not of moral import; not a matter of being right/wrong? Perhaps they are not moral behaviors?



This is suggesting that some concerns are relative to one's experience. Why would these kinds of concerns be ethical, or the behaviors moral? Doesn't that require endorsing/employing what you believe is good for all? I mean, these considerations which lead to these choices would not be objected to if others did the same, I assume?



If we hold that "moral behavior" is following the rules, does that mean that following any and/or all rules would result in moral behavior? That doesn't seem true.



Understood. However, does sincerely believing that something is the right thing to do make it so?



Companionship is a need. Humans cannot survive as humans without it. The same goes for food. Same goes for trust. They are all irrevocable human conditions. We should be careful how we parse these things out.



Our needs are not just about the short term - 'right now' - are they? I mean, in order for humans to continue our survival, we need to be able to promote behaviors which will be sustainable in the long term for the overall well-being of our species. We could arrive at plenty of ways to commit mass extermination of unhealthy people and qualify that as a good thing in order to benefit the rest of humanity, especially using self-interest as a sole guide. Not that I am suggesting that you are endorsing such a thing, rather just keeping these kinds of considerations in the fore-front of our thinking.



Agreed. Those may not be needs at all, but rather preferences. Earlier it seemed you were heading in that direction in some ways but not in others.



I would like to explain things for the benefit of the discussion. I'm looking to flesh out what is right/wrong and good/bad.