Who decides morality?

Watch
JMR2021_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Do you think morality comes from God, or is it just instilled in our brains because of evolution? Does morality change from era to era?
0
reply
Cubone-r
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by JMR2017)
Do you think morality comes from God, or is it just instilled in our brains because of evolution? Does morality change from era to era?
In my opinion, morality comes from human nature - being human gives us our morality. However, I believe this is subject to change depending on the context (e.g. during times of war killing "enemies" would be seen as more morally acceptable).
2
reply
Personinsertname
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
It doesn't exist.
2
reply
Hariex
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
I think non-religious people underestimate the difficulty of providing a foundation for what is right and wrong. Even those atheists who argue there is no such thing live their lives as if it exists, condemning acts of terrorism, immoral religious acts and indoctrination whilst valuing reason, science and intellectual honesty. The non-religious worldview, as I understand it, sees all life as a big jumble of atoms guided by the laws of nature, with no difference between good humans and bad humans.

It could be countered that religion provides a poor foundation for morality because of how awful the Bible, Qur'an, etc. is. I think this is beside the point. Even if religious morality is the most bunk idea in the history of ideas, this still leaves atheism with the problem of defining right and wrong.
2
reply
username2080673
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Ultimately, human nature. You may get your own morality from religion, personal experiences etc. but not the case in terms of what's inherent in us as human beings - in my opinion at least.

I don't buy into this mythical notion that religion or otherwise related concepts are where morality comes from considering arguably immoral individuals who've followed religion to the letter being just that, immoral.

So, an inherent morality and then subsequently using some notion/concept to justify your own morality or lack of it.
1
reply
username3489684
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
consequentialism which is the concept that right and wrong can be determined through the consequences of one's actions for example, murder is wrong because you are taking away one's right to live and it will affect others such as the person's friends and family who will suffer as a result.
1
reply
Dot.Cotton
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
God. End of thread.
1
reply
Sammylou40
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Each individual will decide what is morally acceptable to them
Wether legal or illegal, or morally objectionable to another person
0
reply
AnnieGakusei
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by JMR2017)
Do you think morality comes from God, or is it just instilled in our brains because of evolution? Does morality change from era to era?
I think morality comes from culture via evolution.

Whilst there are some general rules that humanity has evolved to have (usually ones that favour the preservation of a group), specifics are cultural.

For example, stealing from someone in your group threatens the team. But stealing from someone outside your group ensures the group's survival and leads to "survival of the fittest."

The Norse saw stealing from others as important. The ancient Jewish people, as described in the Old Testament, had one set of rule for Jews and one set for Gentiles. Even in more recent times, it was not seen as immoral for the British Empire to invade other countries, or for the slave trade to take place (this is usually seen as highly immoral in our modern context for obvious reasons -- people in the "outside" groups are human beings too -- but not in the culture at the time).

If you stole from someone in your group, however, you would be met with retribution.
3
reply
popo111
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Hariex)
I think non-religious people underestimate the difficulty of providing a foundation for what is right and wrong.
Write a book then command and force people?

(Original post by Hariex)
Even those atheists who argue there is no such thing live their lives as if it exists, condemning acts of terrorism, immoral religious acts and indoctrination whilst valuing reason, science and intellectual honesty. The non-religious worldview, as I understand it, sees all life as a big jumble of atoms guided by the laws of nature, with no difference between good humans and bad humans.
Humans, being a social species should value other human life and therefore said acts are clearly contradictory to surviving as a species (as opposed to individuals).

There is clearly a difference between good and bad people, with the difference being the (potential) effect of their actions on the environment and indeed society.

(Original post by Hariex)
It could be countered that religion provides a poor foundation for morality because of how awful the Bible, Qur'an, etc. is. I think this is beside the point. Even if religious morality is the most bunk idea in the history of ideas, this still leaves atheism with the problem of defining right and wrong.
"Anything is better than nothing" is really quite appalling considering the "nothing" has been established.

Also, note that this is all coming from a non Atheist!
0
reply
Hariex
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by popo111)
Humans, being a social species should value other human life and therefore said acts are clearly contradictory to surviving as a species (as opposed to individuals).

There is clearly a difference between good and bad people, with the difference being the (potential) effect of their actions on the environment and indeed society.
My problem with these sorts of responses is that they just push the question back one step further. Why is species survival important (and not the survival of all other species)? Why do the consequences of actions matter? This is not self-evident to some in the world.

Also, the fact that humans are a social species does not mean we should be social, anymore than the fact that humans are naturally aggressive means we should be aggressive.
0
reply
popo111
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Hariex)
My problem with these sorts of responses is that they just push the question back one step further. Why is species survival important (and not the survival of all other species)? Why do the consequences of actions matter? This is not self-evident to some in the world.
Well, species that are usefu to humans would indeed be important to survive.

Without the survival of a species, that species no longer exists, and so is important! (I do hope that was self explanatory)

Which people (or groups of people) do not agree with the survival of a group and/or species?

(Original post by Hariex)
Also, the fact that humans are a social species does not mean we should be social, anymore than the fact that humans are naturally aggressive means we should be aggressive.
"Social animals are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of its species, with an individual animal's success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group."

It's akin to me saying "the fact that humans have hands does not mean we should use them". Well, you don't have to use them but you'd be at a (great) disadvantage. The same can be said for humans.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
Definitely not from God, it comes from us because we recognise the traits that are more conducive to survival and cooperation.
1
reply
Hariex
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by popo111)
Well, species that are usefu to humans would indeed be important to survive.

Without the survival of a species, that species no longer exists, and so is important! (I do hope that was self explanatory)

Which people (or groups of people) do not agree with the survival of a group and/or species?

"Social animals are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of its species, with an individual animal's success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group."

It's akin to me saying "the fact that humans have hands does not mean we should use them". Well, you don't have to use them but you'd be at a (great) disadvantage. The same can be said for humans.
I agree with all of the above, but on whose authority are you saying that the survival of a species is not just important but good?
0
reply
popo111
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Hariex)
I agree with all of the above, but on whose authority are you saying that the survival of a species is not just important but good?
The mutual agreement of humans, which although can change, I very much doubt the underlying principles ever will.

Being pedantic however, I don't believe I ever stated that it's good
0
reply
Hariex
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by popo111)
The mutual agreement of humans, which although can change, I very much doubt the underlying principles ever will.

Being pedantic however, I don't believe I ever stated that it's good
But this isn't a firm foundation for morality, not least because not everybody agrees on what is right and wrong. Underlying principles have changed (like worshipping God) and will likely change in the future (e.g., look at sexual ethics).
0
reply
popo111
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Hariex)
But this isn't a firm foundation for morality, not least because not everybody agrees on what is right and wrong. Underlying principles have changed (like worshipping God) and will likely change in the future (e.g., look at sexual ethics).
To be terse, the underlying principle essentially is "harming other humans and/or useful species unncessarily is looked down upon".
0
reply
The Joker ~
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
"The good meaning people"
Life, TSR... you name it!!
It's always "The good meaning people"~
0
reply
Hariex
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by popo111)
To be terse, the underlying principle essentially is "harming other humans and/or useful species unncessarily is looked down upon".
And on what authority is that based on?
0
reply
popo111
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Hariex)
And on what authority is that based on?
The fact that we are social organisms.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (59)
29.5%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (15)
7.5%
No I am happy with my choice (110)
55%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (16)
8%

Watched Threads

View All