emöfine2: Is morality inherent or learnt?

Just inches before I was to press the submit button I was to vote for the latter however I just remembered a little article I read a while back. It detailed the bond developed between twins in the womb, and it showed an ultrasound where one twin was reaching out to comfort the other twin and in other cases there are twins that struggle with each other in the womb.
Now I don’t believe such behaviour was learnt or necessarily inherent but perhaps environmentally influenced or an adaptation.
However I believe an “authoritative source” elicits our ability to discern. And discernment influences our moral conduct.

Enigma: Elephant in the room: what is the basis of anything being "moral" or "immoral"?

Afterall cannibalism is "moral"; even genocide is "moral"!

mkmyers45:

Well, i guess you can say that are trying to adapt and its not really a sign they are aware....because like all known 'sleep states' awareness is lacking...Now my question will be: Is it possible to discern without such authoritative influence?

cyrexx:

can you tell us what is your authoritative source of morality and let us see his morality instead of dancing around.

mkmyers45:
I realize that atheists say that morality is some form of social conditioning or contract, but i think the most admired virtues: heroism, self-sacrifice, unselfishness, could not have evolved from a social contract because they do not prolong longevity or serve any self interest. so it leads me to ask if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force?

Zodiac61: Why don't you just ask the question you really want to ask - Is morality possible without god?
Yes it is.
I am amazed when christians and muslims cliam that their gods are the source of morality.
Have they ever read the bible or the koran?
Antone who reads both books objectively will come to the conclusion that the gods depicted therein anre immoral characters.

Mr_Anony:




Oh my God! This is so funny! It's happening all over again!

Mymyers45 asks if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force,
Zodiac creates a strawman by deciding that he knows what mkmyers45 is asking better than that mkmyers45 himself.
From then on, everyone throws in their biases and the real question is ignored.

Una too much! obfuscation-a-plenty!

Mr_Anony:




Oh my God! This is so funny! It's happening all over again!

Mymyers45 asks if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force,
Zodiac creates a strawman by deciding that he knows what mkmyers45 is asking better than that mkmyers45 himself.
From then on, everyone throws in their biases and the real question is ignored.

Una too much! obfuscation-a-plenty!

Enigma: ^^^ It is the same question that I asked in a different way: what is the basis of anything being moral or immoral?

And I gave the examples of cannibalism and genocide.

Mr_Anony:



Oh my God! This is so funny! It's happening all over again!

Mymyers45 asks if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force,
Zodiac creates a strawman by deciding that he knows what mkmyers45 is asking better than that mkmyers45 himself.
From then on, everyone throws in their biases and the real question is ignored.

Una too much! obfuscation-a-plenty!

@mkmyers45. My answer is that: There cannot be a morality without an authoritative source.

mkmyers45:

Ok Sir, In your humble capacity kindly answer the question

Cheers
.45

mkmyers45:

Hint: Basis are influenced by some many factors....Can you kindly answer the question?

Avicenna:

And the authoritative source is.....??
As usual, I expect divine nonsense.

Mr_Anony:
Oh I have actually, look at the post again

There cannot be a morality without an authoritative source.

Avicenna:

And the authoritative source is.....??
As usual, I expect divine nonsense.

Enigma:

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

Avicenna:

And the authoritative source is.....??
As usual, I expect divine nonsense.

mkmyers45:



On which basis is this morality defined in respect to such authority?

mkmyers45:

As of 13:35pm today It is universally immoral as even cultures wherein they were accepted are relaxed towards negate such acts.....

Enigma:

First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.

2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive

3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.

4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.

6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)

7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them.

Enigma:

First of all, I am not sure you are right as there are probably still cannibalistic societies out there.

More importantly in any event, you are saying cannibalism was moral yesterday but it is not today.

Genocide was moral in Rwanda only a few years ago but maybe it is not moral there anymore.

So "morality" to you is basically dependent on place and time!

mkmyers45:

WRONG....An authoritative figure cannot be limited to a super-natural being as humans can serve as such figures...



WRONG...Even human law-makers cannot fully understand all concept so how do we then get laws of right and wrong?



Ok, What about the biblical account of Uzzah? Was things seen from his own angle?



Ok



NONSENSE...Please how do you relate permissiveness and change of standard?



I dont get this statement...mind re-phrasing?

Do you agree? = NO, I DONT

Pastor AIO: The following is from a previous thread back in the day.
https://www.nairaland.com/148054/paul-kurtz-great-public-intellectual/2
:

Krayola sir,  I think sometimes the best way forward is to go back.  May I refer you to some of my earliest posts on Nairaland.  It will help matters immensely.



Thank you



We are all moral people, it is ingrained in us. And you are right we are BOUND to it.  This is a complex subject and I fear that I might do it injustice if I don't tread carefully and take things step by step.  Being Moral means that we will always pursue what we believe to be the highest value.  or as some like to put it, The Greatest Good.  This highest value is different from individual to individual (and from society to society) but each one pursues his/her own highest value.
A lot of the time what you call the 'good' is merely what you have been taught by society as good.  A word of warning though. If you really expect the good you do to be reciprocated you will get mightily disappointed.  I just think you ought to know that, it might help buffer the shock.
I don't think the mother Bison is a good example though.  Her actions may be explained as instinctive rather than moral.  With morality I see a subject having a choice between two actions and choosing the superior one.  A mother's fierce protection of her young is not a choice but rather an instinct.

The thing about our morality is that it determines our behaviour.




Having a moral/value system is innate, but just what is contained in that system is arbitrary.  Everybody values some things higher than others, some actions higher than others, but just which things lie at the top of the morality scale differs from person to person, and from culture to culture.  For instance, in some societies bravery in battle/hunting is highly esteemed as is speaking and acting directly face to face.  In other societies Cunning might be higher esteemed than Upfrontery (my word that i've just made up. nice uh?).  In yet another society diplomacy may be higher esteemed than the sword while for their neighbours diplomats and people who talk are regarded with derision while the sword is respected. 
These various value systems are what give each culture it's characteristics.  And to the extent that individuals differ in their values, our various value systems give us our individual characteristics. 

Morality is a value system that shapes our character and behaviour.  That is all I was trying to say.
This value system that we carry around with us is informed by our environment and yes, accepting the bible as a guide in your life will influence your morals.  I'm that Bush feels no qualms about dropping bombs on Iraqi babies, his moral codes supply him with plenty of precedents that say it is okay. 

I suspect that you are coming from the school of 'Deep down in Everyone's conscience we know what is Good'.  I disagree.  If you were raised as an aborigine in Papua New Guinea you would have no qualms about having another human being for dinner.  I don't mean as a guest for dinner, but actually having him on the table, salted and peppered.  I don't believe in an Absolute Morality that lies within all of us.  Morality is relative.  Your so called innate moral behaviour is a product of your upbringing and your environment.






I'm in total agreement with you here.  Everybody has a Moral structure, it is ingrained, innate, and hardwired into what we are.  It informs the way we think and the choices we make and the actions we commit.  There is no such thing as an A-moral human being.  And yes there have been moral codes in all societies since the dawn of time without the need of the bible.  And as immoral behaviour is shocking in christian society, so are behaviours that violate their moral codes shocking in non christian society.  And to the same degree of shock and revulsion and disgust. 

Where I think an important distinction must be emphasised is that the actual articles of any moral code are not fixed, absolute or universal.  Murder is not always despicable, not even in biblical Israel.  I've heard arguments from humanists claiming that everyone agrees that murder is wrong.  Yes every society disapproves of murder, but only within the society.  Theft, only within the society etc.  It's okay to kill the neighbouring tribe, and to steal their cattle and to take over their land flowing with milk and honey.  The injunction not to kill or steal was the code of conduct to be applied by israelites within the Israelite community.  It makes perfect sense that any society that allows it's members to kill each other is not going to last very long.  The bible has proved to be no different from the moral guides of other societies on this matter. 

The definition of Morality is a scale of Values with Good at the top and Evil at the bottom.  This is fixed and true for everyone.  The Specific articles that are contained within a morality, ie what is considered Good and what is considered Evil, is not fixed and neither is it true for everyone.  We are all moral creatures. In any situation every human being will always try to do what he thinks is best.  It's just that one man's morality is another man's immorality. 

I also do not think that if a man despoils a woman that he must then marry her.  The sheer fact that he had to resort to despoil in the first place would suggest that the woman wasn't much interested in the guy in the first place.  That laws comes from a mindset that does not take the feelings of women into much consideration.  My mindset is rather different.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=124453.msg2121735#msg2121735

Mr_Anony:

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?"

mkmyers45:

Yes, it is as general acceptance of right and wrong is tantamount to change with time....

Enigma:

Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

Enigma:

If you mean your own question, my answer is that "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point which may possibly be what you mean by an "authoritative source".

I have placed "morality" in quotes very deliberately because another issue would be whether you regard "morality", as you are using it, as universal or relative/local/individual etc.

For example, the logic that many atheists have presented here is that cannibalism is not immoral insofar as it is acceptable in a/the particular society where it is practised.

Can we say cannibalism is always and universally immoral?

Enigma:

Therefore:

- cannibalism can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

- genocide can be moral as it has been at some places and times.

What then is your problem with "God" again?

Kay 17:

It would be distasteful to say cannibalism is not universally immoral

Kay 17:

The inconsistency in Christianity

cyrexx:

you mean the "genocide" of when the bloodthirsty Yahweh orders his followers to murder everyone in the whole town including all children and women.

It was right in those days but wrong in these days, abi?

basis for objective morality indeed!