• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Origins of Moral Faculty

Hypersonic

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
212
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?
 
My view of Christianity is, God is not a person, but a thing, a thought. It is human compassion and morality in it's self. Almost all religions teach peace and love, and that's just how I view it.

Anyway, the advance of technology, philosophy, and human evolution brought us from the idea of slavery as seeing it as immoral. The point of view of a person who though it was okay in Ancient times, Meh in Medieval times, and bad in modern times shows this.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?
Morality is a human construct based on underlying biological and evolutionary motives such as collective fitness, security, division of labor, etc. It is not static. As for slavery, it is alive and well, and will be until mankind ceases to exist.
 
Morality is a human construct based on underlying biological and evolutionary motives such as collective fitness, security, division of labor, etc. It is not static. As for slavery, it is alive and well, and will be until mankind ceases to exist.

Then how did American society get to a point where people attribute slavery to something that is immoral?
 
Then how did American society get to a point where people attribute slavery to something that is immoral?
During the "great religous awakening" of the early 1800s people in the US started believing slavery was "un-christian". But the abolutionist movement actually started in England in the late 1700s and spread to the US.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

As far as I can tell, the basis in the way humanity regards morality is based on successful evolutionary strategies that tell us that certain forms of social cohesion are better than others. Hence we have concepts like love, loyalty, friendship, tribe (whether that's your football team fan base or the nation you live in), inhuman other, etc.

One interesting thing to note is that when people dislike other groups, primarily ethnic groups, they also tend to believe that this group is somehow less than human. See the long history of this sort of regard against black (throughout out history), Chinese (the old west being a good example), Mexicans (in our modern day), Jews, Japanese, and Germans. You can see, for example, any number of war posters from the 40s as showing Germans as less than human. There were whole branches of science devoted to showing that the white man was superior in the 1800s and early 1900s as well. It all leads to a central idea, dehumanization. If one believes another is less than human, than they are not as worthy of love, respect, kindness, and esteem, making it easier to commit violence against them and excusing the hater of their hatred as justified.

This again goes back to the concept of morality as a survival strategy, humans like to band together to form tribes, nations, cultures, governments, social systems (and they seem to enjoy making social systems more complex over time, but hey, nobody said biological drives were always a winning strategy, they work until they don't), ethnicities, etc. The close kin you fee to someone, the more likely it is you will treat them kindly and with more humanity.

Personal morality works pretty similarly actually, from what I can tell, but thats outside the scope of this discussion.

In terms of an absolute right or wrong, whether it exists or not, there are probably multiple absolute right and wrongs, depending on which philosophy one ascribes to. One philosophy has one set of absolutes while another has another set of absolutes. But the world of ideas and real world human behavior are very different things.
 
Last edited:
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?


"Morals" seem to be at least partially genetically based. At least that seems the most probable conclusion to the fact, that some moral postulates are the same in almost every culture.

Take the Fat Man Problem. Almost an identical proportion of the population in every society in which it was checked, seem to think the Fat Man should not be thrown on the track to stop the train, but find it ok to throw the lever to direct the train to squash him and save the workers.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

I think that there are morals and there are some rather objective ones too; born from our intellect and empathy. But just because we can understand some amount of absolute morality doesn't mean we'll actually follow it. Many times we let our monkey sides win and we ignore our evolved sides. Slavery existed and still does and it's very unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that it was ever right even when practiced by so many.
 
I believe Morality is a wholly human construct. I also believe that human perception of morality is very relevant. If you were able to draw a line down the middle of the moral landscape, resulting in a good half and a bad half, and were somehow able to wholly eliminate the bad half, I believe humans would naturally divide the good half into a "new" good and "new" bad and ascribe the same sentiments to the "new" bad half as they did to the "old" bad. not instantaneously, but over the course of a generation or two. That is why slavery was accepted and no longer is. We've never been able to eliminate the bad half instantly (obviously), but as societies progress the worst things are confronted and either eliminated or driven underground, and the resulting moral landscape is slightly different, and "moral focus" will fall on new "worst" issues. Eventually, moral activists started pulling the slavery card more and more until it became a focal point. I guess you'd call that a theory of evolving morality.
 
I should also put in there that certain social conditions can retard the evolution of morality. Tyrannical rulers/governments that don't respond to popular sentiment for example.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

I believe what we are living is called nationalism; loyalty and devotion to our country exalting it above all others placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests.
And then along comes revolutionists such as Martin Luther King to help implement changes in our society for the better.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

True morality begins with self-knowledge, extrapolated in such a way as to extend the same considerations to others as one might wish for themself. It's that old "do unto others".

Unfortunately, few people wish to actually understand what morality is at all, preferring to think of it only in terms of normative social values (it is moral because my society says it is so) or limited in scope to something akin to a recipe (it is moral because it says so in a book). Both these interpretations resort to logical fallacies, however as the nature of such interpretations rely on appeals to popularity or appeals to authority.

The way I look at it is that one is not a cook by simply following a recipe. One is a cook when one understands the process. Morality is the same way in that following arbitrary social constructs does not make one a moral being. What makes one moral is an extension of consideration to others. This considerastion may be shaped by culture to some degree but is not dependant upon it, as culture, itself, can deem something as "moral" simply because it reflects upon the majority. As the lesson of slavery brought up should make abundantly clear, the tyranny of the majority can enfranchise actions that are quite clearly immoral when evaluated from the perspective of doing unto others.
 
True morality begins with self-knowledge, extrapolated in such a way as to extend the same considerations to others as one might wish for themself. It's that old "do unto others".

Children of the members of Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, have been indoctrinated into a vile way of thinking; therefore, from what are they to extrapolate a different teaching?
 
Children of the members of Westboro Baptist Church, in my opinion, have been indoctrinated into a vile way of thinking; therefore, from what are they to extrapolate a different teaching?

I haven't the faintest idea what you are asking.

Obviously, the children of the Westboro Babtist nut jobs are being indoctrinated, but what does that have to do with self-knowledge?
 
I haven't the faintest idea what you are asking.

Obviously, the children of the Westboro Babtist nut jobs are being indoctrinated, but what does that have to do with self-knowledge?

Where is their self-knowledge?
 
Where is their self-knowledge?

Self-knowledge is an innate ability. THe indoctrination can mask it and it can suppress the natural prediliction thereof, but it does not prevent it.

We are more than programmable automatons, even if far too many give an impression of little else.
 
Self-knowledge is an innate ability. THe indoctrination can mask it and it can suppress the natural prediliction thereof, but it does not prevent it.

We are more than programmable automatons, even if far too many give an impression of little else.

Most of us have an inner voice from which we learn to listen; however, the ability to do so requires education and self-discipline.
Why do you think murders are happening in South Chicago?
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

From an intellectual and historical perspective, social morality and ethics are a constantly evolving process that vary from generation to generation. There are no simple methods, except laws that work for every situation or particular set of circumstances.

Through education and society we lay the foundation of civilization, rather than the ignorant, natural way of superstitious savagery and violent competition for natural resources.

I think it's rational to expect others who are capable to be responsible and do their share, always feeling compassion and occasionally being generous and giving when possible, without being foolish.

As a personal code the best you can do is to obey the law, use mature reasoning and treat others fairly.
 
Self-knowledge is an innate ability. THe indoctrination can mask it and it can suppress the natural prediliction thereof, but it does not prevent it.

We are more than programmable automatons, even if far too many give an impression of little else.

Self-knowledge is an innate ability? Children who live in abject poverty and children who are being raised by drug addicts cannot manifest their self-knowledge without the proper guidance and education.
No everyone has the same predilections for goodness. A child needs to be taught.
 
In this thread I am mostly referring to ethical intuitionalism, mostly concerning whether there are objective facts of morality. I guess my most basic case would be to look at slavery. How does one concede some rational intuition of morality when slavery was an acceptable way of life previously in early human history? Is the idea of morality something progressive and continuously changing, or is it something that is merely static?

How did we believe the earth was flat for so long? We were simply ignorant of the facts. Ethics is less of a hard science than that, sure, but that's largely because of our lack of knowledge/technology to bridge the gap.

Start with yourself in the most primitive scenario that makes sense. What makes something right, or wrong, to you?
 
How did we believe the earth was flat for so long? We were simply ignorant of the facts. Ethics is less of a hard science than that, sure, but that's largely because of our lack of knowledge/technology to bridge the gap.

Start with yourself in the most primitive scenario that makes sense. What makes something right, or wrong, to you?

Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Back
Top Bottom