The origin of morality

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete omnes,

Another absolute question; just where does morality come from? Within or without?

There are arguments for both: surely the ability to make an informed choice on the right or wrong of an action must come from within? Perhaps so, but the cynic might point out that many peoples' morality is a false morality, coming as it does only from the coercion of the state.

I'll post my comments later, but what do you all think of this?

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Anonymous]

Salve,
I currently think that morality comes from without. It is impressed upon us by our environment.

In order for morality to come from within, there must be some official 'Right' morality out there somewhere. This, of course, is not hard to imagine if one believes in the existence of a supreme guiding force. Otherwise, one is forced to conclude that morality is simply another human convention. The fact that X is wrong and Y is right is just the product of human invention.

Titus Marius Crispus

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete

I think we are referring to Christian morales here which are kind of conservative, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I think that so long as humans have lived in groups, large groups, there were certain principles, ideas even morals that lived in this group. Probably due to the leader of the group. In a large group, there will be people who have different sets of morales than other people. This group morality will be decisive on certain actions and/ or ideas wether or not to aprove or to condemn it.
valete

Romulus

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete omnes,

Tite Mari: Suggesting that morality comes from within does not imply that there is a "right" morality, because we are not uniform creatures. We are therefore able to come to seemingly logical but entirely different conclusions from the same circumstances. Therefore, while I'm still undecided, there are arguments for the possibility of morality coming from within.

Romule, Let me clarify a little. I don't mean a specific set of morals or code of honour; I'm asking what the very heart of morality is. Where does it come from? Does it come entirely from our own minds? Is it a human invention, a falsehood? Is it due to our upbringing? Is morality something imposed by a government seeking to control hearts and minds?

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Anonymous]

Salve,

Suggesting that morality comes from within does not imply that there is a "right" morality, because we are not uniform creatures. We are therefore able to come to seemingly logical but entirely different conclusions from the same circumstances.

My previous comment relied on the idea that all decisions we come to and thoughts we think are simply the product of two things: our current environment and our past experience. In other words, I was thinking that morality cannot come from within, because there is no 'within'. So, according to determinism, morality comes from without.

But that's totally unsupported.

Vale,
Titus Marius Crispus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete!

Morality in general can never completely come from without. How would it have started, if at least one person's morality had not come from within?

It is true that most people's ethic behaviour is the result of indoctrination through education, environment, etc etc. But in some cases, there is definitely a morality coming from within: feelings like compassion or true empathy can only come from within, they cannot be imposed. So, morality does come from within, but for the larger part of humanity it's imposed on them because they have not yet developed it within themselves.

Valete,
Draco

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Salvete!

I tend to agree with Draco. Morality is a mixture of personal sentiments and external influence, be it through education or otherwise.

I do not believe that morality can be shaped through coercion of the state. In my view, ideology and morality are different notions, for in morality, the personal factor is always present, and in ideology, it clearly is not, because that is impressed upon people.

Vale bene, amici

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Menci,

It doesn't surprise me that we tend to agree, since I am influenced by precepts similar to yours, if you catch my drift .

Vale bene,
Draco

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Mence

I totally agree with you on this. To add soemthing to the discussion, can morality be coersed by religion? I do think that religion does have a role in the origin of morality. Sure it comes from within, but any and I think all religions have a set or morales and principles the practitioner should live by. I know this leans more towards ideology, but it does play a role in the end.
vale

Romulus

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Salvete iterum, Romule, Gnae et alii

I will go along with your reasoning, Romule... The key question is, in my view, would you let your morality be influenced by religion? Religion can't or at least should not coerce anything, otherwise why are we believers if we are not free in our religious acting and thinking? That is one of the reasons I reject dogma. The moment I'd be coerced to follow a prescribed morality because 'it comes with the package', I am out of there.
I want, need to be free to believe what I choose to believe. Buddhism gives me that freedom. I am somewhat influenced morally by religion, but only through my own personal choice. No coercion. I think Draco can relate to that.

I know we have had these matters discussed before, but these matters are after all defining who we are, so getting back to that subject once in a while is not a bad thing, is it?

Vale bene

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Menci

You are totally right when saying that. I don't like a religion that forces things upon me and I'm certain that many people can relate to that. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a rise of paganism in the last decade. Many people turn away from religions with dogma's and are looking for another religion that doesn't have dogma's. Buddhism might give you the freedom to believe what you want, many pagan religions like Religio Romana, Hellenic paganism, Celtic, etc... do allow the same thing for their practitioners. The morality of the average European and American is definitly influenced by Judaic- Christian religions. They have been around between 2000 and 5000 years and are staying. Maybe not Christianity if it doesn't change (but that's my own little theory for the future of Christianity). Okay, i'm just rambling here now.
vale

Romulus

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete omnes,

I can relate to your comments on religious moral coercion. I have some relatives who are Mormons, and we were having a discussion on the afterlife. I asked a question on some of the specifics on the Mormons, and worded it thusly "So what do you believe about the different levels of the afterlife then?" Their highly memorable reply was "I'll have to ask the priest."

Which of course shows the extent to which some people will surrender their very thoughts to organised religion.

Draco, Mencius: As for your comments that the coercion of the state has little to do with morality, I would pose this question: what about the Hitler Youth? They were brought up to believe that persecution due to ethnicity was not only ok but actually the right thing to do - surely that's an example of the coercion of the state affecting a person's morality?

Crispus: If we are merely a product of our environment and past experience then surely that leaves no room for individuality? Such a concept implies that you would be exactly the same as me had you grown up in my situation, and vice versa. That's something that I personally cannot conceive of, since I have to believe in at least a spark of individuality in each of us.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Curio!

Draco, Mencius: As for your comments that the coercion of the state has little to do with morality, I would pose this question: what about the Hitler Youth? They were brought up to believe that persecution due to ethnicity was not only ok but actually the right thing to do - surely that's an example of the coercion of the state affecting a person's morality?

No, I did say education/religion can influence how someone thinks about morality and how someone decides on ethical issues, but *true* morality, which flows forth from compassion, can only come from within. The morality of the Hitlerjugend was a false morality and although many of its members may have believed it at that time, after the system was destroyed in which it operated, most of these kids lost their belief in Nazism with it.

Vale,
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Draco,

A few questions. Firstly, could you please define false morality? Also, you say that true morality flows from compassion, which comes from within. Could you further clarify this? For instance, do you take a Socratic viewpoint that people do not commit wrong if they know it is wrong?

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete Curio et philosophi omnes

Morality, based on the mores of a given society, would have to be considered as originating from outside an individual person. It is therefore taught to people, or imposed from without. But there are those, and not a few, who have a sense of when their own society is wrong, and therefore stand up to change the prevailing views. Several examples might be given, ancinet and modern. I suppose then, Curio, that you are really asking whether a higher morality exists that can stand up against the imposed morality of a society, and therefore where such a higher morality is to be found. Is there an innate sense of right and wrong which all people have within themselves? Then one should look at small children. A child of four is no less intelligent than any adult, only less experienced. A child so young is less likely to have yet been corrupted by our school systems or society at large into believing in an imposed morality. So do young children have a sense of right and wrong that we may say is innate to human nature? Having had children, worked with children, my answer would be yes. A child knows when others are acting badly or falsely, they have a sense of when they are themselves misbehaving towards others, or when others are being cruel to a third person. Children do pass moral judgement on the actions of others - on their playmates, parents, and neighbors - and therefore they must have something within themselves that acts as a moral yardstick. Sometimes it is rather subjective, 'what is good for me,' but more often I have found children to think in more general terms, objectively about what is right in general. Common to all children, it seems to me, is a dislike of dishonesty. That would seem to be the beginning of an internal moraliry.

Valete optime

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Piscine,

I'm not really asking if there's a higher morality than everyone can draw from, than if morality is an innate concept or an invention of society. I'm a great believer in subjective morality, and hence I don't believe are universal absolutes. However, that doesn't mean we can't all have our own innate ideas of right and wrong, however different they may be from the next person's.

But if morality is innate, then how does that argument correlate with the idea that morality is a luxury that we can only afford in modern times now that the fight for survival is effectively won? The elimination of the weak because society could not care for them went on long past ancient times. How can we have developed an innate morality since then?

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salvete

I think that everyone has an innate concept of morality but that it has been heavily influenced by external stimula. In other words, we are born with a sense of morality but over time this sense of morality is influenced by the moral standards of society and will therefore more likely to adapt itself to the social morality.
valete

Romulus

[Aulus Dionysius Mencius]

Salvete iterum, amici

A difficult question this is... A problem (or maybe the blessing) with these sort of questions is that there is and never will be an absolute answer. Morality. It can differ from person to person, from society to society.

A lot of things are being said here, and I can relate to them. For instance, I, like Curio, do not believe in absolutes. For me, there is no 'higher' morality. Otoh, I was taught certain behavioural rules in order to be able to coexist with others in a peaceful manner. Is this personal, from my parents and grandparents? I believe so. But in other families, things are basically the same. So, gradually, the whole society will have morality, which, in my view, originated from personal morality. There is no clear distinction any more between what is personal and what is communal.

And yes, there are examples, like the Hitlerjugend, where it is difficult to make definite assesments... But maybe this is what this collegium is all about, nonne... philosophy is not absolute, and, hopefully, it never will be. Otherwise, what would be the point?

Iubeo aliquem valere

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve mi Curio!

A few questions. Firstly, could you please define false morality?

Well, in my vision there are two types of false morality:
1. All morality that comes from without (i.e. concepts that are forced upon people through education or peer pressure)
2. Morality that has precepts that are logically unmaintainable (e.g. being "against" homosexual people)

Also, you say that true morality flows from compassion, which comes from within. Could you further clarify this? For instance, do you take a Socratic viewpoint that people do not commit wrong if they know it is wrong?

Sokrates and I wouldn't have agreed on many things, but this is one of them. As a matter of fact, I even wrote an essay about it which is located at the collegium philosophicum pages .

Vale optime!
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salvete Menci et Draco,

I agree entirely with your comments, Aule Dionysi.

Draco, surely ethics is outside the realms of logic? I know a couple of people who are against homosexuality, and who believe it is simply wrong. An illogical view perhaps, but then so is the opposite, since ethics is largely an emotional and subjective topic.

Surely the viewpoint that people would not do wrong if they knew they were doing wrong implies that there is an ultimate morality, a morality that is entirely correct? My own dislike of absolutes and belief in the choice of the individual means I cannot believe in such a concept myself.

Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.