Does morality come from a random process of evolution in which humans realize they need to be nice to each other to survive in there first years. Or is it present in all animals, just in different ways? Or, and this is the creationists aregument, that god gave us the base morality so we can have free will? What do you guys think?
I don't know, but I generally throw concepts like souls and morality together as the entirety of human conscience, which to me is basically the interpretation of the outer perceptions of your senses thrown together by your brain, combined with the active thinking, remembering and anything else that goes on within the brain itself, which still uses input from the senses, but then without using the senses themselves. Now, I can only imagine that last part looks like a clusterfuck of random words (I'm shit at explaining, and it's 2:30am, forgive me), so allow me to explain what I mean with "active thinking, remembering and anything else that goes on within the brain itself" with a small and simple thought experiment, which I tend to do whenever I'm somehow reminded of this random blabbering I posted above. It's a real mindfuck to me when I think about it deeply, and while I realise it's probably way beyond my understanding, I find it fascinating to think about. So, for instance, look at something. It can be anything. Now, you can clearly see whatever you're looking on based on the information your brains receive from your eyes. Now, look somewhere else and remember and visualise whatever you looked at. While it's a visual object, and your brain "projected an imagine on your mind" (so to speak, I guess, I can't really come up with anything else, but I think you'll get my point), your eyes aren't aimed at the object, and thus you can't actually see it. The same goes for sound, although somehow, I can't seem to get the same effect with tasting, feeling and smelling. I think I know why, but right now, I can't seem to put it into words very well. So now that I've derailed my own post, I'll just write a small summary of the answer to your question: I think the entirety of human conscience is nothing more than a projection made by your brain of processed information coming from both inside and outside stimuli. Basically, the brain is the only centre of the human body that controls everything. It makes thinking about things like the afterlife quite simple, really, so that's nice.
So you are saying that you believe in objective morality and thats all encomposed in a materialist outlook were enviroment=complex brain functions and therefore we dont really have morality or a "soul" we just percieve it to be based on societal norms that our brain takes as the status quo for how our other creatures live?
Not exactly. We do have a morality, but I'd day that is determined by, kept track of and stored within our brains, through input from both external (upbringing, society) and internal (the thought processes within the brain of a person (or conscience)) sources, just like any non-material (as in, not made up of atoms; thoughts, idea(l)s, etc. Not entirely sure if non-material is the correct word) concepts. The different definitions of "a soul" seem to simply be the human conscience and its products. I don't know if that'd count as either a yes or a no to the "Do humans have souls?" question. I also thought of two pretty awesome threads, but I have to get some sleep now, so I'll continue...well, I'd say tomorrow, but it's almost 3:20am, so I guess it'll be in a few hours.
Tbh, I believe Morality is unnatural, but this doesn't mean it's bad, nearly everything wich is created serves a purpose somehow, i believe morality is something humans gained or learned through evolution wich has helped us to work together and be able to trust one and another. I think morality is a learned procces it does not come naturally, altough it comes to some allot easier than others, and then again some people are wholly incapable of the concept of morals. As a prime example i would state that in allot of cases of anger or fear, wich lie very close, mankind is pulled towards the thoughts of violence and conflict to eliminate eachother, wich sometimes conflicts with the morals we would have in other cases. So i believe Morality is something wich is put on top of our base instincts so we can work togheter and function as a society, i don't know if this proccess is evolutunairy (we now have this capability when in the past we didn't) or if it's purely social, i think it's a mix of both. And therefor, being a Darwinist, i believe that any species can achieve this morality if it evolves in a particular way, meaning animals can have (basic) moral values, but due to the communication barrier it is (near) impossible to assertain if this is the case. So to conclude, I think morals aren't made by god, or purely social, and i think it's very improbable it being pure evolution, so i'd say it probably is a combination of the two latter options. Furthermore i think its very much possible that animals have morality but it sadly is impossible to prove this hypothesis
so you are saying that morality comes from evolution/natural selection that gave us a kind of human solidarity feeling of a saying if I dont help out my fellows then we will all die out is it possible that cro magnums and neanderthals didnt have such an evolutionary process? Also isnt there study into a gene that makes us good/evil, I feel like I have heard of that somewhere. I'm also not so sure that there isnt a a way to prove that animals have morality, Elephants for example when one of there pack dies they all wait around it for hours showing that they have some sort of familly/acquintances bond. Obviouslly though I dont think bacteria have a common comradeship its for more developed species like elephants, and to bring thought of animal farm pigs probably have these morales too. And are you saying you support Jean-Jacques roussieu idea that we are born good and enviroment changes it accordingly.
Morality stems from individual thought. There is no objective morality, and there is no natural morality. Whatever your opinion about the rational basis of morality is, there can be no question that it exists because we are capable of thought on a high enough level to recognize it.
Well i'd start off by saying that you are correct that most pack animals have what we could call morals, but it is still hard to prove, your evidence is circumstantial, yes the elephants wait for the dead to rise up and live again, but you cannot prove this is because of an emotional bond or from the moral perspective of not leaving anyone behind, because frankly it could be because the elephants are to thick to figure out that it's dead or that they get genuinly confused. Although i do indeed believe that there are some indications of morality in animals, i was just stating that that this becomes increasingly hard to prove, just like the animal-pain question, do animals feel pain? They very much seem to, but i am incapable of comunicating with animals and in such a relative sphere without communication of their perception i cannot state anything of this. Furthermore, the fact that research is being done into something doesn't mean that the hypothesis makes any sense. I could start research into; if toenails have thoughts, but this wouldn't increase the probability or prove in anyway that toenails have thoughts. And i believe man is born as something neutral, the brain at that moment is a piece of canvas so to speak, meaning that it is their enviroment wich instils those traits, both 'good' and 'evil'. Of course there is genetic pre-disposition, a basic skill or capacity set so to speak, for instance a sociopath isn't capable of common emotional response, and therefore less likely to feel the need for morals, and thus easily be labeled for evil. But he is not born evil, he is not born with malicious intent, that is merely his reaction to society.
Well that's bassically the less eloquent way of saying what i meant (and leaving all the philosophising out of course)
Morality is such an old term built into human society which only differs from religion to religion. Not only that, but depending on your culture, you may have stronger or weaker morals compared to someone else. Depending on your conditioning , it varies from person to person. However most people see morals as a positive meaning which links with the term soul. A soul is your individualality in a group of so many. Imagine a world then without 'morals', you would still have the good, the bad, and the ugly (sorry couldnt help it). Morals in my mind help those who cannot make a decision by themselves. It's a guidance for those who feel the need for guidance. In a world without morals, the common man must decide fate with his own choices and decide if the human is impossible to replace or not.
