DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**traithJah** · 09-12-2011, 06:05 AM

I voted none ... why you ask.

Morality is what somebody deems to be right or wrong according to their own subjective views. It's that simple really, neither universal nor motivated by a Group Survival Morality Law definition.

Morality comes from somewhere. If you live alone on an island you don't need morality at all, right or wrong don't make sense anymore. We need to look at this subject from group perspective, morality as a social vital force.
There are only two ways to acquire morality:
1. Genetic - we are born predisposed to learn what morality is and learn it quickly (except people with mental problems). Most likely we have a compartment in our brains dedicated to morality. Same as with speech, learning and understanding speech for humans is easy, because parts of our brains are dedicated to it. Obviously, morality was essential to our evolutionary past, therefore it exists. The only universal aspect of morality is that it might be common to all or most group animals.
2. Learned - most of our morality standards come form influence of our societies. We know from history and from ways of life of different ethnic groups that standards of morality change, but all of them have one. Obviously it must be the nurtured component.

The inherent need to belong, to identify with a group, and to be affirmed determines to what lengths man will go to express the moral values of others.

These are other aspects of social human nature, same as morality. Even though they are expressed as personal emotions, they only make sense if they are analyzed in contexts of human evolution as a group animal.
On personal level we can express our fillings regarding morality, from very social aspects to inconsequential ones like "should I eat meat?" or "is it moral to kill mosquito?". If we want very much we could see almost every part of our lives, every our choice, through moral perspective. In my mind though, this doesn't matter as long as it doesn’t effect a group. What doesn't effect a group is like a background noise, rubbish and is inconsequential. From evolutionary point of view of humans as social animals, whatever doesn’t effect a group shouldn't be considered a moral issue; it's only a "moral" noise, artifact of our socially oriented brains.

PS. I'll answer sparkey next time I have a free moment.

09-12-2011, 06:05 AM	#6
traithJah Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 611 Senior Member	I voted none ... why you ask. Morality is what somebody deems to be right or wrong according to their own subjective views. It's that simple really, neither universal nor motivated by a Group Survival Morality Law definition. Morality comes from somewhere. If you live alone on an island you don't need morality at all, right or wrong don't make sense anymore. We need to look at this subject from group perspective, morality as a social vital force. There are only two ways to acquire morality: 1. Genetic - we are born predisposed to learn what morality is and learn it quickly (except people with mental problems). Most likely we have a compartment in our brains dedicated to morality. Same as with speech, learning and understanding speech for humans is easy, because parts of our brains are dedicated to it. Obviously, morality was essential to our evolutionary past, therefore it exists. The only universal aspect of morality is that it might be common to all or most group animals. 2. Learned - most of our morality standards come form influence of our societies. We know from history and from ways of life of different ethnic groups that standards of morality change, but all of them have one. Obviously it must be the nurtured component. The inherent need to belong, to identify with a group, and to be affirmed determines to what lengths man will go to express the moral values of others. These are other aspects of social human nature, same as morality. Even though they are expressed as personal emotions, they only make sense if they are analyzed in contexts of human evolution as a group animal. On personal level we can express our fillings regarding morality, from very social aspects to inconsequential ones like "should I eat meat?" or "is it moral to kill mosquito?". If we want very much we could see almost every part of our lives, every our choice, through moral perspective. In my mind though, this doesn't matter as long as it doesn’t effect a group. What doesn't effect a group is like a background noise, rubbish and is inconsequential. From evolutionary point of view of humans as social animals, whatever doesn’t effect a group shouldn't be considered a moral issue; it's only a "moral" noise, artifact of our socially oriented brains. PS. I'll answer sparkey next time I have a free moment.
	Quote