Hello.

First, I disagree with the claim that the moral code is different depending on where you are. The concept of the Golden Rule, do unto others and you want them to do unto you, occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition. Source.

Now the source of moral code that is the Golden Rule, is our conscience, or sense of duty. E.g. if a baby is drowning and the situation is such that you can safely rescue it, I am pretty sure you and everyone else will experience a sense of duty to do so. That is not to say that everyone would actually choose to save the baby, but everyone would experience the duty of doing so.

Finally, everyone seeks justice and rejects injustice, at least to themselves. Combine this with the Golden Rule, and it follows that there is a universal way of acting that is righteous. E.g. nobody wants to be lied to, so we ought not to lie.

It is true that there is such a thing as conscience and sense of duty. But What I am trying to get at is, how do we know if there is, and if there's not then how do we know what should be in a universal moral code. If there was a universal moral code then why is it that certain laws are implemented in one place and not in others? Also, if there is such a thing as a universal conscience and sense of duty, then why are there psychopaths and sociopaths? Clearly they don't have a sense of duty or a conscience and since that is the case then why is it that we impose laws on people without a conscience when we are basing our moral code on our consciences and senses of duty? Isn't that a form of tyranny?

I have been pondering these questions for a while. Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are? If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are? Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

Morality is a loosely defined concept that provided some guidance as to how one might act in a community. Every community is different as are its members, and everything is constantly changing which will coax morality to change with it. We all have our own value systems which need to work somehow in the communities we choose to live in. But everything is always changing, though I find personal value systems rather constant within a single lifetime.

But, is there a universal moral code that can be agreed upon and if there is, is it then wrong to force other people to adopt said moral code?

Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are? — Matthew Gould

One answer would be: constant conjunction, to borrow a phrase from Hume, of confused and false ideas reinforced by one's family, culture, religion, etc.

If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are? — Matthew Gould

It wouldn't be. If it's universal, then it doesn't change. What's different would be other behavioral systems that claim to be prescribing what is moral but are in fact not.

Also, where does Morality come from? — Matthew Gould

This question is too vague. Are you asking what grounds moral behavior? I would answer that it is compassion.

But, is there a universal moral code that can be agreed upon and if there is, is it then wrong to force other people to adopt said moral code? — Matthew Gould

I don't think there is a universal moral code, or any that comes even close. Some larger communities, e.g. religions, do attempt to adopt one, but still communities and individuals pick and choose.

Certain moral stances are forced upon people by governments, usually for the benefit of those in power. To what extent people actually adopt these codes depends. Life can be quite a mess.

Well if there is no universal moral code then how do we know what is moral and what isn't. I mean I could just one day decide that it's wrong to do anything and that would be a moral code.

We develop our own value system over time (duration) via a learning process and we mediate our value system with other individuals (friends, family, partners), and with the larger communities. Even our personal value systems will change from one community to another. There are no set rules, just navigation.

if there is such a thing as a universal conscience and sense of duty, then why are there psychopaths and sociopaths? — Matthew Gould

I don't know much about psychopaths, but will attempt to explain it anyways. Sure, maybe they lack a sense of duty, but it does not follow that objective morality does not exist. Much like most people will see the red of a red chair, colourblind people will not, but this does not change the fact that the chair is red.

why is it that we impose laws on people without a conscience when we are basing our moral code on our consciences and senses of duty? Isn't that a form of tyranny? — Matthew Gould

This depends what we impose. If we impose our subjective preferences on others, then it is tyranny. But if we impose justice on people, then it is not tyranny, because tyranny is unjust by definition.

If there was a universal moral code then why is it that certain laws are implemented in one place and not in others? — Matthew Gould

There may be different moral laws in different places, but then it could say something about the quality of the law-making of the place, and not of the universality of the moral law. Some regions have the caste system. Would you not agree that this system of law is unjust?

↪Rich Well if there is no universal moral code then how do we know what is moral and what isn't. I mean I could just one day decide that it's wrong to do anything and that would be a moral code. — Matthew Gould

That there is no universal moral code does not entail that morality is as arbitrary as you portray it!

Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

There was a good essay on this question in the NY Times by philosopher Richard Polt, called Anything But Human:

I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense.

The issue is, evolution carries the prestige of science; enlightened people are supposed to understand their existence in its light, in a way analogous to how they used to see it in light of the Bible. But that’s a kind of category error - evolutionary theory is first and foremost a biological theory, not an ethical one, and to try and re-interpret ethical questions in its light is invariably reductionist. That isn’t to say that evolutionary perspectives can’t be brought to bear, as they often can; but it doesn’t comprise an ethical theory per se.

I have been pondering these questions for a while. Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are? If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are? Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

I've been thinking about this too. There are many reasons to be moral, to be good. We don't like being hurt, mentally or physically. That could be a basis for morality - a system that promotes and protects human (even animal) happiness and, in the same breath, limits and extirpates suffering. Another reason for morality could be as a cohesive force because without morality, society would be impossible. I think almost all moral theories can be reduced to the two reasons I've outlined above.

It seems, however, that these various reasons for morality don't converge on a single set of rules/codes. Even if they do, they contradict each other, rendering all moral systems pointless.

It seems that rationally speaking, to be good one must, paradoxically, abandon reason itself.

Even if they do, they contradict each other, rendering all moral systems pointless. — TheMadFool

I would query that view, it is negative and defeatist. It would be better to consider what ethical systems have in common - which is actually quite a lot - rather than to say that they all negate each other.

I would query that view, it is negative and defeatist. It would be better to consider what ethical systems have in common - which is actually quite a lot - rather than to say that they all negate each other. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand. I'm being negative. Philosophy has, to say the least, revealed important features of morality...consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, all, unveil crucial details on what morality is about.

What surprises me, and I hope you have something to say about it, is why these various moral theories don't see eye to eye.

If there really is a universal moral code... — Matthew Gould

Think for a bit on what would be involved in a universal moral code. Would we have a set of rules that for every possible situation told us algorithmically what we ought to do?

That would be less than human.

What surprises me, and I hope you have something to say about it, is why these various moral theories don't see eye to eye. — TheMadFool

Well, one factor is historical - in a very short time-frame all of the diverse cultural and ethical systems are jostling one another in the global village. Each are confronted with the difference of the other. Hence the constant emphasis on ‘encouraging diversity’. But there are challenges in doing that; and the global village is also getting very crowded.

The fact that especially the monotheistic faiths each claim to have the exclusive truth also plays into the argument that they can’t all be right, so why should any of them be? I suppose one answer to that is that it is up to individuals to wrestle with these issues and try to make the best and most meaningful choice. After all one of the attributes of liberal democracy is supposed to be the ability to engage in principled opposition.

There’s also a lot to be said for ecumenical movements that try to find common ground between different systems.

Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? — Matthew Gould

Are they the only choices?

Could it be from the need to do what is good?

Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are?
If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are?
Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

I do not think that moral codes are completely different and unrelated. For instance, I think that all nations can agree that murder is wrong, but the issue remains the differing definitions of murder. If you come from a Westernized/ Christian nation, then you may see human sacrifice as murderous. Those who practice it see it as returning something to their god to obtain its favor. However, as soon as they learn that their god does not exist and that the killings are meaningless, they cease. So the universal definition of murder might be that one killing another without purpose or for evil motivations (such as a thief killing the victim). I think that most true murderers have a strong sense of guilt, especially at first, unless they have a very corrupted conscience.

As for where the moral codes came from, it must have come from the same place that the first thought came from. Information cannot be created or destroyed, at least in this physical world; so from an evolutionary standpoint, thought and moral code remains impossible to achieve. Information cannot come from non-information, moral code cannot come from nothing.

Specifically, why is it that moral codes are different depending on where you are? If there really is a universal moral code then why is it that it is different depending on where you are? — Matthew Gould

Actually, this is more of a myth. For as much as it is publicized that different cultures have different moral norms, they aren't generally radically different. Most cultures have the same general views on morality: seeing the acts of hurting people, stealing, lying, breaking promises, disobeying the law, disrespecting God, murder, rape, incest, etc as wrong are all basically universal.

Also, where does Morality come from? Did it come from religion or did it come from our evolutionary past? I am curious as to what some of you think. — Matthew Gould

No, I don't think it primordially comes from religion, as if we required an organized hierarchy of robed men to tell us what we ought to do. Nor are the sociobiologist (cranks?) right when they say our moral beliefs and behavior are entirely explained through an evolutionary story. Really, morality stems from an alien, but not necessarily hostile, relation to the "Other" which cannot be consumed or manipulated into the Same. That's the essence of "Ethics".

Well, one factor is historical - in a very short time-frame all of the diverse cultural and ethical systems are jostling one another in the global village. — Wayfarer

I guess it's a work in progress. I wonder how things will turn out though. Will it be reason that'll decide which ethical system will ''win'' or will it be power, cultural or military, that'll decide which ethical system will be universally adopted. I ask because Western ethical systems, religious and secular, seem to overpower other ethical systems. For instance, pedophilia over child marriage, etc. Is this trend based on rationality or is it cultural and military dominance?

I suppose one answer to that is that it is up to individuals to wrestle with these issues and try to make the best and most meaningful choice. After all one of the attributes of liberal democracy is supposed to be the ability to engage in principled opposition. — Wayfarer

What if the individual is prejudiced through religious, cultural and political indoctrination? Can we trust an individual to find his way through the moral labyrinth? The answer is probably no and this suggests the need for, as you said, an ecumenical effort.

Where Does Morality Come From?

Immorality.

Most morality is objective because of commonsense but in a secular country like America some morality is subjective because of different cultures.

Where does morality come from?

If morality is taken to be a code of conduct, then it comes from us and it is entirely about what's considered to be acceptable/unacceptable thought/belief and/or behaviour.

You say morality comes from us, so then it is not individual. It arises in our relationship with others, a "code of conduct" a sense of fairness , justice., history.

If so then moralities's ontology is that of a objective political act, one in which the "code" subjectively transcends and guides our acts. Moral acts exist within our normative construction of a world, a world which contingently depends on the history of our shared relationships.

Then there is no moral nature, morality alienates us from nature. Our interest in justice is a shared motivation to do good, something we can all understand. A motivation to do good, each guided by their own conscience.

A passionate motivation to do good.

Rousseau "The mistake of most moralists has always been to consider man as an essentially reasonable being. Man is a sensitive being, who consults solely his passions in order to act, for and for whom reason serves only to palliate the follies his passions lead him to commit"

My personal view on morality is that it is partially innate, in the sense that our individual moral code is based entirely on our evolved emotional responses to individual situations. The notion that there would be some universal moral code doesn't make much sense from that point of view. People are only as moral as they desire to be as they feel they are capable. The reason that different cultures have different moral codes comes down to the interaction of the sum of all individual moral codes. If you feel that something is right, and a larger group of people feel it is wrong, it is more advantageous to change your moral code than to go against the group. That's why different cultures have different moral standards. When it comes to morals, you either stay with the majority or face the consequences and that is decided on a subconscious level that many people consider to be their "conscience".

You say morality comes from us, so then it is not individual. It arises in our relationship with others, a "code of conduct" a sense of fairness , justice., history. — Cavacava

Morality naturally arises because we are interdependent social creatures. One's 'sense' of fairness, justice, and history are cultivated via common language. The same holds good for one's moral 'sense'. We come to understand such notions with a richness that only complex language can provide. That is not to say that everything we talk about is existentially contingent upon our awareness of it... contents of the focus within moral discourse notwithstanding.

...Then there is no moral nature, morality alienates us from nature. — Cavacava

Clearly I disagree.

Rousseau "The mistake of most moralists has always been to consider man as an essentially reasonable being. Man is a sensitive being, who consults solely his passions in order to act, for and for whom reason serves only to palliate the follies his passions lead him to commit" — Cavacava

Man is both. Those are not mutually exclusive. The sheer number of utterly inadequate dichotomies that continue to pervade philosophical discourse astounds me...

Morality naturally arises because we are interdependent social creatures

We are social creatures only negatively. Human's by nature are desirous, greedy, needful, spiteful, weak creatures. We are social creatures because we have no other choice but to negate our natural inclinations, to alienate our self from our nature.

One's 'sense' of fairness, justice, and history are cultivated via common language. The same holds good for one's moral 'sense'. We come to understand such notions with a richness that only complex language can provide. That is not to say that everything we talk about is existentially contingent upon our awareness of it... contents of the focus within moral discourse notwithstanding.

Morality is an action, it may be described by language and language may give rise certain biases, to certain points of view, but the being of morality arises only in our actions with others.

Those are not mutually exclusive

Reason is a tool, it is neither good nor bad. Our passions: love, hate, jealousy, kindness ...these are good or bad.

A passionate motivation to do good.

Rousseau "The mistake of most moralists has always been to consider man as an essentially reasonable being. Man is a sensitive being, who consults solely his passions in order to act, for and for whom reason serves only to palliate the follies his passions lead him to commit" — Cavacava

The theory of energy flow put forth in the chakra system is relevant here, as you probably know. It is not quite the mysterious secret in Western civilization that is was many years ago. But there don't seem to be many proponents of it that are taken seriously, or given much credibility beyond "therapeutic healing". It may strike some as "too religious-based" or "new age-y" or just plain "voodoo". It seems the acceptance of chakras, chi, and many other Eastern-type ideas was hindered greatly by the both terrorism and the resulting "war on terror".

But a damaged circulation of vital energy in a person will do as much damage if not more, than the damaged flow of blood, oxygen, or nutrients. Multiply that by a thousand, by a million, or by 7 billion...
and the result is what we are experiencing and dealing with at the present. Is this a simplification? Yes, like a pattern, algorithm, or model is simplified to its essential parts. Could it help untangle the knot if understood and applied to the situation? That seems to be the question at hand.

Morality, as the term is generally understood, comes from God.

Any other view on morality is not really about morality, but about what people perceive as consensus on personal hedonism. In that case morality is just a label that serve to purposefully disguise the truth in atheistic universe - that ultimately there is no good or bad, but only what personal state of a human sees as useful or not for him or her. "Don't do me harm, and I won't do it to you, so I can get most out of this life" type of a contract. That type of "morality" comes from man, but it is not what people generally understand as morality, so it would be sort of a scam word (if we would actually be living in atheistic universe).

This depends what we impose. If we impose our subjective preferences on others, then it is tyranny. But if we impose justice on people, then it is not tyranny, because tyranny is unjust by definition. — Samuel Lacrampe

This relies on the premise that fulfilment of justice can't be unjust.