Where does/do morality/morals come from?

[AndrésC64]

IOW, as first put by Euthyphro

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Nature

Humans

God (s)

Other

[spg12212122]

Morality is a habit and there is a mathematical proof for that. But babies also have a sense of morality from as early as they feel discomfort and comfort from parents. Habit and moral character are intimately interconnected and often intertwined with no distinguishing line.

Habits in general may be deemed of two types: those which are either skills, and the more important ‘moral habits’, thought of as habits of conduct. In this context Aristotle’s emphasis on habit become increasingly relevant to discussions of moral development.

Virtues and vices are acquired by habit Intellectual virtue and moral virtue comes from habit. It means that the two are acquired differently; intellectual virtue can be acquired by reading a book; moral virtue can be acquired only through practice.

[spg12212122]

There are two types of immorality by convention which we decide for ourselves as a society which is punished by humans or in essence which has naturally occurring consequences.

[spg12212122]

I guess you could say morality comes from intelligence. Communicating in essence is conveying information and because we are emotional beings we communicate emotion. Morality is that emotion we want to develop the intention behind actions that thoughts effect emotions create. The more intelligent you are the better at communicating that data. Morality is that which keeps appearing in that communication, a dialogue existing in a metaphorical world. Morality is that metaphor, but does morality actually exist? Where does morality come from? Is it as a cosmic energy? You could say yes it does exist. That would be the energy inside neurons.

[spg12212122]

Humans are indeed stuck in their ways having a form that is unchanging and that change is as slow as grass grows. It grows and becomes overgrown and you can rely on that it makes the world what it is. The grass always looks the way it does and there are many types of grass the animal kingdom depends on that grass to grow, so they can function. That grass grows on a set of conditions or rules doesn’t need much doesn’t have many needs and forms a major part of the circle of life you cannot do without grass like you cannot do without humans. What is a human good for? The humans would have you believe that life would thrive without them instead it is just prolonging their death. With human’s life can spread far and wide humans also create that life into its ideal form. Without humans, God could not be venerated and worshipped so they also dictate God's importance giving value to life. So while humans say God is a predator who demands worship likewise humans want to be celebrated and are the most fearsome predator of a 300 million-year evolution.

[Andres77]

What is pious if our origin is sea goop?

[AndrésC64]

Pious is what has developed through evolution and our being a social species. It's what we decide as a group is best for the group as a whole. It's accepted norms.

[Andres77]

Respectfully disagree.
I’m no better than anyone.
I simply cannot accept that the universe burst out of nothingness so I am convinced there is a higher power.
For any human to claim piety is absolute arrogance. Piety is an endeavor before God acknowledging one’s own sinfulness.
Without the standard of God there is no morality. There is no holy, no conscience.
Pious has become a level of status contrived by an unordained church that is evil in its inception and wholly contrary to the Word of God. Catholiscism.
There are good Catholics but wholly ignorant of the Word of God.

[AndrésC64]

I agree, no single person in general is better than anyone else. But, science and scientists don't tell us that the universe burst out of nothingness. I hear religious people say this all the time, but they are the ones that insist that the universe came out of nothingness. That's not what science tells us.

You can say that piety is an endeavor before God, but you would first have to prove, or at least provide evidence, that God exists. Where did God get the standard? That's the whole point of this question.

[Andres77]

The heavens declare the glory of God. The firmament shows His handywork.
If one looks at creation and already decides that God doesn’t exist then the miracle of nature is lost on them and the future of the nearby community is weakened.

[AndrésC64]

Saying that the world or universe is evidence of God is completely different than actually providing evidence. I could just as easily say that they are evidence for Amun, Brahma or literally anything else I wanted.

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
― Douglas Adams

[Andres77]

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. We’re both going to die and we both hope we’re right. If you’re right. Okay, we just disappear into nothingness. No harm done. If I’m right…eternity is a long time to burn in hell.

[Andres77]

I’ll repeat the motto of the satanists for you…do what you want. Good luck with that.

[AndrésC64]

But what you said in the above post about dying, is called Pascal's wager. It fails to consider every other proposed god. You are just picking one out of thousands of gods. Your odds are essentially no better than mine. What if Brahma or Amun is right?

[Andres77]

Pascal has no authority in any condition. He’s probably dead.
You are going to die. I wish you well on the other side.

[AndrésC64]

It's just a fallacy that they call Pascal's wager, because he's the one who first proposed it.

“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

But, he is only considering the possibility that his God is the right one, while completely ignoring every other God ever proposed. His odds of being wrong are virtually the same as mine. And he is just as likely to have chosen wrong as I am. Making him in the same bad position as I would be.

[menina]

I would say it's from humans. Most of us have a sense of morality that it was either born with us or we learned over time.

[Tamera952]

From the golden rule of course…. Certainly not from GEE-ZEUS & his merry band of hippies! Don’t be silly

[RiseofArtemis]

They come from observations. Example. A culture that only allows monogamy has much more healthier people and deeper bonds then a culture that has promiscuity.

A culture where you are allowed to do what the hell you want is one that's going to burn down. A strong society has strict rules.

[jshm2]

They come for the faiths of religions. Hence why every civilisation had religions found them and provide them their laws and moral conduct.

When they fell away from the religion, they also fell away from the laws and moral conduct. Hence leading to their ruin.

[AndrésC64]

Such as?

[Derekk]

Through rational deliberation from principles that are impossible to doubt, due to them being a prerequisite to rational deliberation itself.

[AndrésC64]

I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain a bit?

[Derekk]

Sure. Let's say that you're deciding whether consuming dairy products is morally acceptable. Any appeal to consequences is necessarily subjective. Like why should anyone care about a particular outcome if the ends are arbitrarily chosen? Even intuitive ones like "don't murder" are still just intuitions about what we ought to do. I happen to share these, but you can't rationally ground them without either theology or a rational morality. So I would suggest this: if you're eating ice cream, look at other principles of action that you're implicitly acting on. Such as, "it's ok to financially support companies that do X", or "it's ok to buy frozen goods" or "it's ok to move my body to the supermarket to buy this product" etc. Eventually, through deliberation, you can formulate tons and tons of implicit principles behind what we do, and the correct moral outcome then is the one that leaves no logical inconsistencies between what you are trying to justify, and any other principle. Suppose you decide to buy ice cream on a Sunday, and through deliberation, you decide that Sunday is a day of rest in accordance with another principle. In that case, you can go further back and ask "if Sunday is a day of rest, why not other days"? Morality is really just a game of straightening out inconsistencies as best as you can. You will never be able to question or challenge everything, but that's ok because morality by definition implies choice and a free will anyways. If you can't know better, you aren't culpable.

[smølf]

Either God or it doesn't exist as objective truths.

[AndrésC64]

But it doesn't exist as objective truth even with God. That's the whole point of the original question.

[smølf]

Doesn't make the point true.

God tells up us what's objectively true, regardless of you agreeing or not.

[AndrésC64]

Wrong. Where did God get what he tells us is objectively true?

[AndrésC64]

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
-- Euthyphro

[spg12212122]

God creates morality... Everything is Subjective with Christ whereas humans are objects and the objective are the rules of objects. Based on observable phenomena. Morality is observable to us and God created what we think of as observable.

[AndrésC64]

So if God creates morality, does that mean that God decides what is moral and what isn't?

[spg12212122]

No he already knows, but we choose..

[spg12212122]

Its Gods divine comedy, and we have archetypal disasters if we go against our morality and it is subjective to us.

[AndrésC64]

I didn't ask you whether God knows what is moral. I asked you how got those morals.

[spg12212122]

Ah I see, humans claimed God is moral because that is how humans describe God. Rather than being something opposite to life and goodness. God is able to become death yet still be pleasing to us.

[spg12212122]

We can only understand morality through abstract metaphor such as archetypes which makes sense of such things. Turning complex actions and systems into simpler metaphors. An archetype is an idea, symbol, pattern, or character-type, in a story.

It’s any story element that appears again and again in stories from cultures around the world and symbolizes something universal in the human experience. Morality being one of them Archetypes are always somewhat in question. After all, no one has studied every culture in the world – that would be impossible – so we never know for sure whether something is truly universally but God could analyse that and say what is moral for a human.

[AndrésC64]

But you keep ignoring the point. How does God know/decide what is or isn't moral?

[spg12212122]

Because nature is dual, life and death and God desires growth..

[spg12212122]

God is opulent not decadent. Humans see decadence and that makes us think we should aspire to that as it seems seductive. The absolute beauty of God. With strength inconceivable to man. His fame is total. The wealth of God defies the imagination. Who has total knowledge of everything and through that knowledge desires what humans find pleasing to them. An opulence which is perhaps the most awe inspiring of Gods qualities is renunciation—the opulence by which the Lord can reject all others.

[AndrésC64]

Cool. Now would you like to try actually answering my question? I'll repeat it for you: How does God know/decide what is or isn't moral?

[spg12212122]

He asks us..

[AndrésC64]

@spg12212122 "He asks us.."?

[AndrésC64]

So God gets his morality from us? Wow.

[spg12212122]

It is evident we exist objectively, but try to describe our objective existence, and language cannot describe it. Not that we don't exist or that morality doesn't exist objectively, just that our limited language is imprecise enough and limited enough based on a few limited definitions that it's inexpressable. The same with God we can describe him linguistically such as the ultimate complex evolution. Just because we cannot describe morality objectively doesn't mean there is no objective morality.

[smølf]

If we presume the God of the Bible is God, then he created everything and knows what is right and wrong. He then decides what good or bad morals are, and he will judge accordingly, regardless of whether we agree or not.

[CloudMassacre]

I think it comes from nature

[strateguy632]

god!