Where Does Morality Come From?

Looks like someone has been reading Plato.

 

I did that when I studied Greek at fourteen, and it didn't convince me then either. What is a 'soul'? What is 'spiritual'? Morality is what allows people to live as fully as is conceivable without interfering with others' right to do the same. I think Plato is the founding father of conservatism, desperate to save slavery against decency.

 

Well your post about the soul and knowledge is thoroughly Platonic in nature. In fact, it's exactly the argument Plato makes in the Phaedo.

As for Plato attempting to save slavery, I'm not sure where you get that from, certainly not in the Republic (which is a meritocracy) and certainly not "desperate to save [it] against decency" (I think there are maybe a couple of references to it in the Laws - but nothing like what you say here). In fact, one of the overarching themes of Plato's thought is precisely that ignorance makes us all slaves insofar as it chains us to our desires, passions, dogmas, bias, and our claims to know (when we don't), as well as subjecting us to power elites within society who manipulate what we think: business leaders, religious leaders, politicians, paid speakers, etc. They present ideas/images and shape how we view the world in order to subjugate: for Plato, democracy is the illusion of freedom, because people perceive reality as they are given it, rather than thinking critically about it - as a result, they legitimate their own servitude all the while thinking they are free. Only reason can emancipate us. According to Plato, democracy is a society governed by ignorance and base desires and will eventually slide into tyranny when it elects the wrong leader. This is why Plato called for political leadership to be comprised of the most intelligent within society (with access open to all, including women, and in 4th century BC this was pretty radical) - because nothing could be worse for us as a community than to have an ignorant person(s) wield the enormous power of the state.

 

Sorry. . .not Plato. I picked up my current world view gradually over the years from a variety of sources.

 

I once wrote an M. Ed dissertation of this. My key point was that Plato was desperate to deny change, the notion that Panta rhei, which is why he created this elaborate fantasy about forms, so that his class could remain in control of a society that clearly required slavery to exist. Platonism, I argued, was the ultimate block to humanistic education.

 

Morality is the set of rules of behavior that a society or group decides will facilitate the survival of that society.

 

Okay. But the first to articulate such a view of knowing (as remembrance) was Plato. It may very well be that those additional sources are derived from his view. Regardless, what you wrote above is thoroughly Platonic.

 

Interesting. But Plato doesn't deny change (he claims the world of Becoming is constantly in flux - here you have an essentially Hereaclitean idea) he wants to salvage it - this is why he needs permanence (the influence of Parmenides [all reality is unchanging]- the point was to reconcile these two intellectual giants) - the world of Being was understood as over an above the sensible world, as the unchanging realm of the universal ideas/Forms. Now you say the Forms are a fantasy - but this depends on the ontological status we give Plato's metaphysics (are we talking about actually existing objects? Or is Plato's account best understood in terms of intellectual concepts?) For example, is there some ideal definition of what it means to be human? Something that we ought to strive to know? Or is it always in flux, changing, with no essential qualities? This of course matters in the slavery debate. An ideal form of human being can be used (normatively) to criticize practices of slavery as acts of misrecongnition that see slaves as mere objects, that don't accord them their rightful dignity as human beings. An appeal to an essential form of humanity, is one way in which that critique can take place. If everything is in flux, if everything lacks permanence, you end up in a world of radical relativity (in which even the meaning of words becomes undermined -at least according to Plato - I'm assuming here that your thesis here looked at Plato's dialogues Cratylus and the Republic, given your research interests).

As for the slaves issue, I'm also assuming your are familiar with John Dewey's classic claim that Plato wanted to educate the majority of people to become slaves (although this seems more metaphorical), which was predicated on Dewey's belief that we can't know for sure that Plato's view of the mind/human nature was accurate (i.e. that only a few have the natural capacity to do philosophy/critical thinking - for Dewey, we just don't know this because we haven't had the opportunity to provide (experiment with) the best educational models for developing student potentiality (that educational models in Western Industrial societies were beholden to ideological social/economic influences with a vested interest in structuring education in ways that promoted authoritarianism and stabilized economic class differences). As such it is true that Plato's position is explicitly anti-democratic. But this is no surprise as it follows from Plato's explicit critique of democracy (which wasn't a conservative argument to uphold the ruling class of the intelligensia since they weren't in power, but rather a call for radical change from the existing Athenian democracy, which Plato saw as significantly debased - furthermore, Plato opens philosophical (guardian) education up to all people - all genders, all classes - in order to see who has the capacity for philosophical thought and leadership (meritocracy) - hardly a defense of a certain group). Additionally, this required developing the capacities of all people to do what they are best at (business, military, critical thinking, etc.), allowing each person to achieve excellence in what they were naturally good at (hence there is no requirement for slavery in the Republic, everyone develops their natural talents to the ends they are inclined towards). The point for Plato, given his assumption of human nature/knowing, was to construct the best possible society that would allow for human flourishing and excellence (ideally resulting in social harmony - everyone doing what they are best at). Dewey disagreed with that assumption of human nature and presented a far more democratic egalitarian educational model (he also disagreed strenuously with Plato's quest for certainty - but I'm already half way to another dissertation here, so...). I'm not siding with Plato here, just clarifying. Additionally, I'm not suggesting you are unaware of these arguments, I'm just hoping to see where in the analysis we disagree.

 

All gov'ts on earth are ordained by God. So that doesn't say much, does it?

 

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the basic underpinnings of morality (and Natural Law)

 

Which would be unfortunate if one is a masochist.

 

Well, I studied Greek in school. but our English master used to quote Aristotle (he said, I think) to the effect that philosophy was not a study for young men, and I never seemed to get to the right age! My point in the dissertation was that those who set up British public education were Platonists and hated change, whereas those who wanted humanistic education were happy with the world of flux and fell no need for permanence, as I admit is true of me too. I know Dewey reasonably well, but I think the key point is that we are coming at this question from different directions. I am wholly contented to give you best on knowledge of Philosophy - I was taught by F.R. Leavis, who perhaps undervalued it, but we are what we are, and my notions about permanence are profoundly Buddhist. A comparison of the Buddha and Plato might be interesting, I often think.

 

That's why you need the other half of the equation.

 

Avoidance of pain in all its forms is the reason we prefer to take certain actions and avoid others. It is the reason for calling some experiences bad. Pain, suffering, sickness, and chaos isn't the basis of morality, it's how we experience these things that are the basis of morality.

 

Can you prove subjective morality is a myth?

 

That is likey not true. First, I know for a fact proof of objective morality would make no difference in my personal views. Second, it is more or less obvious many people do in fact believe objective morality does not exist. Humans commiting negative actions by rejecting some form of inherent "programming" for lack of a better term, is only an assumption. It may however be true of some humans, but not necessarily all. Unless I myself am the one bizarre exception. Though at least you do not claim to have the ability to read what goes on inside another's mind.

One would have to ask, is the concept of objective morality something to convince the believer that their thoughts and actions are validated by an external force as an alternative to justification from subjective morality? For example, yguy, your homophobia. Did you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is morally wrong based on a metaphysical sense of morality or from your own personal feelings of disgust? By that logic, if my own conscience for example, tells me those with certain perspectives are "bad people" then how can you be sure their views are not immoral? If it is simply wrong due to the pragmatism of reproduction, then why should humans not reproduce during their teenage years or reproduce with multiple partners due to that same concept? Anyway, I know you once stated how you were pleased with the suicide of a gay man some time ago. Does your conscience tell you this feeling of satisfaction is acceptable? If so, I can at least understand that feeling. Not of the demographic in question, but the gratification of having opposition eliminate itself. Not long ago there was an ironic suicide in France.

 

It's absolutely true, and probability is no issue.

So much for #340.

No, what's obvious is that they pretend to believe that when it's convenient.

Didn't bother reading further.

 

If you're an atheist, I don't know where morality comes from, it simply is a matter of personal preference in that case.

 

"It's absolutely true, and probability is no issue."

I am unsure what you meant in this statement. Did you mean by "no issue" that evil is not a problem for certain people in this scenario? If that is what you meant, do you know of a method that confirms with absolute certainty what goes on inside every other person's mind?

"No, what's obvious is that they pretend to believe that when it's convenient."

Possibly true in some cases. Perhaps even the majority. Though how can one be certain that you don't believe what you do because it is merely convenient for yourself?
Also, why would anyone bother to believe in subjective morality out of convenience? A person's opinions and desires can still be held regardless of objective morality.

"So much for #340."

What is #340?


"Didn't bother reading further."

I see. If you had read further, there are some more questions I'm sure you have answers to. There may even be some similarity between you and I.

 

While I am not an atheist, this concept seems more favorable as opposed to objective morality. Equal opportunity for all ideologies. Of course if objective morality does exist, I as anyone else, would prefer for it to be in line with my ideals. Though that would simply be wishful thinking on my part to make that assumption.

 

What do you do if 51% think Jews (or your race) really would be better off dead?

 

The question is irredeemably and insufferably idiotic. Happy trails.

 

You know you are smarter than this. I've noticed on several of your posts, I am not the only one whose questions you have avoided. Your only response to certain questions tends to be insults or you only answer the questions you want. Your choice, hopefully this is an attempt to annoy/"troll" others, or that you simply don't care enough and not a sign of your lack of intelligence. You seem very capable of making rational arguments at times. I've seen it. But if you want to continue this, then happy trails as well, yguy. Perhaps one day we may speak in person.


"It's absolutely true, and probability is noissue."

I am unsure what you meant in thisstatement. Did you mean by "no issue" that evil is not a problem for certain people in this scenario? If that is what you meant, do you know of a method thatconfirms with absolute certainty what goes on inside every other person's mind?

"No, what's obvious is that they pretendto believe that when it's convenient."

Possibly true in some cases. Perhaps even the majority. Though how can one be certain that you don't believe what you do because it is merely convenient for yourself?
Also, why would anyone bother to believe in subjective morality out of convenience? A person's opinions and desires can still be held regardless of objective morality.

"So much for #340."

What is #340?


"Didn't bother reading further."

I see. If you had read further, there are some more questions I'm sure you have answers to. There may even be some similarity between you and I.

"The question is irredeemably andinsufferably idiotic. Happy trails."


How is it idiotic? If one were to commit actions objective morality proved as evil, why would it matter to that person whether what they were doing is evil or not?

 

Hello Paul7. Thank you for your question.
Put simply, while I feel no personal connection with my race, I am against any form of judging others by racial background. Being that the 51% would be ideological opposition, I would have to strive to annihilate that 51%.

Thank you again, I am looking forward to any other questions you may have.

 

Morality comes from the mind of man. It arose out of necessity for order over chaos within the group, the tribe. For it addresses human behavior towards other humans.

No doubt over time, being thinking animals, we noticed certain kinds of behavior created friction and disorder within the social group. And at some point our minds were able to discern the cause and effect nature of human behavior towards other humans. And there ya go. After all moral codes have commonality as they span cultures and eras. Most human societies if not all share basic moral values.

Don't steal from another(early on this might make someone go hungry, as well as create anger, leading to conflict) don't murder another human within your group, and if your society paired up as more or less permanent pairing, having kids, don't take another person's mate, or breed with her on the sly. If at some point a problem arose concerning having kids outside of a pairing, as we see with single parent homes these days, the problems that such behavior can lead to, which again introduces disorder into society, that comes with costs, you might see a moral rule arising that included fornication, outside of marriage sex.

So, I think necessity is the mother of invention, and this is the origination of morality and moral codes. Later on perhaps the idea was included with the rise of religion, that the gods, or a God demanded morality from Its creation, man, in order to give morality even more weight. For morality then did not come from man(which it of course did) but from God who expects proper behavior toward one another and will punish you after death if you screw up.