Is Morality a product of Emotional Evolution or Intellectual?

[Lote-Tree]

Where does morality comes from? (putting aside Theology...)

Is it mainly from emotion or intellect?

or more correctly intellectual as well as emtional?

If so is morality rooted in emotions or the intellect?

What say you?

[AuntShecky]

Recent scientific studies suggest that altruism is biologically-based, that protecting one's young, protecting
the group, even co-operation, is yet another mechanism
of evolution, whose whole raison d'etre is perpetuating
individual genes and species.

[andave_ya]

How can you separate morality from theology, Lote? Can I suggest a really cool book that talked about this? Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. I'm not sure if posting from it would go against the rules so I won't, to stay on the safe side. In any case, I'm reading it now. You might enjoy it.

[TheFifthElement]

I believe morality is seated in emotion, but guided by the intellect. Reason being that empathy (emotion) is required for morality to exist, but reason (intellect) interprets and applies.

[Lote-Tree]

I believe morality is seated in emotion, but guided by the intellect. Reason being that empathy (emotion) is required for morality to exist, but reason (intellect) interprets and applies.

So logic alone can't derive morality?


How can you separate morality from theology, Lote?


Easy. You have to look humanity from the point of view of Evolution. About 6 million year evolution...

[TheFifthElement]

So logic alone can't derive morality?

No, logic only considers choices and possibilities but not the rightness or wrongness of them. The logical path would be the easy path, the one that achieved the goal with the most efficiency.

[Lote-Tree]

No, logic only considers choices and possibilities but not the rightness or wrongness of them.


Then we should strive for Logic that also give us the rightness and wrongness :D

[Demian]

Where do we get a desire for justice? Why don't ant eaters hold tribunals? Are good and evil merely the ornamental fruits of any particular society? Then why do animals also mourn for the dead that have been taken away before their time?

[Lote-Tree]

Where do we get a desire for justice?

Can we not derive this from logic?



Why don't ant eaters hold tribunals?


Because Ant's do not have the self-realisation of humans?

[EAP]

Peception.

[papayahed]

or more correctly intellectual as well as emtional?


What say you?

both.

[andave_ya]

Easy. You have to look humanity from the point of view of Evolution. About 6 million year evolution...

oh hang. I'm a creationist so this is kinda new to me. Would you please elaborate further? Thanks.:)

[TheFifthElement]

Then we should strive for Logic that also give us the rightness and wrongness :D

Then it would no longer be logic, as right and wrong are emotional concepts; and subjective, as opposed to objective.

[Lote-Tree]

Then it would no longer be logic, as right and wrong are emotional concepts; and subjective, as opposed to objective.

But morality should be objective. What use of a subjective morality anyway? If morality changes on how you feel - those kind of morality is useless because how you feel changes?

[TheFifthElement]

But morality should be objective. What use of a subjective morality anyway? If morality changes on how you feel - those kind of morality is useless because how you feel changes?


Perhaps it should be objective, but it's not. Indeed morality changes depending on age, experience and so on. If you're a reasonable comfortable person of independent means then it's immoral to steal, if you're homeless with no money or means and stealing is the difference between living and dying then it's moral to steal.

Read back through the 'do good and evil exist' thread, and you'll find it's the same thing.


So your question: Does Universal Morality exists of itself?
The answer would be no.

If there cannot be universal 'good' and universal 'evil' then neither can there be universal 'right' and universal 'wrong', therefore all morality must be subjective.

I have to get up at 04:30 tomorrow morning. I consider that morally wrong, but there are many who would consider it justice :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

Perhaps it should be objective, but it's not. Indeed morality changes depending on age, experience and so on. If you're a reasonable comfortable person of independent means then it's immoral to steal, if you're homeless with no money or means and stealing is the difference between living and dying then it's moral to steal.


Will that stand up on court of law in the uk?



If there cannot be universal 'good' and universal 'evil' then neither can there be universal 'right' and universal 'wrong', therefore all morality must be subjective.


Yes. From evolutionary point of view. Perhaps it is a challenge for humanity to find objective morality?

[the silent x]

i believe morality is mainly emotional and very little intellectual. my mind would tell me to kill the guy in front of me if that man had/is trying to/ will try to kill me so as to take away the risk to my life, but i couldn't be the one to pull the trigger, in my mind, that is immoral to me.

[TheFifthElement]

Will that stand up on court of law in the uk?


No, of course it wouldn't, but that's why it's clear that morality isn't objective. On a broader scale, why is it moral for some people to have nothing, and be punished for trying to survive, but for another person to have more than they need. Society protects the greedy, and in that respect the law doesn't necessarily reflect what is moral.

Taking the example given a step further, to elucidate the subjectivity of morality. Take our starving homeless man. Should he steal only what he needs in that moment to survive, or should he steal more - perhaps enough to get him off the street? What is the boundary between where it is moral, and immoral, assuming you agree that it is more morally right to protect existence/survival, than it is not to steal? What if the man stole not for himself, but for a child? What if he stole from someone who was rich, or someone who was poor? When is it moral, when is it not? Can something be more moral than something else, and if there is a sliding scale of morality, wherein can it be objective? Can I have any more questions? How will Batman get out of this one..... ok, perhaps I'm getting a little carried away.

[Lote-Tree]

On a broader scale, why is it moral for some people to have nothing, and be punished for trying to survive, but for another person to have more than they need.


If you have worked hard for things - do you not merit more reward?

Why should a person who has been lazy - deserve same as the person who worked hard?



Society protects the greedy, and in that respect the law doesn't necessarily reflect what is moral.


Society should provide opportunity to all the members to make something with their life. It is not society to give you things on a plate...



Take our starving homeless man.
Should he steal only what he needs in that moment to survive, or should he steal more


In a welfare society this should not be necessary.

[TheFifthElement]

If you have worked hard for things - do you not merit more reward?

Why should a person who has been lazy - deserve same as the person who worked hard?

If you've worked hard for something then simplistically yes, but many people don't become rich through hard work, but rather through lucky circumstance, gambling (questionable morality?), or by the exploitation of others. These people are protected by laws which allow them to continue to exploit the weak and needy, without fear of punishment.

It's too simplistic to say that someone who has much has gained it by hard work, and someone who has nothing has been lazy. There are many circumstances which can lead to either.

Besides, you quite neatly avoided the cusp of the question which was:


What is the boundary between where it is moral, and immoral, assuming you agree that it is more morally right to protect existence/survival, than it is not to steal? What if the man stole not for himself, but for a child? What if he stole from someone who was rich, or someone who was poor? When is it moral, when is it not? Can something be more moral than something else, and if there is a sliding scale of morality, wherein can it be objective?