Morals come from inherent conscience, not culture/society/books/creed/etc

Very interesting subject. I agree that intelligence has an effect on conscience and also believe that morals shift with circumstance.

I know that I have been told a very long list of things that are wrong/immoral. The list of things I actually know and feel to be wrong is very different.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


It might not directly effect you at the moment, but you percive consciously.(or subconsciously.) that it could(or could have) effected you in the future. Therefore it is wrong in your mind due to possible future trouble. All based on ones percived power or control of the surroundings/situation.

reply to post by Bicent76

the act of measurement, cause and effect is the best I can do on call. I get your point thou. I kinda goto the training a dog scenario when it comes to such a question I suppose. But that is a ways off the OP's ideology.

Not necessarily. Can we say a dog has conscience and intuition? Is that what separates us from animals? Then again I can recall many times of Dogs saving their owners from heart attacks, fires, and other things while never in their lives being trained to do so. Brings up a whole other set of interesting factors.
______________________________________________________________________________________
In reply to Unityemissions:

Using your scenario, we could easily see how intelligence would effect morality. Say someone has low intellect, but an intact conscience. The conscience intuits the inherent bad/wrongness of an act, and yet the intellect may be incapable of bringing about a well-thought out reason to back up the intuition. In this scenario, I would think a much higher percentage of people would be inclined to deny their intuition.

Yea point made! However we can also say that perhaps conscience/intuition has its own intelligence bringing up the necessary action even if it is beyond the scope and level of that person's regular intelligence.

Brings to mind the guy who tackled Jared Loughner and is being considered a hero. He said paraphrased; "I didn't think, I just instinctively acted."

Which brings up more questions. He insisted his instinct was prior to thought and yet what is the frameworks of that instinct? We can definitely tie it into conscience/intuition in a logical manner. However as flyintheoinment suggested that these are faculties rarely understood by psychology and science.

Interesting points however!!!

reply to post by dominicus


I think my response to this would be like the last few sentences I wrote in my original reply to the OP. I think instincts we have in order to act without thinking has more to do with survival a primal nature morality is more along the lines of experiences in life, wisdom of such or a learning factor. I tend to disagree that we are born with morality in one sense or another we have to experience the code in order to process it.

Just my opinion I also respect yours as well, one thing I do understand and I will add this to my conclusion, we are constantly changing the way we think each day, I may think something now, but 10 years from now I know I will have a different opinion on many things.

reply to post by dominicus

LOL

The question is would you hold yourself up to the same standards of having your own head chopped off were you to lie? Than your wife asks you in about 30 years whether r not she looks fat and old to you.

If you're smart, you say "Awww, honey, you know a lot of things only get better with age. No matter how old you get, it doesn't matter, you'll always look great to me. I love you dear." LOL (Hopefully that's the truth after 30 years)
sez

reply to post by dominicus

It seems to me to be inherently built in within all of us prior to any programming or learning of the world.

Likely due to our evolution. Before we were ever humans we were still social animals and it seems very likely that aspects of our morality are hardwired in, particularly empathy. There's some pretty interesting content out there on the evolution of altruism and how animals that live in groups evolved to have a certain morality.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


It was an extremely base example, but I can assure you I know my own mind, and your interpretation of my reaction to Naziism is entirely removed from the actual reason I abhor Nazi ideology. I abhor it, because at a very deep level I perceive that it is inherently anathema to the correct way that we should live our lives and interact with those around us. I abhor it, because I could not contemplate taking such an ideology for myself, even if to do so would advantage myself / ensure survival within my environment. To adopt a nazi ideology or take part in activities according to their belief structures would be an act of evil, as it would be a decision made in the full awareness that I was acting against my conscience - my inherent knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Reasonable / Right / Good / Excellent actions = choosing to act in accordance with the varying promptings of conscience where more than one level of 'good' can be achieved.

Poor / Wrong / Bad / Evil actions = choosing to act in spite of the promptings of conscience by varying degree where more than one level of 'bad' can be achieved.


You cannot tell me my thoughts on a subject of this nature, you can only share your own. I gave an example to explain why I disagree with your observations; provide an example of why I should believe that morality is somehow relative or entirely dictated by circumstance/ environment.

Interesting idea on this OP, but I don't totally agree that culture/society, etc. don't have some impact on morals.

I've always thought that morals are partly a result of the conscience, but the conscience is just a foundation that needs to be fine-tuned with teaching, as well.

Kind of like, humans have the capability for speech but a language to speak must be taught.

I would describe the conscience as an innate knowledge of right and wrong behavior. I do believe that natural inclination is given by God to each individual, as He said in the Bible that He would write His rules in each persons heart, but some people may have an easier time ignoring that urging..

By our response to our conscience we either reinforce or deny it, although the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and what kind of role models we have can have a big impact on how strongly we follow what our conscience tells us.

For example, my dad was a fanatic about not lying. Lying, and stealing. To him, lying was much worse than the original bad thing you might have done, that you felt you had to lie about.

But the point is, my dad reinforced my innate feeling that stealing and lying, and other things such as murder, etc. were wrong, over and over and over, by telling us it was wrong, setting an example of not lying and stealing himself, and justly punishing us if we did do wrong.

Unfortunately, today that same message is not being taught and reinforced. Nowadays society says one thing while doing another, ie bankers getting bailed out by gov instead of being jailed for stealing, and unfortunately, today it's an anything goes society where the biggest cheats are held up for the most admiration, and frauds are flush with cash, and people are being taught by example that you can't be successful unless you do the same thing.

It's hard to change the behavior of a person once that behavior is ingrained. That is why the Bible says to raise a child up in the right behavior. That is what the Ten Commandments are REALLY for. It is to set a standard for behavior, and thus be an example and reinforcement for your conscience.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


A simple example would be child warriors/fighters. If you say those kids morals/beliefs are due to brain washing, how can one say that they themselves haven't also been brainwashed by their own environment? Public nudity is another example, you feel shame because it was taught. However if you lived nude in a jungle and saw other nude people all the time there is no shame, nor should there be. Peoples morals or percieved morals can shift at any time depending on circumstance. Morals are no different than taste in art or music. Just because you or I don't like or agree with something does not make it wrong. If a person can do something and feel no shame about it, how is it wrong?


I'd like to note as well, that no, I do not support nazism/fascism. Personally, I think it's almost to emotional of a subject to talk about in a proper manner.

reply to post by sezsue

I've always thought that morals are partly a result of the conscience, but the conscience is just a foundation that needs to be fine-tuned with teaching, as well.

Yes yes yes great point and from this end its agreed with completely as far as "conscience being just a foundation that needs to be fine tuned"!!!!

Which leads to the next part: Who the heck teaches us about conscience!!! Not schools, not the modern educational system, not television, I dont see parents teachings their kids about conscience.

What I see is parents and everything else projecting and programming what is right and wrong and neglecting conscience.

What I do see though is Religion taking credit for inherent conscience being connected to God. While I myself abhor dogma and systematic brainwashing of any kind, I do find interesting the many ways with which many spiritual paths talk about tapping into the conscience on a deeper level by going within minus any dogma.

Perhaps this is the original connection between God and morals because honesty I dont really see anyone else teaching or talking about tapping and clarifying the conscience except for a few different philosophies, religions, and mystical treaties.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


All I can say is you have a very twisted mind, and I'm glad I can see through your bs.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV

Morals are no different than taste in art or music. Just because you or I don't like or agree with something does not make it wrong. If a person can do something and feel no shame about it, how is it wrong?

Isn't this however what your own environment has brainwashed you into believing?

If morals are like taste in art or music then basically its opinion. However conscience seems to be prior to taste, prior to brainwashing, prior to opinion.

The question now is, what about a person who has stripped themselves of all tastes, all opinions, all brain washing? I would say whats left over at that point is clear and full access to an unadulterated conscience that seems to come from within ...like intuition.

reply to post by unityemissions


You don't even know who you are talking to, and you say I am sick/twisted. I am talking about this subject in a clinical fashion deviod of my OWN personal beliefs. If I brought my own personal dogmas into this philosophical conversation(as well as others here) we would just sit around arguing about who's right, or more right when no one here has any way to prove it one way or another. If these things were inheirant(sp) in all humans this world would be a utopia, which it is not. Personally, I am a lay monk who has been celibate for over 17 years now...should I hold you to my standards or belief system? Should I call you sick and avoid you, because you don't follow the same path. As an imperfect being, what right do I have to judge you, or you me?

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by LordBaskettIV

 

Morals are no different than taste in art or music. Just because you or I don't like or agree with something does not make it wrong. If a person can do something and feel no shame about it, how is it wrong?

The question now is, what about a person who has stripped themselves of all tastes, all opinions, all brain washing? I would say whats left over at that point is clear and full access to an unadulterated conscience that seems to come from within ...like intuition.

There are people like that though, they live in moutains, forests, or many other reclusive places. What do you think enlightenment is(or the search for it)? When one achives a clear mind they leave society behind and live out the rest of thier earthly time in nature, simply being one with the moment or the "now". They do it because all this stuff we partake in is a big show based on false perceptions ingrained into us by our surroundings.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


Sorry but those examples are poor. I won't spend too long debating this with you, but you really should reassess what you think you mean by morality.

A question of morality is irrelevant when dealing with the issue of child soldiers. It is an abhorrent practice perpetrated by a long line of people that at some point in time past ignored the promptings of conscience and began to use children as tools of war. They, way back then, knew it was wrong, but now, the people perpetrating it are likely only vaguely aware that it may be wrong (and only on contact with the outside world) because they quite simply have been brainwashed by generations of such activities. It's called the deadening of conscience. Where no heed is paid to what people know is inherently right, then awful things happen. I would like to add that not all people in those regions are in approval of the use of child soldiers - only those who have killed their conscience or who have been brainwashed by successive rule under tyrants (evil men who pay no heed to their conscience) are participators.

The issue of nudity in the jungle is one of cultural habit. It is irrelevant in a question of conscience. I'm sure that if you actually went to interview some of those people, they would have inherent understanding of what is right and wrong. I give you the example of the community on the island of Pitcairn: Island paradise or depraved hell?

Of the tiny population, a behaviour exhibited by a few became almost ordinary practice. The abuse of the daughters of the islanders by the fathers. The fathers involved had seared conscience and decided to partake in sickening practice of 'ritually' aiding their daughters to lose their virginity. While at first glance it seems that this is an example of relative morality, in actual fact it is evidence that despite widespread evil behaviour, some will try to resist the prevailing 'acceptable' morality, in favour of obeying their conscience and doing what is right, instead of what is considered 'normal'.

A few powerful men, led by Steve Christian, run Pitcairn Island. He is the island's mayor, head of the most prominent family, chief engineer, radiographer and dentist - specializing in tooth extractions.

According to the prosecutor, Simon Moore, Steve Christian is the leader of a group of island men known as "the boys." This group of distant cousins has spent at least 40 years using any woman they wanted for sex, at any time, at any age, Mr. Moore told the court when the trials first began on Sept. 29. Six more former Pitcairn men, now living in Australia and New Zealand, are awaiting extradition for further trials.

In the public square, the islanders sit at a long table packing honey for mail-orders, and two local women confront a reporter, accusing her of failing to understand island life.

The two women, Charlene Warren, 22, and her sister Darralyn Griffiths, 26, both initially gave statements to police about being seduced by adult men when they were 12 and 13.

Both women have now backed out of the prosecution case, saying that the sex was consensual all along. "I was 13 and I thought I was hot," Ms. Griffiths said. "I felt like a big lady."

Not all the men on the island were involved in this activity, some would refuse to partake, but they were largely unable to act, in fear of the 'boys' in control. An example of 'evil prevails when good men do nothing'...

reply to post by LordBaskettIV

If a person can do something and feel no shame about it, how is it wrong?

Because they are acting either contrary to their conscience, or in ignorance of the 'wrongness', as a result of environmental conditioning. Your point is partially accurate, in that if they are truly ignorant of the 'wrongness' as a result of environmental conditioning, then according to universal law they are not in error. However, mostly, where an environment of depravity is becoming prevalent, you will see that it takes a lot of people to ignore their consciences until such true ignorance can find a foothold. However, it's not about 'shame', rather it is about a conviction of the correctness or otherwise. 'Shame' can be felt unnecessarily according to the prevalent social conditioning, so it is not a benchmark for what is right and wrong. I maintain that right and wrong are inherently known, unless a continuing period of devolution has occurred due to many people ignoring the promptings of conscience.

This comes down to the point I tried to make initially, which is that men judge by what they can see, whereas God judges by the heart. We will never be able to fully discern the true motivations of many who carry out twisted and depraved actions on this earth, but as all things come to light in the hereafter, the actual truth will be revealed. And wherever depraved practice is widespread and people are unable to discern what is right and wrong any more, you can be certain that the cultural disease was perpetrated by a twisted few at the onset of that period.

There is a difference between depravity and nudity, before you use that example again.

The fact that people conduct themselves morally, according to the promptings of conscience throughout their lives has nothing to do with whether they are wearing clothes or not. A quick look at the history of anthropological analysis will confirm that man is 'designed' (or evolved) as a tropical animal - take us out of the tropics and we require clothes and artificial heating to maintain that tropical ideal.