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

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong.

I keep seeing these threads pop-up about morals coming from God, morals being relative, morals being programmed by culture, creed, school, parents, peers, etc.

But I really don't see anyone discussing that it comes from conscience. Not only in my experience, but also in many of those that I discuss this with, it seems that the conscience makes a judgment/decision from somewhere deep within prior to the mind having any say about it. Only later on can the mind say, "Oh that was conscience!"

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

Many people are not tapped into this. Many people's intellect, biases, cultural programming, and lack of knowledge of the subtle faculties within completely cover up the ability to hear the voice of conscience within.

Then we have the passions which completely distort and also cover up "conscience" (which to me is the inherent source of morality). We can all remember being over taken by lust, anger, jealousy, greed, or other flare ups the lead to stupid decisions which in retrospect would have been done differently in the now unblocked examination of what a clear conscience says.

Please do add your 2 cents.

In the mean time here is a great article about Philosopher David Hume entitled:
Can We Be Free if Reason is the Slave of the Passions?

Of course one can also ask can we have absolute morals, or morals at all, if Conscience is a slave of the Passions, cultural programming, self justifications built upon the knowledge base of our modern era, and is mostly forgotten?

I really do have have nothing to disagree with on this post

I think youve pretty much summed everything up, im gonna go have a read of the link now

S&F

V And enter the Trolls and elightend one's V

The simple fact that morals are different depending on location, it's pretty safe to say your hypothesis is hogwash...sorry

I have noticed many lost souls think that morality is tied into religion as well. Somewhere along their path they equated the two, and so as they rebel against the absurdities of religious indoctrination, they rebel against the notion of morality. It's absurd and illogical. I have also heard people tell me that morality is for people who can't go off their own ethical intuitions. This too, is nonsensical. I don't think most people have a solid definition of what morality is.

As for the whole moral relativity and moral absolute debate, I don't think it's wise to have moral absolutes, as this seems to lead to an extremist view, and is how fanaticism comes about. I think it best to develop a base moral structure that is constantly being refined and aware of the ever changing circumstances of the world we live in. I challenge anyone to offer a moral which must reasonably be applied in all circumstances. They don't exist.

As for everyone being born with an aptitude for the development of a conscience. This is incorrect, sadly. There are people who have "bad genes", or who suffer congenital defects, or who have abnormal neurobiology due to infections, or whatever, and specific brain regions which are needed for the development of morality may be damaged. About .5-1.5% of the population lives in this amoral state of being, and it's called essential psychopathy.

I would agree that some people seem to have a higher innate capacity for developing a strong moral base. It seems the stronger ones ethical intuitions are, the less they require the surrounding societal and cultural structures to program them into what's right and wrong. Sometimes societies are partially/wholly corrupt. Pathocracy's do exist, and I believe the U.S. is a prime example of this. I think for most people, however, they are not so easily able to break free of social norms which are detrimental in their nature. This seems to be the case, once again, with the U.S. public.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The simple fact that morals are different depending on location, it's pretty safe to say your hypothesis is hogwash...sorry

The OP Identifies that there are other factors that influence morals and is a good analysis of a few aspects that effect morals, Its not Hogwash.

However suggesting the entire post IS hogwash because he/she didnt identify one specific point that you think is important Is infact Trolling

Morals cannot possibly be based on location.

My set of morality is way way way different than everyone living around me.

I would have to say morality is a combination effect.

Conscience combined with information and several other factors, like deductive reasoning or the ability to empathize.

Moral absolutism and "fanaticism" isn't bad in itself.

Just the media always portrays only negative aspects and people who take it down the wrong path.

Everyone is a fanatic about something.

I have to admit I have fanatical qualities myself.

I am a fanatic against murder.
Fanatic against theft.
Fanatic against rape.
Etc.

It's all a matter of perspective.

A small child will ask momy why is she crying as the mother looks to see who the child is speaking about. The small child notices the crying woman and knows shes sad and wants to know why, but the mother busy needing to accomplish her errands never noticed the woman crying only a few steps away.

So does this mean the woman has no morals and is to self indulgent to have a conscience? I don't think so. With responsability or errands to accomplish you don't have time to wonder whats wrong with a stranger. Lets go back to the way it used to be where a single income could support a whole family and a person only had to work fourty hours to support his family. Then you will have more time to wonder why the woman is crying and not have to worry about making your own ends meet so that you and your family are not sitting somewhere crying.

reply to post by muzzleflash


This is something worth considering. I would agree that everyone is fanatical about some things. I'm most fanatical about the act of lying. In my world, being a liar would be enough grounds to have your head chopped off, but ... that's just me.

reply to post by unityemissions

This is something worth considering. I would agree that everyone is fanatical about some things. I'm most fanatical about the act of lying. In my world, being a liar would be enough grounds to have your head chopped off, but ... that's just me.

Ha lol.... I hear you about lying. To me the unexamined ego of a person is what really irks my chains. Not knowing thyself.

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.

Originally posted by dominicus
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.

I lie, as does everyone else. It doesn't irk me to hear someone tell a white lie every once in a while. What I have a problem with is when people excessively lie with the intention of gaining energy from others. I actually tell very few white lies, though. It's probably understandable why I have very few friends and haven't had a girlfriend in a long time. I'm not the least bit interested in being with a woman who would ask me those questions, so it seems 99%+ are not even an option!

to measure someone's intellect and intelligence tie it to their morals, lack their of or therefore. Principals actually have allot to do with the make up of all that is around and inside us, in so many ways, one man may say its all meaningless yet the other can say it is meaningless but it remains there. Morals are what differentiate yourself from the primal aspects it is easy to live of course, yet harder to create a meaning to live or find the truth of such. As history tells us in our desperation to find such we have prolifically made ways to try to express such.

reply to post by Bicent76


While I would agree that moral intuition is a part of intelligence, it's certainly not the whole thing. There are many people who are thought to be high gifted and beyond, that don't have the slightest comprehension of why someone would find value in morality.

Generally speaking, you are correct. There seems to be a somewhat high correlation between general intelligence and the development of a sound moral structure. You see this most easily in many of the gifted youth that excel in academia and/or arts, while developing their own moral code independently of societal pressures. I think this ties more into emotional/existential intelligence than intelligence as a whole.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Bicent76

 

While I would agree that moral intuition is a part of intelligence, it's certainly not the whole thing. There are many people who are thought to be high gifted and beyond, that don't have the slightest comprehension of why someone would find value in morality.

Generally speaking, you are correct. There seems to be a somewhat high correlation between general intelligence and the development of a sound moral structure. You see this most easily in many of the gifted youth that excel in academia and/or arts, while developing their own moral code independently of societal pressures. I think this ties more into emotional/existential intelligence than intelligence as a whole.

people who are thought to be gifted without a moral code, will fail in the survivability sense, you have got to be able to make healthy decisions to keep yourself balanced while you so inherently be gifted or what have you. I am sure their are some historic examples, and yes I guess I could be wrong but I would not consider anyone who kills their mother because she pissed you off to be highly intelligent. Knowing right from wrong I think is indeed a clear sign of at least some intelligence. Yet at to our dismay if your really intelligent you can manipulate such to where one does not know how evil you truly are. Morals are definably a byproduct of intelligence in my opinion.

reply to post by Bicent76

Morals are definably a byproduct of intelligence in my opinion.

Can you prove this?
What about if a person said; "Intelligence is definably a byproduct of morals." ...?

The chicken or the egg?

In my experience, conscience seems to intuit something first ...then intelligence comes in and labels, defines, and articulates the subtleties of what conscience first brought forth. That would completely bypass and make relative intelligence being tied to morals in a sense

I'm glad to come across a thread dealing with this subject 'from the ground up' so to speak. As a Christian man, who became such after a troubled teenage upbringing in a strictly atheist home/ family (aside from Methodist grandparents), I have thought long and hard about the issue of absolute morality.

Absolute (or 'true') morality does exist, and is imprinted within the human spirit (an everlasting, real energetic substance with dimensional expression beyond our ability to fully comprehend at this time, bearing a holographic memory of all our experience, being a means for the continuing progression of the personality beyond death of this physical body). My assumption is that DNA offers a parallel expression of this imprint, though I am not well-versed in alternative interpretations of genetic science, so cannot really comment further.

Unfortunately, such concepts currently mainly fall under the label of 'pseudo-science'. We suspect such things to be true, but are nowhere near the technical capacity to investigate properly. Quantum scalar phenomena and the hyperdimensional realities assumed (and in some parts confirmed) by modern physics offer many potential clues into the nature of spirit, soul, the afterlife, antigravity technologies, (effectively) faster-than-light travel (travel at the speed of thought; ie instant) and 'transmutation of elements' by living beings, to name but a few areas these research fronts touch upon.

I'm not a creationist, and I don't believe that people who don't accept the 'Good News of Christ' will go straight to Hell - that's a massive misinterpretation of the message imho. However, I do see evidence from my own subjective experience that God is active in certain realms of Christianity who do officially believe that, so it's a quandary to say the least. CS Lewis wrote an allegorical reference into his final Narnia book, 'The Last Battle', showing the way that he feels God will judge: based on the true heart of a person, as opposed to their circumstance and religious inclinations/background.

The Narnia chronicles, as well as being a wonderfully constructed mythos based around medieval cosmology ( a passion of Lewis') was also an metaphorical work dealing with the ongoing war between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Darkness. The Narnians (all those under the authority of Righteousness, or true moral excellence, headed by the Christ-figure, Aslan the Lion) were pitched against against the Powers of Darkness (those who rejected the idea of true morality, basing their actions on an 'inverse morality' consisting self-serving notions of wealth, power and control over others, headed by the Satan-figure, The Ice Queen).

***** ***** ***** *****

The law of absolute morality is expressed by a functioning conscience - it is present in all beings capable of expressions of thought beyond a certain baseline.

What that actual baseline is I don't know, but I presume a combination of a measure of IQ, with a measurable value concerning the 'level of ability to empathise'. Psychologists could tell us whether such an 'empathy measure' is in existence, perhaps having been researched with relevance to Asperger's or Autism.


All people possessing the baseline standard expression of conscience will possess a functioning conscience from an early age. Probably around five years old would be when conscience expression begins, covering simple issues at first ('should I take the cookies from the packet without asking?' and so on. As time passes and the issues of life become more intricate, the conscience will either:

Develop healthily - occurring when it is adhered to, and effectively dealing out answers to increasingly complex questions of morality.

Become stagnant - exhibiting basic responses to significant moral issues, but becoming dimmer in the magnitude of its expression with relation to problems intellectually considered to be 'less of a bad thing'.

Decay - mainly occurring due to environmental factors, and more dangerously so when a person (for whatever reason) deliberately ignores the expression of their conscience. There are likely to be variations of ways in which the conscience decays, and the realms of mental health research could shed more light on the way in which different types of mind respond to problems of conscience where decay of any form is apparent. For example, the decay may not be uniform; perhaps a person generally obeys conscience but occasionally 'throws caution to the wind' for whatever reason (enhanced changes to the environment could conceivably be a cause for this). With any failure to follow the conscience, a corresponding reduction in that person's ability to prevent themselves from carrying out certain actions, ordinarily avoided, will be witnessed. In addition to the 'sin' of failing to follow conscience, certain chemicals have been shown to lower the level to which a person adheres to their conscience if imbibed in an irresponsible manner (eg alcohol lowering certain inhibitions in some people).


These ideas are based on my genuine belief that conscience exists as a moral 'binary expression' in the subconscious mind, arising to the forefront of the conscious mind whenever an issue with any moral dilemna presents itself. There is a practical earth-bound reason for conscience to be useful, and I won't explain in detail how that might be expressed - it's an easy one to work out. However, there is an even more fascinating possibility - conscience may be a form of 'eternal' survival mechanism, afforded by evolution (or design of some sort, depending on your beliefs), and meted out in daily life according to hyperdimensional perceptions of reality not made available to our conscious minds.

Conscience is On / Off = The idea contemplated is morally Bad / Good.


I won't labour the point from a spiritual perspective, as I think we have enough ideas now about reality to know that there might well be an afterlife of some description. I find it interesting that conscience and the result of following/ not following it is seemingly referred to in the Bible (and probably many other spiritual texts) - the following are some relevant excerpts:

New Testament:

- Hebrews 10:16 -

“This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

Old Testament:

- 1 Samuel, 16:7 -

7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

- 1 Chronicles 28:9 -

9 “And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you..."

I think morals are just a large sliding scale that depends directly upon ones direct ability to control ones surroundings.If something doesn't affect them, they tend to be ambivilant to that "something".

reply to post by LordBaskettIV


Hitler never affected me personally with his Nazi ideologies, but I certainly don't view him or the fascist movement (of old or current) with ambivalence?

reply to post by dominicus


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.

reply to post by dominicus


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.