What shapes morality?

[Math Nerd]

I'm going to be writing an essay shortly representing the different views on what shapes peoples morality, for example nature vs. nurture and the various roles of the subcategories within. Although I figured it would be a good idea to get your opinions so that I could have a better understanding of why people think certain factors are more important than others. I also figure that it's an interesting discussion point.


So, what do you think is most important in shaping what somebody thinks is right and wrong?

 

[Behind The Mask]

Well most definitely a good amount of that can be anything from the time you were born. How you were raised, what kinds of people your around on a daily basis, what kinds of experiences you have etc. Are all extremely important key factors.


In my child psychology class we learned about Lawrence Kohlberg and his stages of moral development..


Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality


Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.


• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished they must have done wrong.


• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.


Level 2 - Conventional morality


Authority is internalized but not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.


• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers are related to the approval of others.


• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society so judgments concern obeying rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.


Level 3 - Post-conventional morality


Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice.


• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.


• Stage 6: Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.


(seeing as it's been 8 days since you posted this I guess it's not much help but eh..)

 

[Cthulhos]

God.


Plain and simple, God.

 

[Kyero]

This thread isn't exactly new, but I thought I'd chime in for a few moments anyway.


A lot can be said about morality, but the fact is that it is nothing but a concept.


The meaning of the concept is slightly different despite the common acceptance of the base idea behind it, and that means that its exact definition changes from person to person and from day to day. One person may believe that it's never okay to kill someone for any reason whatsoever. Another may believe that it's alright, but only if it's in a dire example of self defense or if it's to save someone else's life and there's no other option. Two different views, but overall they both believe that under normal circumstances killing someone should not be an option. Are either of them less moral than the other? Not at all. They simply hold different definitions of it within their hearts and they abide by it to the best of their ability. If anything, they are equally moral people.


Another fact is that your morality will change from day to day and moment to moment. Every experience you have, no matter how small, contributes to your morality in the moment. In other words, morality is ever evolving. Someone who's normally considered a very honorable and moral person could honestly desire the death of another human being simply because they're angry or frustrated about something that's going on in their lives. Even watching a cartoon can change your morality in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways. Going onto the internet and finding a comment that you don't like on one of your favorite musical artists youtube videos can change your morality and cause you to write a hateful and spiteful message in response despite the fact that you normally pride yourself on being a calm and respectful individual who does not throw hate and spite around at others.


Morality is ever changing and is shaped by your everyday experiences.


Sorry Cthulhos, but god has nothing to do with it.


Morality is simply a concept invented by humanity as a means to attempt to describe and measure the feeling of self worth in relation to your choices and actions.

 

[AccidentalNovella]

I will simply say, for ALL cultural demographics there are certain things which are naturally right and wrong.


You can't murder and think it's right unless you're a psychopath.


You can't help someone live and determine that is something you'll hate yourself for unless you're a psychopath.


But then, are psychopaths beyond morality-yeah I'm not opening that can of worms.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I will simply say, for ALL cultural demographics there are certain things which are naturally right and wrong.
You can't murder and think it's right unless you're a psychopath.


You can't help someone live and determine that is something you'll hate yourself for unless you're a psychopath.


But then, are psychopaths beyond morality-yeah I'm not opening that can of worms.

Right and wrong technically don't exist though. They are opinions and are generalized by what the majority of people who are accepted in society think.

 

[AccidentalNovella]

[QUOTE="Behind The Mask]Right and wrong technically don't exist though. They are opinions and are generalized by what the majority of people who are accepted in society think.

[/QUOTE]
I will definitely say that society has a huge role in SOCIAL morality. For example, some societies don't punish mudering Americans (no hate pls just an example) but, medically speaking, usually the first time you kill someone you throw up and have psychological damage.


And usually when you help a fellow individual you know well there is a literal increase in blood-cell count, oxygen processing.


What I'm saying is: the body naturally responds negatively to negative actions and positively to positive actions on a PHYSICAL level! Which is amazing I think.

 

[Twiggy]

I would say Morality and society and cultural are closely related. If something is acceptable in a community, it is accepted into that communities morals. In the most rural parts of india, things such as rape and crimes against women such gendercide aren't considered to be so totally immortal, while in America the idea of any of this is horrifying. In some places, being gay is immoral, in others, its just another way of life. The most basic parts of our morality, such as compassion for the members of our group, is no doubt an evolutionary benefit(if you believe in it) in order to keep 'pack' members together, however even this is a cultural thing to a degree as well. Shared morals came with civilizations and connecting to the world around us. Aztecs and other Native North/South Americans practiced ritual sacrifices, Europeans found this despicable. The Europeans conquered the Mayans and such and the Natives kind of "assimilated" some of the European culture into their own. Lately, I havent met any Indians who still think ritual sacrifices are an ok thing to do. This isn't because of some spiritual awakening, its simply a change and adaption of culture.

 

[Lady Sabine]

I think a lot of the problem understanding morality is that we're talking about it like it's the things we do when everybody is watching AND the stuff we do when nobody is watching.


Here's what I propose: morals are what we inherently believe. If we do a morally positive act, we feel good about ourselves. If we do a morally negative act, we feel bad about ourselves. This is what we do when nobody's watching us.


What a lot of people think of as morals could be more accurately defined as ethics. Ethics are what the rest of society believes in terms of good and bad, right and wrong. Hospitals have ethics committees because they want to do what the group thinks is right, not the individual. Ethical decisions are what you make when everybody's watching.


When morals supersede ethics, you get things like the KKK (to take it to its extreme). Society may publicly view it as wrong, but individuals privately support it. On the opposite end of the spectrum you get fascism. Often, individuals in a fascist society would not personally support many fascist ideals, but as a whole they believe firmly in the concept.


Narcissism vs. peer pressure, essentially.


Morality is probably defined by our parents (or whoever raises us) more than anything. As children, we learn what we think is right and wrong. Either our parents have the right of it and we mostly agree with them, or we think our parents are seriously messed up in the head and we actively go against their guidance- this is especially noticeable in the Mormon and ex-Mormon communities, or most other religions where the faith plays such a huge role in daily life, where the divide is strict and obvious. I chose Mormonism due to the very vocal nature and obvious divide, should anyone choose to look it up. ^^


Culture also makes a significant difference. We are impressionable creatures, and what we perceive society as wanting we will likely seek to copy- and it is a mental process, not physical or genetic.


The last thing to influence our morality is our interactions with others as children. It's no coincidence that people bullied as children tend to have a more self-centered morality, where right and wrong are often based on the effect it has on their own self, whereas children who got along well with their peers are more group-oriented. Now, this might be a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first, but as a general rule it's folly to believe behavioral patterns are determined by our DNA.


Ethics are a lot more complicated, since they are not simply the most commonly-held private opinion. Many private opinions no one would ever admit to in public- no one wants to be known as the person with a weird opinion, even if a lot of people have it. (This is why most politicians avoid taking hard stands on issues that are still up in the air, for fear of being seen in a negative light if the other shoe falls contrary to their stance.) A good example of this is bringing babies on airplanes. Most people, if they could anonymously press a button to guarantee there would be no babies on their plane rides, would gladly push it. But if asked in front of a group of their peers, how many of those button-pushers would say aloud "I think we should ban babies from my flights because they bother me"?


Similarly, even if we think the general consensus is weird, we are unlikely to speak out against it. What do we have to gain from disagreeing?


Lastly, there's the matter of what's best for society as a whole. Maybe we all agree on some eugenics-style policies that will improve the quality of life for most of us, but we have to take into account those that would be negatively affected. Ethics that strongly suppress one or more elements of society have been on their way out for decades- it was not an ethical decision to repeal Jim Crow laws, but the morality of a few. And once those few succeeded in court, the ethics of the entire population rapidly began to shift.


As for any divine being deciding morality, it seems a little funny to me that he wouldn't make it universal. And I'm not sure how plausible it would be to alter these widely-accepted, if not widely-held, opinions.

 

[bettsyboy]

nurture shapes morality.


for example, look up "Saudi Arabia Beheading" on youtube (or god forbid, a different site that allows gore) and you will see crowds of hundred, sometimes thousands of Saudis watching a man be butchered with a giant medieval sword in front of them, and they cheer and applause as the lifeless body falls to the ground, and the person's crime?... apostacy, blasphemy or "witchcraft"... i'm not kidding, they still execute people for "witchcraft" over there.


In Gaza young boys are trained with AK-47s and taught to use human shields, including younger children! and taught to do that all their lives.


and compare that with us, we would be sickened by such a spectacle, and we would never attend such a gruesome death show, if anything we would be trying to stop it! and we would never want to grab a child, and use them as a shield while we shoot at other people.


that is the effect our environment and upbringing has on our morality, the difference between standing up and cheering at the sight of a headless woman's body lying on the ground while shouting "death to the witch!" and rallying for the rights for gays to marry.