Morality question!!

[Anura]

Are morals just an idividuals belief in right and wrong. Or is it more compicated that that?

[Fuzzwood]

In my opinion, you can condense the whole morality issue into "Don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you."

[mortonman1]

There is good book called Mere Christianity by C.S. lewis, that in the first 2 chapters talks about exactly what your asking. He says that there is a moral law within all humans(Law of decent behavior) and that there is no way to deny it. he says that we would not no bad, if we did not know good from birth. Almost like calling a bent line "bent" because we have seen a 'strait" line before. If one had never seen the strait line, than he/she would not know bent

[Glider]

Are morals just an idividuals belief in right and wrong. Or is it more compicated that that?

 

It is a lot more complicated than that.

 

At the most basic level, morality involves such things as the hard-wired characteristics evolved by social animals in order to function adaptively as social animals. One of these characteristics is empathy (which is also a part of the learning mechanism in humans); we can put ourselves into the position of another and imagine what it would be like in their situation. We have the neurological mechanism for this in the form of mirror neurnons. However, empathy in based upon personal experience (as is the function of mirror neurons). This most basic component probably underpins the golden rule.

 

On a higher (though not necessarily better) level, morality also involves social learning and socially acquired mores which are generated by the culture in which one is raised. Thus, morality differs between cultures and changes over time.

 

These are very basic elements. After that, it gets complicated. There are individual factors such as cost/benefit estimations; estimations of personal responsibility/accountability; personality characteristics and so-on.

[PhDwannabe]

This is a philosophical question that gets pretty far afield of psychology and psychiatry. The typical distinction in philosophy classes is that "morals" refer to some particular society or group's views of right and wrong--the reflect the judgement of upstanding character within that social realm. "Ethics" are ideas of right and wrong which are (well, this is the idea, at least) reasoned out more systematically.

 

Some people who answer here are taking the question in another direction than I initially thought of--one which does get a little closer to social and behavioral science: the question of, "are morals arbitrary and made-up, or is there something built-in about them?" There's been a flurry of interest in this recently from scholars as diverse as psychologists, philosophers, neuroscientists, anthropologists, and primatologists. The very brief version: yeah, there's definitely some built-in stuff. Primates seem to be interested in enforcing codes of fairness and punishing cheating among their peers. Human infants recognize cheating behavior fairly quickly as well. The almost universal incest taboo has been pretty solidly demonstrated to have some biological underpinnings (c.f. the Westermarck Effect). All pretty cool stuff.

 

The Wikipedia entry on Neuroethics may give you some idea of what neuroscientists are up to with this. Also, check out the Trolley Problem for a common paradigm used to investigate neurological correlates of ethical decisionmaking/moral reasoning. That one's gotten a lot of attention in the popular media the last few years.

 

 

Thanks,

DJ

[nec209]

It is a lot more complicated than that.

 

 

At the most basic level, morality involves such things as the hard-wired characteristics evolved by social animals in order to function adaptively as social animals. One of these characteristics is empathy (which is also a part of the learning mechanism in humans); we can put ourselves into the position of another and imagine what it would be like in their situation. We have the neurological mechanism for this in the form of mirror neurnons. However, empathy in based upon personal experience (as is the function of mirror neurons). This most basic component probably underpins the golden rule.

 

 

On a higher (though not necessarily better) level, morality also involves social learning and socially acquired mores which are generated by the culture in which one is raised. Thus, morality differs between cultures and changes over time.

 

 

These are very basic elements. After that, it gets complicated. There are individual factors such as cost/benefit estimations; estimations of personal responsibility/accountability; personality characteristics and so-on.

 

 

Well morality is different than cultural norms.In the US and Canada it is a cultural norm to shower ,dress nice , wash your hands before eating or working with food, look nice ,clean food so on.In other countries it could be a cultural norms to walk around dirty and wear rag clothes . This is cultural norms.

[Mr Skeptic]

Are morals just an individuals belief in right and wrong. Or is it more complicated that that?

 

Sort of, and yes it is more complicated. Consider: why do people do things they consider wrong? People have a sense of pleasant and unpleasant, which is slightly different than their sense of right and wrong. There is some hardwired component, especially for the former, and some socially learned component, especially for the latter.

 

So for example, sugar is good (mostly hardwired via taste) but you know it is unhealthy in large quantity (social learning) so it is wrong to eat a lot of it. But in general pleasant things are good -- food tastes good and we need food to survive, and good quality food tastes better than poor quality food. If it weren't for processed foods this would match up even better. But as it is we eat things that are bad for our body because they taste good or are cheap and convenient.

 

Morality is slightly more social and idealized a thing, slightly toward selflessness and efficient society, so that if you ask someone what "a person" should do, it is often different than what that person themselves would do.