Where do we get our understanding of right and wrong?

ebrown, my statement wasn't very clear but I think we agree on the main points. A society presumably wishes all of its members to behave morally, and so must provide the necessary tools for making the "correct" personal decision about right and wrong to people at each stage of development. This would include laws and punishments for first level people, incentives such as social approval for being good and instilling a sense of moral obligation for those in the second level, and education/discussions to promote understanding of why being good is good on general principle as well as for individuals and society for those at the third level.

First level individuals need someone else to determine what is right and wrong in that society and make the appropriate laws since for them right and wrong is whatever the law says it is.

Higher level people may not need the threat of punishment, but they still need guidance in making their initial determinations of morality. So who really decides what is right or wrong? Does it filter down from on high, or does each person have an innate sense of justice that they just need to tap into?

It may not control your behavior, but it certainly affects it. That's why a society must act as if people have free will even if we don't.

Dr Powell: So what about societal structure? Government?
Prot: No there's no need for one.
Dr Powell: You have no laws?
Prot: No laws, no lawyers.
Dr Powell: How do you know right from wrong?
Prot: Every being in the Universe knows right from wrong, Mark.
Dr Powell: But what if, if someone did do something wrong. Comitted murder or a rape? How would you punish them?
Prot: Let me tell you something Mark. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the Universe for its stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision but nobody's paid much attention to them. Not even the Buddhists or the Christians.
Prot: (sigh) You humans. Sometimes it's hard to imagine how you've made it this far.

Terry,

You are arguing from a point of view that Kohlberg would call level four. This is fine of course but it is not the only way to view morality. You did not always base morality on the needs of society.

My ten year old, for example, is very clearly on Kohlberg's level three. He does not give a whit about the laws or rules of society. His morals are decided by what people in his life (i.e. parents and teachers) say. If someone he doesn't know comes to him and says == you shouldn't do this -- it doesn't mean much until he hears it from us.

Any of the stages "work" -- that is they provide a moral framework. I have read of societies that are completely based on level three. The society is based on authority relationships and societal "laws" are either widely ignored or non-existant.

-----
On a separate but related point, I maintain that there is a difference between what we consider moral behavior and what we do.

A year ago, the inspection sticker on my car expired. This means that my car is illegal to drive (and there are significant fines for violating this). Now the thing is this -- I knew my actions were immoral. I support this law -- if needed I would vote for this law. Yet I broke the rule. I finally got stopped for this and I accepted the consequences.

But I chose to do an act that I "knew" was immoral. That is, it specifically violated my own set of morals. I don't think I am alone in this.

As another example, right now I am breaking a law that others consider is important (for obvious reasons I won't go into details - but I offer it as an example). However I disagree with this law and my morals dictate that I break this law. In this case I am certainly breaking a law -- yet I am following my own set of morals. To me this is a moral decision.

In other words, to me my understanding of right and wrong is more important that the law. I will break a law willingly if I feel that it is immoral to follow it.

Examples of this (and I don't at all mean to put my self on the same level as some of the heroes of history) include Dr. King, Rosa Parks and Ghandi.

I would never say that these people were immoral. They certainly broke laws.

That's an extremely well put together point Ebrown_P! Forgive me if I borrow your examples at some point in the future.

Right and wrong are not absolutes; in fact in evolutionary parlance preoccupation with the concept could often be considered a terminal flaw in a species nature.
Thinking about the new born antelope who will no longer have a mother, and will probably die would be inhibiting to the hunting instincts of a lion about to pounce on dinner for its pride, and might result in the starvation of its whole family.

I think it is fairly obvious that the chimpanzees refered to in Terry's comments on Thalion's karl Zimmer article are not reacting from a sense of fairness, but from an inate sense of greed which proffers them survival value in an undisturbed 'natural' environment; if not in laboratory experiments!

To deal with right and wrong in the human specie, we must take two important steps.
The development of 'morality' in an individual involves the willingness to DISCARD one's 'natural' instincts; seeing a 'larger' societal need to consider the needs not only of the individual, but those of all societies participants.
This 'socialization' results in a reaction to the 'big picture' not the micro environment of one's day to day intrigues.
The second leap for 'moral (wo)man' is beyond the boundries of the immediate society, to the point of seeing the inherent ills hidden (sometimes not very cleverly) in the fabric of the laws and moral structures of the society itself; born usually of ancient fears and traditions; e.g. - fear (hatred) of the outsider, or any one who is 'different'; or - the use of a deity to justify actions that otherwise appear evil.

When one can gaze openly upon all behaviour, and chose without predudice the course which is 'most' 'right, then true 'civilization will have arrived.

And a postscript re: the 'morality dillemas';

Once one has developed a 'moral' approach to life, that 'position is internalized, logically, and emotionally.
Most people confronted with a real moral dilemma will tend to freeze, avoiding the 'unthinkable' action which would apparently render the situation less harmful (lowest body count) for some.

However, again looking at the 'big picture', the more people there are 'out there' unwilling to do evil for 'any' reason, the better of society will be in the long run; for adding up all the bodies from all the daily evil actions, made possible by someone's willingness to offend, will rapidly exceed even the most exteme cases of residual losses from the rare "trolly events" scattered into our paths.

ebrown, my point was that even if our we are at stage 6 in our moral value development, we probably wish for others to behave by the same standards. Since we know that some other people are at lower levels, it is necessary to provide appropriate reasons (including laws and punishments) for them to do so and help them move to higher levels if possible.

I would not consider it immoral to drive a car without an inspection sticker, as long as you knew that the car was safe to drive. Illegal certainly, perhaps not worth the risk of paying a large fine, and you could argue that having cars inspected is good for society in general. But if it does not harm anyone or violate any God-given precepts, how is it immoral?

another fascinating point;

MONEY!

how frequent is it that (even amongst the most 'enlightened'), from the $200 pair of shoes/vs feeding the starving, to the cost of having an auto safety inspection done,money (and its subset 'greed') decides what 'moral' decision we make.

I have to go with BoGoWo on this. Morality is nebulous, and if you are moral to the point of being a victim to the immoral in this world, then you are just naive.

Gotto agree with Cav; he's soooo astute!

Foxfyre: Interesting discussion, but I wonder why it's in the Spirituality and Religion forum. Were you attempting to discern whether or not morality can be divorced from religion or a belief in a supreme being?

magically this seems to have remained a "deity free" discussion; or have i been editing subliminally?

Tell me again; what do you think are "morals", and where do they come from? Do "morals" vary according to time, place, society/culture, and circumstance, or are they universal among human societies in your opinion?

Bo, you sting me with your disgruntled smiley...I have a poem for this topic:

Moral is like coral,
it's beauty lies
within it's booty,
dead to most,
but still a host
to those who
wipe their eyes.

'right' is whatever i agree with; and 'wrong' is whatever i disagree with.

in other words, i consider morality to be an 'individual' stance derived from personal experience, and investigation.

But strangely, depending upon the effort expended, and the environment from which the 'experience' component was derived, there does seem to be a certain universality to the 'concept'.

JoefromChicago write:


Good question. I think what prompted the query is the persistent tendency in all area of this forum to argue whether athiests or Christians or people of whatever faith have the corner on intelligence, trust, and/or morality. I see a lot more derision and ridicule of the idea of faith/religion more than I see derision and ridicule of non-belief here, but in a different forum the reverse could well be true.

When you come right down to it, the only evidence we have of what a person believes is in his/her words, choices, and behavior.

I think what I've been hoping for is for some to thoughtfully to discuss whether religion and/or spirituality determines our sense of right and wrong. If it does, how does the athiest acquire a sense of virtue and evil? If it does not, how do any of us acquire a sense of virtue and evil that dictates how we design and order our society? And finally, does religion/faith/ spirituality itself have a positive or negative influence on our society as a whole?

Maybe I should have phrased it that way in the initial query but I didn't want to unnecessarily provoke a discussion of the virtues of atheism vs Christianity etc.

sorry Cav;
completely missed your poem.

it was awful!

but of course is's all about 'content' eh! :wink:

Screw content, Bo...why are we both dancing hamsters?

Cav; is that you?

my your looking spry!

try: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21826&highlight=

it's all about 'content'
or at least 'being' content (it's a MacLuhan thing)

I don't know how you would determine "appropriate reasons" are. It seems to me that this depends on what you consider moral or immoral.

The Kohlberg levels of morality tell you the sophistication of someones understanding of morality -- it doesn't how moral a person is. As I said I, at time, act in ways that are immoral according to my own moral code. It is possible for a criminal to understand what he is doing is wrong on a very high level and still be very immoral.

It is also possible for someone to be a very moral person even though they are at a low level. Many people function at level three or four just fine. There is no need to move to a higher level.

But Kohlberg's theory is interested in the personal reasons you have to decide what is moral or immoral. It is not directly concerned with society.



This is interesting. It sounds like you have two criteria for deciding what is moral or immoral. You listed:

- Does it harm anyone.
- Does is violate God-given precepts.

You should realize that these are both personal criteria. Many people would not consider either one of these valid was to judge what is right or wrong.

There are many moral decisions that people make that harm people -- capital punishment and the forced deportation of immigrants are considered moral although they both harm people.

And of course "God-given" precepts is a criterion that will cause the obvious problems, i.e. who get's to speak for God.