lightworker

Where does morality come from and what is it?

27 posts in this topic

Where does morality come from and what is it?

I find the whole 'morality is subjective' argument to be a weak cover for cognitive dissonance, social conditioning, lack of awareness of the self and major unresolved trauma. People also tend to confuse morality with values. There are people who think that the Earth is 6000 years old, but that doesn't make evolution subjective (to prove a point - morality and physicality are 2 completely different things I know). In the same sense that people will eat meat or own slaves or subjugate women and say that they find nothing wrong with it, that doesn't make morality subjective, it doesn't make their actions morally pure and it doesn't mean morality is now a nebulous, undefined thing because one person wants to rape and another person doesn't. People who genuinely do not give a crap about the world, who own slaves or beat and abuse others or hate gay people, are only reflecting outwardly their inner beliefs. They are only reflecting their own unconscious trauma, they aren't reflecting any actual morality. People say 'oh, I own you because you are inherently inferior', but that doesn't make them right. That doesn't make morality subject to whoever says "I want to do this, so it must be moral".

So, my question is, what exactly is morality, how do we define it, and where does it come from? Because clearly there are objective moralities, that people can choose to agree or disagree with, to adhere or not adhere to, but humanity collectively says 'yes' to certain ideas such as the idea that unnecessary suffering is wrong, but that doesn't mean people adhere to them. So, where does morality come from? What exactly is it and why do we largely disagree on it? Is it ultimately because we want to be seen as 'good' therefore we must justify the 'bad' things we have done by then saying 'oh, morality is subjective, so i'm not a bad person, i just have different morals'?

 

Edited by lightworker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RadioactivTrinity Anderson Can you expand more on the malleable/ subjective component of morality? What makes those things morality and not simply values? I am open to the idea that morality is multi-dimensional, but I'm wondering if that multi-dimensionality can really be Morality if it's subjective. Is it not what you are talking about simply personal preference and personal values? Correct me if I've misunderstood you, this is a subject that's very undefined to me, so I'm trying to find out how to articulate how I feel about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like a lot of it is a act. people who are genuinely nice see everyone as them and treat them like family, but some people are so disconnected and not emotionally intelligent to even see that people can pick up on their bullshit, its like a huge blind spot in their character thinking they're getting away with it. People are both light and dark, all of them, not just a couple, all. I don't really buy the whole sanctimonious preacher or I'm all light, we're both light and dark last time I checked, depending where we live in the world these 2 extremes will exist. Not a lot of people are at their "default mode" so their beliefs aren't even their own, just momentum of what they were taught. So much programming and some people do not respect your morals at all. Humans vary so much its crazy.

Edited by Alex7
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, I completely agree! I guess I'm talking more about absolute morality, that we all have. Like, what is it? Where does it come from, did it evolve to what it is now, or has it always been innate? Why do so many people pretend to reject this inherent morality? Is it because the world is still mainly controlled by toxic masculinity which emphasizes rationality above inward feeling?

PROFIT, I see what you are saying, the morality I'm talking about is objective, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with good or evil, but stems from empathy. If we have no empathy, like a psychopath, or very little empathy, like a narcissist, or generally low levels of empathy, sure, we will have "different morals", but ultimately everyone with empathy shares the same morals. I don't agree that it can't be proven so we shouldn't try to think about it, that doesn't nothing to help us understand anything. If we all said that, we'd never have gotten anywhere.I'm simply exploring my beliefs and the subject.

Edited by lightworker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PROFIT said:

Good and evil is a man made concept created by ego, judgment and story.

Positive and negative is univeral.

I don't understand the contradiction here, if positive and negative is universal then so are good and evil.

@RadioactivTrinity Anderson I'm not too into rationalwiki, as its mostly biased and highly inaccurate, based in low-level thinking and unhealthy skepticism instead of genuine openmindedness. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to being wrong about morality being objective, but in observing human behavior, anyone with empathy ultimately shares the same moral of compassion at their core. I've not seen it otherwise. I've seen different values, but when I say morality, I mean compassion, which I think is the only morality there is. I don't believe in moral absolutes like 'abortion is bad', or even 'lack of compassion is bad', but I do notice that most people are compassionate and share this. But again, I'm open to being wrong. I've just found that most people who try to prove to me that morality is subjective are talking about personal differing values, not morality.

Maybe my question should be, where do compassion and empathy come from?

Edited by lightworker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RadioactivTrinity Anderson said:

This 'absolute morality' of yours, as you describe it, sounds a lot like Oneness. People who live Oneness are naturally going to follow the Golden Rule.

I like that!! Thanks. When I say 'absolute/ ultimate morality', I do mean 'compassion', and everything else I see as simply 'values' that differ from person to person. I think my issue with the whole morality being subjective or objective argument is that it could be vastly simplified if we all just threw out the idea that morality is anything other than compassion. All else are simply subjective values. I appreciate this answer, as it really sums up what I think.

Edited by lightworker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lightworker said:

Like, what is it? Where does it come from, did it evolve to what it is now, or has it always been innate? Why do so many people pretend to reject this inherent morality? Is it because the world is still mainly controlled by toxic masculinity which emphasizes rationality above inward feeling?

At our core we are all source, and that is unconditional love, lets call it non physical and physical is what we are experiencing now, but we can still access that god source perspective, but only temporarily, but it does come through, and your soul, you in this body, not the actual body is your connection to that perspective. Religion completely fucked up the idea of god, so people think life is happening to them and they have no control. Also some peoples egos are so strong so they don't challenge their beliefs, they don't update them, for it to update the ego has to die a little to become a new thing. Its still seems ridiculous to some people when you talk about energy, but it exists and I don't know how people cant feel it... masculine feels different than feminine, I cant explain the feeling but just because some people cant feel it doesn't mean it isn't a part of this human design, The emotions just happen to be your connected to this spiritual side(non physical) and if you cant feel a person, its like a loose in one of your senses, So people who cant feel aren't connected to their soul communicating with them (it sounds hippy as fuck but that's just the design, I didn't make it lol) so that's when you see all  these our of alignment people. so being connected to your soul would be that you reached this morality stage. you can still have low bad days, but if your connected to your soul and feel it, you're good!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Alex7 said:

At our core we are all source, and that is unconditional love, lets call it non physical and physical is what we are experiencing now, but we can still access that god source perspective, but only temporarily, but it does come through, and your soul, you in this body, not the actual body is your connection to that perspective. Religion completely fucked up the idea of god, so people think life is happening to them and they have no control. Also some peoples egos are so strong so they don't challenge their beliefs, they don't update them, for it to update the ego has to die a little to become a new thing. Its still seems ridiculous to some people when you talk about energy, but it exists and I don't know how people cant feel it... masculine feels different than feminine, I cant explain the feeling but just because some people cant feel it doesn't mean it isn't a part of this human design, The emotions just happen to be your connected to this spiritual side(non physical) and if you cant feel a person, its like a loose in one of your senses, So people who cant feel aren't connected to their soul communicating with them (it sounds hippy as fuck but that's just the design, I didn't make it lol) so that's when you see all  these our of alignment people. so being connected to your soul would be that you reached this morality stage. you can still have low bad days, but if your connected to your soul and feel it, you're good!

Love it <3 <3 <3 <3 I completely agree!! Unconditional love and oneness with Source Energy/ god is what people, especially I've noticed Christian Apologetics, want to call objective morality. Well, they're not wrong about that, but they are wrong about all of the socially and politically conditioned aspects of their 'morality', when morality is only one thing: connection to source. It feels good, and resonates with our highest selves, to live in alignment with that 'morality'. There's ultimately nothing right or wrong with not being or not being connected to source, but we do all have the same core, and we came down into a world where social conditioning has led us to believe that our intuitive perception of this core energy is 'good', 'moral' and 'right' without even consciously comprehending what we are calling 'good'. OMG!! This is great. So, our inherent truth is unconditional love and oneness, so anything other than that  - separation - feels 'bad' to us, and for humans, that separation often manifests itself in social settings. so we do anything to adhere to the values of our social group in order to remain connected. That's partly where 'subjective morality' (values) comes from. Just because it's a *value* of *your social group* doesn't mean it is in alignment with unconditional love.

Edited by lightworker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is the essence of dualism and will always lead to division and conflict.. What you are feeling is more akin to an internal compass needle which points out the direction of the flow of the Tao. Morality is your projection upon it. It points toward harmlessness so meat-eaters would appear to be misaligned, but not "bad". I have a feeling if we come to understand how to use our compass properly, it will become a multi-dimensional sat-nav which will show us our exact position within the greater scheme of things.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morality is subjective and only exists in our dimension or at the most just a few dimensions ahead.
I will try to give some examples to make this evident.
Lets say we have a hardcore buddhist monk who managed to transform so far that every human is completely equal to him, this person in fact would be immoral to a majority of the population because it would not be a tragedy for him if say anyone in his family died. Lets say the monk is in a burning house he has the choice to save his own child or to save a random other child that he was able to locate first since everyone is equal he would have to save the other child instead of running past it and search for his son, now everyone would say what a monster would let his own kid die? So is it moral now to see everyone as equal or is it not, the answer is up to you i do not have one.
In my opinion a good way of constructing morality in our society is simply rationality because at the moment we are very irrational. There are studys that show people who see one starving child on the screen are more likely to want to help it than 2 children, the more children you will see on the screen the less likely is he going to want to help them.
So i think law is actually a pretty good thing to eliminate the subjectivity out of it to a certain degree.
In the future we will have to make distinctions that are pretty harsh because of AI. If we have a self driving car has an accident and it is inevitable to kill someone because it is going to fast it has to be programmed to either drive into a group of people or just one guy or maybe an old lady or a child, or should it be randomized?!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my definition of morality is different than most of yours, because what everyone else here is calling 'morals' I'm calling 'values' which I consider different than objective morality. When I say "morality", I don't mean 'what's ethical vs what's not' I mean, the deepest you can go with morality, like the very *core* of morality, which is unconditional love. I don't consider things like saving children from burning buildings to be morals, they are values, which vary from social group to social group. 

I think what Trinity Anderson said earlier about morality being multidimensional is accurate, but I'm not talking about any other dimension of morality apart from it's very core. Like what is ultimate "goodness"? Unconditional love. What's "good" or "bad" is a human construct, but ultimately what morality is and where is comes from is something we all share, which is why it is objective, even for narcissists and psychopaths who are disconnected from it. That's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about objective morality. Everything else, values, ethics, that's all subjective, but those aren't morality, they're just part of social constructs, both in and out of alignment, that our differing social groups conflate with morality.

People who are in alignment with unconditional love, simply don't do certain things, which is where the whole idea of 'unnecessary killing is bad' comes from, and where out of alignment people get confused and say 'but, but, but, one time',  but No. People who are in alignment do not do certain things. That's where the idea of morality comes from, is the idea that someone connected to "Oneness", unconditional love, source, etc, is simply not going to do something like kill another being unnecessarily, but humans are not always in alignment, so our morals are not always consistent. That doesn't make us bad people. People who eat meat that they don't need to eat are not bad people, just out of alignment. Even serial killers are not 'bad' people, they are just out of alignment. "Good" and "bad" are just human constructs that came from our evolution - what benefits the social group vs what doesn't? You can't *really* be in alignment and cause unnecessary suffering consciously or willingly, because that isn't in line with unconditional love.

The entire reason this conversation is so triggering to people is because they are conflating having inconsistent morals (values that differ from objective morality) with being "bad", when that's not the case at all. There's nothing bad about anyone who is morally inconsistent, we are ALL morally inconsistent. Objective morality - unconditional love - is neither good nor bad, it just is. It's objective. It's, ultimately, undeniable. We don't want to be separated from our social groups, so we try to be as "good" as possible (morally consistent), so we say "morals are subjective" when it's not morals that are subjective, it's values. Morality, unconditional love, is inherently objective. Everything else, the values that tie social groups together, are subjective values, because they do not necessarily stem from unconditional love as much as they stem from fear of separation. 

Edited by lightworker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, the big question everyone is always asking is, "where does morality/ values/ ethics come from?" and no one is able to give an answer to that that isn't just a blanket answer like 'god' or 'i don't know'. 'Morality is subjective' makes no sense unless you are talking about the values that differ between social groups, which is not what I'm talking about.

Edited by lightworker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lightworker said:

Like, the big question everyone is always asking is, "where does morality/ values/ ethics come from?" and no one is able to give an answer to that that isn't just a blanket answer like 'god' or 'i don't know'. 'Morality is subjective' makes no sense unless you are talking about the values that differ between social groups, which is not what I'm talking about.

Morality came in existence the moment we lost our sense of humanity. Morality only stimulates differentation. That only leads to fights/war/useless discussions/ etc.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now