What is the origin of moral obligation ?

[squirel]

so..

what ideas do you have about the origin of moral obligation?

[Mr. Crow]

It can either be agreement to contract, or respect for the freedoms of your fellow men.

the first can be done in several ways


by accepting a good or service (this is the contract in case of government, you take public services you have to pay your taxes)

by making a compromise and agreement

[Squiggle]

The origin of the moral obligation is God. If that is false, there is no moral obligation save what you impose upon yourself. Which would strike me as particularly irrational and stupid.

[Mr. Crow]

The origin of the moral obligation is God. If that is false, there is no moral obligation save what you impose upon yourself. Which would strike me as particularly irrational and stupid.

exactly moral obligation can only be acquired by yourself in the 2 ways i explained.


and it is more rational than delivering molarity to the judgment upon some old Levantine legends that most certainly are not true.

[Squiggle]

and it is more rational than delivering molarity to the judgment upon some old Levantine legends that most certainly are not true.

What do you expect to get from a useless comment like this? A reply of, no its not more rational, and no those "levantine legends" are not most certainly not true?

No its not more rational, and no those levantine legends are not most certainly not true.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

The origin of the moral obligation is God. If that is false, there is no moral obligation save what you impose upon yourself. Which would strike me as particularly irrational and stupid.

reciprocal altriusm is a remarkably stable evolutionary trait, regardless of what you would like to claim.

[Mr. Crow]

I expected what i got, such is life, what did you expected from your previous comment?

and by the way, western law is based on the idea of free will and compromise, you get the moral obligations you agree to, thus contracts. the only exception is the payment of taxes and allegiance to government, however statists would argue that by using up the states services you are acquiring responsibility for it. others would argue it is your instinct to favor your kinsmen any way so you would have agreed any way.

sorry if you are not a believer in this Levantine legends, but they are by far the most popular monotheistic ideas. are you Zoroastrian?

[Squiggle]

I expected what i got, such is life, what did you expected from your previous comment?

and by the way, western law is based on the idea of free will and compromise, you get the moral obligations you agree to, thus contracts. the only exception is the payment of taxes and allegiance to government, however statists would argue that by using up the states services you are acquiring responsibility for it. others would argue it is your instinct to favor your kinsmen any way so you would have agreed any way.

Contracts are legal obligations, it has nothing to do with morality. Why do I have a moral obligation to help the poor? Why do I have a moral obligation to look out for my family, or my children? Why do I have a moral obligation to act decently towards others in general, not kill and rape? There are legal restrictions to bar abhorrent behaviour, and while society can agree on general morals, it can not create them. Moral obligations either come from God, or its an entirely false concept we, and society impose upon ourselves. It's irrational to follow what is not true.

sorry if you are not a believer in this Levantine legends, but they are by far the most popular monotheistic ideas.

Wait, what the hell are you talking about?

are you Zoroastrian?

I'm Christian obviously, look at my signature.

reciprocal altriusm is a remarkably stable evolutionary trait, regardless of what you would like to claim.

Thats a evolutionary explanation of behaviour...not a metaphysical claim that the behaviour is true. It's certainly not a claim that the behaviour is helpful to me, as an individual. We are talking about morals here, not behaviour, not law. Morals.

Where does God get his morality from?

God is the platonic concept of "the good", its a necessary element of his nature, and so are all his actions.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Wait, what the hell are you talking about? I'm Christian obviously, look at my signature. Thats a evolutionary explanation of behaviour...not a metaphysical claim that the behaviour is true. It's certainly not a claim that the behaviour is helpful to me, as an individual. We are talking about morals here, not behaviour, not law. Morals.

and what the heck does it mean for a noun to be "true"?

[Mr. Crow]

Contracts are legal obligations, it has nothing to do with morality. Why do I have a moral obligation to help the poor?.

it is called empathy all animals have it, it helps you build bonds and relations to your kin,

other explanation could be if you do not help the poor they will help themselves to your belongings.

yet another reason is the instinct of inclusive fitness that forces us to help our kinsmen in need.

Why do I have a moral obligation to look out for my family, or my children?

by the first definition, while acquiring goods from your family or deciding to acquire children you have made a compromise, still holds to the first theory.

if you want to go biologist, i say again inclusive fitness, the survival of your bloodline is in a way your own survival.

Why do I have a moral obligation to act decently towards others in general, not kill and rape?

falls upon the same definition that justifies government.

it is the prisoners dilemma, game theory suggest the easiest way to ensure your own survival specially in complex societies is the best way to ensure ones own good.

There are legal restrictions to bar abhorrent behavior, and while society can agree on general morals, it can not create them.

you are half right here, society can just create morals, they naturaly evolve with the changes in the mode of production.

on another note there are a set of Values hard coded in our genetics, this can not be modified.

Moral obligations either come from God, or its an entirely false concept we, and society impose upon ourselves. It's irrational to follow what is not true.

first you amuse a god. second why would it be a false concept if they came from our genetics? i just ant follow from one assumption to the other. even if i could, you can not just assume things upon other assumptions that is entering in the realms of ´pataphisics like modern physics

Wait, what the hell are you talking about? I'm Christian obviously, look at my signature. .

you seemed offended by the Levantine legend part

Thats a evolutionary explanation of behaviour...not a metaphysical claim that the behaviour is true. It's certainly not a claim that the behaviour is helpful to me, as an individual.

you know evolution by natural selection, and its daughter theories are kind of based on the idea that when behavior is not helpful, it is replaced by more useful ones. [/QUOTE]

Not just biological evolution but cultural evolution determines our moral values as well as well, moral standards now are somewhat different than they were 1000, 500, 100 or 50 years ago. The plain bare fact of the matter is that wherever we get our all our moral values from it isn't from God, not to say that religion doesn't play a part.

well, while you are certainly right that culture and morals are molded by ambient and means of production, some values are hard coded by genes.

[Squiggle]

it is called empathy all animals have it, it helps you build bonds and relations to your kin,

Uh...stipulating a typical emotional response as an impetuous for action obviously doesnt make sense. I'm talking for rational, not emotional reasons for actions. If I dont care about them, I'm not going to act. Again, what moral obligation do I have? Not what variables may influence my decision, outside of the moral realm, but what actual moral obligation do I have if there is no God? None, as "moral obligation" is itself nonsensical.

other explanation could be if you do not help the poor they will help themselves to your belongings.

Historically untrue, oligarchies have and do thrive.

yet another reason is the instinct of inclusive fitness that forces us to help our kinsmen in need.

Read empathy for response.

by the first definition, while acquiring goods from your family or deciding to acquire children you have made a compromise, still holds to the first theory.

Not it doesnt. Your first theory is basically a social benefit theory; all human interaction exists so long as it has a net benefit for both members. But if I dont perceive my children/family as worth anything, or at least not enough to warrant my aid, what obligation do I have to help them? Legal, certainly. Moral? None. Not without God.

if you want to go biologist, i say again inclusive fitness, the survival of your bloodline is in a way your own survival.

Thats not my survival, its just genes. That may be "the reason we exist" under a purely biological standpoint, were just complicated virus's, but again this simply has nothing to do with moral obligation.

falls upon the same definition that justifies government.

it is the prisoners dilemma, game theory suggest the easiest way to ensure your own survival specially in complex societies is the best way to ensure ones own good.

This is a case of practicality. It's practically better for me to cooperate, so do it. It's not morally better. The topic of the thread is moral obligation, were not talking about the benefits of altruism and cooperation in society, or its various sources. Were talking about morality, and that simply does not prop up any kind of moral theory. Even still, its wrong. It might be generally true that cooperation is more beneficial, but we all know of examples where people actively worked against the welfare of all people in their society [the gilded age, slaves, racists yada yada] and came out well ahead.

you are half right here, society can just create morals, they naturaly evolve with the changes in the mode of production.

No, you misunderstand me. Society can enforce morals, they can not create them. Either the morals are true, and come from God, and society enforces those morals, or the morals society creates are false social conventions and nothing else. The morals in that sense, do not exist. I'm talking about the existence of morality in an objective sense. Without God, morality is social convention and biological impulse, which means it does not exist at all. It's simply a fashionable and easy term to describe common modes of human behaviour within a system, it has no truth to it.

first you amuse a god. second why would it be a false concept if they came from our genetics? i just ant follow from one assumption to the other. even if i could, you can not just assume things upon other assumptions that is entering in the realms of ´pataphisics like modern physics

No, its not. A genetic impulse has no bearing on the metaphysical objectivity of a concept like morals, and failing some other anchor to make this concept real, we can only conclude it is false. If you do not accept God, genetic impulses are what they are, impulses by nature, nothing more. The obligations are drives, the social conventions learned behaviour. Some stick, some dont. But there is no real reason why they should stick for you. There certainly is no truth to them whatsoever.

you seemed offended by the Levantine legend part

Well, obviously. Legend implies falsehood.

you know evolution by natural selection, and its daughter theories are kind of based on the idea that when behavior is not helpful, it is replaced by more useful ones.

Yes? And as we know sociopaths exist, and continue to exist, and many do quite well. That doesnt matter either way, were talking about the origin of moral obligation. Either its a naturalistic source, and therefore a biological impulse- which means the obligation doesnt exist in the first place, and "morals" as we know it becomes a nonsensical statement, or it comes from God, and the obligations are true and unamendable. One option or the other.

[Elfdude]

Forgive my interjection but I feel compelled to offer my opinion.

Uh...stipulating a typical emotional response as an impetuous for action obviously doesnt make sense. I'm talking for rational, not emotional reasons for actions. If I dont care about them, I'm not going to act. Again, what moral obligation do I have? Not what variables may influence my decision, outside of the moral realm, but what actual moral obligation do I have if there is no God? None, as "moral obligation" is itself nonsensical.

This really is nihilism and no nihilism is not necessary without god. What you're saying is in no way an objective truth it's merely your subjective interpretation projected as fact. A reason to do something means doing it is rational. Any reason. Rationality deals with goal attainment. If the reason for our goal is an emotional response programmed into us by evolutionarily beneficial properties that reason is rational. At the same time understanding that in the wild pairs survive better with more luxury (including exponentially better food attainment, survival and protection of future generations) gives you a logical impetus to act in line with morals giving you a rational obligation to perform those morals. The only possible way you can really get to what you're saying is if you're wholly ignorant of the idea but ignorance is not rationality, reason is rational and in this case yes there is many reasons.

Historically untrue, oligarchies have and do thrive.

No, that is historically untrue. Oligarachies at best are politically unstable reliant completely on societal breakdown to prevent moral obligation from becoming apparent. This is not stability but vigilance and I'm sorry but history has proven multiple times that even vigilance can fail.

Not it doesnt. Your first theory is basically a social benefit theory; all human interaction exists so long as it has a net benefit for both members. But if I dont perceive my children/family as worth anything, or at least not enough to warrant my aid, what obligation do I have to help them? Legal, certainly. Moral? None. Not without God.

There is a moral obligation to take care of your children without god. Whether or not you recognize that reason as valid may be different but it is not necessary to place god there anymore than it is necessary to place genetic survival there. Yes humans are capable of denying reasons even if they are good but this is not rationality, this is jaded cynicism and misanthropic. I deny god as the reason for my moral obligation, I am not incapable of finding an alternative reason.

Thats not my survival, its just genes. That may be "the reason we exist" under a purely biological standpoint, were just complicated virus's, but again this simply has nothing to do with moral obligation.

See, this is where your jaded views become rather obvious. You're looking at a very incomplete picture. Genes do not select behaviors for the individuals but rather for the group, they give us an instinctual impetus to do what we can rationally see the value of if we're not instantly dismissive of the concept. This is not such a hard thing to grasp you just seem unwilling to consider it.

This is a case of practicality. It's practically better for me to cooperate, so do it. It's not morally better.

I'm not sure I see the difference, sounds like you're splitting hairs that don't have to be split.

The topic of the thread is moral obligation, were not talking about the benefits of altruism and cooperation in society, or its various sources. Were talking about morality, and that simply does not prop up any kind of moral theory. Even still, its wrong. It might be generally true that cooperation is more beneficial, but we all know of examples where people actively worked against the welfare of all people in their society [the gilded age, slaves, racists yada yada] and came out well ahead.

Again you're looking at an incomplete picture. Take a step back and it becomes apparent that while they were active pressures against morality they were in no way obstacles to it's application. Morality won out even with god bent to support seemingly both the selfish and the selfless. Yes it took ages but you forget it did happen and it continues to happen at an ever increasing rate. A practical philosophy may lead to a practical application of morals, that doesn't stop them from being morals.

No, you misunderstand me. Society can enforce morals, they can not create them. Either the morals are true, and come from God, and society enforces those morals, or the morals society creates are false social conventions and nothing else.

Hardly, you're taking one point and ignoring the others, you can't argue his ideas out of context here and expect to perceive the whole picture. Morals can be true without god and god does not obligate us to perform morally any more than without him historically refuting your idea off the bat.

The morals in that sense, do not exist. I'm talking about the existence of morality in an objective sense. Without God, morality is social convention and biological impulse, which means it does not exist at all. It's simply a fashionable and easy term to describe common modes of human behaviour within a system, it has no truth to it.

God's omniscience means he can impose a moral code with objectivity, however we are not incapable of deriving the same information with logic. You are scoffing at the logical explanations which do indeed call for a moral code which is objectively true through appeals to ignorance, and denial.

No, its not. A genetic impulse has no bearing on the metaphysical objectivity of a concept like morals, and failing some other anchor to make this concept real, we can only conclude it is false. If you do not accept God, genetic impulses are what they are, impulses by nature, nothing more. The obligations are drives, the social conventions learned behaviour. Some stick, some dont. But there is no real reason why they should stick for you. There certainly is no truth to them whatsoever.

This is not true at all. Evolution is a continuous process towards the betterment of the populations. Your entire idea is predicated on the idea that we can't possibly explain why we should perform morally and you're ignoring perfectly valid explanations to do so.

Yes? And as we know sociopaths exist, and continue to exist, and many do quite well. That doesnt matter either way, were talking about the origin of moral obligation. Either its a naturalistic source, and therefore a biological impulse- which means the obligation doesnt exist in the first place, and "morals" as we know it becomes a nonsensical statement, or it comes from God, and the obligations are true and unamendable. One option or the other.

By your personal definition perhaps but this is by no way established by you as true.

[Mr. Crow]

Uh...stipulating a typical emotional response as an impetuous for action obviously doesnt make sense. I'm talking for rational, not emotional reasons for actions. .

again I will repeat, moral codes are Ethical constructions, ethics are personal, subjective by definition, they depend on the herachy of values of said individual.

in some cases we can examine a certain moral code and make it self consistent this is the closest we get to objective morality.

in moral society the uppermost value is Liberty, so the only way to acquire moral responsibility is trough a compromise.

and my frien, emotions are a fundamental part of etics.

If I dont care about them, I'm not going to act. Again, what moral obligation do I have? Not what variables may influence my decision, outside of the moral realm, but what actual moral obligation do I have if there is no God? .

the first time you ate from your mothers breast you agreed to the moral obligations of the family, the same is true when you use the states services, or when you decide to have a kid, you commit yourself to this obligations.

Historically untrue, oligarchies have and do thrive.

while you my argue that all governments since our tribal days are plutocracies, we can say that there was always charitable institutions, and when the lower classes lakes certain things they revolt.

Not it doesnt. Your first theory is basically a social benefit theory; all human interaction exists so long as it has a net benefit for both members.

well without the rule of moral, society would collapse so god or not, humans would develop this sort of morals by selection.

But if I dont perceive my children/family as worth anything, or at least not enough to warrant my aid, what obligation do I have to help them? Legal, certainly. Moral? None.

there is the moral duty to which you commit when you decide to have a kid. based on liverty,

based on Aristotele it is your propose to have a kid and thus your duty to is welfare,

based on utilitarianism, you must ensure the over all god of society which needs kids to be taken care of

based on instinct it is your kid,

there are several theories of moral. All are equally valid for their proposes places and times.

Not without God.

pleas pleas don´t drag me into quoting the old testament stuff i am begging you

Thats not my survival, its just genes. That may be "the reason we exist" under a purely biological standpoint, were just complicated virus's, but again this simply has nothing to do with moral obligation.

then I could use the moral theory of Aristotle, and claim the propouse of things is the upper most value, and therefore, you have a duty to your propouse.

This is a case of practicality. It's practically better for me to cooperate, so do it. It's not morally better. The topic of the thread is moral obligation, were not talking about the benefits of altruism and cooperation in society, or its various sources. Were talking about morality, and that simply does not prop up any kind of moral theory. Even still, its wrong. It might be generally true that cooperation is more beneficial, but we all know of examples where people actively worked against the welfare of all people in their society [the gilded age, slaves, racists yada yada] and came out well ahead.

but then again it was moraly aceptable those days

No, you misunderstand me. Society can enforce morals, they can not create them. Either the morals are true, and come from God, and society enforces those morals, or the morals society creates are false social conventions and nothing else. The morals in that sense, do not exist. I'm talking about the existence of morality in an objective sense.

then why different cultures have a different hierarchy of values?

Without God, morality is social convention and biological impulse, which means it does not exist at all. It's simply a fashionable and easy term to describe common modes of human behaviour within a system, it has no truth to it.

it describes the behavior, so what is the problem?

No, its not. A genetic impulse has no bearing on the metaphysical objectivity of a concept like morals, and failing some other anchor to make this concept real, we can only conclude it is false. If you do not accept God, genetic impulses are what they are, impulses by nature, nothing more. The obligations are drives, the social conventions learned behaviour. Some stick, some dont. But there is no real reason why they should stick for you. There certainly is no truth to them whatsoever.

so instincts selected to maximize survival are not objective, and an analysis to the most convenient course of action is not objective, but some Levantine legends are?

Well, obviously. Legend implies falsehood.

no it implies an exaggerated historical fact. I would for example be a fool to claim your magic Jew was made up, however i am unable to believe the magic part.

and why a jew that has always bothered me, statistically i would suppose a Chinese guy would be the chosen one.

Yes? And as we know sociopaths exist, and continue to exist, and many do quite well. That doesnt matter either way, were talking about the origin of moral obligation. Either its a naturalistic source, and therefore a biological impulse- which means the obligation doesnt exist in the first place, and "morals" as we know it becomes a nonsensical statement, or it comes from God, and the obligations are true and unamendable. One option or the other.

well sociopath do exist, however, when we count them, and do their hypothetical numbers do to genetic drift, those numbers are almost the same. in other words, sociopaths randomly spawn this rate is really low, but being a pool of more than 6 billion humans, there is a very high probability to find some.

[Helm]

Where does God get his morality from?

[Invictus XII]

Where does God get his morality from?

Where did the singularity that exsisted before the big bang come from?

[Helm]

Not just biological evolution but cultural evolution determines our moral values as well as well, moral standards now are somewhat different than they were 1000, 500, 100 or 50 years ago. The plain bare fact of the matter is that wherever we get our all our moral values from it isn't from God, not to say that religion doesn't play a part.

[Squiggle]

Not just biological evolution but cultural evolution determines our moral values as well as well, moral standards now are somewhat different than they were 1000, 500, 100 or 50 years ago.

This is an axiom and is also irrelevant. Society imposes values and behaviour on us, the question is not "how did I come to hold my values/beliefs?", as its obvious to everyone that I was socialized and learned into this behaviour. The question is, what is the origin of the notion of moral obligation. If moral obligation is true, where does it come from? The only viable source is God. Outside of that, its simply behaviour which evolved, and we evolved with our brain, and culture formed, we began to socialize differing and sometimes contradictory views to reach that same innate biological goal of cooperation. But that doesnt make it true, in fact if thats all it is, it makes it false.

The plain bare fact of the matter is that wherever we get our all our moral values from it isn't particularly from religion.

Right, so religion has had no influence whatsoever on Western culture or any other?

[Helm]

But that doesnt make it true, in fact if thats all it is, it makes it false. Right, so religion has had no influence whatsoever on Western culture or any other?

I didn't say that, religion being a product of human culture will have the moral values of a culture of that time period within it. So for instance 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal, it was seen to be immoral because the bible said so. Does that have anything to do at all with the moral values of God? No it has something to do with Jewish moral values from 2000 years ago.

[Squiggle]

I didn't say that, religion being a product of human culture will have the moral values of a culture of that time period within it. So for instance 50 years ago homosexuality was illegal, it was seen to be immoral because the bible said so. Does that have anything to do at all with the moral values of God? No it has something to do with Jewish moral values from 2000 years ago.

This is predicated on the belief that Christianity, and really all organized religion is false. Really dont know how you think just asserting you think Christianity is false is conducive to the conversation in anyway. You literally have failed to address the topic of this thread whatsoever. I get it, your a pagan/mystic/hindu/whatever the you wanna be on any given day. Point? Stick to the topic of the thread.

[Helm]

This is predicated on the belief that Christianity, and really all organized religion is false.

It's certainly false that we get our societal moral values directly from God or anything supernatural, religion has influence but we created the religions in the first place, no religion was ever revealed by God himself, that should be plain fact by now. We made all these religions, it doesn't automatically mean they're all false but we did make them.