What causes morality?

Answer 1

A:

Some would attribute morality to God, saying that without God there can be no morality. This very issue was examined by Plato in one of his Dialogues. Here, Euthyphro seeks to define goodness in terms of what the gods would want. At this point, Plato has Socrates raise the Euthyphro Dilemma: 'Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods choose it?' If the first option is true, this shows that good is good independent of the gods (or in modern terms, God) - good is good and that is why a good god will always choose it. If the second option is true, this makes the very idea of what is good arbitrary. If something is good simply because the gods choose it, then what is to stop the gods choosing torture, thus making it good?

The problem with the second option in answer to the the Euthyphro Dilemma is that for God to choose torture, thus making it good, is absurd. But the reason it is absurd is that we believe torture is wrong and that is why God would never choose it. To recognise this is to recognise that we do not need God to determine right or wrong.

Euthyphro had tried to attribute morality to the gods, but Socrates showed him that no such attribution is possible. So it is if we attribute morality to God. Morality comes from within and is guided and informed by our consciences.

Answer 2

Opinions:

NOTHING! Morality is completely subjective. What is acceptable today may be wrong tomorrow and vice versa. E.g. Slavery was acceptable long ago, but is wrong today also homosexuality was wrong long ago, but is acceptable today. Just because someones morals, beliefs and choices are different from yours does not mean that they are inferior. Morality(social and individual) NEVER degrades, it only changes. Simply because there is no reason why one point of view is superior to another and most of the given reasons are simply ridiculous.

E.g. People should not watch porn because it is immoral; but why is it immoral ?

It's because it will cause more people to watch porn which they should not do.

Note how the both statements are linked in a way to justify one another without answering the main question.

Certain morals need to be enforced like not hurting anyone or not stealing, but if moral beliefs don't force harm on people physically or emotionally then there is nothing wrong with them. You should only follow those morals which make your life more enjoyable whether they are accepted or not. As for society, people, no matter how conservative, will always change their point of view if you give them a good reason why they should. Remember, moral standards have been changing since the dawn of civilization.

I think the cosmic law of cause and effect applies here. If a person is raised in an environment where he or she constantly, or at least often, witnesses immoral acts or if it is part of his or her culture, then undoubtably they will partake in the same. The opposite is true.

Slavery has always been unacceptable, though it was enforced by those with the power to do so such as with ancient Egypt that enslaved the Hebrews, or Great Britain that enslaved half of Africa in the colonial days.

Same applies for homosexuality, some cultures, such as that of the Romans, often indulged in some form of homosexuality.

If a person's morals, beliefs and choices are different in such a way that it goes against the basic ethical morals and common courtesy that one would expect from any human then I would say they are inferior. Those people might not be At Fault, but might be the product of some greater political, economical or social issue such as poor education or outright political opression.

But how does one explain a situation where a person is educated, cultured and intelligent yet engages in immoral acts such as murder, rape, corruption, etc.? Some speak of being good yet do evil. Some did good and turned evil. Change can indicate going from bad to being good. But going from being good to being bad, that is what I would call degradation.

I do agree that as longs as a moral belief does not harm others, in any way whatsoever, then there is no wrong in it. And yes! Some morals need to be enforced, but they are not. Liberalism gives you the freedom and rights to not act morally. I think moral standards have not yet reached its fullest potential, least of all under any type of liberal government and doubt it ever can. And let's face it, most people don't know what is good for them.

Moral Degradation, known in scholarly circles as 'Declension', is nominally a Protestant concept (in the US, specifically a Puritan concept which has since been built upon) having to do with the perception that the world was once in a perfect state of moral purity, but has since declined as a result of increasing distance from a (usually) specific idea of the word of God (be it the Ten Commandments, the Book of Leviticus' 613 Laws) .

Declension appears, however, as a persistent idea in every culture and every religion. It is little more than a revenge fantasy, at worst, and at best, little more than an availability heuristic, and so a misappreciation of causality. There is an old quote, repeated so often that its origin is muddy: "each generation is dumber than its parents," which goes hand in hand with the common remark, "in my day, kids had respect for their elders."

In reality, it is probably nothing more than a manifestation of the fact that as people get older, they become more aware of the world and others, and so more aware of social convention, and they mistake their own growth and awareness with an inverse trend in the world around them. As a Historian, I have never been able to find a time in history in which morality wasn't a contested concept, or a culture which didn't manifest varying opinions of it; nor have I ever been able to find a place or period where there wasn't a significant, mostly older, group who thought morality was in decline. The concept is interesting, but not useful.

Answer 3

I believe that moral degradation is the result of moral relativism. That is a society defines morals philosophically or socially under norms. Where morals are used to control individuals and prevent anarchy by imperfect humans. There is no connection of morals to religion according to this reasoning. We must only adhere to the rule of law. Which, is of course is created by humans to control others by imperfect humans that create imperfect laws they're fore "I don't have to worry about your morals or your laws", because I'm just as good and equal as you are. I don't need God to tell me what to do.

Answer 4

This argument states that morals are cultural and related to individual opinions. That they are relative related to the culture and time period to which that come. Therefore there is no universal truths only opinions and morals are transitory where I can decide that lying, cheating, murder, child or elder abuse, stealing is o.k. because this was common in another culture in another time period. The rule of law is all I have to worry about and I don't have to worry about this as long as I don't get caught.