The Myth Of Moral Systems Essay

The articles “Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’” and “Is Morality Innate and Universal?” support the idea of a universal moral code across all human cultures.

HP Owen and Cardinal Newman put forward another moral argument, morality as derived from God (via conscience and objective laws or rules). For

Dwelling in the deepest recesses of the mind, hidden in the various cortexes of the brain, the fundamental nature of every human lurks seeping into the actions of the individual. Can morality ever dictate a society? The individual contradicts the group and morals become subjective. Morals form ethics, ethics form laws, but all must have nearly universal agreement in order to be validated. Due to this unavoidable variation of an individual’s morals the necessary consensus of morals prevents the establishment of a true moral based society.

Human morality is a product of evolution by heritable variation and natural selection. It is fully part of the natural world but is none the worse for that – on the contrary. In the last sentence of On the Origin of Species, Darwin states that “there is grandeur in this view of life… on which endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” The beautiful and wonderful forms include true moral agents who respond to real moral facts and who form a natural moral community. Their existence contributes to the grandeur of Darwin’s evolutionary view of life.

Moral responsibility is a concept that has, in some way, existed in every culture and civilization that recorded history can tell us about. From the Law of Hammurabi to beliefs in judgmental gods mankind has always assumed some form of moral responsibility—whether metaphysical or within a society. While pragmatic considerations of moral responsibility seem to be necessary for living within a society, the philosophic concept of moral responsibility beckons many inherent problems that must be resolved. Galen Strawson in “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility” presents a strong argument as to why moral responsibility is impossible, while Susan Wolf responds to the problems presented, and argues that moral responsibility does exist in some

In our daily life we hope that there is an innermost balance of morality, evidently determining how we act and react to various situations. However, it is not always clear what that reasoning is, if the sense of morality in each of us is actually a social inventive to do the right

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

In his essay, the “Origin of Moral Sense” Charles Darwin explains the origin of morality and its relation to evolution. Darwin argues, that like animals, humans are descendants of natural selection. Darwin argues that not only our (meaning humans and animals) mental capacity evolved, so did our own moral sense. Darwin’s first point in the “Origin of Moral Sense” is that ethics occurs naturally amongst animals. Darwin believes that animals have a sense of sympathy and need to do the right thing ingrained in them. Although Darwin believes it is instinctual to “do good”, it does not apply to the same species, only species of the same kind.

As we bring our upbringing, faith commitment, past experience and reflections to bear on everything we do, we now stand back and go to the sources that for Christians should provide the moral insight needed to proceed: (1) Scripture; (2) Tradition; (3) Reason; and (4) Experience. As it is generally believed today that the canon of Scripture was put together through a sincere act of discernment by the Christian community and that it is truly the coming together of the human and the divine, we begin our investigation with Scripture. We will then look at the remaining three: tradition; reason; and experience in light of Scripture.

In Louise Antony’s ‘Good minus God’ she explains why God is not necessarily the basis of morality. She states “we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and respond to those vulnerabilities.” Ultimately this argument is saying that as rational humans we can recognize pain and from that we know what innately to be right or wrong. On the other hand William Lane Craig in his work titled “The Indispensability of theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality” argues that without the presence of God morality is just a human convention and that it is wholly subjective.

The concept of morality plays an important role in human society. Through the discovery of what, exactly, determines that which is “good” and that which is “bad”, humans develop mechanisms that determine how they respond to or judge any given situation. What remains a mystery, however, is what, exactly, is the basis of morals. It is commonly believed that morals are learned through lived experiences, as well as, from those who act as each person’s individual caretaker(s). Even though these factors do play a significant role in determining morality, these factors alone neither create nor determine a person’s moral compass. In Paul Bloom’s work, Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil, we are introduced to the idea that morality, while partly learned, is something that is ingrained in humans from birth. Through multiple studies, performed both by Bloom as well as other psychologists, it is revealed that not only are babies able to perceive what is right and what is wrong, but also, from birth, babies are instilled with the innate knowledge of empathizing, valuing fairness and status, and valuing those who look similar versus those who look different. In spite of previous ideas, Bloom proves that babies are smarter than previously thought, while simultaneously recognizing the shortcomings of this “elementary” form of morality. Bloom’s finding prove to be revolutionary, in that they allow for the examination of different social structures, their shortcomings, and what

The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a

Have you ever asked yourself where your conscience comes from? The feeling that takes a hold of you when you do what you feel is wrong. This feeling is almost like a consequence when you tell a lie or commit a crime. Your conscience helps you sort out the good and bad and feels your mind with sorrow when you see a sad story on the news or gives you the initiative to donate money to a contribution. But where does it come from. Is it something you are naturally born with, taught over time or given to you by a higher power? This argument leads to the existence of moral values by many philosophers including William Lane Craig. One of his excerpts argues that if there is an existence of moral values, which some people agree,

Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of followings one’s feelings. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion. Being ethical is not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing “whatever society accepts.” In any society, most people accept standards that are ethical. But standards of behaviour in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is good example of a morally corrupt society. What then, is

Frans de Waal begins his argument by first stating the question as to whether or not a human’s moral actions originated from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. He concludes this thought by saying that our moral actions do, in fact, originate from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. De Waal further argues that the foundations of human morals are found in the primates of today. They are composed of actions and emotions whose evolutionary role assists us in our social organization and unity. In the beginning pages of his book, De Waal