Here's a good one: do you think morality was invented or discovered?

I think morality was noticed and given a name. It wasn’t invented or discovered so much as naming a concept already there and recognizing it.

Both! A lot of people characterize their inventions as “discoveries.”

I think morality is a pattern that “emerged” out of a lot of other patterns of behavior and basically kept and codified if it seemed to work.

I think morality is fluid, not static.
Thus, still being evolved.

Morality, to me, is something that was developed in humans. We are a herd animal, and much like other herd animals, it’s beneficial to develope a sense of morality for our own survival. Human beings do better together, rather than secluded, meaning, it’s rather hard for one person to survive without the help of others. and to put it in laymans terms, acting like a jackass doesn’t keep you part of the herd.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 Other animals have morality, though. How do you explain that?

@Jiminez
Do animals have morals, or instincts?

@fireside Do you think there are any rules of morality that are not subject to change?

Well you could ask the same about us, but I don’t think there’s any difference.

“What others give as duties I give as living impulses.” – Walt Whitman

But that’s what I’m saying. We discovered the right thing to do. We didn’t make it up from scratch. It’s not like it doesn’t have a rational basis to it.

@Jiminez – I believe that morality arises out of the following spiritual virtues:

”...spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen…” – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions

But, that’s me.

“Spiritual” is kind of vague, though. I consider myself “soulful” but I don’t believe in an eternal, ethereal soul. I think of it as an abstract psychological concept; same with God. I think, and I mean no offense, that an appeal to something “other-worldly” in the topic of morality is a cop-out. We invoke it because we can see there being no other foundation for morality. But there is a foundation. It’s there no matter what. It’s intrinsic; a natural interpretation of certain interactions.

@Jiminez any creature that at some point has to depend on another of the same species feels a sense of morality. very rarely do you see any animal live in solidarity it’s whole life.

@EmpressPixie: I feel similarly in that some universal human “morals” must be innate, noticed, studied and expanded on to become codes to bind tribes/communites and also laws.

@EmpressPixie That’s what I mean by discovered. Discovery implies it is present already.

@Jiminez: I more feel like discovery is the kind of thing where it happens all at once. And I think it was more gradual than that.

Yeah, I toyed with the wording a bit. I think we’re saying the same thing. You actually put it better than I did. ‘Noticed’ is a better way of saying it. But that’s pretty incredible! I always hate when people say “morality is a human invention”. It’s not an invention. It’s not like we just made a list of random behaviors and decided to call them “moral”. There’s a reason why we chose the behaviors we chose.

@Jiminez – I believe a focus on those virtues that allows you to release the ego and see what is intrinsic in nature. But I guess I would have to ask your definition of “morality”.

I see morality as more of a common code that has to evolve because different cultures have different opinions on the subject.

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
        a. some other group, such as a religion, or
        b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

source

I don’t think it was either, really. Primitive forms of moral behavior most likely existed in our primate ancestor, as they do in primates today. Therefore, we didn’t invent or discover morality any more than we invented or discovered the heart, or our kidneys.

Oh my definition of morality is going to be totally adverse to a whole lot of peoples’ definition. My definition of morality is: ‘knowledge of the infinite worth of life’. And of course, acting in accordance with that knowledge; doing one’s best to treat life that way. Inevitably, we will fail, but it’s important to know life’s worth so you know what you’re aiming for.

@crisw But we did notice/discover we had a heart and kidneys. Like EmpressPixie said: we gradually came to know it.

@Qingu That’s an interesting way of looking at things. What inspired this question was someone on another website asked if mathematics was invented or discovered. So, I suppose, you could say that scientific inventions are just truths out there waiting to be discovered. But, in contrast to morality, they don’t exist in any form already. Like, no one went into a cave and discovered the printing press sitting there all shiny and brand new. It had to be built. ALTHOUGH, we’re still “building” our notions of morality, too, be figuring out the intrinsic rules of our engagement and writing them down.

Morality evolved in the same way that life forms did. A concept of what was right and wrong exists, even in insects. So as we evolved, our ideas of right and wrong evolved as well. It was neither invented or discovered.

@Jiminez – I would call ‘knowledge of the infinite worth of life’ Enlightenment, not morality.
But given that definition, I would have to say discovered.

short answer:

“morality” merely defines a group of behavioral choices that seem the most logically sound for everyone in a group of individuals to follow.

long answer:

i’ve come to believe that “morality” is another false notion like the notion of a flat earth. it seems to make sense and even has practical applications but ultimately isn’t real.

logic, however, is the opposite. currently most people consider logic a human construction. but i’ve come to realize that it’s literally how all animals make their decisions. syllogistic, deductive logic.

anything we do, we do it because it seems to make sense. we never do anything that doesn’t seem to make sense. we never make irrational decisions unless due to brain damage or otherwise involuntarily.

Created by God, instilled into mankind for guidance.

What kept the tribe as a whole thriving? Someone noticed those mores, codified them and called it all “morality.” I think the religious bit got tacked on to reinforce the mores within the group.

the religious bit, i’d say, came in as justification for not having a better explanation than simply: “trust me, this is best for everyone!” instead, to get the idea across, fear was used: “do it this way so that you personally don’t suffer eternally.”

but not every tribe came up with that same idea. some were simply: “do it this way, so that you don’t die” others: “do it this way, so that we don’t kill you.”

ultimately, though, the point was to coerce you into doing whatever simply made the most sense for the group’s benefit.

@ninjacolin Define “real” though. Of course morality is real. I, for one, equate both morality and rationality.

I don’t know, but I gave you a GQ because you told us, RIGHT THERE IN THE QUESTION, that it was a good one.

real is a hard one in this context.
what i mean is.. humans (all animals really) care that “things” are rational.
if something happens that isn’t rational, humans get uppity about it.

simple example: if someone turns right when the ought to have turned left.. people tend to notice and start complaining about the driving.

moral example: if someone gets hit with baseball bat and loses their money for deciding to take a walk at 3am at night.. again, people tend to notice and start complaining.

poor examples but i hope the point got across: it’s the ill-logic that makes people get upset.

@MacBean Respect my authoritay!

better moral example: if i give you some money to give to bob. you agree but instead of giving it to bob, you pocket it for yourself.. bob and i would be all “wtf?! if everyone behaved like that things would really suck!”

this is why i say morality seems to be a class of logic… it’s a “real” class, i guess.. but still, it’s just logic.

uh.. and to answer the question of the thread: i think Logic existed always in animals.. but the phenomenon was discovered by Aristotle.

@ninjacolin I concur entirely with your perspective on the matter. I too believe that morality is constructed by a collection of behavioural traits which are deemed to be the most logical. Any manner of innate morality seems an impossibility from my perspective due to the diversity of moral systems amongst different societies and the ease with which any of these moral systems can be bent and manipulated by individuals.

another example:

“i can’t steal. it says clearly in the Bible that stealing is wrong.”

Still logic.