Where does Morality Come From?

[Danmark]

A have a memory that occasionally haunts me. I suppose I was 13 or so. My brothers and I often walked a block down our alley to Seattle Pacific College to play football. Watching a great film noir movie, "This Gun for Hire," with Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake brings this memory back.

Lake has always reminded me of a young lady, prob'ly an SPC student, 10 or so years older than us. Blonde and attractive. She lived in rooms in the house at the end of our alley, by the college. She had two kids, one named Lance [?]. He had some kind of mild disability and glasses. His brother was younger and a much better genetic specimen.

Naturally the younger kids would want to play football with us. We may have tolerated them when desperate for players. I'm sure we teased Lance.

Anyway, over the years I've thought of this young mother from time to time; of the struggle she must have had as a single parent with a disabled child. I wonder about her. It would be wonderful to be able to go back in time and let her know she was appreciated, admired; that she was a heroine. We were too young then to ever say anything or do much besides tease Lance. Shame.

So my question is, where does this empathy come from? This memory is nearly 60 years old. I have no morality I trace to religion. But there is this shared sense of belonging, of fairness, of ... I have no name for it. Where does it come from?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 4 by Danmark]

I completely disagree. Empathy is what fuels morality

If empathy is what fuels morality, it can't be morality, simply based on your grammar. Gasoline fuels fire: fire is not gasoline.

I never denied a connection; but empathy is not morality. For instance, a man can feel empathy for another who committed murder: that does not mean that the committed murder was necessarily right.

Technically I suppose I have to agree. As I said, empathy fuels morality. As you say, it provides the pressure to act toward others the way we would like to be treated. But it starts from empathy. Without empathy there would be no internal motive to do what is right. Without empathy, morality would merely be a pasted on kind of thing, a grudging well, i better do it because it's the law. To me this is not morality, it is simply following the law, the rules. That kind of morality needs the threat of hell or some other external force.

Which brings me back to my claim that empathy IS morality in the sense it cannot be separated from what I'm calling true morality. I think Jesus made this distinction in many of the discussions recorded with the Pharisees. The latter are trying to follow the law legalistically, just barely covering the required bases. Jesus emphasized the heart, the inner attitude. I suggest that only comes from empathy, from seeing others as valued, seeing them as extensions of ourselves.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by Danmark]

As you say, it provides the pressure to act toward others the way we would like to be treated.

That is debatable: empathy is the ability to share another's feelings. To literally feel another's rage.

Sympathy is one's ability to respond to another's emotional state: I might not understand one's rage, but I can understand that one is enraged and my emotional state will alter accordingly.

Neither can be morality: for another's feelings may lead him or her to one action, or to another. Morality means acting in a certain direction: whatever fuels that act may be sympathy or empathy, but it is not morality.

I do not deny that emotions lie behind moral action. I do; I agree with Aristotle. But emotions are not morality. I think this proven by the fact that we can all act against our moral conscious; we so act because the emotions are so strong that we override what our reason tells us is right.

I think Jesus made this distinction in many of the discussions recorded with the Pharisees. The latter are trying to follow the law legalistically, just barely covering the required bases. Jesus emphasized the heart, the inner attitude.

I do not think non-specialists should debate Pharisaic debates in the gospels or the Mishnah or the the Talmud. The tendency for non-specialists like Danmark or any other to do so often leads to anti-Semitic comments on the non-specialist's art. This is not due to their prejudice; they simply do not know the current relevant literature.

[Danmark]

I do not think non-specialists should debate Pharisaic debates in the gospels or the Mishnah or the the Talmud. The tendency for non-specialists like Danmark or any other to do so often leads to anti-Semitic comments on the non-specialist's art. This is not due to their prejudice; they simply do not know the current relevant literature.

This may be the worst comment I've ever heard on this forum. Who are you to decide who can speak about what here?

You are by your admission decrying ani semitic remarks that have not been made. Rather you are talking about some 'tendency' that you cite no support for.

If you actually dispute what I wrote, then do so. Make your argument. Explain your reasoning. Are you claiming to be a "specialist?" Define your terms and give us the benefit of your reading. Use the texts. Since when did the gospels become part of the Talmud?

[Divine Insight]

Neither can be morality: for another's feelings may lead him or her to one action, or to another. Morality means acting in a certain direction: whatever fuels that act may be sympathy or empathy, but it is not morality.

This is an obviously flawed concept of morality. Morality cannot be reduced to just actions. If that were the case, then non-cognizant entities would be committing immoral acts. If a tornado hits a daycare center and kills all the children we would have no choice but to say that the tornado was immoral. But we don 't do this because we know that it makes no sense to say that a tornado was immoral.

Therefore morality cannot be about the actions taken, but rather it must be based upon the intent or motivations behind the actions.

Therefore your view of morality is exactly the opposite of what it needs to be to make any sense. Morality cannot be actions alone. Morality is indeed the fuel behind the actions.

[marco]

I do not think non-specialists should debate Pharisaic debates in the gospels or the Mishnah or the the Talmud. The tendency for non-specialists like Danmark or any other to do so often leads to anti-Semitic comments on the non-specialist's art. This is not due to their prejudice; they simply do not know the current relevant literature.

Moderator Comment

It is best to address the post, Liam. Offering advice on what other posters should or should not do is unwanted. We are all, sadly, fallible creatures, even specialists, who, incidentally, are identified here not by what they declare themselves to be, but by what they say and how they say it.





Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 4 by Danmark]

I completely disagree. Empathy is what fuels morality

If empathy is what fuels morality, it can't be morality, simply based on your grammar. Gasoline fuels fire: fire is not gasoline.

I never denied a connection; but empathy is not morality. For instance, a man can feel empathy for another who committed murder: that does not mean that the committed murder was necessarily right.

Technically I suppose I have to agree. As I said, empathy fuels morality. As you say, it provides the pressure to act toward others the way we would like to be treated. But it starts from empathy. Without empathy there would be no internal motive to do what is right. Without empathy, morality would merely be a pasted on kind of thing, a grudging well, i better do it because it's the law. To me this is not morality, it is simply following the law, the rules. That kind of morality needs the threat of hell or some other external force.

Which brings me back to my claim that empathy IS morality in the sense it cannot be separated from what I'm calling true morality. I think Jesus made this distinction in many of the discussions recorded with the Pharisees. The latter are trying to follow the law legalistically, just barely covering the required bases. Jesus emphasized the heart, the inner attitude. I suggest that only comes from empathy, from seeing others as valued, seeing them as extensions of ourselves.

I agree that morality is fueled by empathy. I also agree with you here Danmark. Without empathy morality is just following a set of rules out of obligation or fear.

I used an example earlier of how I bullied a girl at school. Did I know that bullying was wrong? That hurting someone was wrong? I sure did. My parents told me that. The bible told me that. However neither my parents nor the bible TAUGHT me that. It was empathy that taught me that. It was empathy that allowed me to UNDERSTAND why hurting someone was wrong.

We can be told a lot of things, but until we actually learn those lessons and understand them, it's not much good. Having a god telling you to behave a certain way does not teach you how to be a good person. All you're doing is following a set of rules out of fear or obligation.