To me this is all so simple.

People are a product of how they were raised, educated, influences of what happened to them & product of the decisions they make.

exactly - and I wonder where the morality is in some of the rudeness on this thread.

Oh, to have the luxury to have the time to make things simple utterly way too complicated. Morality to me is as simple as:

Do the right thing
Do unto others as you would have them to unto you
What goes around comes around (karmic energy - being repaid in kind as you earn it)

and these "truisms" reflect what oldsage said - my education, upbringing, and experience

an important distinction creative, as there is - I believe - a tendency for some to render their own moral code the only moral code therefore = definition of morality.

This is a relatively common line of belief, and one that I used to hold with more significance that I do now. I am not saying that it is completely false, to the contrary, it applies on a universal human level and is therefore quite significant. However, I find it to be lacking as a complete description of what people are a product of. It equates the notion of what people are with thought/belief stemming from the effects/affects of social experience. Allow me to further explain...

Replace "people" with "thought/belief" and this quote from oldsage would be more accurate in my view. The quote reflects what is commonly called "Nurture". Life experience(nurturing) plays an integral role in influencing how/what we think/believe about the world and/or ourselves. In other words, life experience plays a direct role in influencing our understanding of ourselves and/or the world around us. However, because we can be mistaken in our thought/beliefs, including those about ourselves, it is clear to me that our thought/belief based upon life experience does not exhaust who/what we are.

There are things about us that are not a product of how we were raised, educated, and/or some other element of life experience. There are genetics not willfully chosen, there are rules governing our belief/thought/actions which do not owe their existence to being apprehended by our minds. There are genetic predispositions, personal preferences not of our own choosing. Grasping the existence of those things adds a completely different facet of perspective concerning who/what people are.



It's there.



The first presupposes that 'the right thing' has been established, or can be established. What constitutes being the right thing? It is while considering such questions that morality is not so simple.

The second does not hold unless everyone likes/prefers the same kinds of things, the same kind of treatment. What if two people disagree? If person A does to person B what A would have B do to A, that does not necessarily mean that B would do the same to A, nor does it mean that B is ok with A doing it to B based upon A's idea of what constitutes being the 'right thing' to do to him/herself.



This presupposes that there exists some form of cosmic retribution, which necessarily presupposes some kind of moral agent capable of and willing to perform moral judgment upon individual human acts. I find that justifying such a claim is not as simple as making it.

nonetheless as you overcomplicate you forget that it does not matter what the content belief of my morality is, or whether anyone else agrees with the (my) definition of the content

to me it is what I believe or think, as you noted, based on, as old sage said, my education, upbringing and expereince

continue to overcomplicate as you wish or as is your style. I will come back t o the above every time

but I do agree with your clarification of oldsage's statement

and yes, I would have been more accurate to say "I wonder WHAT is the morality of the rudeness on this thread" seems , to ME, out of place here)


obviously I'm not as philosophically inclined as u are, and am a minimalist almost to an extreme - but I do not wish you a minimally pleasant Sunday evening - rather I hope for you a wonderful evening - namaste, creative

I'm not sure that I understand what it is that you're saying here.

"Overcomplicate" implies unnecessary complication. If my assessment of morality is overcomplicating things, then that means that there is an equally adequate, but simpler explanation for morality. A simpler explanation is not necessarily sufficient. Morality is complex, and our beliefs/thoughts, if they are to successfully describe what morality is, must be at least complex enough to be effective at doing so. Occam's razor demands that the simplest adequate explanation be adopted when two conflicting but equally effective explanations are at odds with one another. I'm putting it to you that the explanation in question is insufficient.

Curiously, you agreed with what my assessment of oldsage's comments, which explained why and how it was insufficient for explaining morality, yet you deny that conclusion.



Morality is not a matter of personal opinion.

I appreciate and reciprocate the amicable wishings.

I think that the method of thought being put into practice is imperative to an assessment of anything which is objective, including universal morality. Since I hold that morality is not a man-made concept, but rather a set of universal principles/laws that effects/affects human thought, belief, knowledge, voluntary, and even some involuntary behavior, pursuing what constitutes being morality requires looking at the common denominators in ethical/moral codes and discourse.

Looking at the contrary...

Notably, a common thread in this discussion coming from several different posters is the idea that because specific morals and codes of conduct vary between and therefore seem to originate from individuals, families, groups, cultures, and the like, that morality is relative/subjective to those things. If one is considering whether or not universal morality exists, then the fact that disagreements exist between societies and individuals may seem like good evidence against the notion of universal morality. That is a result of presupposing that morality and ethical/moral codes of conduct are one in the same thing. Even if we grant that moral codes and morality are one in the same thing for the purposes of discussion, it is self-contradictory in other ways.

Moral disagreement itself cannot happen if one is consistent in their holding that morality is subjective. If that were true, then there is nothing to disagree about, for all moral codes would hold equal truth value. They would all be equally right/wrong. Since it is common sense and a logical truth that something cannot be both right/wrong(good and bad) or true/false simultaneuosly, we quickly realize that there are deep-seated problems in holding the view that morality is subjective. People do not argue over purely subjective matters. We argue/disagree over what the case is, what the world is like, what reality is. We disagree about what is true/false regarding those things. Who would tell their counterpart that they were wrong to say that their favorite flavor of ice cream is tutti-frutti, or that their favorite pair of jeans was not? Arguing over that which is purely subjective is nonsensical. This brings the notion of personal/societal tastes and customs being the source of morality under scrutiny as well.

With that in mind, when one holds that acting in a certain way is morally wrong, they argue that it is wrong for everyone. That is what distinguishes a moral claim from others regarding human behavior. Moral claims are supposed to apply to everyone. If taking another human's life soley for the sake of taking it is held as morally wrong, then it is immoral for anyone and everyone to do such a thing. On the contrary, if one holds that such a thing is not, then their reasons for justifying such an action applies to all as well. Would anyone argue that it is ok to do such a thing if and only if that is the killer's personal preference due to the culture s/he was raised in? If one holds that rape is morally wrong, then rape is wrong in all cases of rape. There are still some people who hold that a woman must submit herself to her husband at his whim, regardless of the circumstances. Does that specific individual belief hold the justificatory weight for us to conclude that a husband forcefully having sex with an otherwise unwilling wife is moral?

Those considerations and many more seems to be prima facie evidence against the notion that morality is subjective and/or equal to the moral codes of individuals, groups, cultures, etc.

Well the real thing being discussed here is not how one should live, or treat others that is the details that flow from the interactions we are discussing. Its the shape, the form, the structure of morals that is being discussed here and where THAT comes from, not its ultimate function, instead the form that leads to its function.

This is really a wonderful high level discussion that requires abstract elements analyzed in light of a fundamental understanding of the distinctions and interactions of/between ontology, epistemology and biology; without that . . . being lost seems par for the course.


What if perhaps instead of any person over complicating the topic, you are just failing to see the richness of the topic due to your own ignorance, or perhaps just the fact you have not spent time really analyzing the topic? Hmm?

Prior to this thread I would have just said, "nope, no objective morals, nothing to see here move along folks" However a perspective I had never really considered was presented and even if completely off base it still has enriched my imagination for having crossed my cortex.

Having a background in Science where distinctions between epistemic and ontic create massive confusion I tend to fashion my thoughts in a similar way to Creative, this allows me to quickly pick his meaning from his words, I understand this is a challenge for some, I would urge a careful review of his position with an objective perspective.

If one looks at karma as simply a deterministic, cause-and-effect chain of events, then no moral agent is required and the cosmic retribution reduces to action-reaction.

Karma, to me, is simply a blanket label for all the parts of the cause/effect, action/reaction chains of events that are not observed or not understood.

Which leads to my idea of where morals come from - an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause.

In other words, the more closely one believes a certain action will come to producing the result(s) one wishes to achieve, the more moral that action will be believed to be.

And it is that belief which contitutes the subjectivity of morality.

So for you Karma is just Hidden determinism?

First and foremost...

Good to 'see' ya sky!



I'm having distinct trouble here sky. I cannot follow what you're claiming and still have the concept of karma remain meaningful to me. Leaving the notion of "what goes around comes around" and/or being "repaid in kind for deeds/acts" out of karma removes the portion that makes it karma and turns it into determinism(causality), as bushido mentioned. Doing that reduces it to something other than karma, because karma necessitates the idea of reaping what you sew, or some such to that effect. That is the common denominator in all karmic belief that I'm aware of, which is why I phrased 'cosmic retribution'.

Now, it is a matter of contention regarding how it all works and it necessarily presupposes some kind of causality, however it cannot possibly work without some conscious entity of some sort or another examining, recording, knowing, and at least matching an individual's behavior with the 'appropriate' future repurcussions in order for it to be meaningful. I mean, it necessitates moral agency.



As in one's being able to confidently recognize mistakes through inversive examination? I'm not really sure that I follow you here. I mean, I agree that our having made and recognized past mistakes plays a pivotal role in how we think about things, which entails our thought regarding morality. I hold that there has been and still is plenty of mistakes regarding what constitutes morality.



I must disagree here however on two distinct grounds. First, you've identified an aspect of subjectivity regarding an individual's belief/thought regarding their own behavior. That belief is not the same thing as morality, although it very well may constitute the individuals personal morals. It seems that you've conflated the two. Secondly, one can also believe that a certain action will produce a given desired result and be correct while simultaneuosly not holding that that act nor the result is moral/good although it matched the expectation. In short, people knowingly and intentionally do bad things as a means to meet their own individual ends.

My vague understanding is that there have been (rare) hindu/vedic/ or yogic views of karma which are completely consistent with this, and which do not presupposed a moral system. Karma is the collection of laws of cause and effect; karma is physics.

Edit: Which defeats the purpose of the whole idea of 'karma' from many people's POV: as system of moral cause and effect.

I prefer "unseen" to "hidden" to avoid any connotations of intent or purpose, but essentially yes.

Thank you massage.

Although I wouldn't have said "Karma = physics", I have no disagreement with either "Karma is [a] collection of laws of cause and effect" or "...defeats the purpose of the whole idea of 'karma' ... as [a] system of moral cause and effect"

Example -

One has the following data regarding the effects of a cause: Badmouthing your friends will lose you friends.

An effect one wishes to cause: Increase in the number of one’s friends.

Analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause: Badmouthing friends will decrease the number of one’s friends.

Moral: Don’t badmouth your friends.


That is an (admittedly extremely oversimplified) example of “Where I think morals come from.”

RIGHT. I think take one step back now and you Will see the position being applied.

One step back is asking WHY the interaction of friends can lead either to less friends or more friends.

Why groups need members?
Why bowling balls need thumb holes?
Why square pegs do not fit through round holes?

Form and function. Objective morality then is the structure that supports positive group interactions.

I think its a bit abstract; however very cool.

That works with the common meaning of morals(as in lessons regarding good/bad behavior) and doesn't conflate morals with morality. I believe it is a fine example which illustrates your point rather nicely. Well done. On the flip side however, it logically works the other way around as well. If one wishes to decrease their number of friends, then the moral would be to badmouth your friends. I am not in disagreement here, but would note that the end necessarily justifies the means by this reasoning, and because of this all manner of despicable human behavior can be justified using this method.

What if one does not like another? Would badmouthing the unliked person being a good thing to do? It seems that it would have to be if we followed your construct.

"...an analysis of the data one has regarding the effects of certain causes, as compared to the effects one wishes to cause."

If person A wishes to create certain enemies for person B, then an analysis of the data available to A could conceivably warrant A's telling deliberate falsehoods about B in order to perpetuate those effects.

It follows from the construct given that the moral would be to spread deliberate falsehoods. If morals are held to be relative, then that is logically consistent. That is one reason for me to hold that morals and morality are not the same thing. An act cannot be both, good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral. It violates the law of non-contradiction. If something can be both, moral/immoral simutaneuosly, then it is neither.

In the grand scheme of things...

does it really matter?

Hahaha!....love it!


Something that strikes me as profoundly clear, obvious, startling, even, is the amount of energy poured into these de-constructive, and at times, incredibly constructive discussions.

I also quietly wonder whilst all this intense form of energy is poured into here...how much is left over for the APPLICATION of these discussions in the day to day of the posters?

It appears to me, application is everything, and dissemination is simply a glorified conundrum.


Morality....the developmental, the social, biological, ethical, religious or intellectual contributors are unquantifiable....they are as varied as snowflakes.


There would be no theories if there had not been prior application.