wait I don't think that lol

I think that morals simply came from these instincts

they are however, influenced by the enviroment

a big influence is science and reasoning

culture and religion are also major influences

the environment in general

It was once socially acceptable for a grown man to have sex with a 10 - 14 year old. However, as we learned more about psychology and biology, we figured out that children are harmed mentally and physically during sex. Our biological morals tell us that harming children is wrong, and therefore having sex with children is wrong

does this make any sense @Eoppa

The Aztecs believed that if they did not preform human sacrifices, the God Tlaltecuhtli would become angered and destroy the world. To them, human sacrifices was absolutely necessary! They still believed that murder was wrong however, you would be punished if you started killing random people for no reason.

you are accidentally arguing for objective morality, in that morality ecists there is a right and wrong, and its not even the interpretation but rather the facts that determine who this is appled to

oh really? thats not what eoppa said

i think that its not that black and white

in that last post you are, I think its called the argument from convergence

Empathy is instilled in us through genetics

where regardless of the facts, for example some islamists say its wrong to kill people with souls or enslave them, but women dont have souls thus they can be enslaved.

which is why most cultures share similar moral compasses

this is not proof of objective morality

objective morality means that there is an objective source from where it stems

i don't think you understand

Subjective morality is simply the rejection of that idea

what i am trying to do is explain where I believe morals come from

I know but even then, we are still working in the realm of objective morality.

subjective morality means that I can go kill someone and I have not done wrong regardless of empathy

subjective morality = no morality

since it asserts that there is no external real morality, anything goes and all morality is equal

It means you did not do anything objectively wrong. In the end the universe does not care if someoen is murdered

however, you did do something that is against human morals

but why should I care? Why should I be punished if I can rationalize doing anything?

because it is necessary for social coherence.

But why is social coherence necessary, I can walk this back into oblivion and we will simply end up (I think) at nihilism

i mean its all in our best interest

like it makes our lives easier

It helps us meet our biological needs

Is it really in our best interest, I can just dominate society being immoral, as we as societies pressupose certain moral duties towards each other. If I break all of them I simply dominate society. I can meet all of my biological needs with or without social coherence nad my life can be infinitely easier without morality.

That is where other aspects of human nature come into play

Humans are social animals, and most humans will do anything to be accepted by their population.

This is for a couple of reasons, if someone is accepted within society they get benifits

if they are sick, they will receive aid

one of the best ways to gain acceptance is by being altruistic

so not only do we want to have our biological needs met, but we also want to create a "safty net", in case something goes wrong

That seems that human nature has a whole lot of assumed concepts of morality going into it.

However if morality is subjective we still havent answered why not be this other way, when its clear that we gain all advantages possible this immoral way.

Some would say there is conscience that is a function to keep us from doing wrong, but then we are assuming wrong exists and can be defined in some way.

The way I see it, no matter how we look at it, morality is an objective fact of our existence.

although i do need to read up on the proper proofs of it