# On the origins and practices of morality.
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953
**Category:** Society, Government, and Economics
**Created:** [September 25, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953 "2013-09-25T06:59:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Tyrannus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tyrannus)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2013, 6:59am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/1 "2013-09-25T06:59:00Z")
This is going to be a ongoing thread of mine as I want to add stuff to it over a period of time describing my beliefs on morality and ethics which is largely one of critique because I view the subjects as fake appearances which mask other human behaviors. Let us begin.
On the origins of morality and ethics we must conclude was a response to the ancient priomordial anarchy before human organization was a thought where human beings roamed everywhere as small packs or tribes.
What is unclear about those tribes and early humans is what they permitted in custom amongst each other or accepted socially. To this nobody knows. It is a great error to think that they had the same values we have today considering ours is influenced primarily by cultural conditioning.
What ever reasoning the creation of laws, morals, and ethics was ancient man’s response to the ancient primordial anarchy that once ruled the entire planet.
The question comes into play as to what kind of motives did they have in their construction within the origins of laws, morals, and ethics.
Was it one out of general sympathy for the plight of other human beings, or was it more sinister as a way of creating the perfect control over them?
I tend to go with the later definition where it is here I’ll explain why.
If the goal was to create some sense of equality overtime with their implementation we would see some success with that, but since we don’t where social inequality is instead still the norm we must assume that it is all camouflage in masking behaviors as some sort of greater human inner psychological makeup being played out. The fact that thousands of years have passed where after these ideas have been implemented where there is still no sense of total equality should allude to this particular revealing. If total equality doesn’t exist still then we must conclude that these are false ideals where they exist for some other reasons.
Why profess to believe or practice in something and yet in all reality not follow through in those beliefs?
If they were created out of general sympathy for other human beings we wouldn’t be experiencing the same inequalities for all these thousands of years unto our present.
---
### Author:  [@Tyrannus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tyrannus)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2013, 7:17am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/2 "2013-09-25T07:17:42Z")
What is observable are people having a monopoly over laws, morality, and ethics causing harm to other human beings. By having a monopoly over these institutions it allows them to create a social immunity for themselves where they can harm, enslave, and control others yet remain untouchable themselves from any or all reprisals. They do this by claiming a moral highground or imperative where they profess that others must suffer and struggle under it while leading it themselves. Whatever reasoning for the original creation of morals, ethics, and laws of our ancient past may of been it is clear that such institutions have been taken over by predators who benefit themselves by abusing others with them.
---
### Author:  [@James\_S\_Saint](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/James_S_Saint)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2013, 10:07am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/3 "2013-09-25T10:07:02Z")
Consider a different kind of scenario…
Let’s say that there is one tribe that seems to be comparatively intellectual. They are more physically meek and more cerebral. They plan things rather than just go with the first thing on their mind. And they can easily surmise that they can’t defend themselves against a horde of savages nor can they just go over to some brutal tribe and conk them on the head in order to conquer them. They have to do things more intellectually, utilize their strength.
So after some serious thought, getting tired of getting ravaged by every Johnny come lately, they realize a means to become somewhat invincible even though still being physically meek in comparison. They cast the whole series of ideas into one idea. That one idea, they write down in symbols to represent the ultimate means to survive. The becomes “The Word” and “The Way”. And after some experience and perhaps detailed refining, it becomes the “Word of God” (the determiner of all that can or can’t happen).
Of course that method involves a degree of secrecy, infiltration, manipulation, and corruption of the enemy… without getting caught. It requires keeping the enemy confused, chasing shadows, mysteries, and myths. It requires whispering suspicions into the right ears so as to turn tribes against tribes, groups against groups, family members against family members, and the ignorant against the leaders.
But then they find themselves faced with a couple of serious questions. They know that they can now sneakily conquer just about any other tribe as long as they follow the “Word of God”, their formula for conquering and surviving. And they know that they can survive just about any attack upon them, again as long as they carefully follow the “Word of God” formula. So the question becomes;
1. What do we do now that we basically own the Earth and everyone in it? {not all that many people back then}
2. How do we keep our own people from inadvertently destroying themselves along with an enemy?
And again with careful consideration, they decide on a group of rules that must be followed in order to first, not destroy each other, and second to accomplish a greater chosen long distant goal, perhaps to conquer the sky, Moon, and stars… maybe even the Sun.
So perhaps what you are calling “morals” didn’t come quite so naively and narcissisticly as it might appear, but rather it is from those plans and methods for ensuring supremacy over all people of Earth and reaching even up into the heavens that formulated very specific "do"s and "don’t"s - for their own people as well as other peoples who they temporarily favor for sake of their long terms plans (while also ensuring that their enemies dislike such morals).
---
### Author:  [@Diekon](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Diekon)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2013, 11:12am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/4 "2013-09-25T11:12:35Z")
> [@Tyrannus](#):
>
> What is observable are people having a monopoly over laws, morality, and ethics causing harm to other human beings. By having a monopoly over these institutions it allows them to create a social immunity for themselves where they can harm, enslave, and control others yet remain untouchable themselves from any or all reprisals. They do this by claiming a moral highground or imperative where they profess that others must suffer and struggle under it while leading it themselves. Whatever reasoning for the original creation of morals, ethics, and laws of our ancient past may of been it is clear that such institutions have been taken over by predators who benefit themselves by abusing others with them.
It think you have it exactly backwards actually…
I think the basic motivation for morality was simply some strong willed individuals wanting to make their own lives better. And in trying to make their lives better, they probably needed to implement some basic rules to prevent the dumber and weaker members of their group from messing things up, much like parrents will teach their children rules so they won’t get into trouble.
That’s probably all it was for a while, but then things got progressively muddled up as societies got larger and larger. The idea that abstract notions like equality, sympathy or empathy should be the basis for all morality is a relatively recent one. Now ofcourse those were the ones getting voiced with the most noise. So here we are now, people are upset because things didn’t live up those lofty ideals… and all morality gets a bad rep. But I think the orginal idea of morality can be a good thing… baby, bathwater and all that.
---
### Author:  [@Tyrannus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tyrannus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/5 "2013-10-18T02:57:24Z")
Human beings are the only type of animal that have morals and ethics because no other species has any conceptual understanding of the sacred or profane not to mention the utter monopolizing of such concepts by hiding behind them through clever deception on the part of those upholding them.
Morality through authority: Do as I say, not as I do.
The very system that creates a class of untouchables, but at the same time justifies all sorts of social inequalities. In short incoherent hypocrisies.
---
### Author:  [@Tyrannus](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Tyrannus)
#### Post date: [October 18, 2013, 3:03am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/6 "2013-10-18T03:03:48Z")
When a society reaches into total anarchy or goes through civil war they say that there is a tragedy of people losing their morals and ethics with all the violent self cannibalizing bloodshed.
This is untrue. People cannot lose what they didn’t have originally.
What merely happens is the loss of being able to prop up false appearances and facades.
---
### Author:  [@Dan1](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Dan1)
#### Post date: [October 19, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/on-the-origins-and-practices-of-morality/36953/7 "2013-10-19T02:27:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> What is unclear about those tribes and early humans is what they permitted in custom amongst each other or accepted socially. To this nobody knows. It is a great error to think that they had the same values we have today considering ours is influenced primarily by cultural conditioning.
What about american indians?