The "Moral Imperative"

[JP2]

I've always been interested in moral theory, and while there are more than enough solid theories concerning what morality is, or how moral principles may best be formed, I'm still having some problems with what I call the "Moral Imperative" (as distinct from the categorical imperative) which is essentially what I see as the mechanism which "compels" us to act "morally".

So two questions:

1) Where did this moral imperative come from? What exactly is it? Why do we create value judgements and concepts such as right and wrong? Is it biological, societal or psychological in nature? All three or something else perhaps?

2) Even if we are able to determine the nature of this "imperative" why should we be obliged to follow it? Why do we follow it at all? Why do we desire to create value judgements, act upon them and create grand moral theories merely because we have an inherent inclination towards this pattern of "right" and "wrong"?

Two theories that are inadequate, in my opinion, are the rationalistic Kantian doctrines of Duty and the Universal Maxim (where did this duty come from? Why do we assume that morality must be rational and self-consistent in nature and universal in application when it is, essentially, a mere impulse that we can't accurately pin-down?) and the existentialist doctrine of authenticity (which admittedly is more a "recommendation" than a genuine imperative, but is still meaningless without addressing the imperative first). Ironically, though, these are the two doctrines I find most appealing in many ways.

Any ideas?

(BTW, I'm sure there's been a topic along these lines before, but I wasn't sure what to search for. Feel free to point me in the direction of any threads that may have had a similar theme.)

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Well, there's this Ethics Without God (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59835) series that I am writing.

I would like to direct your attention to Part XVII: Morality and the Law.

The condensed version is:

There are two and only two ways to modify another person's behavior.

One is to modify their internal rules -- their desires. A person who has an aversion to killing innocent people simply will not want to do it. So, if you can create in others an aversion to killing innocent people, you can decrease the chance that he will do so except in extraordinary circumstances.

The other way of controlling behavior is through external sanctions. "You may not have an aversion to killing innocent people, but you probably have an aversion to the things I am going to do to you if I ever catch you doing that."

The first portion -- the part that focuses on internal rules -- I argue is the realm of morality. Moral institutions are those institutions that aim at promoting in people a desire for those things that it is good for people to desire; an an aversion to those things that it is good for people to dislike.

The second portion -- the part that focuses on external sanctions -- concerns the criminal law.

[Donnmathan]

I think the answer to the OP is heartbreakingly simple - there is NO 'moral imperative;' all morals are learned, beginning when you are very young. A person must be taught the love of more than self, else it will never exist. It makes me ill when I hear someone say that they can rehabilitate a criminal (especially a juvinile one) if they can 'reach their moral instinct.'

1) Given the above, I am forced to say that what substitutes for a 'moral imperative' is indeed primarily social in nature. It is the expanding of our drive for the preservation of self to include that which is larger than ourselves. For most, the first group included is the family; close friends soon follow, then community, then, for some, the nation (pure patriotism). A sad number of people never manage to get beyond themselves or their family, and these are the ones most likely to commit violent crimes - they place little or no relative value on others.

2) The answer is, simply because it is such a deep part of us - a modification of our self-preservation instinct. One whose morals have never expanded this instinct to include others will find it quite easy to act outside of them, in a purely selfish or amoral manner. One whose instinct has been expanded will tend to act on those drive simply because they are instinct, even if learned.