What is the source for our morals?

[SpecUVdust]

Morality, like free-will, are mere concepts created within our human minds. I will be using the word "choose" but to be clear, I support that free-will is an illusion.

Early man had finite choices for how to survive... Or die. We do also but we are too complex for this discussion since we have technology and what not. Let's call this primitive man Joe.

joe is among the first of his human kind. Joe is just like us. He has a frail body, lacks fangs and big claws and all that stuff. However of course, he has a powerful brain.

Joe does not suddenly have "morals" which dictate his life. He makes observations and chooses what to do next based off of them.

If joe lives alone, he likely will do anything he can to survive such as lie cheat steal and kill because nobody is helping him and thus his life is very difficult. He does not see any value whatsoever in helping other humans. If he even approaches a group of humans, they may be violent towards him, further discouraging him.
If joe is smaller/weaker than average, he will likely die and thus not teach his way of life to the next generation. This is one way that the lack of "innate morality" died out.

If joe were larger/stronger/smarter than average, he will likely fair better than the average even if he is alone. Since death does not take him prematurely, he has a wider opportunity to join a group. Also he may attract other lone travelers(such as women, wink wink) and eventually create his own group.

Now he can learn to value relationships. If he values them, he will want to preserve them. As he protects them, they in turn value him and reciprocate protection. at this point, new concepts begin brewing in his mind. If he says, "hey you go over there and pick berries, it's safe" (a lie) and the person is eaten by a lion, joe will learn from it. Basically, anything that makes survival harder is BAD.

Steal my sharp rock=BAD
kill me=BAD
Lie to me=BAD
Etc. etc.

Joe says I don't want these things done to me or the people I depend on. The group decides not to do these bad things. They function better than the average group and increase their chances for survival. The next generation will learn how being "moral" is overwhelmingly helpful.

Acting upon Morality is not evolved in that it is innate. We know we can either be nice or be mean, that IS innate. When we have clear logical reasons for being moral, we will gravitate towards morality. the thing that breaks us away from logical morality is an external authority. Most often the external authority is a GOD.

[robvalue]

This is how things seem to me, based on my experience and observation of others:

I'd argue that we have natural feedback which makes it comfortable to act in what our body considers to be a moral way, and uncomfortable to act immorally. And there appear to be fail-safes to make it physically harder to act immorally, with our body fighting the hardest against the most immoral actions. So it's often easier to act morally, because you're not fighting against yourself, or dealing with the consequences from yourself.

Of course, what your body considers moral changes throughout your life, and if you break through your own fail-safes enough times, they become less and less of a barrier.

In this way, morality is more than simple pragmatism. I would describe it as pragmatism for someone who doesn't have any of the above feelings.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here's an interesting puzzle. Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes and/or No.  You're welcome.

[Athene]

Here's an interesting puzzle. Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical?

In and of itself, I would say no. It's certainly unwise to be hypocritical, as it has the potential to cause the hypocrite to lose credibility and appear unworthy/undeserving of trust. It's against one's self interest. 
The matter of precisely what one is being hypocritical about is a separate issue and subject to the question of morality on its own.

Btw, my automatic "instinctive" response was yes. 
Don't know what philosophizing types would make of that, if anything at all.

[ApeNotKillApe]

I may be a hypocrite, but at least I keep it to myself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think it is interesting to consider. If hypocrisy is not wrong then it seems you cannot really consider anything at all wrong. If people don't have a moral obligation to obey their conscience that means they have no further obligations. Those other moral obligations are worthless if you aren't also obligated to fulfill them.

[downbeatplumb]

I think it is interesting to consider. If hypocrisy is not wrong then it seems you cannot really consider anything at all wrong. If people don't have a moral obligation to obey their conscience that means they have no further obligations. Those other moral obligations are worthless if you aren't also obligated to fulfill them.

That would depend what you are being hypocritical about.
If you don't really agree with charity but are donating to a cause for homeless people by giving books and clothing that is hypocritical but not morally suspect.
By the way this is exactly what I am doing. I disagree with the idea of charity because if something is worth fixing properly it needs government intervention, charities by providing a band aid problems delay government assistance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I disagree with the idea of charity because if something is worth fixing properly it needs government intervention, charities by providing a band aid problems delay government assistance.

It's kinda sad that you think being generous with other people's money is virtuous.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hypocrisy in and of itself isn't wrong but it is generally wrong because it lacks integrity and a lack of integrity is a lack of honesty and a lack of honesty is deceptive and deception misleads people and misleading people can harm people and harming people is wrong.