I hear this question from my good ExMo buddy who is a devout Christian.
My answer to him is, "We had morality before we had religion. Look at any animal species, they have rules they follow that help them survive and they all follow the same set of rules. That's morality!"
He says, ok, since nonconsensual sex is common in the animal world, what's to stop me fro raping somebody if I don't have religion telling me that's wrong?"
"Uh, common human decency, empathy, your conscience wouldn't allow it. People don't go around raping other people when they become atheists. In fact, our prisons are not full of atheists, they're full of religious people!"
His comeback is always, "Wellwhatabout Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jung Un? They were all atheists and murdered more than anybody else!"
I tell him "Hitler was a Christian. The problem is dogma, which is common in religion and Communism."
He denies that and insists I must be an immoral person if I don't subscribe to any moral code.
I tell him I do subscribe to a moral code, contained in my pre-frontal cortex, responsible for giving me executive functioning, like empathy, conscience and morality. It's on my DNA. Why do I need to pay somebody to tell me they codified the genius nature imbued us with? Why do I need somebody to tell me I'm evil and the only way I can be happy is to start paying cash to the guy in between me and god?

It would be REALLY DIFFICULT to be married to someone who thinks like that.

I was born this way. Mormonism taught me nothing about a moral code. It is who I am.

This is well put.

At the risk of bleeding over into your other thread, one could say that morality is innate (Taoist) or that it benefits from nurturing education (Mencius) or that it must be enforced with both education and state influence (Hsun-tzu). But all these are compatible with your observation that morality does not require religion.

"At the risk of bleeding over into your other thread, one could say that morality is innate (Taoist) or that it benefits from nurturing education (Mencius) or that it must be enforced with both education and state influence (Hsun-tzu). But all these are compatible with your observation that morality does not require religion."

COMMENT: Not necessarily. If morality is "innate" (i.e. natural) then there must be some mechanism (either physical or psychological) that underlies morality, and defines it. If it is cultural, fine, but you owe us an account of what makes one culture's moral dictates objectively "moral" and another immoral. So, other than as a flippant historical observation, your comment says absolutely nothing about morality itself, which is the point. As such, you cannot say one way or the other as to whether morality requires religion.

I read nothing flippant in LW's observations, nor did I read a final conclusion.

All I read was that LW aligned three schools of thought as being supportive of Kori's point of view.

We literally don't know LW's stand on the matter.

Henry, that is a pretty serious misreading of my post. I said nothing about my own views was not in any sense flippant, and don't feel any need to provide a scientific foundation for Taoist thought from 2,500 years ago.

I was merely putting the topic of this thread in a context Kori and I were exploring elsewhere.

I never understand this point of view. What is the difference between moral instruction and religious moral instruction? We learn to be moral in either case or we don't. There's no magic to religious moral instruction. One could argue there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that religiosity seems to make a good cover for bad behavior.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."


~ Steven Weinberg

Umm, I'm thinking your friend is right. Schrodingerscat I'm sure is a good person who has morals learned from Religion, parents, and maybe school. But to believe that people are good because of their conscience, and there is something inside them that commands them to know what's right, this is just silly. Yes maybe it was learned while being a mormon. But it's believing in fairies.

What's important is to study human nature. Really look carefully at the way kids are when they are in large numbers. The way's they interact with each other when left to their own devices without supervision from adults. What you'll find is that kids are not good. They turn into animals. There are some that will pick on each other until they kill the weakest link. Young teenage boys will destroy any contraption or machine that is in their hands. And they steal and sometimes rape.

Children learn to be good by being taught what is right.

As for Hitler being a Christian. What's the basis for that statement? He may have been a catholic by birth but that's not christian. Being a christian means respecting your neighbor which He did not do. Yes most of the mass murders were committed by atheists in the 20 century.

Classic religious propaganda.

Tell us how many were murdered in the name of Atheism and then tell us how many were murdered in the name of religion.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell us how many were murdered in the name of
> Atheism

Thirty million by Mao alone.

Hitler may have started as a Christian, but so did Stalin and Richard Dawkins. He ended up as an occultist. His race theories are derived from Theosophy which in turn lifted them partly from the Indian caste system.

That Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Choibalsan, Ho Chi Minh, and Kim the I and other Communist dictators were also atheists is indisputable.

"I tell him I do subscribe to a moral code, contained in my pre-frontal cortex, responsible for giving me executive functioning, like empathy, conscience and morality. It's on my DNA."

Morality means the "mores", i.e. the customs of a society. Therefore morality is dependent on the society that the child grows up in, along with the discipline and rules that go along with that. Criminals frequently come from backgrounds of abuse, neglect and antisocial behavior.

Empathy develops in the brain as a result of socialization. Children who are not properly socialized do not develop those parts of the brain sufficiently.

Conscience is something that you have absorbed from the mores of those around you. It also results from fear of retaliation. Many people do not steal because they do not think they can get away with it. A handful of people have no conscience. Unfortunately conscience and morality can easily be manipulated which is why some societies are so successful at producing networks of informants for their secret police services. They actually think they are doing the right thing by informing.

An argument could be made that the estimated 45 million Chinese peasants who died between 1958 and 1962 (my exact four years at Rancho High! Go Rams!) as a result of Mao's policies, did so not because of atheism but because of communism. And to say that one is equal to the other simply can't be sustained unless one has an agenda that requires lying one's ass off.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An argument could be made that the estimated 45
> million Chinese peasants who died between 1958 and
> 1962 (my exact four years at Rancho High! Go
> Rams!) as a result of Mao's policies, did so not
> because of atheism but because of communism. And
> to say that one is equal to the other simply can't
> be sustained unless one has an agenda that
> requires lying one's ass off.

Communism is an openly atheist ideology. Chairman Mao is claimed to have said "religion is poison" (this may be apocryphal but that sentiment is expressed in a more verbose manner in his writings).

Moreover, if one is to discount some of the atheist aspects of Communism, we should also discount some of the Christian aspects of various other atrocities. The Spanish Conquistadors were clearly as interested in getting rich, and grabbing land as Christianizing the Americas, which was probably a secondary consideration (or a third one after grabbing local women). Religion was a factor in WWII, but only in Japan was it the main motivating factor - most Germans and Italians were Catholics and Protestants - same as the Dutch, British, French and Scandinavians. Even German hatred of Jews was given a pseudo-scientific reasoning (the soft sciences are often the first to go in any political seachange - we can see this going on today with hard leftist post-modern nonsense infiltrating young minds in the west).

Yes, motivation should always be included in the attempt to explain behavior.

I chose to believe the "killing people who get in the way" is not a unique tenet of atheism. I think it, "killing people who get in the way", is the go-to strategy when one considers how Homo Sapiens Sapiens got to where they are now.

But that's probably just me...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, motivation should always be included in the
> attempt to explain behavior.
>
> I chose to believe the "killing people who get in
> the way" is not a unique tenet of atheism. I
> think it, "killing people who get in the way", is
> the go-to strategy when one considers how Homo
> Sapiens Sapiens got to where they are now.
>
> But that's probably just me...

One of the sad things about history is that brutality is so frequently recorded - wars, terrors, criminals etc. I suspect good people were always around, who helped their neighbors, loved their children and tried to do right, but outside the annals of saints we don't hear much about them and most of that is based on miracles... But this must have happened for communities to stay together.

The correct answer is zero. Mao murdered in the name of communism, not Atheism, But I would not expect you to admit to that truth.

Your argument is founded in the notion that your values are right. Religion produced you, and you are virtuous, so religion produces virtue.

Some of us, however, think that while you may be a good man in many ways some of your virtues are in fact vices. Your attitude towards women and towards the racial and ethnic "other" indicates an egocentric moral code lacking in compassion for people outside of your immediate community. Such "small group consciousness" is the opposite of the universal empathy that Jesus taught.

Therein lies the problem. In moral discussions people tend to praise themselves. God becomes a sort of junior partner in a very human endeavor.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But to believe that people are good
> because of their conscience, and there is
> something inside them that commands them to know
> what's right, this is just silly.

Globally, and throughout history, I don't believe that conscience has much to do with morality--but culture is critical.

Culture (as it exists among any particular group of people) also, frequently, does not have a "conscience"--and may well foster what we (Western cultures, broadly taken as a whole) would call IMmorality. Ancient Greek parents "exposing" their blemished newborn infants as a means of bringing about their deaths....murders and rapes among the tribes of Papua New Guinea as a "normal" part of daily life....Khoisan in southern Africa leaving behind their elders who can no longer keep up (to their certain deaths)....pre-Israelite Canaanite mothers turning over their newborn children to be burned to death in sacrifice....children in West Africa being enslaved, or sacrificed, by their family members when other family members appear to be the victims of "bad spirits"....young girls, still very young children (from birth through puberty), in the Indian subcontinent, being handed over to become dedicated prostitutes for life, so the parents can (they believe) have at least some minimal economic improvement for the rest of the family....and children working from toddlerhood on, on chocolate plantations and in the mines. All of these things (and so very many more) are totally dependent on the culture a given person is a part of. To the people involved, no matter their emotional feelings, what they are doing, or are a cultural part of, is normal, and IS "the way of the world."


> What's important is to study human nature. Really
> look carefully at the way kids are when they are
> in large numbers. The way's they interact with
> each other when left to their own devices without
> supervision from adults. What you'll find is that
> kids are not good. They turn into animals. There
> are some that will pick on each other until they
> kill the weakest link. Young teenage boys will
> destroy any contraption or machine that is in
> their hands. And they steal and sometimes rape.

I agree that kids in many cultures are like this, but in many OTHER cultures kids are NOT like this. Again, this is culture based. If the culture approves of this behavior, either in the abstract or in reality, then these things are not part of morality IN THAT CULTURE (except for the fact that the children are reflecting the culture they are being brought up in).


> Children learn to be good by being taught what is
> right.

In the cultures I talked about above, those acts ARE "right" and "good." They are the cultural values that virtually any child born into that culture accepts as "right" and "good," because they are the accepted values of that particular culture.


> As for Hitler being a Christian. What's the basis
> for that statement? He may have been a catholic by
> birth but that's not christian. Being a christian
> means respecting your neighbor which He did not
> do. Yes most of the mass murders were committed by
> atheists in the 20 century.

I have never seen anything which indicates "most of the mass murders were committed by atheists in the 20th century." On the contrary, most of the murderers were, by their own standards, God-fearing people who were doing what God wanted done. Whether it is lynchings and burnings (Tulsa) in the American South or the American Midwest, or the genocides of Native Americans (which mostly occurred in the preceding century), or the Holocaust, or the slaughter of Amazonian native tribes, most everyone who murdered considered themselves to be good Christian people--whether they were regular churchgoers or not. Add in war atrocities, and you include large numbers of Asians of different religious heritages, but who definitely shared the "same" (or similar) cultural beliefs.

Religion may be a prominent common characteristic in some situations, but (outside of born psychopaths) culture is pretty much always a markedly more important factor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2019 11:01PM by Tevai.

Religion, Tevai, is culture. You can’t distinguish them.

And your point about the relativity of religious morality is spot in.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion, Tevai, is culture. You can’t
> distinguish them.

Sure you can. Take Christianity, and the gigantic spectrum of different cultures which all identify as Christian, but are totally different from each other. In the USA, there is obviously a huge difference between growing up Appalachian Christian and Northeast Episcopal, or the Catholicism of different American ethnic groups. Put this on a worldwide scale, and there is all the difference in the world between a Christian fisherman in Haiti, a Church of England scholar at Oxford, or a Christian accountant in Singapore. All of these groups would have a core of Christian beliefs in common, but widely disparate cultural mores.

Culture counts, because even when the religion is "the same," culture is the difference between an Irish storekeeper, and a Pitcairn Island farmer (even if both share some common ancestry).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2019 11:31PM by Tevai.

Tevai, religion is an element of culture. Every example you just presented is of a group of people whose lifestyles are informed by a variety of factors, one of which is religion.

Why does "Christianity" have different meanings in different places? Because the religion reflects the values of each particular culture--and conversely influences the other elements of each culture. If there were a uniform Christianity separate from local cultures, all Christians would have virtually identical religions.

What we observe, however, and as you noted, is radically different religious traditions masquerading as the same faith. That's why Christianity manifests as part of the White Identity movement, as an essential element of southern black culture, as Mormonism, and as Orthodoxy. There is no religion independent of culture.

That makes me wonder what California Mormons think of Utah Mormons. The Utah Mormons come up with policies and rules that the Californians must accept. I grew up with East Coast Mormons, who are much nicer than Arizona Mormons, who in turn are nicer than Utah Mormons. Maybe it has to do with population density. Higher density creates suckier culture. It’s like more poo on the sandwich.

Mormonism is a social pathology that the population at large tolerates. When it gets really dense, you get Warren Jeffs. It’s a dysfunctional religion. Or a cult as most of us like to say. A cult can teach you morality, but it won’t make you a better person.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 10:08AM by babyloncansuckit.

"I have never seen anything which indicates "most of the mass murders were committed by atheists in the 20th century." "

30 million at least under Chairman Mao. At least twenty million under Stalin. Several million under Pol Pot.

"On the contrary, most of the murderers were, by their own standards, God-fearing people who were doing what God wanted done."

Most mass murders are hierarchical. When the state becomes too strong and brutal, people will obey that authority.

Soldiers kill more people than serial killers. Even within the criminal world, organized crime with its principles of protection rackets (primitive taxation), absolute obedience to an organization/leader etc kill more people than a lone deranged killer.

"Whether it is lynchings and burnings (Tulsa) in the American South or the American Midwest,"

These are paltry figures compared to what happened in the PRC or Cambodia in the 1960s and 1970s. The USA is a violent, sometimes primitive society, but it is far from being the most violent (on its home territory) or primitive.

"or the genocides of Native Americans (which mostly occurred in the preceding century),"

More of a land grab, than a religious war.

"or the Holocaust... everyone who murdered considered themselves to be good Christian people"

The National Socialiat SS were occultists and neopagans. This was covered up at the time but a lot of the evidence is solid enough - occult baptisms, swearing on the blood of the race, occult symbols and runes, worship of Norse gods etc.

If morality was innate, then we should expect to see it in lawless situations. We don't.

While we can maybe understand why a starving person steals bread, we cannot excuse the well fed person who steals a television or a car, or who rapes. And there are plenty of those.

A few primitive societies maintain a level of morality, but some don't and many technologically advanced societies end up in a state of barbarism for years at a time.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If morality was innate, then we should expect to
> see it in lawless situations. We don't.

False. One of the fundamental rules of political power is that it can not be enforced very much: the authorities can only monitor so much private activity; they only have so many judges and cops and traffic officers.

So the vast majority of human activity occurs in areas of either lawlessness or very limited legal presence. The major factor underlying stability in these interactions is obedience to laws or moral norms independent from state force.

That's why even totalitarian dictatorships spend huge sums trying to indoctrinate people in the state ideology. Those governments know they can't rule by force alone.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If morality was innate, then we should expect
> to
> > see it in lawless situations. We don't.
>
> False.

When law and order break down, then all kinds of things begin to emerge because a certain number of people think they will be immune from consequences - robbery, sexual assault, murder, even cannibalism after murder (which happened in parts of Europe and Asia during WWII). For some people it is simply about who has the more powerful weapons, not good and bad - those weapons may include ability to muster a number of supporters or even just physical power. In some warzones, the things that civilians get up to, have to be covered up.

> One of the fundamental rules of political
> power is that it can not be enforced very much:

I wish you'd been around to tell people thst in East Germany.

> the authorities can only monitor so much private
> activity; they only have so many judges and cops
> and traffic officers.

You are way behind the times. I have a friend who points out that you can't have banks of people monitoring everyone. I tell him I agree, and point out there have been electronic systems which can listen out for keywords for years. You don't need to have people for this anymore. Law enforcement may well be carried out mostly by drones in the future as well.

> So the vast majority of human activity occurs in
> areas of either lawlessness or very limited legal
> presence.

No it doesn't. There is usually a legal threat lurking in the background, at least in most developed countries. (Not South Africa, Brazil or the ex-USSR). There is the potential for it to be reported. Most homes have telephones for example. In urban areas, there is usually a police presence within a few miles. etc.

> The major factor underlying stability
> in these interactions is obedience to laws or
> moral norms independent from state force.

There are few "moral norms" since society started to go into severe fragmention at the end of the 1960s. Most people agree pedophilia is wrong. They can't agree on drugs though. Sadly, they can't even agree on rape or spousal abuse in some cases. In the case of robbery, if the victim is rich, then a Robin Hood style rationalization may come into play. Some groups in society treat others as if they are not the same species - yes, even when they look similar.

> That's why even totalitarian dictatorships spend
> huge sums trying to indoctrinate people in the
> state ideology.

They do, but they also suffer the paradox that their effort can both maintain momentum for a number of years (as occurred in the USSR and PRC), and/or suddenly crash (as occurred in East Germany and Afghanistan).

> Those governments know they can't
> rule by force alone.

That's why they attempt to provide entertainment and often fuse it with propaganda.

> When law and order break down, then all kinds of
> things begin to emerge because a certain number of
> people think they will be immune from consequences
> - robbery, sexual assault, murder, even
> cannibalism after murder (which happened in parts
> of Europe and Asia during WWII).

No one disputes that. But you are treating as binary a situation that is anything but. Sure, war and chaos are times of lawlessness and bad things happen then. But the highway at 2:00 AM is effectively lawless as well, and people generally behave ethically then. The point is that almost all human behavior occurs in situations of limited or no police supervision. The fact that people in those situations generally do what is ethical means that morality is not solely, or even primarily, a function of state power.


----------------
> For some people
> it is simply about who has the more powerful
> weapons, not good and bad - those weapons may
> include ability to muster a number of supporters
> or even just physical power. In some warzones, the
> things that civilians get up to, have to be
> covered up.

Again, that is true in a small minority of situations. In such situations bad stuff happens. But you are arguing that the extreme is in fact the normal, and that is false.


-------------
> I wish you'd been around to tell people thst in
> East Germany.

Again, you point to an extreme example and conclude that it is the norm. It is not. Moreover the DDR spent massive amounts of money and energy on the inculcation of a sense of legitimacy because even it realized that brute force alone is insufficient.

The fall of the Berlin Wall evidences this fact nicely. Did the DDR's monopoly on the use of force break down in 1988-1989? How about Poland. Did Solidarity gain control of the military such that it could break the Communist grip on power? No. In both cases, and throughout Eastern Europe and the USSR, the state lost its "soft power," its legitimacy, and people stopped cooperating. The states were crippled. All this is an indication that it is naive to assume that moral behavior at least as much inherent code as state power.


-------------
> You are way behind the times. I have a friend who
> points out that you can't have banks of people
> monitoring everyone. I tell him I agree, and point
> out there have been electronic systems which can
> listen out for keywords for years. You don't need
> to have people for this anymore. Law enforcement
> may well be carried out mostly by drones in the
> future as well.


I'm not at all behind the times. I assure you I am aware of the impact of technology on privacy--and yet what we see is that social media is used not so much to assert direct state power over the individual but to manipulate public opinion. Why is that? Because if you can persuade people that a government or a party is illegitimate, society breaks down. Technology as applied to date thus underscores the importance of non-compulsory influence.

--------------
> No it doesn't. There is usually a legal threat
> lurking in the background, at least in most
> developed countries. (Not South Africa, Brazil or
> the ex-USSR). There is the potential for it to be
> reported. Most homes have telephones for example.
> In urban areas, there is usually a police presence
> within a few miles. etc.

The availability of police services is not relevant. I said that most human activity occurs where there is "limited" state power. That of course anticipated your statement that "a legal threat lurks in the background." In short, I said that. The fact remains that activity in the home, in the school, in the public market place, etc., generally occurs beyond the credible threat of force.


--------------
> There are few "moral norms" since society started
> to go into severe fragmention at the end of the
> 1960s.

There are two elements of your writing that time and again indicate a preference for state control, authoritarianism. One is when you say that humans are basically bad, which is what led Hsun-tzu and then Hanfeizi to contend that the secret to social order is totalitarianism. The other is your notion that "moral norms" have broken down, which is only true if you think the morality of the 1960s was superior to today's. Most people would observe that conditions for minorities, women, gay people, etc., are much better now than then--and hence that your notion of social decay is more self-revelatory than socially insightful.


-----------
> Most people agree pedophilia is wrong. They
> can't agree on drugs though. Sadly, they can't
> even agree on rape or spousal abuse in some cases.
> In the case of robbery, if the victim is rich,
> then a Robin Hood style rationalization may come
> into play. Some groups in society treat others as
> if they are not the same species - yes, even when
> they look similar.

One thing about your "parade of horribles" is again its egocentricity. YOU think that the contemporary debates are wrong, but it is difficult to find any of your examples that was better in the 1960s than today.


--------------
> They do, but they also suffer the paradox that
> their effort can both maintain momentum for a
> number of years (as occurred in the USSR and PRC),
> and/or suddenly crash (as occurred in East Germany
> and Afghanistan).

Precisely. That is what I have been saying. That state power only goes so far without supporting ideology. The examples you cite are ones in which the state lost the battle for hearts and minds and hence lost power. There is no better proof that people's moral choices are dispositive even in dictatorships.


----------------
> That's why they attempt to provide entertainment
> and often fuse it with propaganda.

Which was my contention all along. You've reached a conclusion that was my opening statement. Even the most tyrannical government depends on the moral acquiescence of its subjects. Hence morality is distinct from authority.

“If morality was innate, then we should expect to see it in lawless situations. We don't.”

You don’t think there’s morality in prison populations? It’s there, but it’s not what you’re used to.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “If morality was innate, then we should expect
> to see it in lawless situations. We don't.”
>
> You don’t think there’s morality in prison
> populations? It’s there, but it’s not what
> you’re used to.

Sort of, I gather that pedophiles don't fare very well in jails around here. Even the crims don't like them.

Most of the rest (based on what little I know of prisons) is based on force. I imagine a certain percentage of them probably ended up there because they thought they wouldn't be caught, and that same percentage would be willing to do certain things in a prison environment if they felt they would not suffer consequences.

I don't consider people in prisons completely twisted although there are some very evil people there too.

Now you're just comically trolling us, macaRomney.

The classic troll "question".




A non-troll answer ...


https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_without_religion/

I think Kori's on our side on this one, Dave.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> insists I must be an immoral
> person if I don't subscribe to any moral code.


He feels like he would rape someone if he wasn't religious and he thinks you're an immoral person? I worry about people like this.

When people ask this, what they're really saying is that they, personally, would have no moral compass without religion. It's an indictment of themselves, not non-believers.

Yes.

TRUE!

I wish that the medical community- Psychologists, etc. could trace this 'innate' attribute.

Mormonism is stuck in ChurchCo-centered rhetoric, I once heard a leader say that the church expects converts to have Christ-like attributes / habits when they walk in the door.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 09:53AM by cl2.

donbagley

His father was extremely religious and Don is not. Religion DID NOT make Don the way he is. It is WHO he is. You can tell just by reading his stories, by having read his posts all these years. He has a HUGE heart that was nearly broken by his own father and his mother, but he has VALUES. He cares about others.

Now tell me which person is moral and which one is not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 09:55AM by cl2.

My wife genuinely believes, and has frequently said, that if it weren't for Mormonism she would be a selfish and wicked person.

I'd ask, "Would you stop cooking dinner for the neighbor who is recovering from shoulder surgery? Would you refuse to take on an extra shift at work to cover for a sick coworker? Would you intentionally make someone's life difficult simply because you don't like them for some reason? Would you belittle somebody who has come to you for advice about an embarrassing personal issue?"

Horrified, she'd say, "No! I have too much compassion to do anything like that."

"Exactly," I'd say, "You had that compassion long before you converted to Mormonism, and it would still be there even if you turned away from religion completely."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2019 08:53AM by GregS.

The things that I was taught as a child in Catholicism were concepts such as don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt others. My family taught the same values. For the same matter, so did my Kindergarten teacher. They are pro-social values.

Catholic moral instruction is based on the 10 Commandments. You can imagine the difficult time that the nun had with teaching young children, "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife."

Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind), Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape), and Alan Jasanoff (The Biological Mind), among others, have researched and explored the origin and nature of morality.

Their research would suggest that morality develops (evolves?) as a necessary set of written and unwritten norms and mores that enable us to live together in society.

Implicated in the understanding of morality are studies of brain physiology. Brain imaging show specific areas dealing with moral choices, including mirroring, empathy, etc. It appears that in some individuals these areas are not as pronounced or may be missing altogether.

As we come to better understand the brain's role in effecting moral choices, our legal system will be faced with difficult challenges in assigning blame and motives to the prosecution of crimes.

Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind), Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape), and Alan Jasanoff (The Biological Mind), among others, have researched and explored the origin and nature of morality.

COMMENT: Yes, and all of them attempt to secure some sense of objective morality, from our moral sense. In other words they try to avoid moral relativism. All such attempts are unsuccessful based ultimately on the naturalistic fallacy; i.e. you cannot get an "ought" from an "is."

______________________________________________

Their research would suggest that morality develops (evolves?) as a necessary set of written and unwritten norms and mores that enable us to live together in society.

COMMENT: Here you make my point. If morality is a natural phenomenon that "evolves" it may result in cultural norms and mores, but then are only "necessary" culturally, not logically!
______________________________________________

Implicated in the understanding of morality are studies of brain physiology. Brain imaging show specific areas dealing with moral choices, including mirroring, empathy, etc. It appears that in some individuals these areas are not as pronounced or may be missing altogether.

COMMENT: No. There are no brain imaging studies that effectively differentiate in any meaningful way between "moral" decision-making and other decision-making. There are at best brain studies that differentiate statistically with respect to sociopathic behavior and normal behavior.
____________________________________

As we come to better understand the brain's role in effecting moral choices, our legal system will be faced with difficult challenges in assigning blame and motives to the prosecution of crimes.

COMMENT: This sounds like a quote. But what it shows, again, is that science is undermining our traditional understanding of morality--by insisting that moral choices are the product of either nature (innate) or nurture (culture), and not the individual moral choices of human agents having freewill. And yes, this is a problem. (Whether science is right or wrong!)

It's not a quote, unless you are quoting me. It's my understanding based on what I read.

HB's COMMENT: No. There are no brain imaging studies that effectively differentiate in any meaningful way between "moral" decision-making and other decision-making. There are at best brain studies that differentiate statistically with respect to sociopathic behavior and normal behavior.

Well, it goes back to the original question doesn't it? How does one define morality. My point is that we are coming to a better understanding of brain physiology and how it regulates acceptable behavior. If you don't want to call that moral reasoning, call it what you want. I stand by my statement.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), Jonathan Haidt
> (The Righteous Mind), Sam Harris (The Moral
> Landscape), and Alan Jasanoff (The Biological
> Mind), among others, have researched and explored
> the origin and nature of morality.
>
> COMMENT: Yes, and all of them attempt to secure
> some sense of objective morality, from our moral
> sense. In other words they try to avoid moral
> relativism. All such attempts are unsuccessful
> based ultimately on the naturalistic fallacy; i.e.
> you cannot get an "ought" from an "is.

I've not read Dawkins or Harris. But i dont recall that kind of argument in Haidts work, or in the Moral Animal by Robert Wright. Haidt strikes me as avoiding the judgement in what I've read of him. I think youre overstating the claim and committing your own reductionism.

HB: COMMENT: "....what it shows, again, is that science is **undermining** our traditional understanding of morality--by insisting that moral choices are the product of either nature (innate) or nurture (culture), and not the individual moral choices of human agents having freewill. And yes, this is a problem. (Whether science is right or wrong!)"

**Undermining** our traditional understanding of morality?

Interesting choice of words.

The only goal of science is understanding. Not sure why you would call that "undermining"?

That's all there is: Nature and/or nurture. Are you trying to say there's something else that defines our morality? Makes no sense. You are born with it or you acquire it.

Or both. There are arguments for being born with a first draft of morality. This draft is then edited through your formative experiences.

My answer to him is, "We had morality before we had religion. Look at any animal species, they have rules they follow that help them survive and they all follow the same set of rules. That's morality!"

COMMENT: Morality encompasses more than just rules. (Is there morality in a game of chess?) At minimum, it requires a "moral sense" (within a conscious human agent) such that some actions are right and some wrong, irrespective of any rules. And there is no evidence that animals engage in rule governing behavior, moral or otherwise. Who made these rules that they are supposed to follow? If, for example, I forget to feed my dog, he is not thinking; Damnit, you broke the rules. He is thinking (without language) "I'm hungry, where is my food!
______________________________________

He says, ok, since nonconsensual sex is common in the animal world, what's to stop me fro raping somebody if I don't have religion telling me that's wrong?"

COMMENT: You asked for this response by your first statement, and he rightly called you on it!
______________________________________

"Uh, common human decency, empathy, your conscience wouldn't allow it. People don't go around raping other people when they become atheists. In fact, our prisons are not full of atheists, they're full of religious people!"

COMMENT: O.K. Now it is not rules you are appealing to, but rather a "conscious," or an intuitive moral sense. At least now you are on the right track. But, where does this moral sense come from, and--most importantly--how does YOUR conscious, or YOUR moral sense, or that of anyone else provide any moral authority to make judgments about what is objectively morally right or wrong? In other words, appealing to moral intuitions, collectively or individually, might explain why people are deemed moral or immoral, but it does not explain why they should be!

_________________________________________________

His comeback is always, "Wellwhatabout Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jung Un? They were all atheists and murdered more than anybody else!"

COMMENT: His point, better stated, is that
at least some people act out of a moral sense that dictates conduct that is just different from the moral status quo. Mao, in particular, and most revolutionaries, would not claim to be amoral. Quite the contrary, such people insist that morality requires extreme actions in the face of their perceived social injustices. So, again, you are left with trying to explain why YOUR morality provides objective moral authority over that of Mao, or anyone else who might disagree with you.

(So far, your Christian buddy is kicking your butt.)
__________________________________________

I tell him "Hitler was a Christian. The problem is dogma, which is common in religion and Communism."

COMMENT: Your wrong again. Dogma is not per se moral or immoral. The question is what is it about any particular dogma that renders it moral or immoral, right or wrong?
__________________________________________

He denies that and insists I must be an immoral person if I don't subscribe to any moral code.

COMMENT: Now, your friend is getting in trouble. There is no reason why morality should be "codified," particularly in a way that is understood by human beings. Whether you are moral person depends upon what you think and do in the context of your own moral sense, and as evaluated by the moral sense of others, or society generally. An atheist is not immoral simply because her moral sense is not codified; and a Christian is not moral because his code is! Consider the Crusades, where "moral" actions were "codified" by some interpretation of Christianity.
______________________________________

I tell him I do subscribe to a moral code, contained in my pre-frontal cortex, responsible for giving me executive functioning, like empathy, conscience and morality. It's on my DNA.

COMMENT: Newsflash! There are no moral codes in your prefrontal cortex, or in your DNA! Your inclinations to certain behavior on moral grounds may be correlated with your a host of brain states (not your DNA), but there are no moral codes there. When faced with a moral dilemma you do not think, "if only I could access that moral code in may prefrontal cortex I would know what to do!" In fact, there are no ideas, thoughts, reasons, or justifications, in your brain; there are only firing neurons; i.e. physical events, responding to an environment. For those firings to "represent" thoughts, you need a conscious human agent. And your brain is NOT itself a conscious human agent. That is why when YOU are unconscious your brain does not continue to have thoughts, ideas, or reasons.
______________________________________

Why do I need to pay somebody to tell me they codified the genius nature imbued us with? Why do I need somebody to tell me I'm evil and the only way I can be happy is to start paying cash to the guy in between me and god?

COMMENT: Say what?

Henry Bemis Wrote:.

> COMMENT: Newsflash! There are no moral codes in
> your prefrontal cortex, or in your DNA! Your
> inclinations to certain behavior on moral grounds
> may be correlated with your a host of brain states
> (not your DNA), but there are no moral codes
> there. When faced with a moral dilemma you do not
> think, "if only I could access that moral code in
> may prefrontal cortex I would know what to do!"
> In fact, there are no ideas, thoughts, reasons, or
> justifications, in your brain; there are only
> firing neurons; i.e. physical events, responding
> to an environment. For those firings to
> "represent" thoughts, you need a conscious human
> agent. And your brain is NOT itself a conscious
> human agent. That is why when YOU are unconscious
> your brain does not continue to have thoughts,
> ideas, or reasons.

You know out right that whole paragraph is nothing but opinion. It's dishonest of you to spin it as fact , as settled knowledge. And a lot ofthe rest of your posts on this topic too.

"Where do you get morality if not from religion?"

...my parents.....

Who are the first people to whom a human child lies?

When Mormons first settled Utah Valley, their morality compelled them to exterminate the natives. That culture wasn’t unique to the Mormons, but their religion made the job easier. Their gods have gotten no less strange.

If your code of conduct includes rules for slavery you need a much better code of conduct.

As I mentioned in the thread about whether or not we need religion, it doesn't matter if a war is fought over religion, non-religion, or the blue eyes against the brown eyes.

Human beings will find a reason to fight for whatever cause they feel strongly about.

My morality comes from the fact that I need to feel at peace with myself. If I'm not true to myself and who I want to be, then I can't seem to settle. I'm just not going to pull it off, because it goes against my nature and that's an uncomfortable feeling that I don't like.

One thing that I do like about not being religious anymore is that I strive to be a good person and a kind person just because that's who I am and not because I fear some sort of vengeful god and his eternal punishment. I no longer have any fear of that whatsoever.

When you lose your religion, you meet yourself. You find out who you truly are.

But going down to the very basics, if you don't want someone to hit you, then maybe don't hit them in the first place. If you don't want someone to steal from you, then maybe you should emulate that behaviour yourself. It doesn't take a religion to understand that basic principle.

We human beings are capable of the attribute of empathy. I've observed that empathy is not a strong trait of my mother's and I notice how that affects her interactions with others, including my own relationship with her.

I've learned how to phrase things in such a way that I can at least get her to understand where I'm coming from. It can be frustrating, but it's definitely clear that some people have more of a sense of empathy than other people do.

If morality is cultural, does empathy trump morality? I think so. What of religions that stymie empathy, like Mormonism?

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If morality is cultural, does empathy trump
> morality? I think so.

This is my conclusion as well.


> What of religions that stymie empathy, like Mormonism?

I think religions that stymie empathy are immoral--some more so, some less so.

This is actually one of the reasons why I am a Jew, rather than a Hindu (Vedanta).

Although the Vedanta School of Hinduism is somewhat better at empathy than what would be considered "standard Hinduism" (the kind most people reflexively think of when the word "Hindu" comes up), there is still a practical remnant of pervasive disinclination on the part of Vedanta followers when it comes to improving other people's lives, creating justice where injustice exists, and making the world (outside of the grounds of any given Vedanta temple or Vedanta monastery/convent) a better place for everyone.

The nearly entire emphasis of Vedanta is the same as standard (Indian subcontinent) Hinduism, which is: The important thing is "me" and MY [individual] spiritual development, and the rest of the world, and everyone in it, is literally none of my business.

Contrast that with Judaism, where "repairing the world" has always been a top priority (going back not just centuries, but millennia), and in my opinion, there is no contest between the two when it comes to morality.

This does not mean there is a lack of knowledge and wisdom in Hinduism, because Hinduism (and certainly the Vedanta School of Hinduism, which is highly intellectually oriented) contains many areas of wisdom, and much knowledge--a large part coming from ancient times.

Some of this knowledge and wisdom is very close to (or identical to) Jewish knowledge and wisdom, once the cultural "language" and the metaphors have been cast aside to reveal the "factual" content underneath, but despite these commonalities of content, the perspective of each is 180 degrees out from the other.

Hindus care about "their own" (mostly: themselves, plus their families).

Jews care about the entire world (and any other worlds which might exist "out there" in the universe), and they consider "repairing the world" (includes living beings, beginning--but not limited to--humans) to be their particular, individual and community, responsibilities of birth (or conversion).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2019 05:58PM by Tevai.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If morality is cultural, does empathy trump
> morality? I think so. What of religions that
> stymie empathy, like Mormonism?

Mormonism pays lip service to empathy.

Religions that stymie empathy?
* When they encourage a strong caste system - certain forms of Hinduism.

* When they encourage ethnocentrism - the more narrow minded end of Judaism and Shinto.

* When they differentiate between saved and unsaved as separate entities - extreme forms of Christianity and Islam.

* When they encourage the idea that buman suffering helps a person advance spiritually that can mean that some of them also discourage the idea of helping those who suffer.

"Common Human Decency"?

No such thing, sadly.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Common Human Decency"?
>
> No such thing, sadly.

There are things most of us agree on and things some of us agree on.

I personally do not think what is right and good is necessarily popular.

Kori, I notice that you beg the question a lot when you describe your interactions with people that disagree with you. You bring up data to support your question as opposed to bringing up data to support your answer. It allows those that you are interacting with to cherry pick and play semantics with your arguments.

What I see, for the most part, is a lack of perspective. What Stalin and Mao believed is almost irrelevant. How they acted is more of an indication of their core values. In fact I wouldn't be alone if I suggested that they believed their motives to be pure. When Stalin single handily created a serious of famines that killed over 5 million people he did so because he felt that the alternative would be the dissolution of the communist party. He was probably right. When Stalin made an alliance with Hitler he did so because he felt that his country wasn't ready to combat what he considered to be a huge threat to his country. His alliance allowed him time to complete the industrialization of Russia and ultimately that proved to be Hitler's defeat.

All of this is just my opinion on the way you present your arguments. I just feel that you only open doors that you want open and ignore other relevant options.

Why engage in a debate about the morality of Mao when his actions are irrelevant to the discussion?. Clearly someone who believes that god is the source of everything will believe that god is the sources of morality. You're not going to convince them morality is independent of god. So what exactly are you trying to prove?

The basics of our morality stem from our species desire to survive. Early humans had strength in numbers, and required all members of the tribe, or group, to survive. Killing one of your tribe lessened the tribe's strength and increased the danger to yourself and your tribe. Same with stealing from a fellow tribe member, or injuring a fellow tribe member. Those foundations of human morality stem from the need to survive. That is why they form the basis of all human morality, regardless of which religious of cultural background you come from.