I'm not sure I believe either. Morality is relative to the creature. It neither needs a god to tell it what it is, nor does it need to evolve from natural selection. Since I don't believe we're just robots executing commands based on cause and effect, I believe we make our own decisions based on our perceptions and experiences, and that morality comes from us being able to envision good things happening when we do certain things, and bad things happening when we do other things.

I can see morality as really "What can I do for myself that doesn't unfairly hurt someone else?" or "What can I do for someone else that helps them without unfairly hurting someone else?". I don't believe mankind is inherently selfish or needs to be, I believe everybody wants all things to be good or better than they are. I also believe the ones who steal are the ones who are afraid they will not get enough.

It seems like you are touching on the differences between morality and ethics.


http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

Well, that just sounds like it means morality is intuitive, and ethics are learned.

False dichotomy. "Religionists" and "scientists" are not mutually exclusive categories, nor are they opposites.

Also, not all societies derive their moral ideas primarily from religion. There was a big survey/study about this in the mid-1990s. All societies have some kind of religion; in the West, we tend to derive our moral teachings from religion, but in the East, it generally comes from philosophy and tradition rather than religion.

Finally, there is no necessary contradiction between religion generally and evolution. Most people who practice a religion do not, in fact, reject science generally or evolution specifically.

You seem to have spent a little time browsing atheist propaganda, but not to have much real education. Your view of the religion vs. evolution debate applies to a small number of fundamentalist Christians, not "religionists" generally.

I think you're under the influence of religious propaganda.

"You seem to have spent a little time browsing atheist propaganda, but not to have much real education."

A rather pompous statement, Jerkwad.


Try not to be a bigger jackass than nature intended you to be ...

Evolution of humans over the last 200,000 years included getting along with each other to a certain degree. Working together is a part humanity, just like it is with other primates and many other higher order animal societies. We can call it morality or ethics, but it is essentially doing what needs to be done to keep the peace within our groups.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2013 11:12PM by orange.

Selfishness is the fastest way to achieve a functioning society. Let me explain. No, there is to much. Let me sum up

Thomas Hobbes

John Locke

Thomas Paine


Suffice it to say that a functioning member of society has got to take care of number one. If too many people don't look out for their own self interest than the society will invariably falter and fall apart.

I disagree that the only good society is based on self interest,

there is an innate social responsibility beyond number 1 in any given aggregate of human beings, I do believe it is evolutionary driven.

a group is more successful than an individual from an organism standpoint. Hell we are groups of corroborating cells when you think about it.

If you think self interest is the only driver, then why does the soldier fall on the grenade to spare his platoon?

Let me explain. Wait that joke is only good once, if it was ever good at all.

Enlightened self interest, when I give up something for the greater good it doesn't have to be pure altruism. It could be that my situation is bettered because of my sacrifice.

As far as the group being stronger than the individual. That is only true if the collective is made up of strong individuals. I am a firm believer in the idea that I can be a good human and be utterly self motivated. I think that altruism and self interest are connected by a very positive bond.

I think morality comes both from the human traits of empathy and self-preservation.

We can think, "How would I feel if that happened to me?" and realize that we wouldn't want to cause another human being to experience that same hurt.

We can also think, "If I don't want someone to steal from me, then maybe I shouldn't steal from them either. If I don't want so-in-so to hit me, then maybe I shouldn't hit them first."

We also recognize that if we want to feel safe and secure in our society and happy within it, then maybe we should work to make it a better place to live in.

For people who think that morality only comes from God, then they're saying that societies which aren't god-based are not moral, which is of course ridiculous.

I grew up in a completely non-religious home, but my parents are wonderful, warm and moral people, who are decent, honest and law-abiding.

One can be a humanist, without having God in their lives.

I don't know if I'd call it a part of Evolution. Maybe it is. But I see it as something which simply followed a human desire to belong to a society where they can feel safe, secure and happy within it.

You soon figure out which things allow you to feel safe and secure and which things cause you to feel stressed out and unsafe. You'd naturally want to choose the things which allow you to feel safe.

Everything we do or think is caused and ultimately deterministic. That doesn't mean we can't choose, though. Our minds are avoiding machines and decision making devices... But those choices and decisions are also ultimately caused. Seems like an enigma there, but it's not.

Are you sure everything is deterministic? then explain shrodingers cat....

The cat's state becomes apparent when the box is opened. A delayed knowledge of the state of the cat doesn't violate causality. It's no different than me not knowing if my tire is flat until I go outside.

The cat's undetermined state is only relative to you. The cat is aware of its state, and physics plays out whether that's true or not. If the cat is already dead, the hammer may still hit the cat, whether you're observing it or not. Whether it does or not only matters to the cat or you.

Agreed with one caveat. As humans we have a unique ability to adapt, I think part of this is because we understand causality and can take steps to create alternate outcomes.

I love knowing I'm a robot making decisions based on previous effects causing me to make those decisions. I suppose the only alternative is randomness based on quantum physics.

Haidt makes the argument for "moral intuitions" that evolved as part of our become social beings. The reviewer does a fairly good job of reviewing the book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2013 12:13AM by robertb.

The idea that morality comes from a god is a rather recent
idea. It wasn't part of ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek
or Roman religion. They were very religious societies but
they got their moral ideas from philosophy, not from their
religion.

The code of Hammurabi was from Hammurabi, fully human and
mortal. The Law of Moses, however, was given as coming from
Yahweh--the god of the Hebrews. This concept of "carved in
stone" morality later was infused throughout the world through
the Abrahamic offshoots of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

It's been said that the Hebrews were the least significant
people politically but the most significant people
culturally. our whole idea that morality comes from god
(which is now accepted by billions as self-evident) was their
invention.

A God-given moral code might be nice if only we could all
agree on what it was. Heck, even the believers in the
"God-given morality" can't agree on what the code really is.
To Joseph Smith it was behaving like a sexual predator and
then publicly trashing the reputations of those who told the
truth. To others it is blowing up random bystanders, and
yourself, with a body-bomb. The problem with the "God-given
moral code" is that it often bypasses normal, human decency.
As Joseph Smith said, when trying to coerce seventeen-year-old
Nancy Rigdon into an illicit, illegal, secret sexual relation,
"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is."

If you have problems with living a moral life you don't lack
religion; you lack empathy.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have problems with living a moral life you
> don't lack
> religion; you lack empathy.

I like that. In much the same way, Mormons substitute "revelation" for empathy, which is why they have been so slow on some social issues.

I wonder if the originating morals in God isn't a consequence of monotheism?

"A God-given moral code might be nice ..."

Not to mention incredibly convenient. It is a lot easier to posit a moral code handed down on Mt. Sinai by The Man, than it is to purposefully evolve one from first principles (which themselves must be evolved.)

And our secular ideas of right and wrong evolve.

Why is there a debate now over same sex marriage? Because we are changing our minds.

Why is slavery almost globally considered evil when it was for most of human existance almost universally considered okay? Why did some religions support it while others led campaigns against it? Why did secularists both support and reject it?

Why do some religions still execute apostates and others think it's an atrocity?

Morals, ethics and the changes in both are the sesult of many social and individual forces.

We're changing our minds because we learned more about it. It wasn't a question of whether it was OK or not because no one actually knew and God said it wasn't. Now that we know how people can be born genetically disposed to like one or the other, there's no reason to think it's a deviant decision. That's ethics based on morality; ethics being we learned something right, morality being we're doing the right thing about it.

All animals are somewhat selfish for self preservation, but also have to be altruistic in order to preserve their genes for the future.

Religion gives excuses to ignore evolved empathy, and act contrary to evolution.

Well said, thank you

It's funny when people say "they do it to preserve or pass on their genes"... like they really know they're doing it. Like people really think that when they have sex or fall in love or marry someone.

What did people uneducated about sex or reproduction ever think when they first saw each other and wanted to do that weird thing that feels so funny that they couldn't figure out why they wanted to do it so bad? Genetics is so funny. Or is it instinct? Or is it magic? Or are we just compelled by some greater force that we can't understand? What the fuck?

Species who tend to cooperate tend to survive.

Humans who tend to cooperate in cultures tend to out breed humans who don't cooperate in cultures.

Cultures who perceive a common enemy tend to cooperate better than cultures who don't perceive a common enemy, and therefore cultures with a perceived common enemy tend to out breed cultures without a perceived common enemy.

Religion provides a perceived common enemy. Ergo, religious cultures tend to thrive and out breed non-religious cultures.

Just my 0.02

Morality, or more specifically, choices between right and wrong can only apply to volitional (conscious) beings.
That being said, any volitional being would actually require a moral code.

The proper code, according to me, is the non-agression principle. No one may initiate the use of force (including through fraud - a form of force against a persons freedom of choice). Anyone initiating the use of force has no moral recourse when retaliation occurs.

So, if a pedophile with a lollipop approaches a young girl in the park and tells her that he is a doctor and her mommy sent him over to give her a check-up, then proceeds to touch her inappropriately (though not against her will because she trusts the doctor with the lollipop), are you saying it wouldn't be moral for a police officer to restrain the man in handcuffs and take him to jail?

That qualifies as "use of force" but I wouldn't consider it immoral...

re-read the section on fraud.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2013 04:37PM by ramonglyde.

My cat holds back when I play fight with her; she retracts her claws, softens her grip, and doesn't bite as hard as on a sock or toy because she sees me react and must realize that it hurts or I don't like it. Some cats I've seen don't seem to be aware of this and only relax after they're scolded. I don't see this as her being afraid of being scolded because I've never scolded her when she gets too rough (she's never gotten rough enough to really hurt).

I consider this part of her morality because she never suffered anything for hurting me, but realized that she might be hurting me and that might detract from our play fun. Maybe that's selfish, but I do believe she thought first of how she might hurt someone when she does play fight with them.

That scientist say our morality has evolved doesn't mean that a particular set of values and commandments are programmed into us. It means that things like empathy, ability to feel shame and guilt, a sense of justice e.t.c. have evolved to be part of our psyche.

PHILOSOPHER IDEA

In the 4th century BC, the Greek philosopher Plato argued that love directs the bonds of human society. In his Symposium, Eryximachus, one of the narrators in the dialog, states that love goes far beyond simple attraction to human beauty. He states that it occurs throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, as well as throughout the universe. Love directs everything that occurs, in the realm of the gods as well as that of humans (186a–b).

SCIENTIST IDEA

There is evidence in a variety of species that the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are involved in the bonding process, and in other forms of pro-social and reproductive behavior. Both chemicals facilitate pair bonding and maternal behavior in experiments on laboratory animals. In humans, there is evidence that oxytocin and vasopressin are released during labor and breastfeeding, and that these events are associated with maternal bonding. According to one model, social isolation leads to stress, which is associated with activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the release of cortisol. Positive social interaction is associated with increased oxytocin. This leads to bonding, which is also associated with higher levels of oxytocin and vasopressin, and reduced stress and stress-related hormones.

Oxytocin is associated with higher levels of trust in laboratory studies on humans. It has been called the "cuddle chemical" for its role in facilitating trust and attachment. In the reward centers of the limbic system, the neurotransmitter dopamine may interact with oxytocin and further increase the likelihood of bonding. One team of researchers has argued that oxytocin only plays a secondary role in affiliation, and that endogenous opiates play the central role. According to this model, affiliation is a function of the brain systems underlying reward and memory formation.

One of the few studies that looked at the influence of hormones on human bonding compared participants who had recently fallen in love with a control group. There were no differences for most of the hormones measured, including LH, estradiol, progesterone, DHEAS, and androstenedione. Testosterone and FSH were lower in men who had recently fallen in love, and there was also a difference in blood cortisol for both sexes, with higher levels in the group that was in love. These differences disappeared after 12–28 months and may reflect the temporary stress and arousal of a new relationship.

In essence, human bonding is clearly evolutionary to keep the species alive and breeding:)