the origin of morality

[cacian]

is it naturally human to be moral or is it a concept that only came about because of the rise of religions?

In other words were humans morals before the birth of religion?

[MorpheusSandman]

Humans were absolutely moral before religion. Morality is an emergent phenomena in most all social animals. It's a recognition that being part of groups is safer than being alone. It increases our chances for survival and reproduction. But part of being in that group means that everyone does their part, gets their share, and doesn't hurt everyone else. Apes and dogs and lions and elephants (and such social animals) are just as moral as humans are; they just aren't conscious of it. One unique feature of human morality is how far we extend it.

[cacian]

I have never actually thought about animals in this context because I conisder them to be of another breed from humans in the sense that they do not talk and therefore have less maneagability in terms of how they view and conduct life and ourselves,
Animals are naturally organised because it is their only survival kit if you like, their instinct is their livelyhood because they are limited in terms of other means such as speech.

I was going to ask if you two questions
first,
what do you consider is the definition of morality
and
two,
are we born with morals ?

[dark desire]

Read On The Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche

http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Polit...gyofMorals.pdf

I am quoting something from there -

We don't know ourselves, we knowledgeable people—we are personally ignorant about ourselves. And there's good reason for that. We've never tried to find out who we are. How could it ever happen that one day we'd discover our own selves? With justice it's been said that "Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also." Our treasure lies where the beehives of our knowledge stand. We are always busy with our knowledge, as if we were born winged creatures—collectors of intellectual honey. In our hearts we are basically concerned with only one thing, to "bring something home." As far as the rest of life is concerned, what people call "experience"—which of us is serious enough for that? Who has enough time? In these matters, I fear, we've been "missing the point."

[BienvenuJDC]

Humans were absolutely moral before religion. Morality is an emergent phenomena in most all social animals. It's a recognition that being part of groups is safer than being alone. It increases our chances for survival and reproduction. But part of being in that group means that everyone does their part, gets their share, and doesn't hurt everyone else. Apes and dogs and lions and elephants (and such social animals) are just as moral as humans are; they just aren't conscious of it. One unique feature of human morality is how far we extend it.

You are assuming that humanity and culture existed without religion at a time. When Adam was created by God, He spoke to Adam and directed his ways. This was in form a religion, therefore, your theory does not hold.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have never actually thought about animals in this context because I conisder them to be of another breed from humans

All animals are different breeds (species) from each other, and they're all different. To think humans are somehow "special" is just part of our programming, but don't let it fool you. We may be smarter than other animals, we may have things like developed language, and culture, etc. but when it comes to morality we're not better or worse than any other animals. Ants are far more selfless and willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the community than most humans are.

I was going to ask if you two questions
first,
what do you consider is the definition of morality
and
two,
are we born with morals ?

1. I don't think morality needs a definition or that a single definition can possibly hope to encompass the whole of everything that's ever been called "moral". At its basis it seems that morality is based on the positive or negative effects that people's actions have on others around them.

2. Yes, morals are instinctual, but they're enforced and reinforced by others in a community. We have to have our social instincts triggered before we can be moral. Leave a child to be raised in the wild and it's likely they will have a very different moral sense than they would raised in any other community.

You are assuming that humanity and culture existed without religion at a time. When Adam was created by God, He spoke to Adam and directed his ways.

You are assuming that the story of Genesis is true. Not even most Theologians treat Adam & Eve as a literally true story given the age of the universe, the earth, and all of the mountains of evidence favoring evolution that shows humans have been around even in more primal states (but still social ones) for a long, long time.

[BienvenuJDC]

You are assuming that the story of Genesis is true. Not even most Theologians treat Adam & Eve as a literally true story given the age of the universe, the earth, and all of the mountains of evidence favoring evolution that shows humans have been around even in more primal states (but still social ones) for a long, long time.

You are right, but that is my viewpoint. Through many ages it has been the case that the majority has been wrong in its belief. Thus, my conclusion is based on my viewpoint. You also don't have the evidence that even the first man (which I'm not sure how you determine at what point a man is a man from evolutionary standpoints) did not have religion.

However, I remain in my original position, God was first, and He established His relationship with His creation immediately.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You are assuming that humanity and culture existed without religion at a time. When Adam was created by God, He spoke to Adam and directed his ways. This was in form a religion, therefore, your theory does not hold.

It doesn't hold only if he believes in Genesis....

[cacian]

It doesn't hold only if he believes in Genesis....

which genesis for there are two versions of it?

[dark desire]

I think morality is something with which human beings hold someone else wrong. We are mostly blind to our own faults. Every person defines personal morality according to what suits his habits and society. Some flaws we always have and we manage to hide them.

Many people argue that religion was the start of morality. I disagree here. Religion in its most nascent state was meant to liberate human beings. But it was never a compulsion. The power-brokers of the societies made rules out of religious scriptures and labelled them morality. Commonly believed social rules is what I find morality to be. It is something very culture specific.

Now cultures themselves are dynamic and consequently social morality is a transient thing. Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for indecent conduct with another man a century or so ago and now homosexuality is legal. A particularly sharp view of social and religious morality is in Albert Camus's famous novel - The Outsider. I personally like that book a lot. Nietzsche's works address the issue of morality quite often. He represents the moral, idealistic, mental, rational forces as Apollonian and instinctual, physical, material, dark forces as Dionysiac forces.
The conscience that people have is generally a trade-off between the Apollonian and Dionysiac forces.

We also have the case of M.K. Gandhi, who was treated like a saint but towards the end of his life had questionable sexual conduct. Both Jesus Christ and Mother Teresa had their doubts.

Morality is a stable thing only for someone living life at a very low or a very high level - either completely lost in culture or totally free from it.

[dark desire]

I don't think we are born with morals although sometimes childhood impressions go very deep and it feels like we were born with certain rules. And then fear also plays some role in this.

The other day I was thinking why am I afraid of hell. They say those who go to hell will be tortured. I do not buy this. If I do bad things and I go to the land of the devil, I will be of use to him. Why will he torture me? To torture me in hell, angels will be required. But they won't come to hell because that is not their place. I felt convinced by my argument but still I felt some fear. I think this fear has made a very deep impression on me.

[Jack of Hearts]

This question features a lovely fallacy called false dilemma.






J

[cacian]

This question features a lovely fallacy called false dilemma.






J

Hi J
A false dilemma? It never occured that a dilemma could be genuine let alone false. Sorry I do not understand haha.

[Jack of Hearts]

C'est pas grave.




J

[cacian]

C'est pas grave.




J

Of course ce n'est pas grave.
I shall look it up with google.
I am still learning about the word fallacy and see I am not sure I like the sound of it.