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?
Printable View
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?
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.
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 ?
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
However, I remain in my original position, God was first, and He established His relationship with His creation immediately.
It doesn't hold only if he believes in Genesis....Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
which genesis for there are two versions of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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.
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.
This question features a lovely fallacy called false dilemma.
J
Hi JQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
A false dilemma? It never occured that a dilemma could be genuine let alone false. Sorry I do not understand haha.
C'est pas grave.
J
Of course ce n'est pas grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
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.:biggrin5:
Quelle est votre langue maternelle? C'est la française, n'est-ce pas?
J
Ethics is a little more complicated than being either something out of religion (or for general purposes, cultural influences) or being something entirely of biological origins. It is a little bit of both, and our reason can lead us to act on moral judgements that our intuition contradicts. Moreover, there are ample instances where the seemingly most genetically encoded moral senses (such as the incest or cannibalism taboos) have been overruled in certain cultures.
Now first of all, when speaking of cultural influences on ethics, it is a problem to think of religion as the only source of this kind of moral thinking. Religious ethics are interesting in that they are a form of authoritative proscriptive ethical systems, a bit like a legal code (which is a trope we see in Middle Eastern religions as well). However, religious ethics evolve as well, as we can see in Christianity (especially Catholicism) which has incorporated elements of "natural law" theory from Greco-Roman sources.
The idea that morality is arbitrary and comes out of cultural subjectivities is problematic when we start to think about how morality is resolved within cultures, since a cultural group is not a homogenous body. I also think this is dangerously relativistic, because I honestly believe that we can achieve moral guidelines that are beneficial for the majority of human beings, and that some moral systems are inferior to others. Saying that morality exists merely to restrict people is not true, many moral arguments argue to protect one from interference by others (e.g. liberalism), though that is admittedly a form of restriction I do not think it is what most of us think of as a "restriction" in the colloquial sense (how dare the state prevent me from killing people!). Then, saying morality derives from culture does not really answer how moral judgements arise.
So, where do I think morality comes from? I think in one part it arises from a natural human desire to organize the social sphere, either informally or formally in more structured societies, in order to make our social space more liveable for ourselves. Our desire for these organizing principles, and our need to convince others of these desires, has made us as a species (or rather some of our greatest thinkers) spend a lot of time thinking out how and why we should behave in certain ways. It is important to talk about what is right and wrong, and debate how we should determine these things. As usual, I am a believer in the ability of dialogue to achieve the better results most of the time. For this reason, I think that there is always more merit to a moral statement which can be supported by a reasoned argument than just being an arbitrary intuition. When a reason is provided, it gives us the opportunity to identify common goals and shared premises that can allow us to reach some kind of agreement.
Edit: Les règles du forum disent qu'il faut traduire toute les "post" qu'on fait en langue non-anglais.
The last question is not an appropiate one. Men had to be subjugated to humillation (humus, humil, humble, human, etc.) before human morals appeared. Morals have always been there, but not human morals. Anyone has the ability to sense what's good or bad. No person has to embrace humanism to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
oui et non.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack of Hearts
Je parle francais, but I prefer English haha.
Pouvez-vous garder un secret, Monsieur le Gendarme?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
It's the same pour moi aussi.Quote:
Je parle francais, but I prefer English haha.
J
Good post, OrphanPip. A few comments:
Personally, I always found the discrete split between religion, society, etc. and our biological intuitions a bit arbitrary in itself. If our biological intuitions and instincts are what initially "instructs" us what to do, then religion and society would both simply be things that grew out of that, and morals along with them. In fact, I think society and religion are very strong ways in which to enforce and reinforce morality. It's a bit like the debate over gender stereotypes in society in that I think some put the cart before the horse; biological sex told us how to think about and react to the sexes, society reinforced that, and now it's been a long road trying to adapt to anything that breaks away from "normality". A lot of moral changes seem to reflect that process as well, of us having to consider more and more things outside the initial sphere of our biological intuitions and social reinforcements of those intuitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
What you say about achieving moral guidelines that are beneficial for the majority sounds a lot like the rhetoric of Sam Harris, whom I think has some good ideas but tends to oversimplify at times. The real problem one runs into, I think, is that there is a dizzying array of varieties of what humans consider "beneficial" to and for themselves. I've always thought it made most sense to start with the basic NEEDS--food, clothing, shelter, health, etc.--and then work forward from there in more individualistic matters. It's when people start putting their luxuries over the basic needs of others that the real problems arise, and what should, I think, be the main focus of normative ethics. Have you read Shelly Kagan? I think he makes some strong arguments about a basic way to determine morality starting from the ground up without resorting to religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
If we accept the evolutionary picture (which you really must to be taken seriously), we need not go so far as to placate the religious with arguments for non-religious morality. Instead, it's simple enough to demonstrate that, wherever it comes from, it cannot be religion.
Consider the fact that the species has been around for 100,000-200,000 years. The mainstream religions to which the majority of the world population adheres today, and which they would naturally argue is the source of their morality, have been around for a couple of millennia. Therefore, we conclude that humanity was without these typically Abrahamic religions for the majority of its history. Even if we were to make the irrational concession that one of the Abrahamic religions is true, and we accept that humans have always been religious, we must also conclude that humanity has believed in false deities for tens of thousands of years.
This question thus must become: is it necessary to maintain a belief in even a false supernatural entity in order to be moral? If anyone thinks a person is rendered more moral by believing in an untruth than by not believing in the supernatural, I would be entertained to hear their reasons.
[QUOTE=Jack of Hearts;1141402]This question features a lovely fallacy called false dilemma.
You wear your substantial erudition in such a fleeting statement Are you being fair to your own intellect? Or the thread. An explanation would have helped it along. You could explain how the question is analysable in terms of an argument. My assumption (perhaps mistaken) was that it is arguments that are, or at least may be, fallacious, rather than questions
And I would certainly like to know more about false dilemmas. My life feels full of of them. To add to a thread or not to add to a thread. It's a false dilemma. I just need a cure for insomnia
I don't have the etymological data in front of me, but I'm reasonably sure that the words morals and mores are derived from the same root, suggesting a social rather than existential context. What is immoral to a man on an island?
It does, but that is primarily because the word is derived from a Greco-Roman ethical tradition. The Judeo-Christian tradition wouldn't usually view morality only in terms of social expectations.Quote:
Originally Posted by IntravenousJava
I wouldn't say "a person," but I do think there are "some people" that are likely rendered more moral by believing in untruths. If you believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity out there watching your every move, then that can be a strong impetus to "do the right thing," ie, the think that's good for more people than just yourself. But I've also thought this presented a problem for those that argue for morals as based in religion or any deity; if you found out tomorrow there was no deity, and that all morals were, ultimately, relative, would you then go out and murder and rape and do all the things society deems "immoral" just because you don't have a deity watching you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Polednice
Although moral relativism is inherently dangerous, especially when diverse cultures interact, since perceived reality is subjective, so, consequently, are ethics.
You would think that would be a good impetus, but I recently read some statistics demonstrating that there is no significant difference in moral behaviour between people who do and do not believe in divine authority. It is not an influencing factor. All such a hypothesis allows is for people to try to ram their morality down others' throats, rather than stick to it themselves. In terms of a deity, I think these points by Peter Singer are essential:Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
"Who is to say what's good or bad without god? This is an ancient question that we find discussed in the beginnings of Western philosophy in Ancient Greece 2500 years ago in Plato. There's a famous dialogue … known as the Euthyphro. In Plato's dialogues, he typically has Socrates … as one character in the dialogue who puts, essentially, his viewpoint, and somebody else that he's discussing it with. In the Euthyphro, Socrates is discussing with Euthyphro what it is to be pious … and Socrates … presents this famous dilemma to Euthyphro. He says, 'Is something good because the gods say that it's good … or do the gods say that it's good because it is good?' And for somebody who wants to say that morality must come from god, this is, I think, a real insoluble problem to which I haven't seen a satisfactory answer because if you say that something is good only because god says it is, you essentially make it arbitrary what 'good' is, and you make god into a kind of arbitrary tyrant. If god had said that it's good to plant bombs in crowded marketplaces and blow up lots of men, women and children as they go about their daily business, then that would be a good thing to do … And conversely if god had said it's wrong to help somebody in distress when you can easily help them, then it would be wrong to help a stranger in distress. And you can't say … 'But god wouldn't have done that because god is good and god only chooses things that are good' because then, of course, you're saying that there is a notion of 'good' that is independent of what god wills.
Secondly, of course, people often say, 'Well, OK, I'll grant you that there are things that are right and wrong and I'll take the view that god tells us what's good and it is good independently of god, but without god we would not have known what the things were that are good.' Well, this really doesn't seem to be the way things work when we look at the knowledge that people have of god because, of course, people typically say god reveals to us in the scriptures what it is that is right or wrong, but … in fact, Christians are highly selective (and other religious people as well) … in what they take from the scriptures and what they regard as good or bad."
I've heard some Christians argue that we can know God exists because there is a moral law inside us that commands and if we are commanded there must be a commander. I m not sure if this is a very feasible argument. I suppose however that commands without any commander (who contains the justification for obedience) may make some people wonder if there is an objective basis for morality. As has been noted in the thread, God may simply be in approval of the good rather than being its founder. However, if we don't refer to God in terms of the foundation of morality to what do we refer?
In fact this is a metaphysical question concerning the foundation of ethics rather than its origin. One could give, say, an evolutionary account as to the origin of ethics while being uninterested in the question of foundation. I would say that if the universe is godless evolution must play a role in the question of origin and the question of foundation is a puzzle. Possibly it is one that we put in a mental box which is separate from our lives as concrete moral agents. Of course if one truly decided that ethics was without foundation surely this would steamroller any moral agency that one had.
Well, I think morality araises from a human innate need for perfection. Religion only asserts this need for perfection. Other forms of authority are just tools to help man , or condition him to behave in a morally accepted way, that is to perfect himself . We need these forms of external authorities to help us evade any lack or imperfection.
Well, contrary to popular belief you can't extract yourself for the fact that the Bible, possessed knowledge that would be nearly impossible to know ... under those times and conditions ... Not the Digital Age ... that was delivered to Israel as a health law ... this is just one of a whole list of instances that "foreknowledge" exists, it was for our benefit, and it was factual ... I could go on further about this point that follows ... into how this corabulates other evidence such as how on the 8th day after birth [the day of circumcision], an infants anti-body count is highest ... I could weave a plethorea of evidence here in a bio-info way that precludes any evidence against it.
Why did Jesus need to be circumcised if he was the son of God?
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question...0034326AAK2dcD
Because he had to fulfill the law that is one requirement of the law.
If he wasn't a jew he wouldn't need to.
But thats the whole point, that since Adam & Eve fell, there would be someone of the seedline that would eventually, redeem us from sin that leads to death.
Circumcision, is now medically proven to halt sexual diseases.
Because of latent mitochrondria under the foreskin.
This has been successfully used in Africa as a dterent to HIV Aids.
Article: Circumcision Shown to Slow Spread of HIV in Africa
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-2796039.html
The studies, in Kenya and Uganda, found that circumcised men are about 50 percent less likely to contract HIV than those who are not !!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler, Stalin, Amin Al-Husseni, Marx, Mao just to name a few people with totally non-religious views or agenda's, bordering on nilism, and possibly a form of insanity in some cases, destroyed millions in there pursuit of Godlessness so ... Although this maybe an extreme example but, its entirely relevant to the scope of the argument ...
Ancients don't get me started there ... William F. Albright: The work of the American Biblical archaeology school under William F. Albright seemed to confirm that even if Genesis and Exodus were only given their final form in the first millennium BC, they were still firmly grounded in the material reality of the second millennium.
© 1993-2003 ENCARTA Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Ethics (Greek ethika, from ethos, “character,” “custom”), principles or standards of human conduct, sometimes called morals (Latin mores, “customs”), and, by extension, the study of such principles, sometimes called moral philosophy.
Jefferson knew exactly what he was doing when he changed Locke’s trilogy of rights “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Property, and the individual’s right to it, was but one form of the larger human right to individual happiness. The Enlightenment’s revolutionary objective, enshrined in Jefferson’s text for the Declaration of Independence, was to place the sacredness of each individual’s quest for happiness at the heart of politics. No longer was there assumed to be a Christian conception of the good life or the moral life, defined by the church and state ... [Yes, that's what you came out of, No don't elipsis our founding fathers words ... Nor Religious view will be held over another by the state and sanctioned ... that does not mean they didn't believe in God and practice it ... this country was founded on it] The Enlightenment assumption was that each individual pursued his or her own happiness and individual sense of the good life—as long as in doing so they did not interfere with other people’s lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Or as Jefferson put it, as long as “it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg.”
[Cults - speak for you and talk for you ... when you no longer have the right of free expression, or are under the suppression of it, or an alternative of it, or a sanctioned form of it under license ... it becomes evident]
[Reported] Crime is Big Busines ... righteous people and there societies become less susecptible to its cost ... America, spends billion in this form of "usary"
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ins-page2.html
Where or what, Gnome forms are there in nature? I can point to many forms in nature mimicked by man. But not Gnomes ... I don't have to "Prove the Existance of God" .ie. Conspiracy Theory ... or 'gnomes' ... or nihlism
Deep Beliefs could be someone from a very religious background, to someone who had a spiritual and or revelatory experience, to a paradigm that completely changes one's worldview, or something to that effect, i suppose.
Nihilism (nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life.
Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) posited an early form of nihilism which he referred to as levelling. He saw levelling as the process of suppressing individuality to a point where the individual's uniqueness becomes non-existent and nothing meaningful in his existence can be affirmed:
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html
Demographics_of_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Poll: Majority Reject Evolution - CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in965223.shtml
On Darwin's 200th Birthday, Americans Still Divided About Evolution - Pew Research Center
http://www.pewresearch.org/pubs/1107...on-creationism
Gallup 'Darwin's Birthday' Poll: Fewer than Four in Ten Believe in Evolution - God & Country (usnews.com)
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god...e-in-evolution
Well, I suppose what category you would fall in - as an atheist asking me that - it would constitute an oxy-moron.
A poll from a few years, can't remember where it is at in my posts somewhere. Based on the activity of the divine. which stressed an: Active creator - Active Agent in Creation to a No creator - No Active Agent in the physical world Scenario
Scores rather favorably for the Big Guy Up Stairs.
Atheists 5% ??? Real, Imagined or Perceived [Seculair Humanists]
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html
The Ring analogie relates to the condition of man, since you 'all asked, his perspective, the question of right and wrong, and the question of God [&or Magnitude]. I believe the examples still hold true to the Survival vs BioInfo question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Ring
Tolkien wrote the following about the idea behind the One Ring: "I should say that it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or lesser degree, out of one's direct control." (Letter #211, 1958).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
According to the legend, Gyges of Lydia was a shepherd in the service of King Candaules of Lydia. After an earthquake, a cave was revealed in a mountainside where Gyges was feeding his flock. Entering the cave, Gyges discovered that it was in fact a tomb with a bronze horse containing a corpse, larger than that of a man, who wore a golden ring, which Gyges pocketed. He discovered that the ring gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. Gyges then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, Gyges used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself. King Croesus, famous for his wealth, was Gyges' descendant.
In Republic, Plato puts the tale of the ring of Gyges in the mouth of Glaucon, who uses it to make the point that no man is so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of being able to steal at will by the ring's power of invisibility. In contemporary terms, Glaucon argues that morality is a social construction, whose source is the desire to maintain one's reputation for virtue and honesty; when that sanction is removed, moral character would evaporate. However, Glaucon does not actually hold this belief; he merely produces this tale so that Socrates' argument for justice can be made stronger:
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other ...
Socrates goes on to explain that justice would not be defined by just this social construct; the man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has become morally bankrupt and suffered irreparable failings of character, while a man that chose willingly not to use it is at least at peace with himself.(Republic 10:612b)
http://www.christianityboard.com/top.../page__st__180
Oh, to my critics, Tolkien took some 20 years to produce his 1st manuscript. CS Lewis produced 7 works in 7 years, which included The Narnia series and the Screwtape letters. Without Lewis' instance Tolkien may have never published anything, without his friend's insistence, or rather posthumously.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
I think we can all see from everyday situations morality emerge from groups. Living according to a set of rules is practical when we have to share the same world, or bus, or office, or bathroom, or classroom, or queue, or apartment with other people. Since humans are biologically social creatures, morals have evolved from our having to live together without killing each other. I belief religion is a byproduct of this necessary, and at the same time it's come to codify certain unspoken but intuitive rules - don't steal or be stolen, don't kill or be killed, don't lie or be lied to, don't betray or face the group's wrath, et cetera.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
good question! I thought of that recently, and in my research I found Umberto Eco questioning: Does a good man in the need of a God to be that way? I don't remember exactly the phrase but I think that is. It's from the book "belief or non belief"
I guess the point is that we as a society have created moral as guide to explain our way to live properly. But that's something we born with. Or there wouldn't be moral codes before the Ten Commandments for example.
I believe moral is innate to humans. There's no need of such a role model as religion, which, can be a good parameter but if we remember not to become fanatics.
(Most) humans do have empathy, so there are tendencies for altruism. Humans also have tendencies to fall into a strong in-group out-group mentality, which will be bad for the outgroup though. If people grow up with the "right" memes, humans can develop into caring invididuals whose moral sphere doesn't just include the family or the fellow citizens, but also the whole world and non-human sentient beings.
So there is rudimentary motivation for altruism in most humans, but it really depends how it is fostered.
In general, humans are rather terrible at being ethical. And that's to be expected since moral intuitions are a product of evolution, and evolution doesn't "care" about anything besides copying succes. People can't rely on moral intuitions, they should use some rationality. There are many cognitive biases in that regard, for instance, humans will donate more money to save one specific child than they would donate to save several children, if they are just presented stories and pictures.
Or people will donate to art exhibitions, or (a bit less bad) to random charities, instead of the most effective ones, which results in their contributions being thousands of times less effective than they could be.
Or people will refuse to take "evil" jobs (like banker) that give a lot of money, even though if they don't take the jobs, someone else will (who is likely to be less altruistic and would do even more harm in the job, so by not taking the evil job people are actually causing *harm*), and even though money earned and then donated to the most cost-efficient causes can make the world significantly better. Instead, people think the most ethical careers are NGO workers, doctors or teachers, even though replaceability holds there as well -- if they don't do it, someone else will; and even though the impact is small compared to effective donations anyway. And replaceability doesn't hold for donations, if I don't donate, no one else will do it for me either.
When people talk about ethics, they often mean boring stuff that hardly has much impact on the world. "Was it wrong that I broke up with my boyfriend that way" -- Well I don't know, but it's definitely orders of magnitude less wrong than causing demand for hundreds of factory-farmed animals over one's lifetime, or not saving lives and life quality if one has the means to do it at little cost to oneself. Ethics should be about the *whole picture*, and about *making the world a better place*. Everything else is childish reliance to arbitrary (in the sense that we just happen to have these arbitrary intuitions) "rules". The consequentialist critique to deontology is that it's "rule worship". Morality without god is possible, but it is difficult, counterintuitive, and demanding. What one definitely doesn't need god for, though, is for justification of morality. Plato showed this BCE in "Eutyphro": http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...yphro-dilemma/
I suppose morality began its more structured history when civilizations itself began, popping up in the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia etc. etc.
In modern times morality is becoming very absurd. After reading the Millenium trilogy, I couldn't get over the consciosious egotistism of the author Larsson, who seems convinced he's dawning light on the unequality of the sexes, in the 21st century none-the-less!?
In McCarthy's 'Bloof Meridian', the crafty conclusion convicts everyone who dares believe in anything they see or hear on this earth of being wicked beyond compare.
I guess my cynical belief is that morality is inseparable from ego, but what do I know?
Deep enough, morality comes with the equipment. It is a sense of good or bad that allows individuals do what's most convenient to them. When they think about how they can help each other, they produce social morality. But morality is intrinsic to life, not inherent. It would be impossible for any individual life to come about without the ability to determine his/her good or bad. Of course, social morality is a compromise, and partly inherent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clovis
Where or when (before or after religion) morality came about is a historical question - one that I'll avoid wading into. However, I will say that morality has its uses. As many have mentioned already, morality has uses for societies and communities; i.e. morality is useful for any political or social arrangement of more than one person. It's likely that the earliest humans recognized the advantages of working together as opposed to alone and without the restraining forces of morality I can't see any community survive or function productively.