Jump to content
Science Forums

Morals.


Edge

Does morality necessarily come from religion?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Does morality necessarily come from religion?



Recommended Posts

Morals from religion? That's pretty funny, considering people often commit amoral acts claiming that its ok because its coherent with their religious beliefs. Perhaps that doesn't prove they didn't come from religion but I think they did not.

 

IMO Morals have to do with a sense of power and our experience of the world around us. If I steal from you then you can just as easily steal from me, and I don't want to be stolen from so we all agree not to steal. Keeping me from stealing is the memory of what it is like to have my stuff stolen, and this memory has power over us the same way knowledge that a huge guy might hurt us if angry has power over us. Especially since a guy bigger than us, or a large number of people working together, is probably who would end up with all of our stuff if everyone stole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the traits of the chimps are not morals as we know them. the chimps behavior could be called defensive. a chimp does not clobber a larger chimp because he knows he'll get his head bashed in. chimps are also known to form gangs to hunt and eat other chimps, not very moral as i see it. the maternal thing is more survival of the species and genetically programmed than mother love. you would not want to live by chimp rules.

the morals we live by are supposedly to create better interpersonal and societal relationships with love, some self sacrifice, humility, and doing things for others. a large step above animals behavior and motivation.

Pretty close to how I would have described it. Look at how species select a leader. Is it because this particular alpha will do better for their society by setting an example, cleaning others, helping those who are weak, leading the group to a new habitat where food will be more plentiful? Is it because one is bigger, stronger, happened to win a fight and prove his/her dominance over another and this gives them the right to mate with the others until someone deposes them?

Did "cavemen" act this same way before religiously based laws said this was not the way to live their lives? In fact, aren't these "cavemen" decendents from Cain (this is a question for each person to argue with themselves as there is no way anyone here can actually prove where these cavemen came from, but I'm sure some will still argue the point.)?

 

IMO Morals have to do with a sense of power and our experience of the world around us. If I steal from you then you can just as easily steal from me, and I don't want to be stolen from so we all agree not to steal. Keeping me from stealing is the memory of what it is like to have my stuff stolen, and this memory has power over us the same way knowledge that a huge guy might hurt us if angry has power over us. Especially since a guy bigger than us, or a large number of people working together, is probably who would end up with all of our stuff if everyone stole.

 

Why do people still steal then? Is it that they have never had anyone steal from them? Is it a purely biological imbalance that means they don't have a conscience?

 

Have fun pondering these questions folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people still steal then? Is it that they have never had anyone steal from them? Is it a purely biological imbalance that means they don't have a conscience?

 

Have fun pondering these questions folks.

 

Various reasons, with one of them perhaps being that noone stole from them. However typically a person would be able to apply similar knowledge to figure out what it would be like if everyone decided it was ok to steal. Anyone that is capable of understanding the golden rule can imagine what it is like to be stole from, which pretty much means anyone who has had anything bad done to them.

 

A more likely reason might be that they actually think they could be the best thief and the best able to protect their property. They might see it as a competition and say things like (as people who grow up in bad neighborhoods often do) if you don't protect it better its your fault that it was stolen. However this argument is of course flawed because there can only be one best theif/protector of property, and this person is bound to have stuff stolen or be caught trying to steal occasionaly despite how good he is. Therefore more people are benefitted by a situation where stealing is banned.

 

Also in a system like ours, while some people may teach kids what happens when everyone steals like I depicted earlier, some people may forget about the golden rule and think the only things stopping them from commiting certain acts are the police, and they may see this as completely arbitrary and the police as facist false authority figures. Not only would they think it not wrong to commit the act because they have never been presented with the real reason it is wrong (if there is one), but they may do it simply to defy the "false authority figures". This type of thing is facillitated by poor arguments for why something is wrong ("Because I said so!"), and is probably much more common considering things in which the TRUE bad result from the action is not obvious.

 

For example, this is actually how I view anti - speeding laws as every argument I have heard for why speeding is wrong has been invalid and unobjectively reasoned. Therefore I am not going to refrain from speeding when the police aren't there to enforce it. Just like a kid who has been told its wrong to steal because "I SAID SO!" by a teacher is going to steal when the teacher can't catch him. Whereas he might not if he was more worried about the fact that people could just as easily steal from him as he could from other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you bring up the "golden rule" as it is found in the Bible.

 

What i find more interesting is that most children believe that the golden rule is "to treat others as they treat you" not "treat others the way you would want them to treat you."

 

Another interesting find is that all human civilizations have developed nearly identical moral standards, not necessarily tied to their laws. For example, nearly every society has a method of exhiling someone who steps out of line morally. Think of Amish, Jewish, even Japanese rules of treating someone who does not maintain the moral standards of the group as a pariah, outcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you bring up the "golden rule" as it is found in the Bible.

 

Well its a pretty obvious concept, thats just the most common name for it. My argument isn't to say that morals didn't appear in religion, or that religions aren't old. Im saying that regardless the physical realities that I am depicting motivate morals. That for example your desire to murder someone who angers you is mutually exclusive for everyone elses desire for that person to live, and those people together are more powerful than you.

 

For that matter for all I know this exact argument was made in biblical times and perhaps was even supported by biblical characters, and then after all this time the only part of the argument that remained were the metaphors because thats what people paid attention to rather than the logical arguments.

 

Someone had to write the literature for religions, and something had to give these authors the will to propose moral rules. Was it some mythical god, or the simple physical realities I have pointed out? I say the latter is the most likely answer, and on top of that we can still see these physical realities but have no reason to believe in a god (unless you just make up reasons to).

 

Whats the difference between the 2 versions of the golden rule you were talking about kids believing in? Plus what is the foundation for your claim that thats what most kids believed the golden rule was? Thats not what I knew about the golden rule when I was a child.

 

The desire to outcast people who are different or think differently isn't really something that is limited to people who have different ideas related to morals. Its just an aspect of human nature regardless of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, fighting a law you feel to be unfounded or unjust is civil disobedience. Most people would not say civil disobedience is immoral. I on the other hand believe that the only reason to disobey a law is if it interferes with my right to worship God, otherwise, I don't purposefully speed, or break any other law, because the Bible taught me to obey the laws of men as far as they don't interfere with my obedience to other Bible principles.

 

There has been an increase in lawlessness of people as society becomes less connected with religious morals. These kids you are referring to have never been taught moral standards and therefore try to make up there own. They may learn the bad effects of some acts, but this does not mean they are moralic standards. They are simply based upon an animalistic (though not exactly the same as how animals themselves act) survival instincts, or some might argue the idea of karma, that if they don't do bad things, then no one else will do bad to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

information on the Golden Rule;

 

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

 

 

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:1

Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.

Analects 12:2

Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

Sunnah

Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, fighting a law you feel to be unfounded or unjust is civil disobedience. Most people would not say civil disobedience is immoral. I on the other hand believe that the only reason to disobey a law is if it interferes with my right to worship God, otherwise, I don't purposefully speed, or break any other law, because the Bible taught me to obey the laws of men as far as they don't interfere with my obedience to other Bible principles.

 

There has been an increase in lawlessness of people as society becomes less connected with religious morals. These kids you are referring to have never been taught moral standards and therefore try to make up there own. They may learn the bad effects of some acts, but this does not mean they are moralic standards. They are simply based upon an animalistic (though not exactly the same as how animals themselves act) survival instincts, or some might argue the idea of karma, that if they don't do bad things, then no one else will do bad to them.

 

Oh your one of those... oO Well so I take it if I were to bring up Nazi germany you would get out of it by say it would be ok to disobey their laws (such as not present jews for disposal) as conflicting with your religious morals?

 

The obvious next question is, since "the laws of man" are not based on the bible, but rather are in your opinion, "based upon animalistic survival instincts" or "the the idea of karma", what makes the laws signifigant? Isn't arguing with a law or for a law what results in the laws being made?

 

Ultimately however when dealing with a person like you it just comes down to why anyone has any reason to believe the bible has the slightest clue about anything. You see in my experience the only people who look at the bible the way you do are people who have been brainwashed since birth with social pressure to accept its poorly reasoned ideas. If you take anyone who has been left to fend for themselves as far as understanding of the world is concerned, or who has been given some other type of similar information (another religion or philosophy) they rarely if ever would convert to christianity without serious social pressure because it makes no damn sense. People realize christianity is stupid and lose faith all the time though.

 

Therefore I look to that and the need for you to justify the beliefs you have had up to this point in life in the face of superior reasoning as the motivation for your arguments, until such a time you present any reasoning for why the bible has inherent value.

 

If you find this offensive I apologize in advance. I don't tell white lies or sidestep this type of situation when I have a chance to help someone become better at understanding or dealing with the world around them.

 

information on the Golden Rule;

 

The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions

 

 

Christianity All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:1

Confucianism Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.

Analects 12:2

Buddhism Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.

Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.

Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

Sunnah

Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism Regard your neighbor’s gain as your

 

That this idea is shown in every religion when they agree on little else is perfectly in line wiht what I am claiming: That it is the physical reality of the world which motivates morals and not religion. That physical reality in most obvious form is the golden rule, and thats why it appears in every religion. If a religion went against it, the religion would appear rediculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a sense, morals and religion had to evolve together, becuase religion is just a group of peoples morals, and as more people join, or convert, to a religion they sometiems dont agree with all of the fine print, therefore they branch off from the core beliefs and morals of the religion and from their own version of it (cathlics are christians for example). i think that throughout time we have seen more and more religions rise because more people are doing this.

 

of course, psychoactive "drugs" could also have something to do with the arise of religion too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe religion is not just a group of people's morals. No that seems more like a philosophy, and that's what modern laws are, philosophical ideals of a society. Now whether or not those philosophical ideals originated with a particular religion (which is the worship of something or someone as a god or gods) is what we are discussing here.

 

Back when society first began to adopt written laws, they (I will say always, as I have yet to see any evidence of a written law earlier than hamurrabi's that would satisfy historians as the oldest written, and older than the mosaic law that would satisfy christians as the oldest law period) always claimed that these were handed down by some deity. Whether this was a ploy by smart men who knew that people wouldn't necessarily follow them without divine reasons (which begs the question why would people believe in the power of a deity over the power of men without some reason), or it is real and there were spirit creatures that handed down these laws to these men is, I believe, the question of this thread.

 

Are modern laws based upon morals? I would say no. See the above comments about philosophy and religion. Modern laws are based upon philosophy, which may have taken moralistic ideas but abandoned the reason behind the moral namely religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. That was intentional. Just to show that what we might see as moral behavior, might just be normal animalistic instincts, applicable both ways.

 

Arrrrrgh. I thought that it must be intentional, but didn’t see any “hints” at it I guess my comprehension failed me. Darn it!

 

IMO Morals have to do with a sense of power and our experience of the world around us. If I steal from you then you can just as easily steal from me, and I don't want to be stolen from so we all agree not to steal. Keeping me from stealing is the memory of what it is like to have my stuff stolen, and this memory has power over us the same way knowledge that a huge guy might hurt us if angry has power over us. Especially since a guy bigger than us, or a large number of people working together, is probably who would end up with all of our stuff if everyone stole.

 

I think you are on to something here. A pragmatic set of morals. But I don’t think we’re always so conscious of our "moral" decisions. With speeding ticket, yes, but when it comes to other, more mundane and trivial things I think we just go on auto-pilot.

 

of course, psychoactive "drugs" could also have something to do with the arise of religion too...

 

In a Terence McKenna kind of way?

 

To continue the discussion:

 

This is what I see as the most obvious chain of events:

- We evolve from "primitive" animals and become confronted with more complex social issues.

- Then with NO interference from our minds or thought our biological nature adapts to the new surroundings. This explains why most people have common morals. It’s because its the most profitable thing from natures point of view.

 

It’s obvious that we have these common traits and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be anything but logical that everybody writes about them in there smart *** books. Most drawings of humans depict them with two legs. Is this necessarily because of a great revelation of the divine ideaform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there has to be a beginning for all things. i also believe that morals and religion developed

somewhat together. in order for rulers to rule there had to be rules. these were promulgated by the ruler and the priests working together to induce the underlings to live in peace to better feed the higher ups. the terrible powers of nature also had to be answered to. this is where the ideas of gods came into being. if the peasants didn't do the right thing, the priests, or rulers would get them. if that failed the gods were punishers of last resort. this was the beginning of morals and laws and still exists today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the "the simplest answer usually is the right one" rule still valid?

 

How many different civilizations (who many say their laws and societies developed independently) have extremely similar complex laws based upon "moralistic" ideals. How did such similar "moralistic ideals" develope in segregated cultures. Simplest answer, these morals developed before the groups split (at the tower of babel?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think Cro Magnon and Neanderthal were at the tower, but lightning, thunder. rain and predators were all around. these primeval forces had to recognized and reckoned with. this period around 10,000 years ago probably saw the advent of thoughtful discourse

and an attempt to explain and accomodate to the powerful forces of nature which they didn't understand and lived in fear of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...