Morality: Fundamental meaning and origins

[Kamonlas007]

As Ive seen that many people don't believe in moral concepts, I would like to ask everyone if humanity truly has only lived with morals because god and the bible. Personally i believe in that expect for the bible part, but of course it is well argued about because many believe that it creates hate, it divides us, it creates insanity, i don't know maybe not insanity but you get my point

[Arch-hereticK]

Jerusalem-syndrome is most certainly insanity.

But in my opinion morals are (in their simplest form) the herd instincts of the individual.

[Fiyenyaa]

I don't know how you expect to get morals from god without some kind of scripture (since it seems to me that you are saying you want godly morals, but not biblical morals - I could be wrong).

[Kamonlas007]

Its is your own opinion on Human morality

[Elfdude]

Is anyone else having difficulty interpreting what he's saying?

Atheists frankly are statistically less likely to break laws (breaking the laws of your country is a christian sin) so by that we could conclude that atheists are more moral than christians. Similarly a study done with college students who were self-proclaimed good-samaritans found that christians were less likely to attempt and stop a man who faked a heart attack than atheists.

Frankly it's impossible to conclude that morality comes from god when it seems that without the burden of god in your beliefs you act more morally.

[Scorch]

Is anyone else having difficulty interpreting what he's saying?

Atheists frankly are statistically less likely to break laws (breaking the laws of your country is a christian sin) so by that we could conclude that atheists are more moral than christians. Similarly a study done with college students who were self-proclaimed good-samaritans found that christians were less likely to attempt and stop a man who faked a heart attack than atheists.

Frankly it's impossible to conclude that morality comes from god when it seems that without the burden of god in your beliefs you act more morally.

That and the fact that any of the real-world religious ideas of morality that actually make sense reflect a secular understanding anyway. I doubt a religious person could come up with a moral statement that I could not have conceived without religion. "Be nice to people and treat them how you'd be treated"? I could have thought of that. In fact humans did think of that thousands of years before Jesus. "Thou shalt not kill"? We've sort of had that down for the greater part of the past 200,000 years. "If a man lays with a man you should stone them both to death for their blood is on their own hands"? It is, in fact, because of a secular understanding of morality that Christians are forced to make terrible excuses for the fact that their Bible contains such trash.

[Maron]

That and the fact that any of the real-world religious ideas of morality that actually make sense reflect a secular understanding anyway. I doubt a religious person could come up with a moral statement that I could not have conceived without religion. "Be nice to people and treat them how you'd be treated"? I could have thought of that. In fact humans did think of that thousands of years before Jesus.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. From a purely secular standpoint, the opposite would in fact be the most logical line of thinking: many mates= greater chance to spread your genes. Yet most people generally accept that adultery is wrong.

"Thou shalt not kill"? We've sort of had that down for the greater part of the past 200,000 years.

Sadly no, we've not.

[Arch-hereticK]

Thou shalt not commit adultery. From a purely secular standpoint, the opposite would in fact be the most logical line of thinking: many mates= greater chance to spread your genes. Yet most people generally accept that adultery is wrong.

The principal of resiprocity is the most logical explanation for most naturalist morality. Obviously it's much more complex than that, but that sums it up quite nicely, for me anyway.

[Maron]

The principal of resiprocity is the most logical explanation for most naturalist morality. Obviously it's much more complex than that, but that sums it up quite nicely, for me anyway.

Would not the principle of reciprocity require that something be gained by both parties from the interaction? From a naturalistic standpoint, monogamy is an unequal partnership. The female gains a stable father figure for her offspring and the security of having a man around, while the male's task of spreading his genes as far and wide as possible is inhibited. From a naturalist standpoint, monogamy is either altruistic (on the male's part) or parasitic( on the female's).

[Scorch]

Thou shalt not commit adultery. From a purely secular standpoint, the opposite would in fact be the most logical line of thinking: many mates= greater chance to spread your genes. Yet most people generally accept that adultery is wrong.

You misunderstand what I mean. "Many mates = greater chance to spread your genes" isn't exactly the most correct analysis of the biological realities, but that's not what I was asking. Thou shalt not commit adultery is an idea that, once again, develops naturally in a secular manner. Society's general aversion to adultery is one of those that develops with a secular morality but it does not develop as early as many other ideas of morality, mainly because it is more vaguely related to the biological realities of our existence; this is why it is nowhere near as universal as an aversion to murder; that is why there are some societies and ethoses in which adultery is entirely acceptable.

The reason, however, that it is not acceptable in our society is because of the development of a secular morality, and it is definitely not something that originated from religion but, again, is mainly reflecting the development of more secular discourses of morality.

Sadly no, we've not.

Oh, so that's why murder is entirely fine in all modern day societies. Cool.

[Maron]

You misunderstand what I mean. "Many mates = greater chance to spread your genes" isn't exactly the most correct analysis of the biological realities,

Enlighten me.

Thou shalt not commit adultery is an idea that, once again, develops naturally in a secular manner. Society's general aversion to adultery is one of those that develops with a secular morality but it does not develop as early as many other ideas of morality, mainly because it is more vaguely related to the biological realities of our existence; this is why it is nowhere near as universal as an aversion to murder; that is why there are some societies and ethoses in which adultery is entirely acceptable.

The reason, however, that it is not acceptable in our society is because of the development of a secular morality, and it is definitely not something that originated from religion but, again, is mainly reflecting the development of more secular discourses of morality.

This is 100% made up on the spot b.s.
you speak of "biological realities" but there is nothing scientific about anything you just said. Do you have proof for any of this argument which amounts to "I am right, you are wrong" in big words?

and about those societies where it is considered okay: how many of them are christian/jewish?

Oh, so that's why murder is entirely fine in all modern day societies. Cool.

Goes on everyday in every country in the world. I would hardly call that "having that down."

[Elfdude]

Thou shalt not commit adultery. From a purely secular standpoint, the opposite would in fact be the most logical line of thinking: many mates= greater chance to spread your genes. Yet most people generally accept that adultery is wrong.

Oh yeah... that's correct... which is why many species mate for life and our bodies give us strong incentives via hormones to take care of our children. The difference is that humans can override their instincts and go with whatever morality they wish over natural pressures. As it is humans are neither monogamous or non but somewhere in between.

The single greatest incentive in evolution is to survive not to propegate, this is why monogamy exists in our genes because many who filandered died when sexual diseases were caught throughout history. The propegation drive is another drive that works in concert. Add to that the drive to ensure your genes survive to the next generation (parenting, seen quite often in the wild). Add to that the society pressure to be responsible for your actions and humans have very strong secular reasoning to come up with monogamy.

Sadly no, we've not.

Cite?

Would not the principle of reciprocity require that something be gained by both parties from the interaction? From a naturalistic standpoint, monogamy is an unequal partnership. The female gains a stable father figure for her offspring and the security of having a man around, while the male's task of spreading his genes as far and wide as possible is inhibited. From a naturalist standpoint, monogamy is either altruistic (on the male's part) or parasitic( on the female's).

You are wrong. You're grossly oversimplifying the drive in sexuality and begging the question. It speaks of sexism that you would even consider a monogamous relationship to be altruistic in favor of the male and parasitic in favor of the female.

[Adrian]

Morality is relative so there is no absolute version speaking of " morality" is a gross generalization now principles thats another .

And no the bible doesn't teach us about civilized principles we evolve on a social scale our views evolve the bible is irrelevant today just a book spreading a barbaric ideology.


The bible is an old human construct that has no place in modern day society.

[Squiggle]

I'd think the natural morals all humans have are the only objectively true morals, and we know them through God.

[Arch-hereticK]

delete

[Elfdude]

Find me an example of an objective morality and I'll concede the point gladly then.

[Elfdude]

Me too. I've yet to see one that wasn't full of fallacy or presumptions that defy reality.