Where our morality comes from

MisterEpicurus

If you've ever watched any debate on atheism and theism, one particular aspect that pops up over and over again is the moral argument.

1. How could atheists possibly be moral?
2. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values to appeal to.
3. God is omni-benevolent and the source of all goodness.

Usually the argument will involve all of the above statements, usually without any evidence at all.

I always consider the question of 'How can atheists have morals?' analogous to 'How can atheists be happy?', in other words, there are some things we take for granted as being in-built into us, and morality is just another one of those albeit, slightly more complicated to explain biologically and anthropologically. And just as there is no 'objective happiness', there is no 'objective morality', i.e. it doesn't exist independent of our brains. These experiences are simply products of our brains.

I think that morality is an entirely scientific question and theology has no place AT ALL in attempting to explain it. For example, if we widen the biological circle here, apes exhibit some degree of morality and indeed lately they've discovered even more ways they act as a sort of hierarchical society. It was found once that two apes fought, and a third came up, interrupted, brought them to one side and successfully made them act good toward each other again. But this moral framework seems to be ignored by theists. Morality is not just found in Homo sapiens.

We evolved alongside a similar pathway to apes via our common ancestor and developed enlarged brains, so by definition we have to have a greater sense of morality.
Regarding the omni-benevolence of gods, it fails to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma where;
- Is something good only because god decrees it, in which case its arbitrary or
- Is something good because there is a higher source which god appeals to, which doesn't make him omnipotent then.

All of this coupled with the problem of evil, how can anyone possibly say that god is the source of morality and complete goodness.

The obvious answer is staring us in the face. Biological evolution has conditioned a sense of morality, and through time this gets refined and distilled into the form we adopt today, usually via the principle of not infringing on the liberty of another person. Invariably, every step forward (be it slavery or racism or homosexuality) has been against the Christian position, but then they retrospectively adopt it. If this is the case, and everything fits retrospectively, then what are we learning from the Bible? Isn't it so obvious that we fight for our own morality through time irrespective of the Bible, which I believe stunts morality.

...and don't get me started on the Pope!

Anyway, just wanted to seed some points for discussion. Anyone else got some interesting links or videos, do post! :cool:

robindch

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

some interesting links or videos, do post!

Robert Alexrod's Evolution of Cooperation[/url] is a great read which isn't written in dense academic prose either.

On the religious side, well:

sephir0th

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNWqvEIcJpo

biko

I agree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He wrote that morality was not a societal construct, but rather "natural" in the sense of "innate," an outgrowth from man's instinctive disinclination to witness suffering, from which arise the emotions of compassion or empathy.

18AD

I think you can't untie the factual history of the link between morality and theology. It's simply a historical fact that they developed together.

That is not to say that you can't have one wihtout the other. But it also doesn't mean that neither can overlap at all. Obviously people's beliefs influence their morality, regardless of whether they be secular or not.

I neither think that morality is within the domain of science. There is a common trend in many schools that to make it a legitimate area of study it must be scientifically verifiable. This is a bit of an academic gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

One new strand of ethics and morality deals primarily with the lessons drawn from stories and parables. I think there is no doubt that these kinds of things hugely shape our moral outlook. Maybe even in a degraded way these days as mass media becomes unwittingly the source of moral mehaviour. That's up for debate I suppose.

Some interesting studies have shown that babies already possess non-representational moral attitudes.

I can't remember where I first read it, but here's a link to what I hope is the same thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

biko

18AD wrote: »

I think you can't untie the factual history of the link between morality and theology. It's simply a historical fact that they developed together.

I don't agree with this. Humans have been around for many thousands of years before any holy books came about to claims they "invented" morality.

The old Greeks wrote about virtues and ethics, which in principal is morals.
It's the later date god believers that just wrote down current moral codes as if they just thought them up.

18AD wrote: »

Some interesting studies have shown that babies already possess non-representational moral attitudes.

Aye, morality is innate as Rousseau said

seamus

18AD wrote: »

I think you can't untie the factual history of the link between morality and theology. It's simply a historical fact that they developed together.

The best illustration of this in a modern context would be from the freeman loonies who assert that a "natural" or common law exists, which is divinely provided.

Early man with an innate sense of particular rights and wrongs would have philosophically asked himself the same questions of "how come I feel that X is right and Y is wrong", and lacking the knowledge to develop the ideas any further, would have concluded that, "They must have been divinely inspired in me by my creator" - otherwise how would we just know what's right and what's wrong?

It's easy enough then to see how such a conclusion ran away with itself such that if, "Joe says that God thinks eating pork is evil, and if God is the source of right and wrong, he must be correct, even if I don't feel it's necessarily wrong".

The biggest challenge facing western society in regards to morality is managing the shift from the rigid and illogical moral absolutism which most of our moral pillars are accustomed to, to a more flexible system which recognises that right and wrong are rarely absolute.

We innately recognise that morality is relative (hence why we abhor murder but can condone execution), but our systems have always struggled with the balance because religious belief has had such a strong influence.

iguana

All pack animals develop societal constructs that are the basis for what we call morality because the survival of the pack takes on greater emphasis than the survival of the individual. The more complex the pack, the more complex the morality. Humans are just pack animals with incredibly complex, ever evolving, pack systems, ergo we have developed a complex, ever evolving, moral codes.

If anything in human history religion has repeatedly been an excuse that allows humans to put aside their innate morality and see people who are the actually the same, as other. Which allows them to act against these others in a way which they would otherwise not.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

I think you can't untie the factual history of the link between morality and theology. It's simply a historical fact that they developed together.

Or did morality develop naturally through evolution, as a way to ensure harmony in tribes and improve cooperation, and then religion popped up claiming it was source and jurisdiction for everything it could think of. Your point is moot.

18AD wrote: »

I neither think that morality is within the domain of science. There is a common trend in many schools that to make it a legitimate area of study it must be scientifically verifiable. This is a bit of an academic gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

This is disingenuous. Science and academia are not the same thing. Morality is of biological origin, just like all human emotions (don't agree? lobotomise someone and see if they have any morality) and like all things of biological origin, it is in the domain of science. That morality is innate doesn't change this.

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

I think you can't untie the factual history of the link between morality and theology. It's simply a historical fact that they developed together.

That is not to say that you can't have one wihtout the other. But it also doesn't mean that neither can overlap at all. Obviously people's beliefs influence their morality, regardless of whether they be secular or not.

I neither think that morality is within the domain of science. There is a common trend in many schools that to make it a legitimate area of study it must be scientifically verifiable. This is a bit of an academic gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

One new strand of ethics and morality deals primarily with the lessons drawn from stories and parables. I think there is no doubt that these kinds of things hugely shape our moral outlook. Maybe even in a degraded way these days as mass media becomes unwittingly the source of moral mehaviour. That's up for debate I suppose.

I don't agree with any of that.

Even if it WERE true, it would simply be an argument for organized religion and not whether these were dictated by god.

18AD

I'm just going to respond generally to your collective responses.

I wasn't saying that religion and morality necessarily arose together, but they simply did cross paths.

As someone mentioned that the Greeks had their own versions of morality. Yes. But they also dabbled in metaphysics and nihilism and other pre-Christian metaphysics which no doubt influenced their moral expositions.

Then you have other non-European histories. Then you have ancient religions, such as shamnistic and tribal religions. Obviously they also had some sense of morality and it was infused with their religious outlooks.

To reiterate, I am not saying that they are corequisites.

The baby experiment doesn't tell us anything about how we should behave. It simply shows that babies have some primative form of, what we call, morality. It would be interesting to conduct a similar experiment with animals to note if they also have it.

It just shows that there is morality, but nothing of what we should do, which is what morality is al about, is it not?

Is the risk of saying its innate not just amount to recommending following their gut? How do you get what we now call morality out of that?

There is no dount that morality is an issue for people. But how exactly we deal with it being an issue is totally open for discussion.

Sorry Mark Hamill, but if morality evolved, so did religion.

If morals are innate, then why is morality an issue at all? I don't think morality is in any one individual. It, by definition, involves a community. So morality doesn't reside in any one individual.

Just because it is in the domain of science, and I don't deny this, doesn't mean it's only in the domain of science. And it doesn't mean that science is the best tool we have for examining it.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

I'm just going to respond generally to your collective responses.

I wasn't saying that religion and morality necessarily arose together, but they simply did cross paths.

As someone mentioned that the Greeks had their own versions of morality. Yes. But they also dabbled in metaphysics and nihilism and other pre-Christian metaphysics which no doubt influenced their moral expositions.

Then you have other non-European histories. Then you have ancient religions, such as shamnistic and tribal religions. Obviously they also had some sense of morality and it was infused with their religious outlooks.

To reiterate, I am not saying that they are corequisites.

I dont really see the point of pointing this out then. You might as well be pointing out that diet is influenced by culture in a discussion on where hunger comes from.

18AD wrote: »

The baby experiment doesn't tell us anything about how we should behave. It simply shows that babies have some primative form of, what we call, morality. It would be interesting to conduct a similar experiment with animals to note if they also have it.

It just shows that there is morality, but nothing of what we should do, which is what morality is al about, is it not?

Is the risk of saying its innate not just amount to recommending following their gut? How do you get what we now call morality out of that?

There is no doubt that morality is an issue for people. But how exactly we deal with it being an issue is totally open for discussion.

Morality, like all other natural instincts, is optional. We have a evolutionary to procreate, but we pick and choose when to do it based on our environment and whatever long term outcomes we desire. Morality is the same. We have an evolutionary devised inclination to work together. In specific situations we think about how to do this and act on it. It can be influenced by our upbringing, just like our desire to procreate, but its still a natural, scientifically explainable phenomena.

18AD wrote: »

Sorry Mark Hamill, but if morality evolved, so did religion.

So?

18AD wrote: »

If morals are innate, then why is morality an issue at all? I don't think morality is in any one individual. It, by definition, involves a community. So morality doesn't reside in any one individual.

So if you were the last person on earth, nothing you could do could be immoral?

18AD wrote: »

Just because it is in the domain of science, and I don't deny this, doesn't mean it's only in the domain of science. And it doesn't mean that science is the best tool we have for examining it.

Science is the best tool we have for examining anything, as its the only one that checks its answers. If you want to look at our biological inclination for general morality or our sociological inclination for defining those morals then scientifically is the best way to do it. What would be your alternative?

MisterEpicurus

18AD wrote: »

Just because it is in the domain of science, and I don't deny this, doesn't mean it's only in the domain of science. And it doesn't mean that science is the best tool we have for examining it.

I think this is the most contemptible statement so far.
What other 'tools' can we use then?
...Theology? Name one development in the discussion on the origins of morality that was ever expounded by a theologian.

Compare that with all the discoveries on the origins of morality from science!

I'm actually shocked by some of your statements.

Amtmann

I think that prevailing moral attitudes - much like the ways in which people experience emotions, actually - have changed over time. There was a time when people thronged the Circus Maximus to see other people slay each other, or to see animals savage slaves.
Until the 1700s, the mob loved nothing more than to watch a good hanging, drawing, and quartering. There's a lot of evidence that the emotions of adults in medieval times were almost childlike; that is, given to rapidly oscillating extremes of sorrow and joy, and fury and mercy.

The ability to feel a certain way emotionally is certainly innate; but I think that the social idea of what is morally good has changed significantly over time. Norbert Elias wrote a book, The Civilizing Process, about changes in manners and behaviour over the centuries.

irishh_bob

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

If you've ever watched any debate on atheism and theism, one particular aspect that pops up over and over again is the moral argument.

1. How could atheists possibly be moral?
2. If God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values to appeal to.
3. God is omni-benevolent and the source of all goodness.

Usually the argument will involve all of the above statements, usually without any evidence at all.

I always consider the question of 'How can atheists have morals?' analogous to 'How can atheists be happy?', in other words, there are some things we take for granted as being in-built into us, and morality is just another one of those albeit, slightly more complicated to explain biologically and anthropologically. And just as there is no 'objective happiness', there is no 'objective morality', i.e. it doesn't exist independent of our brains. These experiences are simply products of our brains.

I think that morality is an entirely scientific question and theology has no place AT ALL in attempting to explain it. For example, if we widen the biological circle here, apes exhibit some degree of morality and indeed lately they've discovered even more ways they act as a sort of hierarchical society. It was found once that two apes fought, and a third came up, interrupted, brought them to one side and successfully made them act good toward each other again. But this moral framework seems to be ignored by theists. Morality is not just found in Homo sapiens.

We evolved alongside a similar pathway to apes via our common ancestor and developed enlarged brains, so by definition we have to have a greater sense of morality.
Regarding the omni-benevolence of gods, it fails to answer the Euthyphro Dilemma where;
- Is something good only because god decrees it, in which case its arbitrary or
- Is something good because there is a higher source which god appeals to, which doesn't make him omnipotent then.

All of this coupled with the problem of evil, how can anyone possibly say that god is the source of morality and complete goodness.

The obvious answer is staring us in the face. Biological evolution has conditioned a sense of morality, and through time this gets refined and distilled into the form we adopt today, usually via the principle of not infringing on the liberty of another person. Invariably, every step forward (be it slavery or racism or homosexuality) has been against the Christian position, but then they retrospectively adopt it. If this is the case, and everything fits retrospectively, then what are we learning from the Bible? Isn't it so obvious that we fight for our own morality through time irrespective of the Bible, which I believe stunts morality.

...and don't get me started on the Pope!

Anyway, just wanted to seed some points for discussion. Anyone else got some interesting links or videos, do post! :cool:

anytime anyone ever questions why people could act moral if thier was no god , i simply reply , what evidence is thier that god is moral , look around at how the world is

RichieC

Its laughable the folk can think our morals come from a god who demands unruly children murdered, slaverty tolerated and women sacrificed to protect men guests. Truly laughable.

Its not even worthy of serious debate.

Turtwig

Morality is a social construct. That said, just like the theorems of mathematics exist in a world/realm beyond ours, I think that moral absolutes also exist in the same way. An objective morality exists but it's society that uncovers moral laws and ultimately decides which of them are to be enforced.

Spoonman75

Christopher Hitchens made a great speech about where he thinks morality comes from and why he thinks not only that it doesn't come from a deity but that it would cheapen it's meaning if it did.

He begins speaking at 1.45 and at 3.10 he nails it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAXUHEN27r0

MisterEpicurus

irishh_bob wrote: »

anytime anyone ever questions why people could act moral if thier was no god , i simply reply , what evidence is thier that god is moral , look around at how the world is

I actually find it a worrying assertion when they say we're only moral because of god, it's like if god was suddenly proven not to exist, they would behave immorally or as they like.

Anyhow, we've only discussed arguments for religion directing people to be moral. This construct may indeed help people, although I don't think so. Irrespective, can any theist please provide a sound ARGUMENT as to why a god is the moral lawgiver instead of an assertion.

My initial post can be backed up countless times with countless books, references, journals etc. It has a framework of sorts.

And how will this argument fare against the 'Problem of Evil' and the 'Euthyphro Dilemma' and all current evidence to the contrary that science is currently providing.

:rolleyes:

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Robert Alexrod's Evolution of Cooperation[/url] is a great read

After reading the above wikipage;
"Tit for Tat", the winning strategy in the prisoners dilemma, seems a good moral code to live by. We all recognise it innately, and its a frequent theme from the movies; Our hero starts off as a good guy, but gets suckered/cheated, and then (righteously) becomes an ass-kicking maniac. The second part of the strategy, forgiveness, usually gets left out in the movies. However we mostly recognise this violent behaviour as being "good" or at least "justified" even if it seems at odds with what we have been taught (either directly or indirectly by our religiously inspired moral guardians).

Compare to the biblical strategy; "an eye for an eye" in the old testament which was replaced by "turn the other cheek" in the new testament. Two apparently contradictory messages, but Axelrod's tit-for-tat strategy puts them together in a way Jewish and Christian theologians never understood.

Another useful strategy is being able to recognise another person/player and predict their strategy/moral code in advance. To do this, get them to join your religion and display its symbols.

edit; from now on I am going to display a tit symbol on my forehead, so that people I meet will immediately recognise the most mutually beneficial strategy to use in their dealings with me.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

from now on I am going to display a tit symbol on my forehead

There's a risk you might end up looking like one

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont really see the point of pointing this out then. You might as well be pointing out that diet is influenced by culture in a discussion on where hunger comes from.

Personally, I think it's an interesting point. I don't think I'd be so hasty to deny religions influence on morality over the past thousands of years. Morality doesn't transpose onto your analogy at all if we take morality to be what we should do.

You could always go the existential route, and say that science and religion are answers to questions that arise solely in humans. Questions of origin and existence. Questions that have always been asked. I would say that morality is an equally important question that has various attempts at explanation and I think some of the best explorations of it arise in philosophy and discourse. But I'm hugely biased on that point

Morality, like all other natural instincts, is optional. We have a evolutionary to procreate, but we pick and choose when to do it based on our environment and whatever long term outcomes we desire. Morality is the same. We have an evolutionary devised inclination to work together. In specific situations we think about how to do this and act on it. It can be influenced by our upbringing, just like our desire to procreate, but its still a natural, scientifically explainable phenomena.

First, morality as optional. Would you not think that the question of morality is not optional, but rather what one chooses to do in the face of that quesiton as optional? In which case there are no innate facts about what we should do.

Secondly, it's what we are evolutionarily predisposed to do, so we should do it. This isn't a morality at all. In fact, does that not just contradict your previous statement that it's optional? Unless you meant it with the previous qualification. So your morality based on that, is that we should work together, because we are predisposed to work together? If we were predisposed to do it anyway, then why is morality an issue at all? We'd already be doing what is right.

So?

I thought your point was that if it evolved for some reason, then it's legitimate. So if, as you just have agreed, that religion has also evolved, you say it's legitimate. I guess you can just snake out of this by saying it's not evolutionarily advantageous anymore. No harm done.

So if you were the last person on earth, nothing you could do could be immoral?

Where would you have inherited such a moral outlook from? You already presuppose a social sphere.

More interestingly, if you left someone on an island to survive since birth, would they develop a morality? Probably in some basic sense, akin to a type of morality animals might have. But I don't think animals are moral in the same way people are. Morality, for humans, is a problem that they actually worry about. It's about possibilities.

Science is the best tool we have for examining anything, as its the only one that checks its answers. If you want to look at our biological inclination for general morality or our sociological inclination for defining those morals then scientifically is the best way to do it. What would be your alternative?

Again, I'm not talking about "general morality" or "dispositions" or "inclinations". I've already said that we have a disposition to morailty, but that doesn't tell us anything about what we should or should not do.

MisterEpicurus wrote:

I think this is the most contemptible statement so far.
What other 'tools' can we use then?
...Theology? Name one development in the discussion on the origins of morality that was ever expounded by a theologian.

Compare that with all the discoveries on the origins of morality from science!

I'm actually shocked by some of your statements.

I'm not defending theology.

Firstly, I'm not primarily concerned with the "origins" of morality and I'm not denying that science has interesting things to say about that. I'm talking about morality itself. Which by and large appears to have been mostly unfolded through discourse. Maybe I'm mistaken, and I'm probably just totally in the dark as the answers science has to questions of morality.

What does it say to something like, should I steal? Should I return the book I stole from my neighbour on Christmas? Should I confront my friend about his rather obnoxious comments?

Also, Tremolo's point made previously is pretty much what I'm saying, only that I include religion in that development of morals and emotional outlook. A point you thanked in a greement, I gather.



As an aside, what was the last moral dilemma you had? Did you turn to someone for advice and they replied, "well evolutionarily speaking.../your anscestors would have..."? Would that kind of response not seem totally removed from the particularities of the situation and rather unhelpful?

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

Morality is a social construct. That said, just like the theorems of mathematics exist in a world/realm beyond ours, I think that moral absolutes also exist in the same way. An objective morality exists but it's society that uncovers moral laws and ultimately decides which of them are to be enforced.

I agree that morality is a social construct, but for the same reason disagree that there is any objective moral absolutes. And just because something is enacted in law doesn't even bring it close to making it a moral absolute (just look at the anti-gay laws in Africa).

What is 'moral' is always going to be down the time, society and particularly the individual. And we are all individuals (;)).

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

I agree that morality is a social construct, but for the same reason disagree that there is any objective moral absolutes. And just because something is enacted in law doesn't even bring it close to making it a moral absolute (just look at the anti-gay laws in Africa).

What is 'moral' is always going to be down the time, society and particularly the individual. And we are all individuals (;)).

I think you slightly misunderstand my point. Humanity's moral are always going to be socially determined and relativistic. However, I do believe that moral laws and absolutes actually exist. (In the same way that the laws of mathematics does in a platonic sense.)

marty1985

I think there is a connection between morality and religion, but I need to clarify first that I do not believe morality extends from God or religion.

Durkheim said that religion is eminently social - the word religion itself derives from a latin word meaning to bind. Religion was the original community building institution and social organization implies standards of behavior.

I don't believe that we should disparage religion as never having contributed anything to morality. In fact, the great moral advancement of religion comes from putting forth an ethical code that is rooted in an Absolute. Every major religion stresses the objective existence of moral ideals, the importance of moral conduct, etc. They all share the same one golden rule.

Theology is unnatural. However, since theologians have already been mentioned here, it is worth noting that the idea that all humans are made in the image of God laid the grounds for each person objects of respect in their own right. St. Augustine: Whoever is born anywhere as a human being, that is, as a rational mortal creature, however strange he may appear to our senses in bodily form or color or motion or utterance, or in any faculty, part or quality of his nature whatsoever, let no true believer have any doubt that such an individual is descended from the one man who was first created.

There is no difference between religious and atheists on the level of innate moral faculty, but a more interesting debate would be whether there is a difference when it comes to moral instinct and actual behaviour. Others have already touched on the important difference, which is what bridges the gap between instinct and behaviour: culture. We know an atheist can be a wonderfully moral person, but to say that we can have a vibrant moral culture independent of religion is true in only a narrow sense, and would be subject to a number of qualifications (one being a collective effort to formally teach ethics to children to a degree that doesn't yet exist in society, and another being recognising that whatever ethical culture prevails in our secular society today was formed over centuries of religious moral education as an antecedent.) We should be careful about dismissing the role of religion without having evidence of a vibrant moral culture entirely independent of religion.

I would share Einstein's view that moral relativism is a disease, a social pandemic, but it's very early and I am going to get some coffee.

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

I think you slightly misunderstand my point. Humanity's moral are always going to be socially determined and relativistic. However, I do believe that moral laws and absolutes actually exist. (In the same way that the laws of mathematics does in a platonic sense.)

I'm not getting that, but that could be just me. I can associate the laws of maths with the term absolute, but not such an arbitrary thing as the human term 'morality'. There's simply no moral law I can think of that is universally agreed upon.

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

Humanity's moral are always going to be socially determined and relativistic. However, I do believe that moral laws and absolutes actually exist.

Depends on what you mean by "moral", "exist" and so on.

One useful definition is that "morals" are a set of top-down rules + values which are provided by authority and which are generally not open to question. In this sense, most religions provide morals, and lots of 'em, the majority of which tend to entrench the power and privileges of local political hierarchies who promote them.

"Ethics" on the other hand, are bottom-up rules + values, discussed and agreed amongst the people who agree to be bound by them. Religions generally don't do ethics and most religious people appear to have intractable problems in accepting that any human or group of humans are capable of acting ethically, in this sense. The quaint-sounding, but less-than-honest, boo-phrase "moral relativism" has been used over recent years to describe this general position.

You can certainly claim that there are absolutes in ethics, though outside of the most basic belief that rules + values should be discussed + agreed from a position of informed consent, I can't really think what they might be, nor how they might be justified, since that's really the realm of "morals".

Out of interest, what "laws and absolutes" do you reckon "exist" (by which I presume you mean, "should be adhered to regardless of cost").

recedite

marty1985 wrote: »

We should be careful about dismissing the role of religion without having evidence of a vibrant moral culture entirely independent of religion.

Good point, religion does provide a good binding force and a moral framework for early civilisations, but at some point society should dump all the other baggage of religion (the pointless laws and prohibitions, the hocus pocus and the power hungry priestly elite) and move to rigidly enforced ethical secular laws instead. Whether we have reached that point yet is debatable.

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, what "laws and absolutes" do you reckon "exist" (by which I presume you mean, "should be adhered to regardless of cost").

Someone who inflicts random suffering on others would be acting outside those universally agreed on absolutes.
It is not valid to add on "Regardless of cost" though.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

Personally, I think it's an interesting point. I don't think I'd be so hasty to deny religions influence on morality over the past thousands of years. Morality doesn't transpose onto your analogy at all if we take morality to be what we should do.

Interesting in the same way that its interesting that religion has influenced what we eat but has no bearing on what we should eat, from a biological point of view.
I thought it was obvious from where my post went after this, but morality is not what we should. Its what we think we should do. Morality is an instinct, one evolved because it helps us achieve greater harmony in groups. We are born with a morality, a basic idea that there are certain things we should do in certain circumstances, but through our environment and through our upbringing we can learn to act in such a way that sees more long term results, or simply not act moral at all.

18AD wrote: »

You could always go the existential route, and say that science and religion are answers to questions that arise solely in humans. Questions of origin and existence. Questions that have always been asked. I would say that morality is an equally important question that has various attempts at explanation and I think some of the best explorations of it arise in philosophy and discourse. But I'm hugely biased on that point

And I would say that science is a method, not an answer and this is why we don't put philosophers in laboratories or hospitals.

18AD wrote: »

First, morality as optional. Would you not think that the question of morality is not optional, but rather what one chooses to do in the face of that quesiton as optional? In which case there are no innate facts about what we should do.

I would say there are no solid facts, but there are some fairly innate guidelines. We are born with instincts that have arisen through evolution. Morality is simply one instinct, one which is supposed to help humans function better in groups. How (or whether) we decide to that is up for question, but that doesn't change the fact we are born with those basic instincts.

18AD wrote: »

Secondly, it's what we are evolutionarily predisposed to do, so we should do it. This isn't a morality at all. In fact, does that not just contradict your previous statement that it's optional? instincts.

Just because we are evolutionarily predisposed to do something doesn't mean we should do it. Evolution is a blind process, largely a complex version of cause and effect (random mutation - beneficial? - procreate more - off spring get it - , rinse repeat). We dont have to do anything we have evolved to do, we dont have to eat fatty foods even though we have evolved to like their taste better. So there is no contradiction

18AD wrote: »

So your morality based on that, is that we should work together, because we are predisposed to work together? If we were predisposed to do it anyway, then why is morality an issue at all? We'd already be doing what is right.

Because we are humans and human brains are complex enough to override their instincts, for better or worse. And as I said before several times, our instinct for morality is only general, we still need to decide exactly what path is the most beneficial, in the long run.

18AD wrote: »

I thought your point was that if it evolved for some reason, then it's legitimate. So if, as you just have agreed, that religion has also evolved, you say it's legitimate. I guess you can just snake out of this by saying it's not evolutionarily advantageous anymore. No harm done.

"Snake out of it"? My point was that your point was irrelevant. That religion and morality co-evolved has no bearing on why we evolved morality (assuming that you ignore that morality has been around far longer than religion, and exists in animals which have no religion).

18AD wrote: »

Where would you have inherited such a moral outlook from? You already presuppose a social sphere.

Your parents, assuming you were born after the loss of every human life, or your life before hand, assuming you survived the loss of every human life.

18AD wrote: »

More interestingly, if you left someone on an island to survive since birth, would they develop a morality? Probably in some basic sense, akin to a type of morality animals might have. But I don't think animals are moral in the same way people are. Morality, for humans, is a problem that they actually worry about. It's about possibilities.

I dont see your point, at least not in the contradictory way you are putting it. Morality is complicated by both the size of you social sphere and by how capable the brain subject to it is, but I dont see why thats a problem for my points. Our evolved instinct to procreate would still exist in a person left alone to survive on an island since birth, its just the rituals we are used to wouldn't develop in such a person since their environment is different. I did already mention how your environment impacts on how you enact your morality(instincts), right?

18AD wrote: »

Again, I'm not talking about "general morality" or "dispositions" or "inclinations". I've already said that we have a disposition to morailty, but that doesn't tell us anything about what we should or should not do.

Then science and rationality is still your best tool to determine what to do. You have a situation and you are wondering what is the most moral thing to do. So you examine your situation and choices logically, decide what outcome you want (make hypotheses), test your hypotheses if you can (in practise, in this sort of situation, that probably amounts to seeing if someone else was ever in your situation and seeing what outcomes befell their choices) and then make a choice.

Mark Hamill

Jernal wrote: »

I think you slightly misunderstand my point. Humanity's moral are always going to be socially determined and relativistic. However, I do believe that moral laws and absolutes actually exist. (In the same way that the laws of mathematics does in a platonic sense.)

Do you mean for a given, strict, sense of morality, there is an objective right answer for any moral question? Eg, for someone whose entire morality is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", there will always be a single answer to every moral question that most satisfies that morality?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Someone who inflicts random suffering on others would be acting outside those universally agreed on absolutes.

Partially facetious answer, but what about a surgeon? They inflict suffering, albeit short-term and for presumably a longer-term gain.

recedite wrote: »

It is not valid to add on "Regardless of cost" though.

Well, I think that's what "absolute" means -- a belief which is held to be true regardless of the cost.

Is there another meaning?

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Interesting in the same way that its interesting that religion has influenced what we eat but has no bearing on what we should eat, from a biological point of view.
I thought it was obvious from where my post went after this, but morality is not what we should. Its what we think we should do. Morality is an instinct, one evolved because it helps us achieve greater harmony in groups. We are born with a morality, a basic idea that there are certain things we should do in certain circumstances, but through our environment and through our upbringing we can learn to act in such a way that sees more long term results, or simply not act moral at all.

I would say there are no solid facts, but there are some fairly innate guidelines. We are born with instincts that have arisen through evolution. Morality is simply one instinct, one which is supposed to help humans function better in groups. How (or whether) we decide to that is up for question, but that doesn't change the fact we are born with those basic instincts.

Because we are humans and human brains are complex enough to override their instincts, for better or worse. And as I said before several times, our instinct for morality is only general, we still need to decide exactly what path is the most beneficial, in the long run.

The parts in bold, to me, are exactly what I think morality consists in. I'm not disagreeing that there is a biological basis for it. But that the indeterminate parts you mention are precisely what makes morality a difficult subject. I think that that cut off point is where biological understanding stops and where discourse begins.

Also, your use of the word innate can be misleading. At least in the, possibly mistaken, way I have understood your use of it.
If we take Chomsky's innate language hypothesis as an example. All this means is that we are predisposed to acquire whatever language we happen to grow up around. We can even create our own languages if we are with other people. In isolation we don't develop a language.

If we apply this type of innateness to morality, all it means is that we acquire the morality we are surrounded with. This could be anything! It doesn't mean we are good or bad, innately, it just means we could be either.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

what about a surgeon? They inflict suffering..

Not random suffering.

albeit short-term and for presumably a longer-term gain.Well, I think that's what "absolute" means -- a belief which is held to be true regardless of the cost.
Is there another meaning?

Once you introduce "costs" you alter the equation. Hence "long-term gain" or the "needs of the many" may come into it. I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

But in terms of rules, something which does not conform to that measure or yardstick is by definition breaking the rule.

It's more correct to think of absolute not as "rigid and inflexible", but "limitless and complete". That is, when a rule is described as "absolute" that means that it is without limits - there is no scenario in which that rule can be limited. "Regardless of costs" is redundant, as "absolute" implies it.

The most elementary example of this is "Thou shalt not kill". Many define it as an absolute, but when you tack on things like, "Except in self-defence", or, "Except when found guilty of murder", then it is no longer absolute.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Not random suffering.

As above, it might be for a long-term gain, but the pain that arises from some treatments can be pretty random at a personal level. Alternatively, and at the level of society, what about the, say, 0.01% adverse reaction rate to certain vaccines?

recedite wrote: »

I am defining absolute more as "a datum or a yardstick with which to measure behaviour against", rather than as "a rule that cannot be broken, no matter what".

I see where you're coming from, but that's not an absolute in the sense that religious people tend to understand the term -- of an action that's always wrong, no matter what (though, that said, when you ask religious people to list some moral absolutes, they tend to run away and hide).

Your sense of the term seems to have more to do with how one should assign values to actions, which is the basis of what I'm calling "ethical" behaviour which is roughly the opposite of absolutism.

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

I'm not getting that, but that could be just me. I can associate the laws of maths with the term absolute, but not such an arbitrary thing as the human term 'morality'. There's simply no moral law I can think of that is universally agreed upon.

No you're not but I'm expressing it terribly. I'm going to try a slightly different approach.

Suppose no human beings ever discover or invent Pythagoras' theorem, is that theorem true regardless of whether humans discover it or not? Does its proof actually exist somewhere out there in a reality of sorts? Or is it purely a subjective concept of the human mind. I'm one of those people who believes that mathematics exists independent of the human mind. I also like to think Morality exists in a similar fashion. Whether humans discover them or not, or whether they choose to adhere to them, I do believe objective morality as a concept actually exists. Hope this helps.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

The parts in bold, to me, are exactly what I think morality consists in. I'm not disagreeing that there is a biological basis for it. But that the indeterminate parts you mention are precisely what makes morality a difficult subject. I think that that cut off point is where biological understanding stops and where discourse begins.

It seems to be philosophers and theologians who declare that morality is a difficult subject, but I dont see why would be so hard. Simply define what the desired outcome for your morality is and just work towards it. Sure there should always be discourse, but I dont see why morality should be any more difficult to discuss than, say, diet.

18AD wrote: »

Also, your use of the word innate can be misleading. At least in the, possibly mistaken, way I have understood your use of it.

I meant innate in the same way instincts are innate, not in how Chomky uses it in his hypothesis.

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Simply define what the desired outcome for your morality is and just work towards it.

This isn't morality at all. It's just instrumental reason.

The whole point is whether your desired outcomes are right or wrong.

I guess your point is that we can eventually find definitive morality within biology?

I'm just saying that the biological findings are so underdetermined in relation to moral issues we face that they don't really tell us anything substantial about what is right or wrong.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

This isn't morality at all. It's just instrumental reason.

The whole point is whether your desired outcomes are right or wrong.

I guess your point is that we can eventually find definitive morality within biology?

I'm just saying that the biological findings are so underdetermined in relation to moral issues we face that they don't really tell us anything substantial about what is right or wrong.

Right and wrong are subjective terms. Subjective to what we have determined to be the desired outcome of our morality. Whats "wrong" for me (eg persecuting gays) is "right" for someone else (eg certain African states). My argument has always been that morality arises biologically, but the specifics of what to do is decided by people (influenced by environment and education). We all have a biological morality that inclines us to work together and have empathy (to varying degrees). People have different ideas about what that entails. We can determine which ideas are best through scientific testing, rational discourse and logic. Its actually not that hard, but certain groups will tell you otherwise because they need the monopoly on morality in order to assert their control over you (eg religions).

18AD

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We can determine which ideas are best through scientific testing, rational discourse and logic.

The whole point of ethics is to determine whether scientific testing is ethical in the first place. So you can't test first, do ethics after. (Well, no the whole point, but as applied to science it does)

Logic has nothing to do with determining whether something is right or wrong. It's about truth values. I guess you could assign truth values to moral statements.

Ethics isn't really my area, so I think I'll desist from further comment as the risk of embarassing myself looms.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

The most elementary example of this is "Thou shalt not kill". Many define it as an absolute, but when you tack on things like, "Except in self-defence", or, "Except when found guilty of murder", then it is no longer absolute.

I would argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment or a rule, based on the moral absolute "don't kill an innocent person". The commandment is bad law, in that it lacks the detailed wording that would have to go into making workable legislation.
We can use ethics do decide what exactly makes a homicide justifiable, and later on we may redefine it differently. The rules may change, as we attempt to live up to the moral absolute.

If I travel to a cannibal infested island, where the local culture says it is OK to kill and eat tourists, that behaviour clearly contravenes the universal moral absolute, whether they accept that locally or not.

Mark Hamill

18AD wrote: »

The whole point of ethics is to determine whether scientific testing is ethical in the first place. So you can't test first, do ethics after. (Well, no the whole point, but as applied to science it does)

Not all science leads to ethical questions. Does you think of the ethics before doing maths? I also said before that you use science in morality usually by testing your moral hypotheses by seeing if someone had encountered the situation you are in before, and seeing what outcomes arouse from their choices. Is there an reasoned ethical to that?

18AD wrote: »

Logic has nothing to do with determining whether something is right or wrong. It's about truth values. I guess you could assign truth values to moral statements.

That's a ridiculous statement to make. Whether you have an objective morality given by god, or a subjective morality devised by man, you still apply logic to your hypothesised actions in order to determine which ones will achieve the moral outcome you desire. Even if you are talking in terms of truth values, you would still use logic to determine them.

Andrewf20

recedite wrote: »

I would argue that "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment or a rule, based on the moral absolute "don't kill an innocent person". The commandment is bad law, in that it lacks the detailed wording that would have to go into making workable legislation....

I see this as an example of the problem with words set in a text with no tangible feedback mechanism that we can use to clear up confusion (customer support to ring God for clarification if you like), therefore theres too much room for interpretation as in alot of religious texts. The human mind (a flaw perhaps) seems to vary from person to person, meaning 2 people can see a collection of words and conclude, worst case that they mean opposing things. Considering the big claims of religon and what is at stake here as the doctrine would lead us to believe, I would say that the way the rule of God has been communicated could be improved considerably.

Although its not a rock solid solution, I really like the idea of the golden rule, i.e - dont do to others what I wouldnt want done to myself. I believe morality is innate in us, possibly an evolutionary thing that stems from the fact that looking after others benefits the survival of the species so to speak. Power in numbers - if I help others in need they will reciprocate etc. The Bible for me certainly leaves me baffled at times in relation to moral issues, particulary in relation to its views on homosexuality.

I also feel that a moral action done with the belief in resulting reward in the afterlife is perhaps less noble than a person who does a good deed for the sake of it, who doesnt believe in a divinity.

recedite

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I really like the idea of the golden rule, i.e - dont do to others what I wouldnt want done to myself.

It seems like a good idea at first, but it leaves you open to being exploited by those who are less benevolent. Tit-for-tat, as discussed earlier, is a more refined version.

marty1985

recedite wrote: »

It seems like a good idea at first, but it leaves you open to being exploited by those who are less benevolent. Tit-for-tat, as discussed earlier, is a more refined version.

I shudder to imagine if that were true. The Golden Rule should not be under estimated so easily. It is not for nothing that it is fundamental to Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

recedite

marty1985 wrote: »

The Golden Rule should not be under estimated so easily. It is not for nothing that it is fundamental to Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The Golden Rule is universal, that is true. Universally espoused by hypocrites that is, who when it comes down to the practicalities of life, just ignore it.
Like the 19th Century Europeans who colonised with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Or the Dalai Lama, who is disgusted whenever one of his more naive hosts gives him a vegetarian dinner.

marty1985

recedite wrote: »

The Golden Rule is universal, that is true. Universally espoused by hypocrites that is, who when it comes down to the practicalities of life, just ignore it.
Like the 19th Century Europeans who colonised with a bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Or the Dalai Lama, who is disgusted whenever one of his more naive hosts gives him a vegetarian dinner.

You're right recedite, to say that hypocritical behavior is a bad thing. But you might be missing something important, that is, that the existence of phenomenon is a sign of a good thing.

You can only be guilty of hypocrisy if you aspire - or at least feel you should aspire - to high moral standards. That's why you may proudly say you are guiltless of this failing, and castigate others with a sense of serene assurance, since you or I can hardly be guilty of hypocrisy if we make no pretence of espousing traditional morality in the first place.

This is not intended as a dig against you, as obviously we don't know each other, but if you are guiltless of hypocrisy it may be not that you are above hypocrisy, but beneath it.

The crime of hypocrisy should at least be possible.

recedite

marty1985 wrote: »

if you are guiltless of hypocrisy it may be not that you are above hypocrisy, but beneath it. The crime of hypocrisy should at least be possible.

Marty you seem think that it is a virtue to espouse some completely unworkable moral standard, and then fail miserably to live up to it.

In reality, you and I probably live to a similar moral standard, the only difference being that I am happy with that, but you are made to feel guilty for not doing better.

If we adopted your system, we would end up with some privileged caste of well fed, moneygrabbing, hypocritical paedophiles constantly lecturing us about our sins, and whenever one of them was exposed, they would simply say "but sadly we are all sinners before god because of original sin/free will/any miscellaneous bull$hit".

marty1985

The golden rule is not "my" system - it has roots in cultures as far back as Ancient Egypt and China and in all the major religions that I have already listed as well as every ethical tradition, and has been argued as the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. I am not suggesting you adopt "my" system, nor am I convinced that it is now to be declared "completely unworkable".

Any societies that strongly uphold and produce moral integrity by the same token produce its opposite - hypocrisy. By definition, it can only exist in societies that uphold something "Good". If they put a premium on moral integrity, it is inevitable that they will be charged by their detractors with its converse - hypocrisy. (Our premium is now on something else.) Moral anomie would be a fate worse than hypocrisy, I would imagine.

recedite

in this link chimpanzees show that they are often willing to help out others, even when there is no payback. Of course they are also capable of murdering a member of the group, and commonly have organised warfare against neighbouring tribes, all of which makes their morality quite similar to ours. So they have a morality, but they don't seem to have religion yet.

Muppet Man

I didnt see it mentioned...

"The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris is a great read if you can get your hands on a copy...

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211

Muppet Man