Replacing Religious Morality

[GodsRevolt]

No, Not irrelevant. You cannot shrug this idea off and still be talking God.

Yes I can. And I do.


If your reality was truly subject to my whims then your reality would be subjective.

Wrong.

However, the fact is, even if I put you in a box with the candy button, your reality is still not subject to my whims. I cannot change the nature of the box simply on a whim - I have to work in order to do so - and even then, I cannot change it any whimsical way, only in limited ones. That's what makes your reality in the box objective.

Missed the point.

You are the one who keeps insisting that god is capable of changing the nature of the box and the buttons on a whim.
 

I know

You mean the capacity for reason? And yes, brain function is more than chamocal reactions in the same way a computer program is more than electrical pulses.

Ones and zeroes

If morality comes from a psychologist, we are all in freud a lot of trouble.

Why?
[/quote]

Moral psychology identifies and interprets morals and their development. It does not make morals. If Person A believed that murder was ok, psychology would say, "Person A believes it so."

---

Since Jesus liked to talk in parables, let me try one of my own.

We are social creatures. We depend on each other to survive. Any action that threatens the survival and progression of the society is wrong. At a basic level, that's where right and wrong comes from. Our complex social structure and advanced intelligence has evolved that basic concept of morality but ultimately, morality is basic evolution and its origins are no different than the behaviour we see in other social creatures. Evolution gave us basic morality for our survival and then we built on it

It's ultimately a very simple idea. What benefits the individual should benefit the collective and what benefits the collective should benefit the individual.

What is the socially moral thing to do when a member of the collective is no longer useful (or never was), but still a drain on the collective?

[genkaus]

And that, in a long-winded way, is the essence of morality. We are social creatures. We depend on each other to survive. Any action that threatens the survival and progression of the society is wrong. At a basic level, that's where right and wrong comes from. Our complex social structure and advanced intelligence has evolved that basic concept of morality but ultimately, morality is basic evolution and its origins are no different than the behaviour we see in other social creatures. Evolution gave us basic morality for our survival and then we built on it.

So, according to you, if Jacob had taught others to grow wheat and raise cattle - if the survival of the tribe did not depend on him - then then Isaac's actions would not have been deemed immoral? We may depend on each other for survival, but the fact remains, one individual's actions rarely rise to the level of threatening the existence of another individual and almost never to the level of threatening the survival and progression of society.

The argument is often made that if there is no objective morality, there is no right and wrong. This is a load of bull. If all laws were thrown out tomorrow and everything became completely legal, society would collapse and we would doom ourselves. We aren't moral because a magic man in the cloud told us to be. We're moral because if we weren't, everything we've built would crumble. It's ultimately a very simple idea. What benefits the individual should benefit the collective and what benefits the collective should benefit the individual.

And where what benefits the individual does not benefit the collective, then why should he forgo that benefit?

---

Yes I can. And I do.


If your reality was truly subject to my whims then your reality would be subjective.

Wrong.

Wrong. If your reality was truly subject to my whims then your reality would be subjective.

Missed the point.

Care to illuminate?

You are the one who keeps insisting that god is capable of changing the nature of the box and the buttons on a whim.
 

I know

And that's what would make the box subjective.

You mean the capacity for reason? And yes, brain function is more than chamocal reactions in the same way a computer program is more than electrical pulses.

Ones and zeroes

Apparently, all zeroes in your case.

Moral psychology identifies and interprets morals and their development. It does not make morals. If Person A believed that murder was ok, psychology would say, "Person A believes it so."

It also identifies the causes of those beliefs and the fundamental impetus behind the development of those beliefs. Thus it can differentiate between those built on solid ground and those built on nutty ones - like religion. And that insight gives psychology the ability to develop a moral system that is based on human nature.

[Vadakin]

What is the socially moral thing to do when a member of the collective is no longer useful (or never was), but still a drain on the collective?

In a Darwinist sense, the right thing to do would be to remove such individuals from the tribe. Luckily, we don't have to be bound by Darwinism and that's the whole point.

The origins of morality are basic. It's the same traits that wolves and elephants and other social animals have. For social animals, survival of the fittest means survival of the collective. That basic instinct still runs through us but we've grown beyond basic Darwinism.

The answer to your question is that we look after such an individual. That's the right thing to do. Why is it right? Because we choose to make it right. The evolutionary origins of morality are useful in explaining where morality comes from but we have grown to value the individual even when it has no benefit to the collective.

Does that mean morality is subjective? Yes. Absolutely. And we have shifted from right and wrong being products of what's best for the collective to what's best for the collective coming from what we deem to be right and wrong.

We see it all the time. Take the Bible for example. How many Christians follow every word of the Bible? How many of them take the words of Leviticus to be true and make judgements about people based on the parameters laid out in Leviticus? Too many. But how many ignore Leviticus? How many Christians, when questioned about the atrocities in the Old Testament will tell you that their faith is defined by the good deeds of Jesus, effectively discounting the bad stuff? A whole lot more.

The very nature of moderate Christianity actually shows that morality is subjective, not objective. People take from the Bible what they want to take. They take the good and ignore what they consider to be the bad. They choose their morality.

So, according to you, if Jacob had taught others to grow wheat and raise cattle - if the survival of the tribe did not depend on him - then then Isaac's actions would not have been deemed immoral? We may depend on each other for survival, but the fact remains, one individual's actions rarely rise to the level of threatening the existence of another individual and almost never to the level of threatening the survival and progression of society.

Perhaps he was in the process of teaching them. But you're missing the point. Forget morality as it exists today. What we have today is a complex construct, developed over thousands of years. What I'm talking about is the very basic origins and reasons for right and wrong. We have the same basic morality as wolves and elephants and other social animals. The point I'm making is that it doesn't come from God, it comes from evolution. Morality began as a means of survival. But where it is right now is a result of our minds expanding beyond survival of the fittest.

[GodsRevolt]

In a Darwinist sense, the right thing to do would be to remove such individuals from the tribe. Luckily, we don't have to be bound by Darwinism and that's the whole point.

The origins of morality are basic. It's the same traits that wolves and elephants and other social animals have. For social animals, survival of the fittest means survival of the collective. That basic instinct still runs through us but we've grown beyond basic Darwinism.

The answer to your question is that we look after such an individual. That's the right thing to do. Why is it right? Because we choose to make it right. The evolutionary origins of morality are useful in explaining where morality comes from but we have grown to value the individual even when it has no benefit to the collective.

So we have evolved naturally to a state that is beyond natural? Is this your conclusion?

I am looking for clarification on your ideas because you need to give reason (or at least a point of reference) for the coming about of this "new morality" that extends beyond natural instincts of the animalistic survival instinct (what's good for the collective is good for the individual and vice versa).

I'm not saying that I disagree with you. I agree. I think that what you are talking about is the reason behind the Adam and Eve Myth (note: I say Myth - not untruth). We are completely unique amongst the animals in this ability to choose moral living (amongst other things such as art, philosophy, medicine,). How does the natural world explain this happening to only one species so dramatically?

[genkaus]

Perhaps he was in the process of teaching them. But you're missing the point. Forget morality as it exists today. What we have today is a complex construct, developed over thousands of years. What I'm talking about is the very basic origins and reasons for right and wrong. We have the same basic morality as wolves and elephants and other social animals. The point I'm making is that it doesn't come from God, it comes from evolution. Morality began as a means of survival. But where it is right now is a result of our minds expanding beyond survival of the fittest.

First of all, what you talked about in your previous post was about the essence of morality, the basic principle of morality and the need for morality - not the origin of morality. The two are different things and conflating them would be a mistake.

Secondly, you, along with a lot of other atheists, seem to think that simply saying "evolution" is a sufficient explanation for the origin of morality. In a way, it parallels how theists refer to god as the source of morality. And, as if evidence for your argument, you give examples of wolves and elephants and how their behavior is so similar to humans. Except, animal morality and human morality do not fall in the same category. And here's the big difference - we do not hold animals morally responsible for their actions. If a lion eats his cub, we do not brand it as evil. If a wolf rapes a female wolf, it is not dragged to court to face justice.

The fundamental difference between human and animal morality is that in order to hold someone responsible for their actions, they should have the capacity to consider them and their consequences. The same standard does not apply to other animals. Which is why talking about the evolved social instinct of empathy as the basis for morality fails.