Evolution of morality

[OnlyNatural]

I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us (EDIT: our conceptions of right and wrong, of course; I elaborate more on my views a few posts down. I just noticed that a few people have jumped to disagree with me on this one sentence, so this is just a heads up ). Religion/God is not necessary (and in fact often gets in the way) when it comes to behaving ethically.

I'm sure the atheists here agree, I just thought this video summed it up well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs

[MajorTomWaits99]

eh Dawkins is overrated...dont' get me wrong I love his books...just over-exposed. ANYWHO:

Anytime I bring this up to a theist they respond "That's Great...you know the Ought but only GOD Can Justify Morality"....when I ask them to elaborate on Justify....I don't get what they mean.


I assume that they mean its GUARANTEED...but then again if that's the case its not really a moral action because there is no choice you're just adhering to duty.

[OnlyNatural]

Anytime I bring this up to a theist they respond "That's Great...you know the Ought but only GOD Can Justify Morality"....when I ask them to elaborate on Justify....I don't get what they mean.

I assume that they mean its GUARANTEED...but then again if that's the case its not really a moral action because there is no choice you're just adhering to duty.

They mean to say that morality is guaranteed? Or that reward/punishment in the afterlife guarantees moral behaviour? Obviously they haven't looked around, then, because immorality is happening all the time, by both believers and non-believers. If God just created us to be moral, we'd have no choice, like you said. But like all evolved characteristics, behaving morally is obviously not universal, there are varying degrees, and then we have sociopaths.

But somehow theists can't seem to justify why that is. They want to know there's an objective standard of morality, determined by God. And if people behave immorally, it's because they're sinners or under the influence of Satan. It's so convenient to frame complex phenomena in black and white terms like this, but also incredibly silly. It's just too easy, and it stops you from thinking more critically about why people behave in good and harmful ways, and how we, as humans, define what is good and harmful.

[DeistPaladin]

Reasons that religion is neither necessary nor helpful as a guide to morality:

1. PRIMITIVE MORAL CODES: Just as our technology has developed, so too has our sense of right and wrong. Issues like slavery, child abuse and rape are moral no-brainers for us today but apparently the ancient people who wrote the Old Testament, New Testament or Koran were not so enlightened.

2. WHAT TAKES PRIORITY?: Whenever these ancient books try to offer moral guidance, they occasionally do come up with a few pearls of wisdom, such as Jesus' admonishment to "do unto others..." and Leviticus that tells us to "love our neighbor as ourselves." However, most of the time, when these books discuss "evil", they usually mean crimes against the religion, not against our fellow human beings. Blasphemy, idolatry and other deviations from religious faith, but ones which are of no harm to fellow human beings, take up most of the time these books discuss "evil".

Prime Example: Examine the 10 Commandments. The first four deal with "crimes" against the religion (other gods, idolatry, blasphemy, not remembering the sabbath). Only four out of ten deal with victim-related crimes.

3. STRANGE TABOOS: In addition to a preoccupation with crimes against religion, religious thinking also introduces strange or outdated taboos that have nothing to do with morality, at least if morality is to be understood as a measure of how fairly and honestly we treat one another. Not eating certain things on certain days or condemnations of homosexuality are examples.

Religion confuses our moral thinking by introducing irrelevant considerations.

4. EUTHYPHO'S DILEMMA: Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?

The former isn't objective morality but submitting to the judgment of another which, by definition, however wise or knowledgeable the being, is subjective. If the latter, than morality exists outside of God and would continue to be without God existing. Christians and other apologists try to wiggle out of this corner by babbling about good being grounded in the very nature of God. The problems with this answer merit its own thread.

5. "GOD-WILLS-IT?": Just as "GodDidIt" tells us nothing of scientific mysteries, "GodWillsIt" tells us nothing of moral philosophy.

6. INHERENTLY DANGEROUS: A religion that preaches a doctrine of salvation based on faith and a struggle between God and a devil sets the stage for religious atrocities. Those who believe in a devil can demonize anyone or anything outside the religion. Those who believe in Hell can be terrified enough to do anything to "save" their children or loved ones from it. Those who commit themselves to fighting the devil and saving souls can literally create Hell-on-Earth.

7. REALITY CHECK: Societies with low levels of piety have the fewest social ills. Prison populations are disproportionally theistic. The assertion that piety is required for morality is not supported by the evidence.

8. BY DEFINITION: Faith is doing what you're told, regardless of what's right. Morality is doing what's right, regardless of what you're told.

9. SUSAN B. ANTHONY'S OBSERVATION: "I distrust those who know what God wills because it so often fits their own desires." Religious people are adept at interpreting scripture however they like. "Jesus" most often becomes a glorified self-reflection.

10. EASY OUT: The recommendation of religions is to apologize to your imaginary friend and all is well. This is why Newt Gingrich can cheat on his wives and yet be the pious self-appointed defender of marriage. He said he was sorry to Jesus and that's all that matters. In the natural world, we apologize to those we wronged and patterns of dishonesty and hypocrisy are not so easily atoned for.

Religion is neither necessary nor helpful to our understanding of morality.

[ozgoat]

eh Dawkins is overrated...dont' get me wrong I love his books...just over-exposed. ANYWHO:

Anytime I bring this up to a theist they respond "That's Great...you know the Ought but only GOD Can Justify Morality"....when I ask them to elaborate on Justify....I don't get what they mean.


I assume that they mean its GUARANTEED...but then again if that's the case its not really a moral action because there is no choice you're just adhering to duty.

People say lots of negative things about RD and I'll admit that I sometimes find find him a little hard to take, BUT, he has done more for the promotion of logic and common-sense and for naturalism than most other people have and he scores high in my book for that.

Having read the bible, I don't know how any Christian can claim that their god knows anything at all about morality. It's taken a long time for society to rectify the disgusting moral standards of the bible with regard to homosexuality, racism, slavery, misogyny and bigotry that were the "standard" for Christian nations everywhere until recent times.

The deaths, suffering, injustices, cruelty that have been endured by humanity because of Christianity and the bible god and his Law and teachings during the past 1700 years are too horrific to contemplate.

I thank dog that Christianity isn't in charge of societal morals any longer.

[reverendjeremiah]

I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us, and religion/God is not necessary (and in fact often gets in the way) when it comes to behaving ethically.

I'm sure the atheists here agree, I just thought this video summed it up well.

I disagree. Animals have evolved with instincts that come with their species social structure. Just because we happen to have social instincts, and that we glorify them, does not mean they are "morals". Chimps treat their children good, and pretty much adhere to social structures that are necessary for a species with their type of brain to propagate successfully. One could say that is moral. Chimpanzees will also get a flair for meat and attack a group of lesser evolved monkeys, or even other groups of chimps to just outright kill them and eat them. Sometimes the chimps kill just for the sake of killing. Is that moral as well?

Now if you mean by "evolved" then you mean Zeitgeist (spirit of the times), then I would agree with you to an extent, but I am not sure by what measuring stick you are using to determine that morals have evolved. Is our morals better than the morals of people 1000 years ago? Who gets to be the judge? Me or you? Is it okay for Stalin and Hitler to be the judge of what is moral and what is not?

[Captain Scarlet]

I firmly believe that human morality has evolved along with the rest of us, and religion/God is not necessary (and in fact often gets in the way) when it comes to behaving ethically.

I'm sure the atheists here agree, I just thought this video summed it up well.

1. No one has demonstrated that morality actually exists as a thing instantiated in the universe. As RJ has described there are social norms which we consent to as humans, some of which are consistent across geographies some of the time. But I am not aware of any moral code that is followed across all of time and space by a particular species. Morality is a concept within the framework of ethics, which helps us to describe the way we feel in certain situations. Much as numbers are concepts in the framework of maths which help us calculate; outside their frameworks morality/numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist.

2. Evolution. It depends what you mean. In its purest sense yes. But when used in this context implies progression. For me it is only "moral" change that we have gone through, which has been forced upon us by urban dwelling, civilisation, healthcare and in the west and now the east wealth. Remove some of those and we will undergo change over time which will perhaps be viewed as regressive, but will infact be just change

[reverendjeremiah]

I'm sure the atheists here agree, I just thought this video summed it up well.

Only natural. You posted the video code incorrectly ... you posted this:

Code:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs[/video]

...this is all you have to do to post the code for the video to load correctly:

Code:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCL63d66frs

Lets hope it works this time after you edit it.

1. No one has demonstrated that morality actually exists as a thing instantiated in the universe. As RJ has described there are social norms which we consent to as humans, some of which are consistent across geographies some of the time. But I am not aware of any moral code that is followed across all of time and space by a particular species. Morality is a concept within the framework of ethics, which helps us to describe the way we feel in certain situations. Much as numbers are concepts in the framework of maths which help us calculate; outside their frameworks morality/numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist.

2. Evolution. It depends what you mean. In its purest sense yes. But when used in this context implies progression. For me it is only "moral" change that we have gone through, which has been forced upon us by urban dwelling, civilisation, healthcare and in the west and now the east wealth. Remove some of those and we will undergo change over time which will perhaps be viewed as regressive, but will infact be just change

Seems Like Captain scarlet is over near the "absurdist/nihilist" side of the philosophical fence where I am. Im Absurdist and find things that arent strictly mechanical materialistic to be subject to humans forcing their own intent and emotions onto something that ISNT human emotions and intent. By what measuring stick do we use to judge religions, governments, societies, and every other human invented ideology? Its all absurd if you ask me. Why cant I just say that I will live and let live if you do the same without having to tag some kind of "meta-ethics" or "philosophie" title to justify it? When does this all break down into some shit that people just made up to make themselves feel better in the presence of a cold, inhuman Cosmos?

*note* Please notice that I said "human invented ideology". I am not saying "logically impossible". I am saying "humanly impossible". The Human condition (emotion) is the point I am stating.

[OnlyNatural]

I just meant the evolution of morality in a very broad sense, only as opposed to morality being inherent in the nature of God, who created us, as theists may argue. I guess I'd think of it as a sort of cultural evolution, along with the more complex emotions and social dynamics.

Animals have evolved with instincts that come with their species social structure. Just because we happen to have social instincts, and that we glorify them, does not mean they are "morals". Chimps treat their children good, and pretty much adhere to social structures that are necessary for a species with their type of brain to propagate successfully. One could say that is moral. Chimpanzees will also get a flair for meat and attack a group of lesser evolved monkeys, or even other groups of chimps to just outright kill them and eat them. Sometimes the chimps kill just for the sake of killing. Is that moral as well?

I wouldn't say that chimps are behaving morally or immorally, since I wouldn't think they have any concept of morality. We can't really judge by our human standards. I suppose, like RD says, you could call some of their behaviours a sort of 'proto-morality', as our ancestors may have had. The social instincts and social structure on their own, I wouldn't call that morality, but it lays the necessary groundwork for humans to eventually conceptualize about right and wrong in a social context.

Now if you mean by "evolved" then you mean Zeitgeist (spirit of the times), then I would agree with you to an extent, but I am not sure by what measuring stick you are using to determine that morals have evolved. Is our morals better than the morals of people 1000 years ago? Who gets to be the judge? Me or you? Is it okay for Stalin and Hitler to be the judge of what is moral and what is not?

Yes, zeitgeist would be another way to describe it, a sort of new collective consciousness that evolves through interactions with others and as a society. But you're right, many social, political and moral revolutions of the past may be considered, today, to be morally lacking. We seem to have learned from a lot of these past events, like the Holocaust, and swear 'never again, we're better than that now,' but obviously this isn't the case everywhere, genocides and horrific atrocities are happening all the time. I don't know who should be the judge either, there really is no objective standard of morality to compare it to.

Only natural. You posted the video code incorrectly ... all you have to do...

Thanks, didn't know I could do that, fixed it.

1. No one has demonstrated that morality actually exists as a thing instantiated in the universe. As RJ has described there are social norms which we consent to as humans, some of which are consistent across geographies some of the time. But I am not aware of any moral code that is followed across all of time and space by a particular species. Morality is a concept within the framework of ethics, which helps us to describe the way we feel in certain situations. Much as numbers are concepts in the framework of maths which help us calculate; outside their frameworks morality/numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist.

I agree.

2. Evolution. It depends what you mean. In its purest sense yes. But when used in this context implies progression. For me it is only "moral" change that we have gone through, which has been forced upon us by urban dwelling, civilisation, healthcare and in the west and now the east wealth. Remove some of those and we will undergo change over time which will perhaps be viewed as regressive, but will infact be just change

I meant in a very broad sense. I agree with you here too, evolution doesn't have a progressive goal, it's only change over time and adaptation to circumstance, which obviously differs from place to place.

Seems Like Captain scarlet is over near the "absurdist/nihilist" side of the philosophical fence where I am. Im Absurdist and find things that arent strictly mechanical materialistic to be subject to humans forcing their own intent and emotions onto something that ISNT human emotions and intent. By what measuring stick do we use to judge religions, governments, societies, and every other human invented ideology? Its all absurd if you ask me. Why cant I just say that I will live and let live if you do the same without having to tag some kind of "meta-ethics" or "philosophie" title to justify it? When does this all break down into some shit that people just made up to make themselves feel better in the presence of a cold, inhuman Cosmos?

I'm seeing things this way a lot more these days. Maybe I'm not completely nihilistic, but I have no belief in any greater purpose or destiny, I know we're just animals with complex brains and we invent a lot of ridiculous stuff. But it's interesting to look into these ideologies nonetheless, and how we've learned to judge others and ourselves the way we do. And 'live and let live' is a good philosophy, I agree with you there.

[MajorTomWaits99]

eh Dawkins is overrated...dont' get me wrong I love his books...just over-exposed. ANYWHO:

Anytime I bring this up to a theist they respond "That's Great...you know the Ought but only GOD Can Justify Morality"....when I ask them to elaborate on Justify....I don't get what they mean.


I assume that they mean its GUARANTEED...but then again if that's the case its not really a moral action because there is no choice you're just adhering to duty.

People say lots of negative things about RD and I'll admit that I sometimes find find him a little hard to take, BUT, he has done more for the promotion of logic and common-sense and for naturalism than most other people have and he scores high in my book for that.

Having read the bible, I don't know how any Christian can claim that their god knows anything at all about morality. It's taken a long time for society to rectify the disgusting moral standards of the bible with regard to homosexuality, racism, slavery, misogyny and bigotry that were the "standard" for Christian nations everywhere until recent times.

The deaths, suffering, injustices, cruelty that have been endured by humanity because of Christianity and the bible god and his Law and teachings during the past 1700 years are too horrific to contemplate.

I thank dog that Christianity isn't in charge of societal morals any longer.

Oh yeah. Its not that I don't agree but the one thing that sticks in my craw is he opens the book with somethign to the extent that he hopes to Bridge the Gap and maybe convert some people ...but the book didn't have that kind of feeling I thought. It seemed like it only further polarized the two groups.


Oh and I know. But they believe in the "Loving" God..all that crap.

I didn't get how "praying" is moral either. I mean being grateful sure. But mandated Prayer? crazy.