Agnostic.com

26 4

Morality! Where does it come from ?

I found this on the web page Patheos that trigger this question . It’s always strange when religious people claim their morality is based on the Bible when many of the actions of God in the Bible seem so objectively awful.

If you had the chance to stop genocide or murder, would you do it?

RaulPerez 7 July 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

26 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

It would appear, to me at least, that morality was evolved (as opposed to authoritatively imposed) and arises from two primary behaviors, which were likely required for our survival as hominids: Empathy and Reciprocity. One involves Care, the other Consequences. Of one thing we may be certain, we didn't obtain our moral values from an ancient book, which represents the antithesis or moral behavior.

6

Necessity is the mother of invention. As people came together to form communities the need for rules to establish acceptable behavior within their society became a necessity, hence the invention of moral conduct. This I think would predate any ruling government, laws, and religion. πŸ™‚

If it were possible to stop a genocide or murder, then why wouldn't I do so?

Betty Level 8 July 28, 2018

@antitheism

I agree. πŸ™‚

4

Sure, I'd stop harms if I had the power to.

Societal morality is nothing more than an emergent consensus on the part of society's members of what is helpful and harmful in having the kind of society that most of its members desire. That invariably tends to zero in on some form of civil, stable, orderly society where people have as much freedom as possible in the "pursuit of happiness".

Since genocide and murder are pretty unambiguously huge harms to the kind of society I want to live in, I would stop them in a heartbeat, given the opportunity and means.

The morality claimed by religion is simply a co-opting of societal mores and norms, perhaps with a few bolted-on additional requirements. They claim then to be the source of (and to be indispensible to nurturing and protecting) something that is already in existence.

Now it is tempting to say this is all shameless appropriation of something that exists, no thanks to religion. However, there is the little problem that society has a lot of religious people in it, and those people, as members of society, do contribute to our mores and ethics -- just not in the way they imagine that they do. Then the question becomes, is societal morality better or worse for this influence? I think it's probably a wash.

On the one hand, some religious people have used religious arguments to argue against equal rights for various groups, to advocate the heaping of shame and hatred on innocents, to push regressive, primitive notions of what is desirable or undesirable. But then so have some areligious people. On the other hand, some religious people have used religious arguments to argue the very opposite. As have some areligious people.

So in terms of religion's actual impact on actual morality, I'm willing to give them something of a pass on an overall basis. Something of a pass, because I still hold a suspicion that it might net out a bit negative. I just don't see any way to substantiate that intuition.

But what I don't give them a pass on is the notion that morality is authored (and enforced) by their deity, for the good of the deity and not for the good of humanity. That's at cross-purposes to morality in that it's largely disconnected from actual real world cause and effect.

3

People who claim their morality is based on the bible don't read the bible.

Haha damn right. They always try to clarify with "the new testament". Jesus said he didn't come to change anything that was in the old testament.

@Razzy3150 In Matthew 5:17 Jesus Christ clearly stated His position on the law of God: β€œDo not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.”

3

Good question. And I think it's more simply grounded that most people realize. In essence, it's the intellectualism required to understand that the best path for you to reach your highest potential is through understanding and cooperation with our fellow citizens, leading to the elimination of personal conflict that works against this. Religions have co-opted/corrupted this to mean pretty much the same thing, but only in context to their beliefs.

godef Level 7 July 29, 2018

Is intellect needed though? I am thinking of those with down syndrome, a few I know are very intellectually limited but loving and compassionate. I may have misunderstood what you meant though.
It has seemed to me it is innate, but understand as parents we do dictate what is right or wrong. So the nurture aspect must play a role too.

@gigihein I was think intellect vs the instinct to tribalize and react in racist ways to. I'd agree on the nurture aspect.

@godef I thought I missed something, thanks for the clarifcation

2

This is a really good answer to your question.

This is a very good answer! I posted the whole series some time back!

@phxbillcee I've been a follower of anticitizen X for years. I often quote him when debating theists.

2

Imo morality comes from logic. If murder, rape,and theft were acceptable, a society wouldn't be able to function due to lack of trust. Think about when you're on road: you're trusting that everybody isn't going to drive like jackasses and get mad when they do. This is because they are violating that trust.

Agreed, though I would add that this logic comes especially with humans' ability to imagine complex chains of interaction due to our relatively advanced development frontal lobe development. And you also rightly touched on the emotional component. One understands not only how it feels when someones violates a certain principle directly involving you, but also when a loved one or friend is the victim of such a transgression. And fortunately, many are able to feel the same for victims far outside of their immediate circle. So I would say both logic and compassion.

2

On of my first posts: "How can you be a moral person and be an atheist?"

"How can you be a moral person and be an atheist?

1

Morality or ethics comes into being because of mankind's social nature, our need to get along with one another, work together well, and to hold together as a society. Ethics is what makes our lives worthwhile in this world.

1

Real morality comes from empathy and self-respect.

1

Morality has been traced back to natural selection. Bats are a common example - the group helps out the isolated.

Your first paragraph is on a good trajectory, then you kind of confuse it with outcomes of religion. Try to simplify the conversation.

1

I would stop it but sometimes I feel like Thanos and think that our population needs to be cut in half at times

Dfox Level 4 July 28, 2018
1

Morals and the concept of right and wrong have been documented since the ancient Greek societies. That's at least 500 years prior to the stories of the bible. So these concepts predate Christianity.

1

Empathy

I'm sorry I suppose I could say a little bit more morality true morality comes from empathy

0

Morality needs no higher being with supernatural standards. The ancient book called Bible is not the source of morality. Morality comes from the interaction of diverse culture. How you treated other people by not harming them, respect their being is the core of morality. the principles that transcends and agreed upon, governed and determined by law by which everyone can depends for justice. Not that an imaginary being up there watching you all the time even if your in the toilet. Thats bullshit!

0

You have two questions in this one post.
Morality is a survival characteristic. We have to get along with each other to survive. One person sells food, and another makes and sells tools. The farmer needs tools, and the tool maker needs to eat. One son needs to marry and procreate with anothers daughter. When one does not conform, we separate the individual.

0

mostly longterm efficacy and survival with dashes of massive self interest

0

Morality much like sin is a worthless expression. Too me it's about actions and consequences. If the consequences are untenable, then the action is wrong. If you are willing to face the consequences, go for it. Consequences can be small and personal or big and societal. It's about accepted behavior that actually has no inherent value - positive or negative.

Agreed. Perhaps we should be focusing on ethics rather than morality.

0

In answer to the question above, who wpuld say they would not stop genocide or murder. I am an opposite and believe humans are moral, empathetic, and care about fellow humans naturally. I don't believe in good and evil as a force of nature, but I do believe in cause and effect.
I took a class once on serial killers, as had an interest in this. Most had childhoods that were pretty horrific. I also think we come with varied personalities and resilience to become a psychopath or one not empathic. Trump actually seems to have anti sicial personality disorder or maybe just narsacistic personalty disorder and I don't know much about his upbringing, but seems it wasn't one that nurtured the lovingness and connection most children grow into. I don't think morality comes through being religious but in spite of it.

@Matias. They didnt, but I have a hypothesis based on working in domestic violence a short time and my own experience. I also worked with teenagers that were labeled "severely emotionally disturbed."

It seemed that when men have childhood trauma they are angry and express it externally. They want to kick the cat, fight or kill someone if enraged. Where women seemed to internalize the trauma with rationalizing they didnt do something, it is their fault or severe depression. I also noticed that the girls had this underlying psychological aggression that would get to the boys and I would often be surprised at their more subtle display of agression. Maybe it is an evolutionary adaptation of some kind I saw several exceptions with some woman being angry and physically aggressive.

I think the victim /perpetrator model doesn't work because the 2 people are not treated for the underlying problem. The women are labeled victims now added to their identity and the men have to go to anger management at a great expense which causes stress and anger and neither is enough to really help many men ar women.

I will probably be slammed for this idea, but you asked. I find most people think when they hear responsibility it is synonymous with blame. And to me all relationships are a dance tha we have the power to create, rmodify, learn from and leave. But we often don't see that. Our system is broken in the good/bad victim/ perpetrator concept.

Nothing in done in most cases of child abuse yet those kids mostly boys will get in trouble too many times or kill someone the outcry is to treat them as adults. Our brains arent even completely developed until age 25 on average.

I know of many examples of protective services where the girls are removed and boys left with abusive parents..often because they have no where for the boy to go. So there is also a disparity in who is protected and who will admit abuse.

Another possibility is that men are caught, since it is usually men who are serial killers

Lastly the class dealt with the ramifications of abuse and the psychological manifestations, such as borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder. You can probably guess which are diagnosed more to women and which to men.

0

You. And the rest of humanity.

0

The only good thing about living in a country full of christians is that they are not true christians.

For genocide, yes. For murder, it would entirely depend on the situation. This would be more and more true the bigger the chance where I would be the replacement of the murder victim.

mt49er Level 7 July 29, 2018

I think stereotyping any group is detrimental. All Chritians did not vote for Trump, are against abortion, are racist, or anything else. There are those that are as misguided as atheist or agnostics. Fuckuppedness happens in all.groups...just easier to see looking out

0

Things ---> language ---> description ---> action

0

They did always instill in us with "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" daily.

0

Hard question, but probably some mix of mirror neurons, and seeing everyone else as similar to yourself. Some speculate that it's an overgeneralizated genetic trait that was originally evolved to protect close family.

JeffB Level 6 July 28, 2018
0

Of course not.

Free will is far more important than stopping people killing each other......

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:142118
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.