“The Golden Rule” ??? They that have the gold, make the rules? Is that the one?
TVAA hits the nail on the head there.
What is and is not considered moral is a function of the society in which we participate. Since religion for good or bad has dominated nearly every society, then religion influences greatly what is and is not considered moral.
In a hypathetical society uneffected by religion, moral codes would still be generated by that society in order to allow itself to function. Without moral codes, which in a sense are law codes that citizens are expected to be self policing, then transactions between any citizens unknown to each other becomes very difficult.
There are direct negative repercussions to acts in this life, without any need for the imposition of a supernatural framework. You can believe stealing is wrong because the right to private property is necessary for the tolerble function of social relationships. Or you could believe it’s wrong because the stealee will beat you with a stick. Either way, no hellfire needed to establish an ethical position.
I don’t get this, what am I missing?
Consider, for example, a vegetarian who feels it is wrong to eat meat (notice “not eating meat” is not sanctioned by society) are you saying this isn’t a moral choice?
FWIW, I’ve always thought of morals as the weights and ethics as the balance.
Once again thought, that prompts the question: “Why?”
If there is no morality other than self-preservation, then WHY should one strive to preserve the pack apart from when it is conducive to one’s own purposes? In other words, why not expoit other people, provided that one can get away with it?
Saying that the stronger wolf doesn’t kill the weaker is simply dodging the question. Why shouldn’t the stronger kill the weaker, if he can get away with it?
JThunder
He can, but he doesn’t, because evolution created him so. Animals who kill the weakest members of its species can’t live in packs.
Wolves constitute packs because they developed some ethics.
They don’t have to; for most animals, there are other selective processes that take care of this. So I’m not sure it really answers the question.
And yet there are people who DO such things. So even if we grant that evolution caused the wolf to behave that way, such logic doesn’t necessarily extend itself to people.
So why do we glorify human leaders who place the pack above their own interests, and demonize the ones who get away with exploiting their fellow man? If morality is truly nothing more than seeking one’s own interests, then we should have no reason to condemn the latter.
Because of mankind’s social nature, one’s own interests often coincide with the interests of society as a whole. But even so:
I would not be supportive of a leader who got away with exploiting their fellow man because I am one of said leader’s fellow man, and I don’t want to be exploited.
It’s not enough to say that one’s own interests “often” coincide with those of society. If we claim that morality is nothing more than evolution-driven self-interest, then we must show that our personal interests ALWAYS align with the needs of society. Either that, or accept that it is morally acceptable to screw other people over in the name of self-advancement.
That’s jack dandy, but it’s still dodging the question at hand. If morality is dictated solely by self-interest, then why should you give a flying fig what happens to other people? You say that you don’t personally want to be screwed over by some leader, but why shouldn’t you screw someone else in return, if given the chance? Heck, why not accept a leader who will exploit other people, as long as you personally benefit from his misdeeds?
One doesn’t need “religion” to have a moral society.
Like is said here already: other culture/society = very often other values/morals or other preferences in the interpretation of those values.
What religion does (in general) is underscribing in its commands the common moral rules who are accepted as such in human society.
In my opinion it is a - very widespread and stubborn - misconception to believe that morality origins in religion. As it would be wrong to say that religion is a product of morality.
Salaam. A
We’re often on opposite sides of topics, but I think this is very well said. Unfortunately, a great many people do suppose it is morally acceptable to screw people over. I think it is the other side of the “we do this for their own good” coin, but that is neither here nor there. I strongly dislike evolutionary perspectives on morality, and I think this quote is one of the many indications of its problems.
Because it is in my interests! 
Of course, “It is in my interests because it is in my interests” is not a very interesting moral proposition. One might also ask, “Why follow your interests?” Or, “What compells you to view your interests as the highest?” Many interesting questions there. I do think self-interest is a large motivator, but I think saying morality is purely derived from self-interest is a dangerous equivocation.
Actually, I think morality means that, when you act in a certain way or make a choice, you are saying that it is okay for anybody else to make the same choice in the same situation.
Personally I believe that there is an absolute right and wrong, a Good and a Bad, not just good and bad, that Hitler was Evil on an absolute scale for example. This is the sole basis for my soft theism.
But I can comprehend and appreciate the evolutionary biology perspective. As a tactic we want to reward those who we can trust to do what is our best interest, and one perspective is that our brains evolved highly primarily to detect cheaters, to punish them, and to try to cheat well enough ourselves to not get caught. Morals evolve within the larger organism of societies because without them that larger beast could not be a long lasting coherent entitiy. A society without moral values fails, it would fall apart. Macro-selection at work.
Now while I accept that mechanism for the creation of moral values within society, it signifies nothing as to whether or not a theistic entity designed such mechanisms to make human morality become extant…
But that is the subject of many an other thread.
Because, in general, we can’t help but care, unless we were so improperly socialized that we have no empathy.
Morality requires a code of conduct. Religion is often the conduit for such a code. A belief in a Supreme Being is not necessary to believe in a code of conduct. You can follow the moral guidelines set down by Jesus without believing he is God.
Without sounding glib, some of my best friends are atheists. The belief that life is sacred and finite makes a human life more valuable.
That only explains why people DO care. It doesn’t explain why one should.
In other words, the question remains unanswered. Evolutionary considerations alone are insufficient to explain morality.
Doesn’t a religiously based morality create the very same questions? Why should we not do immoral things? Because God doesn’t want us to? So what? Why should I care what God wants?