Morality

Every so often, one will hear of a Christian claiming that their morality comes from the bible and atheists will respond that their morality comes from within. I used to think that the morality of atheists in the west comes from the previous dominant Christian culture. I now think the origin of morality goes much deeper.

The only species that exhibit morality are homo sapiens. In this context, I can only conclude that we have a unique intellectual capacity. On the other hand we haven’t lost the basic animal instincts for individual survival to eat, procreate and rest with the best security we can accomplish. It could very well follow that our intellectual capacity allows us to expand our self interest within our society and improved security is our major thrust given that we can contemplate the future. Morality, a social construct, therefore is merely a tool to preserve the self interest of the members of society, and different moral codes of cultures and subcultures reflect the percieved self interest of the members within.

Thou shalt not steal. I you want to avoid losing some private property, its best to get everone on board and agree stealing is bad. To make this work let’s enlist a supreme power who can make the crops fail and everyone starves if we fail to abide by his ruling on theft. Of course the wealthy are most indignant with this transgression (and often modify this moral code with legal support) and the poor most likely to see no benefit. I’m reminded that many of the first white man’s interactions with the natives of the Pacific Island and the Americas report of the problem of theft. Of course these people were not civilized and thus not too big on private property.

Thou shalt not kill. Same thing applies with respect to stealing in the first paragraph. However for some of us its okay to execute violators of other morals, kill members of other societies that threaten us, kill in self defense, and kill the unborn to avoid social burden. Once again individal moral codes are modified by percieved self interest. With respect to the abortion item, I could point out that within the Christian realm, up to a century ago defective babies were often killed without contoversy. Convenient. Of course today with all the paperwork (birth certificate) and everything this practise is just too open and embarrassing.

What about Hitler’s Germany. Did Hitler have a moral code ? Certainly not the code you or I possess but I’m certain he thinks he worked for the right thing to do. Whether it was God or nature, he saw the German people worthy of the pre-eminent position in the world and that Jews and homosexuals were a threat to the perfect society.

bin laden as well. He’s managed to corrupt the Koran to believe that whatever is neccessary to achieve the dominance of “Islam” in the world is the right thing to do.

Please forgive my rather poor presentation. I just wanted to present the case that all morality is based on perceived self interest, not religion which is merely a tool, and that even altruism originates from self interest. There is no such thing as right or wrong. Man merely invented the concept.

Please understand that I do not intend to respond any further. My head hurts, but I am interested to hear what you all have to say.

Spoken like someone who’s never had their dog look guilty after it snatched the sausages off the kitchen table.

I’m baffled by people who must find morality externally and seem to have no moral compass of their own. I don’t need anyone to tell me that killing someone needlessly is wrong and that allowing or helping someone to die to end their suffering is okidoki.

You only have to be lied to or deceived to understand the harm in that. Getting robbed will do a good job of showing you that stealing isn’t much fun for the one who was stolen from.

Is it really so difficult a concept that there are things that as a thinking, feeling human being we can not grasp ourselves? Is it really necessary to have a Big Bad God In The Sky tell us these things?

To know in the Big Picture there are some things that are more right than others and even within those there is a tremendous grey area that I feel most people are aware of and try to work within. Must we be perceived as being so remarkably self-serving that without it we would be killing, lying, cheating, stealing, gluttonous creatures?

Is it in my own best interest to not kill? Well, in this society, under certain conditions, no it is not. If I am military and at war, if I am a police officer in the line of duty, killing is acceptable, perhaps maybe not preferable, but acceptable. There is one person I wish was dead, mostly because he has spent his life harming others and our legal system doesn’t feel the need to stop him. IMHO, the only way he will ever stop trying to harm people is when he is dead. shrug I haven’t knocked him off yet and am highly unlikely to. However, if I was to weigh the personal and social difficulty I would have as a result of killing him, with the peace of mind knowing that no one else was harmed, I would argue that the balance is only slightly in favor of me not killing him. So, who is being served? Me? Not when I whole-heartedly agree he should die. To assume we act in moral ways only when it serves us is disingenious at best. The world is filled with examples of people who do what we can not do, go beyond what we go and do so with grace and class.

I don’t venture much into Great Debates, but for the last day I have been and I am heartily dismayed at how low we think of ourselves. We ain’t perfect, or even close, but we are a damned sight better than the opinions I’ve seen here. At least in my humble opinion.

Well, with a little bit o’ luck, when temptation comes you’ll give right in!

That’s not guilt, that’s simply fear of punishment.

It’s difficult to argue with someone who takes the position of an ethical nihilist. Unfortunately you really haven’t made a case for ethical nihilism. The fact that people have different ideas about morality does not prove that morality does not exist.

Marc

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

I don’t punish my dog for my own absentmindedness. Nevertheless, he looks guilty. If, in his mind, he imagines punishments that don’t actually happen, how is that different from a rudimentary moral sense?

Ah, does Fido have free will and discrimination, or is he merely a tool of his own inate impulses? And what about you?

Stranger

Surely you’ve punished him at some point for some bad behaviors, even if it’s not specifically for stealing food. Dogs are very sensitive to body language; they learn quickly when you are annoyed with them. One way or another, he is likely reacting to your demeanor, not to any internal moral conflict. Dogs just aren’t capable of that. And to answer the inevitable question, yes, I have owned several dogs over the years.

I think one of the great mistakes that is commonly made is assuming a difference in kind between humans and animals rather than just a difference in degree. I assume that animals have some sense of “morality”, and that it doesn’t come from reading the bible.

And how is that different from a child?

If he can make the link, that’s quite a jump.*

If he’s hiding in the corner (which is what I meant by “acting guilty”) before I even come into the room and certainly before I twigged that sausages were missing, clearly it’s his own internal mindscape that’s prompting his actions, not my body language. I noticed the sausages were missing because the dog was acting weird, actually. So the guilt comes before any possible demeanour change on my part.Sure, it could partly be a reaction to previous punishment*, but I’m suggesting that reacting in his head to anticipated punishment is a crude moral system.

*I’ve only ever punished my dogs for toilet training and trying to attack other dogs, though, never for eating food. I don’t expect my dogs to have self-control around sausages - I barely do, and I’m human! My general rule is - if the dog could get to the food, it was dog food. Then I laugh.

It isn’t; which just goes to show you that morality is learned, not innate.

Is there a difference?

Same-same as for Fido.

And don’t forget that some Christians also believe that moral codes don’t necessarily come from the Bible.

Well, and how else should morality be defined ? A “morality” that works against everyone’s self interest would be stupid, not moral.

And even better, he’s only unhappy when you steal from or kill believers. Or against “his” will; aka the political/religious leadership or your own whims. That’s part of why religious “morality” isn’t moral at all.

And what makes you think that the principle of not stealing from allies didn’t come first ?

A religious style one. Obey Authority and Everyone But You And Yours Are Prey.

What makes you think that’s “corrupting” it ?

I’d call religion not a tool, but a crippling limitation to morality. It stunts people’s moral development at the “fear of punishment” or “obey authority” stage. And it provides the perfect excuse to ignore whatever moral code you do have by just telling yourself that God wants you to do something; giving that he’s imaginary, he always agrees.

One does not follow the other.

Can one learn guilt without fear of punishment?

This jumped out at me. I would recommend reading up on elephant and chimp behavior.

Or that the Bible, rather than being the source of our morality, is a setting down of that which ought to be obvious, and yet we sometimes need reminding of - because we are fallible creatures.

Grim