Are morals derived from religion/God??

[czgibson]

Greetings,

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality. Morality grew into existence as a way for primitive societies to preserve themselves from self-destruction through dangerous or inconsiderate behaviour. The only issue was how to enforce the moral code. The enforcer could not be just you or me - it had to be something bigger than all of us, otherwise people would not take it seriously. Therefore, god was invented to aid this survival mechanism.

I can prove none of this, but for me it has the definite ring of psychological truth, and I think it is highly likely that this is close to the way that religion developed. It is the theory of Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern sociology.

Peace

 

[Sunnih]

Your entire argument seems to center on:

”Also to claim what you uphold as your position you too must prove first that there is no God?! How can you be so partial and selective in your principles?”

Well, sorry. I’m not the one claiming that morals are derived by god(s). If that’s your claim, then present your evidence. Additionally, It's not up to me to spend time disproving the existence of this or that.

Pleas read what you wrote and read my reply in context of what you wrote. My argument in not centered on what you just claimed. What I mentioned was to show the partiallity on your choise of the arguments. You seem to have misundertood completely the point I made.

 

[Sunnih]

Greetings,

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality. Morality grew into existence as a way for primitive societies to preserve themselves from self-destruction through dangerous or inconsiderate behaviour. The only issue was how to enforce the moral code. The enforcer could not be just you or me - it had to be something bigger than all of us, otherwise people would not take it seriously. Therefore, god was invented to aid this survival mechanism.

I can prove none of this, but for me it has the definite ring of psychological truth, and I think it is highly likely that this is close to the way that religion developed. It is the theory of Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern sociology.

Peace

Greetings. I apreciate the honesty in declaring that you can not prove any of all you have said. I just have a question for you. What is the psychological truth and what makes it a truth?!

peace.

 

[zoro]

czgibson:

As I've mentioned before on a couple of threads, I think the idea of god is derived from morality.

As you probably know, there have been (and continue to be) a huge number of anthropological and archeological studies on the origin of the idea of god. I review a few such studies in my online book at www.zenofzero.net . Here, let me just give a very brief outline, whose goal is to suggest that the link between morality and gods probably came rather late in the development of “the god idea”.

Anthropological studies of newly “discovered” primitive tribes, especially during the late 19th Century (before the tribes were “polluted” by “modern thought”) found a range of “spiritual” behaviors. The most elementary of such behaviors seems to be derived from the people’s “belief” that they possessed a “second self” (what religious people would call a “soul”). The primitive people found “confirmatory evidence” of such a “second self” in their shadows, their reflections in water, and in their dreams (when their “second self” would wander, leaving their bodies behind).

More “advanced” tribes concluded that, upon death, a person’s “second self” left the person’s body and continued to wander. This is consistent with archeological data (from ~50,000 years ago) showing that the people buried with their dead various artifacts assumed to be useful for the deceased’s continued wandering. In time, the idea of a “second self” seems to have led not only to ideas that the surroundings were populated by “spirits” of the dead (in the wind, in the trees, and so on) but also to the idea that the “spirits” of especially powerful members of their tribe (e.g., a chief or a “medicine man”) continued to have influence on the tribe. This seems to be the first step toward creating gods, i.e., the spirits of formerly powerful tribal members.

The next step toward “deification” of powerful tribal ancestors seems to have been “developed” in an attempt to induce their spirits to assist the tribe (or tribal members) in overcoming difficulties (from famine to volcanic eruptions). This led to “offerings” (bribes!) to their ancestors, construction of special “houses” in which their spirits could dwell, and so on, especially including the creation of a class of people that we call “priests” or “clerics”, in charge of communications with the tribe’s “god”.

It seems that the priests (or clerics), to whom the people had entrusted such “important” tasks, then took advantage of the power that the people had given them, and consistent with the adage “power corrupts”, started to dictate to the people what was to be their goals (which of course included continuing to feed the parasite priests), the people’s laws, their morals, and so on. Such corruption occurred in essentially all cultures, although in Mesopotamia in about 2200 BCE and in Egypt in about 2000 BCE, the people revolted, stripping power (at least temporarily) from the priests. And of course such corruption continues in many cultures today, but surely soon the clerics of all religions will be precluded from continuing their parasitic practices and forced to get real jobs, like the rest of us.

 

[Sunnih]

czgibson:



As you probably know, there have been (and continue to be) a huge number of anthropological and archeological studies on the origin of the idea of god. I review a few such studies in my online book at www.zenofzero.net . Here, let me just give a very brief outline, whose goal is to suggest that the link between morality and gods probably came rather late in the development of “the god idea”.

Anthropological studies of newly “discovered” primitive tribes, especially during the late 19th Century (before the tribes were “polluted” by “modern thought”) found a range of “spiritual” behaviors. The most elementary of such behaviors seems to be derived from the people’s “belief” that they possessed a “second self” (what religious people would call a “soul”). The primitive people found “confirmatory evidence” of such a “second self” in their shadows, their reflections in water, and in their dreams (when their “second self” would wander, leaving their bodies behind).

More “advanced” tribes concluded that, upon death, a person’s “second self” left the person’s body and continued to wander. This is consistent with archeological data (from ~50,000 years ago) showing that the people buried with their dead various artifacts assumed to be useful for the deceased’s continued wandering. In time, the idea of a “second self” seems to have led not only to ideas that the surroundings were populated by “spirits” of the dead (in the wind, in the trees, and so on) but also to the idea that the “spirits” of especially powerful members of their tribe (e.g., a chief or a “medicine man”) continued to have influence on the tribe. This seems to be the first step toward creating gods, i.e., the spirits of formerly powerful tribal members.

The next step toward “deification” of powerful tribal ancestors seems to have been “developed” in an attempt to induce their spirits to assist the tribe (or tribal members) in overcoming difficulties (from famine to volcanic eruptions). This led to “offerings” (bribes!) to their ancestors, construction of special “houses” in which their spirits could dwell, and so on, especially including the creation of a class of people that we call “priests” or “clerics”, in charge of communications with the tribe’s “god”.

It seems that the priests (or clerics), to whom the people had entrusted such “important” tasks, then took advantage of the power that the people had given them, and consistent with the adage “power corrupts”, started to dictate to the people what was to be their goals (which of course included continuing to feed the parasite priests), the people’s laws, their morals, and so on. Such corruption occurred in essentially all cultures, although in Mesopotamia in about 2200 BCE and in Egypt in about 2000 BCE, the people revolted, stripping power (at least temporarily) from the priests. And of course such corruption continues in many cultures today, but surely soon the clerics of all religions will be precluded from continuing their parasitic practices and forced to get real jobs, like the rest of us.

I do not despute that such studies are widespread but the nothing in these studies is rigorously proved it is mere conjectures. It does not even raise a doubt, let alone prove a point. Therefore such quotes bear no fruits. Even scientst themselves do not embrase these studies and their differing is well known. So what is the point of such "evidence"?!

 

[ranma1/2]

This is wrong and no one can possibly agree with such as it is well nown that the minds and intelects of humans differ greatly and you will find that what constitutes morel for some does not constitute moral for someone ellse rather it might be that someones moral is considered as disgusting and humiliation of the intelect by someone else. Therefore how could morals be made by humans while they do not have the same understanding and common sharing intelectual abilitie? So how are humans to agree on the same principles while the wold is more and more divided in such issues. One prime example is the arguments that the vegetarians bring about the "imorality" of killing the animals for consumtion. Therefore the whole idea that we decide what morals are is in and of itself without grounds and fallacious.

Actually the fact that morals vary so much from one society to another is evidence that we humans do make our won morals, not the other way around. If morals were the same from one place to another it would be evidence that we get it from some source other than humans.

 

[Sunnih]

Actually the fact that morals vary so much from one society to another is evidence that we humans do make our won morals, not the other way around. If morals were the same from one place to another it would be evidence that we get it from some source other than humans.

Not really. We are not talking about the prevalent customs but about the morals . The prevalent customs are those that fit your description. As for morals then if we were to accept what you said then the morals do not exist at all as the very fact of what constitutes morals would be questionable. Let me ask you a question: What are morals. How do we define them. Where lies and what constitutes a/the border between moral and imoral?

 

[ranma1/2]

Not really. We are not talking about the prevalent customs but about the morals . The prevalent customs are those that fit your description. As for morals then if we were to accept what you said then the morals do not exist at all as the very fact of what constitutes morals would be questionable.

I would disagree. Morals may or may not include customs.
Also the majority of what is moral from one culture to another does not have to deal with customs. Why people think something is good or bad can have many influences.

What are morals. How do we define them. Where lies and what constitutes a/the border between moral and imoral?

Relevant defs of Morals via dictionary.com
mor·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Now most of these have to do with whatis right and wrong. Well how is this decide? Is killing wrong? Yes, no, maybe.

Of course here is a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals


So what is right and wrong?
Killing in Self defence by most cultures is considered ok, but not all.
Killing animals to eat is considered ok but not by all.
Killing members of opposing religions or countries may or may not be wrong as well.
Killing yourself in some cultures is ok and in others it is not.

Theft,
Theft for surival can be right or wrong as well in different cultures.

etc....

 

[Sunnih]

I would disagree. Morals may or may not include customs.
Also the majority of what is moral from one culture to another does not have to deal with customs. Why people think something is good or bad can have many influences.



Relevant defs of Morals via dictionary.com
mor·al
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Now most of these have to do with whatis right and wrong. Well how is this decide? Is killing wrong? Yes, no, maybe.

Of course here is a wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals


So what is right and wrong?
Killing in Self defence by most cultures is considered ok, but not all.
Killing animals to eat is considered ok but not by all.
Killing members of opposing religions or countries may or may not be wrong as well.
Killing yourself in some cultures is ok and in others it is not.

Theft,
Theft for surival can be right or wrong as well in different cultures.

etc....

Sorry but I did not say that morals incude customs. I only mentioned customs to say that what you wrote applies to customs not morals. Customs and morals are not the same thing. Same morals are shared also between those peoples with different cultures.

As far as what constitutes morals, even though I do not agree with everything quoted from dictionaries.com still I have to say that based in the deffinition you have provided and the examples you have offered teh answer to what we are discussing does not turn to the choice of individual so how can the humans decide what is moral and what is not?

Let me give an example to make a real reference when we discuss, if you want you can give examples too.

Let's talk about rape for example.

According to those who support this practice raping is not an immoral thing as they might describe it as natural based on the survival of the fittest. Also they might describe it by many more ways but the point is they will say that such constitutes a moral way of conduct.

According to me, you and everyone else (i think and I hope), this is an immoral conduct and it is something that goes against the nature of the human beings and we denounce it and abhor it.

Now who is wright and who is wrong between the two groups? If we say that we are right, why is this so? Why do we not diffrentiate then between the time and location? If we say that, then it was ok and moral but now we say it is not ok and it is imoral what basis do we have for such? I hope you understand what I am hinting at.

 

[ranma1/2]

As far as what constitutes morals, even though I do not agree with everything quoted from dictionaries.com still I have to say that based in the deffinition you have provided and the examples you have offered teh answer to what we are discussing does not turn to the choice of individual so how can the humans decide what is moral and what is not?

Let me give an example to make a real reference when we discuss, if you want you can give examples too.

Let's talk about rape for example.

According to those who support this practice raping is not an immoral thing as they might describe it as natural based on the survival of the fittest. Also they might describe it by many more ways but the point is they will say that such constitutes a moral way of conduct.

According to me, you and everyone else (i think and I hope), this is an immoral conduct and it is something that goes against the nature of the human beings and we denounce it and abhor it.

Now who is wright and who is wrong between the two groups? If we say that we are right, why is this so? Why do we not diffrentiate then between the time and location? If we say that, then it was ok and moral but now we say it is not ok and it is imoral what basis do we have for such? I hope you understand what I am hinting at.

I would disagree, of course if you could give evidence for the Nature of human beings it might help. Also if you could give your def of morals it might help as well.

As for rape, it has been considered morally acceptable by others in the past and has even been backed by some by their religions.

Even the bible under certain translations god tells people to kill all but the virgins and to take them "rape". The bible it self condones murder time and time again.

Morality, to me, is the social values held by a social group.


Of course there is the idea of moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

 

[Sunnih]

I would disagree, of course if you could give evidence for the Nature of human beings it might help. Also if you could give your def of morals it might help as well.

As for rape, it has been considered morally acceptable by others in the past and has even been backed by some by their religions.

Even the bible under certain translations god tells people to kill all but the virgins and to take them "rape". The bible it self condones murder time and time again.

Morality, to me, is the social values held by a social group.


Of course there is the idea of moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Of course it is your right to disagree with what I say just like it is my right to disagree with you say. Now as far as my definition of morals of course you will find it not in line with your beliefs as the difference between us is fundamental in the issues related to God. I am not getting into that trail as it is not my intention to discuss that matter. I am only posting my opinions on the matter just to show that even without refering to the religious scriptures the argument that human beings make their own morals is fallacious. This is what I am tryeing to say.

Even in the refering at the end of your post those who do not necessary believe in God differ within themselves. Therefore this shows that either:

1) Morals are just a theoritical concept and have no real establishment but remain whithin the domain of the relativity of the upbringing, influencing and are offshots of the individual or groups interests at a particular time and place and social understanding and status.

2) Morals do exist and are a reality but humans do not agree in what consitutes morals in every detail of such although there are some of these morals shared between groups and individuals that are not bonded by time, location, interests and status.

Whatever the case, this makes it clear that the morals are derived by humans themselves. So you might take the position that morals are not from God but at the same time you should consider that they are also not defined and originated by men. Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!

(I thank you for the forward discussion we are having without any anger or misunderstanding.)

 

[zoro]

Sunnih:

I do not despute that such studies are widespread but the nothing in these studies is rigorously proved it is mere conjectures. It does not even raise a doubt, let alone prove a point. Therefore such quotes bear no fruits. Even scientst themselves do not embrase these studies and their differing is well known. So what is the point of such "evidence"?!

Have you any idea how stupid your statement is? Even a grade-school child wouldn’t get away with writing such nonsense. It’s not worth responding to – especially since I wasn’t communicating with you but to “czgibson”.

Your statement is right up (or more appropriately, “down there”) there with the statement in this thread by “Philosopher”:

In my opinion, atheists by default are immoral creatures. Atheists are the product of their lifetime. That is why they adopt religious morals into their own worldview.

Both are candidates for the dumbest statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. And since you’re now on a “morality kick”, let me briefly review what I’ve posted elsewhere (at www.zenofzero.net ), written for children. There, too, you’ll find an elementary description of science and what “proof” means, which apparently would be very enlightening for you.

Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives); the prime objective of living beings is for them and their “family” to continue living. For humans, therefore, the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family. Such “measures” can be put on any convenient “scale”, e.g., a numerical ranging from minus 10 (for a highly immoral act) to plus 10 (for a highly moral act). Some examples follow.

• If you, alone, are stranded in the middle of a desert, then (depending on a host of obvious conditions), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: protect your head from the sun, +8; find shade, +6; find water, +5; and so on; down to and including, start screaming for help -5; start running -8; and pour your canteen of water on the sand, -9.9. In such a situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you and you family are living in a community, then (depending on a host of obvious condition), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: conform to the laws and customs of the community, +8; develop reliable interactions with your neighbors, +6; help strangers, +4; inquire about the possibility of modifying the community’s customs, +2; violate a neighbor’s trust, -4; violate the community’s customs, -6; violate the community’s laws, -8; and so on. Again in this situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you have been convinced that the universe has been created by some god who will judge you to determine your fate after you die, then your act of highest moral value (a +10) will again be to use your brain as best you can, which in turn will lead you conclude that your act of next highest moral value (say, a 9.9) will be to obey rules dictated by the clerics who interpret your “holy book” – so that you (and your family) can survive “eternally” in some “paradise”.

• On the other hand, if you are an atheist (convinced that there are no gods or any books that are “holy”), then using your brain as best you can (moral value of +10), you will decide the morality of your other acts based on how those acts promote your and your family’s survival (whatever you recognize to be the extent of your “family”, from your “immediate” family to members of your community, to all humanity, or even to all life forms).

Thereby, I assume you see why I would compliment both you and “Philosopher” by saying that the post of both of you and Philosopher are immoral: it’s a compliment, because I’m thereby suggesting that surely you’re capable of using your brains better than you have demonstrated.

 

[Sunnih]

Sunnih:

Have you any idea how stupid your statement is? Even a grade-school child wouldn’t get away with writing such nonsense. It’s not worth responding to – especially since I wasn’t communicating with you but to “czgibson”.

Your statement is right up (or more appropriately, “down there”) there with the statement in this thread by “Philosopher”:

Both are candidates for the dumbest statements I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. And since you’re now on a “morality kick”, let me briefly review what I’ve posted elsewhere (at www.zenofzero.net ), written for children. There, too, you’ll find an elementary description of science and what “proof” means, which apparently would be very enlightening for you.

Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives); the prime objective of living beings is for them and their “family” to continue living. For humans, therefore, the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family. Such “measures” can be put on any convenient “scale”, e.g., a numerical ranging from minus 10 (for a highly immoral act) to plus 10 (for a highly moral act). Some examples follow.

• If you, alone, are stranded in the middle of a desert, then (depending on a host of obvious conditions), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: protect your head from the sun, +8; find shade, +6; find water, +5; and so on; down to and including, start screaming for help -5; start running -8; and pour your canteen of water on the sand, -9.9. In such a situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you and you family are living in a community, then (depending on a host of obvious condition), you might rank the moralities of the following acts to be as follows: conform to the laws and customs of the community, +8; develop reliable interactions with your neighbors, +6; help strangers, +4; inquire about the possibility of modifying the community’s customs, +2; violate a neighbor’s trust, -4; violate the community’s customs, -6; violate the community’s laws, -8; and so on. Again in this situation, the act of highest moral value (a +10) would be to use your brain as best you can.

• If you have been convinced that the universe has been created by some god who will judge you to determine your fate after you die, then your act of highest moral value (a +10) will again be to use your brain as best you can, which in turn will lead you conclude that your act of next highest moral value (say, a 9.9) will be to obey rules dictated by the clerics who interpret your “holy book” – so that you (and your family) can survive “eternally” in some “paradise”.

• On the other hand, if you are an atheist (convinced that there are no gods or any books that are “holy”), then using your brain as best you can (moral value of +10), you will decide the morality of your other acts based on how those acts promote your and your family’s survival (whatever you recognize to be the extent of your “family”, from your “immediate” family to members of your community, to all humanity, or even to all life forms).

Thereby, I assume you see why I would compliment both you and “Philosopher” by saying that the post of both of you and Philosopher are immoral: it’s a compliment, because I’m thereby suggesting that surely you’re capable of using your brains better than you have demonstrated.

Lol. How ridiculous is the response you gather.

you said: For humans, therefore,the most basic measure for the morality of any act is how the act promotes (or hinders) the survival of oneself and one’s family.

I say: What a great discovery form the great philosopher. This is indeed something shared by humans and animals alike.

As for: "Moralities (or “moral values”) are a set of values; any value has meaning only with respect to some objective (or set of objectives);

I say: this is indeed a concept build upon empty words as the morals are themselves the objective of obtainment and this is one of the things that distinguish humans from animals. Anybody acts morally to achieve the praised status of correct behaviour. If morals were to be means to ensure the continuity of life as you claim this would be indeed a juctification for all those what any sound intelect calls imoral. Those things that ensure satisfying the needs of the individ conditioned by his need to exist and ensure his well being materially are called urges and lusts and not morals. Indeed moral behaviour is to control these urges and lusts when they contradict what is considered just and sound.

Do you have any idea how low your reasoning is?

However i take no offence at your words as safeguarding your position is considered moral by you, while my position is to look and uphold justice no matter where it comes from.

So if morality was an incarnation of you it would be very agresive, low and pregnant of ignorance and pride. Thank God i do not need such morals.

 

[Muezzin]

Should we ban beer because peope get drunk? The point was that in the past religions have been used as justification for killing the next tribe or land or person you dont like. Now noone is suggesting banning religions but the thread was about where are morals derived from.

The way certain members tell it, you'd be forgiven for thinking religion is essentially a terrible affliction that needs to be cured. But anyway.

Ultimatley morals are made by humans. We have the ability to make choices. Even if god were to say this is moral. We would decide wether we agreed or not. We decide ultimately what is moral and not.

I tend to agree. Generally speaking, religions act as a way of enforcing certain moral codes, but like it or not, it's up to human beings whether they follow them.

 

[Gator]

Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!

I'd answer that with the fact that actions most societies forbid (ie. non-condoned killing, indescriminant raping, etc.) are harmful to societies regardless time, place & people.

Its a simple case that it would benefit the society to outlaw these whether it is in europe, africa, australia, etc.

Its a given that parents would pass on positive social behaviors for the benefit of their children to suceed in the society.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The way certain members tell it, you'd be forgiven for thinking religion is essentially a terrible affliction that needs to be cured. But anyway.

Not all of them. Just the dangerous ones.

I tend to agree. Generally speaking, religions act as a way of enforcing certain moral codes, but like it or not, it's up to human beings whether they follow them.

Indeed, but it isn't just morals they enforce, they also enforce seemingly arbitrary commands like what to eat, what to wear, and who to have sex with.

 

[Muezzin]

Not all of them. Just the dangerous ones.

Humans make 'em dangerous. We're mucked up like that.

Why am I smiling?

Indeed, but it isn't just morals they enforce, they also enforce seemingly arbitrary commands like what to eat, what to wear, and who to have sex with.

Indeed, but the topic is about whether morality derives from religion/God rather than criticising religious doctrines

 

[Sunnih]

I'd answer that with the fact that actions most societies forbid (ie. non-condoned killing, indescriminant raping, etc.) are harmful to societies regardless time, place & people.

Its a simple case that it would benefit the society to outlaw these whether it is in europe, africa, australia, etc.

Its a given that parents would pass on positive social behaviors for the benefit of their children to suceed in the society.

No doubt that morality is beneficial to societies. But there are societies that do not see such as morals rather the opposite. There are tribes that as a sign of respect for the guest offer their wife to him and if he refuzes this amounts to great insult. I agree that there are principles and morals that are universal and the human natural inclination will not find these morals and principles difficult to accept, however the sorrounding realities affect them. So it is not the morals that are decided by humans themselves, but the humans have the choise to accept them or not. It is the fact that the morals can be distorted that makes the difference between the absolute state of the morals and the conditioned state of the afair. However this does not constitute birth of new morals. This much I hope we agree.

 

[ranma1/2]

....
Whatever the case, this makes it clear that the morals are derived by humans themselves. So you might take the position that morals are not from God but at the same time you should consider that they are also not defined and originated by men. Now I ask: What makes it possible for different men to coincide with the same morals and values although they belong to different beliefs (atheists included), locations and time. How comes that human inclination itself tends to agree in most of the matters relating to moral conduct?!

(I thank you for the forward discussion we are having without any anger or misunderstanding.)

Im al little confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

As for why do people have similar morals?
Well its pretty basic, those morals typically aid in social groups.
Not killing others or stealing from, or raping or many of the other "common morals" in those groups provide a basic security.

 

[Gator]

Re: Sunnih

No doubt that morality is beneficial to societies.

OK.

But there are societies that do not see such as morals rather the opposite.

You are brining a lot of moral assumptions here. Your foregoing example did not include either of the two actions I indicated (non-condoned killing, indiscriminant rape). So I don’t know what you mean

There are tribes that as a sign of respect for the guest offer their wife to him and if he refuzes this amounts to great insult.

And where exactly are these tribes? (bow chicka bow bow…I apologize in advance for that) Given the fact that this would inhibit the original tribes’ ability to pass on its genes I can see why they are so scarce. Though I’m sure swingers have existed in every age.

I agree that there are principles and morals that are universal and the human natural inclination will not find these morals and principles difficult to accept, however the sorrounding realities affect them.

Its not the moral themselves that I am saying are universal, just some of the circumstances that give rise to them. I’m sure if there existed circumstances for a society to thrive for many generations while accepting wholesale ramdom killings, that society would have been ok with that.

So it is not the morals that are decided by humans themselves, but the humans have the choise to accept them or not.

My point is that there are no initial morals, just those that have been found to benefit survival to a significant degree. This is where we disagree most I think.

It is the fact that the morals can be distorted that makes the difference between the absolute state of the morals and the conditioned state of the afair.

Again, here is where we disagree. I believe there is no state of absolute morals.

However this does not constitute birth of new morals. This much I hope we agree.

I think we disagree a few steps back so I don’t think I can answer this as I believe there are really no base morals. Thanks for the reply and discussion.