Morals Without God

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder how many of us really want to get our morals from a being who killed every living thing on the planet except for a goat-herder's family and a boat load of "starters"? Did the Polynesians wonder why it was raining so hard and so long? Did the Australians think they'd finally hit some descent rain for a change, and then realized it was going very, very pear-shaped? Did the "sinners" include babes at the breast and the unborn? (Interesting that "God" has aborted more fetuses in that one "operation" than humans ever will.)

 

[westprog]

I believe this would only be the case if you tried to create a framework that has to keep advocating all the silly Christian 'virtues' that we currently have. As far as I can see, it is perfectly possible to base society around nothing but reason and a general sense of empathy (which is inherent to us anyway, and requires no religion). And that wouldn't look like religion at all.

And the people who lack empathy? Or lack empathy to other races or ethnic groups, say?

Why should we favour our natural tendency to empathy and peace? Why not our equally natural tendency to hatred and violence? They are both sound evolutionary strategies.

 

[Sophronius]

And the people who lack empathy? Or lack empathy to other races or ethnic groups, say?

Those need to be dealt with in the same way that they otherwise would. Religion doesn't solve those problems in the slightest. However, a society based on reason might be better equipped at dealing with those problems than a society based on delusion.

Why should we favour our natural tendency to empathy and peace? Why not our equally natural tendency to hatred and violence? They are both sound evolutionary strategies.

Because the vast majority of people would agree that the former creates an environment more desirable to live in than the latter. Evolution only explains how we got to this point, it doesn't tell us where we should be heading now.

 

[AlBell]

Because the vast majority of people would agree that the former creates an environment more desirable to live in than the latter.

You must be reading different history books from those I've read.

But cheer up, Harris et al will be glad to provide the brain-implants, or soma, so everyone agrees with him, and you.

 

[Sophronius]

You lost me there mate. Are you seriously claiming that people prefer to live in a society built around hatred and destruction rather than reason and empathy? Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

And what is this about brain implants?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it was more of a metaphor. Besides, it is true that if you go in a gated community you don't know, two things will almost always happen:
1- You will be treated with courtesy but not trust. In a lot of cases you can feel a note of disapprovement towards you.
2- You will se behaviours that seem crazy, criminal or even dangerous to you, but that the inhabitants won't even notice.

I'm talking about experience/common sense. Serves this particular point, it's not a scientific debate.

I don't agree with this generalization either but it's off topic so I'm not too interested in debating it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a first reaction I'm a little skeptical of that research conclusion, I'd be interested in reading more.

Just Google, "the evolution of morality" and go from there.

Interestingly, this does take me back to another issue - on the "is homsexuality a choice" thread, I tried (unsuccessfully) to get somebody to answer about the other implications of proving that something like the choice of sexual partners is a genetic trait. For example, does that support those who have argued that a propensity for violence, dishonesty, greed, etc., may be more prevalent in racial groups with other shared inherited traits. If morality can be, even in part, genetic, that would seem to support numerous racist ideas even more than the ever-popular evidence relating to IQ/intelligence, wouldn't it?

That there are causes in the brain for criminal behavior tendencies, be they genetic, or the result of subsequent damage, there is lots of evidence. None to my knowledge has squat to do with skin color or other ethnic groups. The mistake you are making here is that such inherent tendencies are widespread enough to be associated with an entire ethnic group. And you are mistaken that racial groups are that genetically distinct. While one can identify a group of genes, for example, that are associated with an ethnic group, the same little cluster of genes is not sufficient to define the people who carry said genes as a distinct "race".

You might as well call everyone with type O blood a "race". Or how about we divide people by height and call them a race?


Now, whether brain damage or abnormalities resulting in a tendency toward criminal behavior excuses the behavior, generally speaking society does not choose to see it that way, just as having had a rotten childhood is not seen as an excuse for rotten behavior. But that is no reason no to recognize such brains and disadvantages exist. We know they do exist. Perhaps they should be considered as mitigating circumstances when it comes to deciding punishment and treatment for crimes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If behaviors like that can be passed on genetically, then it makes perfect sense to believe that they would be passed on, doesn't it? It seems to me that a behavior that causes people to associate in groups and do things to benefit the group ultimately insures that more members of the group will pass on their genes than would loners.

If behaviors like that are learned, it still makes sense they would be passed on among groups that are successful. That seems to be, at least, "social evolution."

You have a lot of catching up to do here to educate yourself on the topic of genetics. I don't think I can be of much help if you don't start reading some outside the forum.

Not all genes that are passed on are beneficial. Many are neutral. Many are passed on because they are associated with a beneficial trait.

The whole population is not going to be the result of perfect natural selection. There are sick people, people with birth defects, short,fat,bald men where tall and handsome men do much better. You seem to be thinking of every gene in existence only being here because it was 'fittest'. That is an outdated concept of evolution. We are way past that in the theory. Think of natural selection as exerting pressure on the gene pool to evolve in certain directions, but it isn't some absolute rule. Random mutation is the other half of the equation.

 

[Meed]

I would contend that the morals of religious people are primarily independent of their religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And the people who lack empathy? Or lack empathy to other races or ethnic groups, say?

Why should we favour our natural tendency to empathy and peace? Why not our equally natural tendency to hatred and violence? They are both sound evolutionary strategies.

I think if you look at the bigger picture, empathy, peace and cooperation are slightly ahead in the success race. For example, Jane Goodall's work shed some light on this. As a very aggressive male would take over a troop by beating out a physically weaker but more fair leader, the troop would only grudgingly follow the new leader. His reign would be extremely short lived because "the masses" were not in favor of his rule. A wise fair ruler, OTOH, often tended to have very long lasting leadership positions.

That would result in more offspring by the wise kind ruler and fewer offspring by the tyrant.

It's not the same with every species. Some species may indeed be more successful the more physically aggressive they are. The primates, maybe not so much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would contend that the morals of religious people are primarily independent of their religion.

Exactly.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You lost me there mate. Are you seriously claiming that people prefer to live in a society built around hatred and destruction rather than reason and empathy? Or am I misunderstanding you somehow?

Given numerous examples from the 20th and 21th centuries, I'd say that people prefer to live in a society built reason and empathy with those like themselves after they have wrought destruction on all those that they hate because they are different and removed them from that society.

 

[Tero]

Religious dogma is written down. Then it is edited thru time to fit the culture it is practiced in. Culture molds religion to fit its needs.

 

[Sophronius]

But does doing that actually improve the quality of life in those countries? Western countries are far more tolerant of different races/cultures these day (yea, islamaphobia is on the rise. Still) and as far as I can see the quality of life is only better for it.

I know that humans are naturally prone to violence and hatred but I honestly can't see why you would want the state to encourage that sort of thing.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Western countries are far more tolerant of different races/cultures these day

Really? What do you think would happen if law and order ended in the US tomorrow? Everyone would carry on happy and joyously together? Personally I think the country would disolve into waring factions based on race and other personality traits just like Iraq, Kosov, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I know that humans are naturally prone to violence....

I've been around the world. Often the word is, "that country you are going to is dangerous". In only one country did I find that was true. They were in the beginning of a civil war. But even there I was relatively safe and the people I encountered save one were not violent.

I do find it perplexing how men in a modern society still think of guns or fighting as a solution to disagreements. But really, the actual amount of violence in the majority of societies amounts to a tiny fraction of most peoples' interactions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? What do you think would happen if law and order ended in the US tomorrow? Everyone would carry on happy and joyously together? Personally I think the country would disolve into waring factions based on race and other personality traits just like Iraq, Kosov, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, etc.

Again another perplexing phenomena. What makes people like the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, and the Serbs and Croats who lived as neighbors for decades suddenly erupt into brutal attacks on each other?

Could the right wing gun toters in this country evolve into roving murderous gangs? It seems unlikely, but then I wasn't in Bosnia or Rwanda before their tragedies and have no clue how their realities were compared to ours. Still, there are a few nut jobs who think shooting people is the solution, but it never seems to be whole cultural movement. I think it could evolve, but can't see how we are that close. And then I think, what is it with these people crying about taking their country back and proclaiming the US has been taken over by Marxists? Bush started a war and massive data mining spying on US citizens. He claimed torture and arresting people without trial as long as they were kept in Cuba was was legal. He ignored separation of powers with "signing statements", unfunding regulations Congress enacted as laws and by stacking the legal deck with right wing ideologue judges and Regent's Law School lawyers in the Justice Department.

What on Earth has Obama done that comes anywhere close to the major changes Bush/Cheney enacted independent of Congress? That kind of talk, if you believe the people the news media brings to our attention represent a truly large proportion of the population, is scary.


In short, I have mixed feelings what you describe could happen here. I go back and forth on the likelihood such turmoil could occur. Little pockets of crazy, sure, we've always had that. But the whole society breaking down, hard to consider possible.

 

[MontagK505]

Morals with God? ever read the Old Testament? that freak has very questionable morals.

It's an unwarranted assumption that all god beliefs are based on the paranoid freak in the OT. I can imagine a Goddess that's too busy for the ass-kissing that the OT god seems to need.

 

[MontagK505]

Off the cuff, ~95% of the people in US prisons claim to be religious. Avowed atheists make up about 1%. If being religulous gives you a stronger moral framework than being atheistic you would see different number.

Perhaps atheists are just more efficent criminals.

Seriously, the point was made earlier that people who don't believe in a afterlife may not want to spent the one life they have in prison. Although, I suppose would could believe in life after death without believing in a god.

 

[brenn]

You have a lot of catching up to do here to educate yourself on the topic of genetics. I don't think I can be of much help if you don't start reading some outside the forum.

Not all genes that are passed on are beneficial. Many are neutral. Many are passed on because they are associated with a beneficial trait.

The whole population is not going to be the result of perfect natural selection. There are sick people, people with birth defects, short,fat,bald men where tall and handsome men do much better. You seem to be thinking of every gene in existence only being here because it was 'fittest'. That is an outdated concept of evolution. We are way past that in the theory. Think of natural selection as exerting pressure on the gene pool to evolve in certain directions, but it isn't some absolute rule. Random mutation is the other half of the equation.

I can only interpret that as having missed the point of my post, particularly the "social evolution" part. I actually see nothing in your response that addresses anything I said, so maybe I needed to use more words.