Study of similarities/differences in moral views of religious and non-religious people

[The happy Objectivist]

I am having trouble trying to get my head around human morality. Ants' social conscience and mayfly ethics will have to wait.

I have never found Genesis any use for anything. To me it is just full of fairy stories!

I think the place to start with morality is two questions: 1. What is morality? 2. Why does man need morality? These two questions are what we need to answer first.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think there is wide agreement about moral conduct, from a religious as well as a secular viewpoint.

 

[durangodawood]

You're the one who brought up ants and that they sacrifice themselves for the colony in an effort to validate altruism in humans, or am I mistaken?

No. I brought up the ants to show how little we can learn about human morality by invoking sweeping generalizations about all animal behavior. In post 54 responding to you I even said, added bold:

Im definitely not proposing ant colonies as a model for human society. Generally I find justifications of human morality by referring to other species to be distracting at best.

As horrid as it sounds, sometimes it seems like ants are basically just biological machines. And talking about their values has as much meaning to me as saying the moon "values" orbiting the earth because of the nature of gravity.

 

[Whyayeman]

As horrid as it sounds, sometimes it seems like ants are basically just biological machines.

There are some who regard humans as 'just biological machines', too. I do not agree, yet it is a difficult idea to dismiss.

 

[Bradskii]

I think the place to start with morality is two questions: 1. What is morality? 2. Why does man need morality? These two questions are what we need to answer first.

Morality is the summation of the acts and characteristics that worked to allow us to form societies. And forming societies was an evolutionary advantage. So if you had a small group of people that had the tendancy not to steal and preferred to share (a result of a genetic roll of the dice) then they would fare better than those who saw no problem in taking what they wanted and keeping what they had.

They'd not be invited into the group whereas those who shared those characteristics would. So stealing would be a 'bad' thing - detrimental to the group. And sharing would be a 'good' thing - beneficial to tbe group.

When Jesus advocated that we do unto others etc., He wasn't formulating a new idea or arbitrarily deciding what was morally correct. He was simply reminding us of what works. What in fact got us here in the first place. He was telling us to consciously incorporate that maxim into our lives.

A corollary of that is that, personally speaking, I see no justification for calling something immoral unless it has negative consequences.

 

[durangodawood]

Morality is the summation of the acts and characteristics that worked to allow us to form societies. And forming societies was an evolutionary advantage. So if you had a small group of people that had the tendancy not to steal and preferred to share (a result of a genetic roll of the dice) then they would fare better than those who saw no problem in taking what they wanted and keeping what they had.

They'd not be invited into the group whereas those who shared those characteristics would. So stealing would be a 'bad' thing - detrimental to the group. And sharing would be a 'good' thing - beneficial to tbe group.

When Jesus advocated that we do unto others etc., He wasn't formulating a new idea or arbitrarily deciding what was morally correct. He was simply reminding us of what works. What in fact got us here in the first place. He was telling us to consciously incorporate that maxim into our lives.

A corollary of that is that, personally speaking, I see no justification for calling something immoral unless it has negative consequences.

I agree. But its its not entirely that simple. There's also arbitrary moral rules, many for enhancing group bonding, enshrining male superiority, or other non-survival values. Im thinking about things like: its ok to do religious human sacrifice, genital mutilation is ok, etc.

 

[Whyayeman]

Yes, there are societal rules and customs we would struggle to regard as having any moral authority, FGM being a spectacular example. Hardly less subtle are rules which authorise male dominance over female in some cultures. Historically, these cultures include my own. Female equality is only just beginning to happen against strong resistance. Some people, mainly men of course, still dress up objections to female equality in moral terms.

There may be reasons for the development of such cultural phenomena, but they have nothing to do with morality.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, there are societal rules and customs we would struggle to regard as having any moral authority, FGM being a spectacular example. Hardly less subtle are rules which authorise male dominance over female in some cultures. Historically, these cultures include my own. Female equality is only just beginning to happen against strong resistance. Some people, mainly men of course, still dress up objections to female equality in moral terms.

There may be reasons for the development of such cultural phenomena, but they have nothing to do with morality.

They are morality. They are literally the rules about whats ok in society. I would argue though that they are peripheral. Core morality is the ubiquitous rules: common rules we find in most places that dont seem to change.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree. But its its not entirely that simple. There's also arbitrary moral rules, many for enhancing group bonding, enshrining male superiority, or other non-survival values. Im thinking about things like: its ok to do religious human sacrifice, genital mutilation is ok, etc.

I agree. The point I was making could be considered the first step in developing morality. And you're right - once societies develop there are very many aspects of that society that develop internally that appear to have no connection with survival of the fittest (which, incidentally, means the survival of those best fitted to the environment - not necessarily the fittest as in strongest/fastest/largest etc.).

There is a tendancy for those who promote evolutionary psychology as an explantion for our behaviour to look to evolution an explanation for everything. And I believe that if you work backwards far enough you could find a 'Darwinian' explanation for any facet of society. I'm kinda guilty of that. But I have to admit that some of the connections are somewhat tenuous and we'd do well to look for more proximate explanations.

 

[Whyayeman]

I agree that it is tempting to seek 'Darwinian' explanations to social and cultural phenomena. There is little or no scientific basis for it as far as I know. There is strong, convincing evidence that species evolved amounting to proof of the Theory of Evolution: shared DNA, intermediate species; a strong model for how characteristics are passed down the generations; a model for genetic mutation, and much more.

No such convincing evidence exists for cultural development in any human society. The best that can be said for such thinking is that it is an interesting analogy.

Here is a question that has intrigued me for years. Consider the possibility of a human-like animal, equipped with language and intelligence, living on an Earth-like planet in another solar system: would such people follow the same moral code as humans on Earth?

I like to think that they would...

 

[Strathos]

I agree that it is tempting to seek 'Darwinian' explanations to social and cultural phenomena. There is little or no scientific basis for it as far as I know. There is strong, convincing evidence that species evolved amounting to proof of the Theory of Evolution: shared DNA, intermediate species; a strong model for how characteristics are passed down the generations; a model for genetic mutation, and much more.

No such convincing evidence exists for cultural development in any human society. The best that can be said for such thinking is that it is an interesting analogy.

Here is a question that has intrigued me for years. Consider the possibility of a human-like animal, equipped with language and intelligence, living on an Earth-like planet in another solar system: would such people follow the same moral code as humans on Earth?

I like to think that they would...

I suppose it depends on the differences in their biology and environment.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree that it is tempting to seek 'Darwinian' explanations to social and cultural phenomena. There is little or no scientific basis for it as far as I know. There is strong, convincing evidence that species evolved amounting to proof of the Theory of Evolution: shared DNA, intermediate species; a strong model for how characteristics are passed down the generations; a model for genetic mutation, and much more.

No such convincing evidence exists for cultural development in any human society. The best that can be said for such thinking is that it is an interesting analogy.

Here is a question that has intrigued me for years. Consider the possibility of a human-like animal, equipped with language and intelligence, living on an Earth-like planet in another solar system: would such people follow the same moral code as humans on Earth?

I like to think that they would...

Sport? Religion? Politics? Facebook? Art? War? To select a few at random. All directly connected with the evolutionary process. There are analogys galore from nature that point directly to evolution. And there are quite often so many direct links that it would be perverse to deny them. But some aspects of life are so interlinked that it can be difficult determining exactly the reason for them. I guess it's like the proverb 'For the want of a nail, a shoe was lost...' leading to the loss of the horse, the fight, the battle, the war and the empire. You can draw a direct line and it seems entirely logical at each step. But there'd be so many other contributing factors.

Interesting question re alien life. It would undoubtedly evolve in a process that would match what we've experienced. Survival of those best fitted to the environment etc. I think it was Gould who suggested that if we reran the evolutionary tape then we'd not necessarily end up with Homo sapien at the top of the food chain. It might only take one distant ancestor to turn right instead of left leaving his cave and things would be so much different.

And morals would reflect what helped the species survive. So maybe the female would give birth to dozens of children each time with the expectation that only one or two would survive. And the loss of those dozens would be no big deal. Or maybe, as I mentioned earlier, reproducing outside the family would be taboo. Maybe the male would be killed by the female after sex as a matter of course and that would appear as normal as a post coitus cigarette. Multiple partners the norm? Sex change from one gender to another?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Well duh. You didn't read what I wrote very carefully (again). I said he was a complete stranger. I did not know anything about him except that he was obviously suffering and I was a bit curious to find out why he was risking his life to ride in such horrible conditions with snow and ice and below zero windchill. After I found out the reason, he rose in my esteem. You see I treat all people with a basic level of regard based on their potential. They either rise or fall on my hierarchy of values based on their character. See I'm a trader in all things. I got paid by the pleasure I got from helping a fellow human being. It was a bonus to find out he shared some of my values. Call it a profit. See I don't make sacrifices. Sacrifice is defined in my philosophy as giving up a value for a lesser value or for no value at all. I don't believe in win-lose relationships. I believe that all human relationships should be win-win.

Now if I came upon Hitler dying in the desert or Pol Pot or Mao I wouldn't help them.

Thats you. And I wont condemn or criticize your choice.
But I personally, would help them.

 

[Noxot]

I think that most humans have all the basic personality traits but that they tend to be arranged and utilized in different ways and more or less depending on the hierarchy that they are developing in themselves + all the starting points they have such as their genetics and environment. one example is the atheist who believes in science. can you really say that they don't accept science as a legit authority? that they seek out science for answers? many people don't understand the science in a thing but accept it because it sounds legit. many young folks in universities have a sacred place called their university. some have exhibited religious-like behaviors on campuses.

i'm a fan of the moral psychologist jonathan haidt and he has some books talking about his ideas but in this recent podcast called "rationally speaking" he pointed out main factors concerning human moral foundations and how they differ between for instance conservatives and liberals. here is the podcast.

Episode 252: Understanding moral disagreements (Jonathan Haidt)

Julia and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) discuss his moral foundations theory and argue about whether liberals should “expand their moral horizons” by learning to think like conservatives. Julia solicits Jon’s help in understanding her disagreement with philosopher Michael Sandel, in episode 247, over the morality of consensual cannibalism.

one of his books is called
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076O2VMI

'If you want to know why you hold your moral beliefs and why many people disagree with you, read this book' Simon Baron-Cohen, author of The Essential Difference

Why can it sometimes feel as though half the population is living in a different moral universe? Why do ideas such as 'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is it so hard to see things from another viewpoint? Why do we come to blows over politics and religion?

Jonathan Haidt reveals that we often find it hard to get along because our minds are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous. He explores how morality evolved to enable us to form communities, and how moral values are not just about justice and equality - for some people authority, sanctity or loyalty matter more. Morality binds and blinds, but, using his own research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate ourselves from the disputes that divide good people.

'A landmark contribution to humanity's understanding of itself' The New York Times

'A truly seminal book' David Goodhart, Prospect

'A tour de force - brave, brilliant, and eloquent. It will challenge the way you think about liberals and conservatives, atheism and religion, good and evil' Paul Bloom, author of How Pleasure Works

'Compelling . . . a fluid combination of erudition and entertainment' Ian Birrell, Observer

'Lucid and thought-provoking ... deserves to be widely read' Jenni Russell, Sunday Times

 

[Noxot]

btw jonathan haidt said the "taste buds" of morality are:
care
fairness
loyalty
sanctity
liberty

 

[Bradskii]

I think that most humans have all the basic personality traits but that they tend to be arranged and utilized in different ways and more or less depending on the hierarchy that they are developing in themselves + all the starting points they have such as their genetics and environment. one example is the atheist who believes in science. can you really say that they don't accept science as a legit authority? that they seek out science for answers? many people don't understand the science in a thing but accept it because it sounds legit. many young folks in universities have a sacred place called their university. some have exhibited religious-like behaviors on campuses.

i'm a fan of the moral psychologist jonathan haidt and he has some books talking about his ideas but in this recent podcast called "rationally speaking" he pointed out main factors concerning human moral foundations and how they differ between for instance conservatives and liberals. here is the podcast.

Episode 252: Understanding moral disagreements (Jonathan Haidt)

Julia and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) discuss his moral foundations theory and argue about whether liberals should “expand their moral horizons” by learning to think like conservatives. Julia solicits Jon’s help in understanding her disagreement with philosopher Michael Sandel, in episode 247, over the morality of consensual cannibalism.

one of his books is called
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0076O2VMI

'If you want to know why you hold your moral beliefs and why many people disagree with you, read this book' Simon Baron-Cohen, author of The Essential Difference

Why can it sometimes feel as though half the population is living in a different moral universe? Why do ideas such as 'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is it so hard to see things from another viewpoint? Why do we come to blows over politics and religion?

Jonathan Haidt reveals that we often find it hard to get along because our minds are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous. He explores how morality evolved to enable us to form communities, and how moral values are not just about justice and equality - for some people authority, sanctity or loyalty matter more. Morality binds and blinds, but, using his own research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate ourselves from the disputes that divide good people.

'A landmark contribution to humanity's understanding of itself' The New York Times

'A truly seminal book' David Goodhart, Prospect

'A tour de force - brave, brilliant, and eloquent. It will challenge the way you think about liberals and conservatives, atheism and religion, good and evil' Paul Bloom, author of How Pleasure Works

'Compelling . . . a fluid combination of erudition and entertainment' Ian Birrell, Observer

'Lucid and thought-provoking ... deserves to be widely read' Jenni Russell, Sunday Times

I can't but back up what noxot has said. Haidt is well worth reading. And listening to. Strongly recommended.

And thanks, noxot for the podcast link. There goes the rest of my day...

 

[Whyayeman]

I had not heard of Haidt.

Time to have my assumptions challenged. Thanks very much!

 

[Bradskii]

I had not heard of Haidt.

Time to have my assumptions challenged. Thanks very much!

I was going to link to some of his work. But if you just search 'Haidt' in Youtube then you'll have hours worth of material.

 

[Whyayeman]

Thank you. I will do some reading. (I will have to get over some initial reluctance; Haidt is a psychologist, not a biologist.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Would you be happy if you were the only person alive in the world?

Some of us don't mind being around other people but we don't want to be among them.