Where do you get your morals from?

[dqhall]

Evolution is accepted as a fact by virtually all scientists throughout the world.



Do you know the extraordinary variety of animals and plants that humans have been able to create through artificial selection? For example consider the wide variety of vegetables that we've created from Brassica oleracea - Wikipedia or the wide variety of dog breeds that we've created from wolves. Natural selection works in the same way, except that instead of a human breeder which selects who mates with who, the environment does that.

We do not get our morals from wolves. Man is not the most intelligent creature in the universe. God is. We have morals from Jesus about showing mercy and kindness. There are also statuettes in local, state and federal legal codes against perjury, theft, murder, and rape same as Jesus and the prophets taught.

 

[durangodawood]

Whether they are shared by other faiths is irrelevent. They have been taught to western society by Christianity, not by other societies.

The point is, these morals arent Christian morals as you state. They are universal morals for the most part.

 

[durangodawood]

Try arguing that regarding laws with a court and see how far you get.

It is the same with morality.

We see laws changing all the time to follow our evolving morality.

 

[Brother Billy]

We do not get our morals from wolves. Man is not the most intelligent creature in the universe. God is. We have morals from Jesus about showing mercy and kindness. There are also statuettes in local, state and federal legal codes against perjury, theft, murder, and rape same as Jesus and the prophets taught.

I never claimed that humans get their morals from wolves. Watch the video that I posted on the first post of this thread

 

[Brother Billy]

When you look at moral issues like homosexuality, spanking your child, interracial relationships or even women preachers; Christian views on these moral issues has changed a lot over the past 50 years; and that’s just the past 50 years; consider how much has changed over the past 500 years, or how much will change over the next 500 years!

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that because Christian people dominate western society, their values will influence the non-Christians in that society.

If the Bible contains moral teachings from God, how come the Churches views on the above have changed so dramatically over time? An extreme example is at the height of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, where the Catholic and Protestant Churches were supporting slavery and used the Bible to justify it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Evolution is accepted as a fact by virtually all scientists throughout the world.

At one point so was the theory that the earth was at the center of the universe, that the earth was flat (surprisingly, some people still believe this), and bleeding people by leeches or cutting to cure disease. Appeal to authority is a poor debate tool.

 

[Brother Billy]

At one point so was the theory that the earth was at the center of the universe, that the earth was flat (surprisingly, some people still believe this), and bleeding people by leeches or cutting to cure disease. Appeal to authority is a poor debate tool.

Yes I agree that appeal to authority is a poor debate tool. However an appeal to the consensus among experts in the biological sciences is not the same thing.

If 9 out of 10 witchdoctors who examined you said you had a heart problem, would you take them seriously? Now what if instead of witchdoctors, they were world renowned cardiologists, would your opinion change and why?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes I agree that appeal to authority is a poor debate tool. However an appeal to the consensus among experts in the biological sciences is not the same thing.

Actually, it is.

 

[ananda]

As an atheist, I don't think that humans get a top down morality imposed on them from an outside source. Instead, human morality comes from a bottom up approach. ...

IMO, as a Buddhist, it is neither.

Morality, or a sense of what is proper conduct, involves 1. knowledge of the laws governing reality, 2. the sense of discontentment/suffering, and 3. empathy towards others. Morality arises (or doesn't arise) as an interplay between all three factors.

 

[Brother Billy]

Actually, it is.

Well then you don't know what an appeal to authority is. See the following links:

Appeal to Scientific Consensus is not an Appeal to Popularity or Authority | Debunking Denialism

Logical Fallacies: Argument from Authority versus the Scientific Consensus

 

[Phil 1:21]

Well then you don't know what an appeal to authority is. See the following links:

Appeal to Scientific Consensus is not an Appeal to Popularity or Authority | Debunking Denialism

Logical Fallacies: Argument from Authority versus the Scientific Consensus

Actually, I do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You have never worked with small children. They have an inbuilt sense of what is or is not fair.

This is built on by family life, and by society.

This of course means that atheisists in the west have a morality based on Christianity.

That doesn't follow. At all.
It just means that humans have "built in" traits like empathy etc.
Which is to be expected in context of an evolutionary history of social species.

Which makes for amusing discussions as they seek to attack Christianity for being immoral while using Christianities moral bases for there attack.

That makes no sense. Unless christianity includes morals that contradicts other morals it also includes.

Could you define the influences on your morality that are not Christian and are superior.

Secular human rights which form the foundation for my judgement call that slavery, genocide and infanticide are unjustifiable evils.

 

[Brother Billy]

Actually, I do.

You also don't know how to read then

Why don't you answer my question in #27 above then?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you said that Christians today don't follow as strictly the morality tasught in the bible I'd agree with you.

And thank goodness for that, or we would still be "smiting the wicked", stoning disobedient children, burning witches, executing homosexuals, keeping slaves, etc etc.

[qutoe]
Just because Christians are careless about morality doesn't mean morality is or has changed.[/QUOTE]

I'ld say christians, along with non-christians, have become visibly more moral over time.
And this trend has occured not because of religion, but oftenly in spite of it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why don't you answer my question in #27 above then?

It was irrelevant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here's the main problem in my opinion. I don't know how anyone can argue that humans have co-operated with neighbours throughout history when there is overwhelming evidence of the exact opposite. Neighbours have been at war and killing each other throughout history, in fact, many groups of people have been very successful in doing so and spreading their seed through the massacre of men and rape of women of conquered neighbours.

yes, like the israeli's alledgely did with plenty of people's like the amalakites etc.

But the post you are responding to is meaning "neighbours" literally. As in: the guy of the same tribe/group that lives next door.

Not the neighbouring populations, as in: other tribes/socities living miles away.

To that, I'ld also say that as times and technology progress, the world becomes much smaller and "tribal barriers" break down. Which again gives a net rise in moral behaviour towards people ouside of your direct group.

In evolutionary terms, spreading your seed through pillage and rape is very successful

You're still confusing individual behaviour with tribal behaviour.

Where does the idea that this is wrong come from? Christianity.

Except when it doesn't, like biblical instructions to go to some neighbouring country on genocidal and infantacidal killing sprees.

I think people underestimate how revolutionary Jesus ideas were for his time.

There have been revolutionary ideas throughout history.
That doesn't make it supernatural, nore does it mean that all the surrounding mythology is accurate.

Having said that, I think you'll find that a lot of things that you consider "revolutionary", were actually recycled old ideas.

I can't even count the amount of times christians pretended that the golden rule was invented by abrahamic religion. It wasn't. At all. It predates it by hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Most, if not all, civilisations (many of which have never come into contact with anything abrahamic) have come up with it independently in some form or another.

The idea that you should love your enemies, as opposed to fight and dominate them, was foreign.

It's also rather stupid as a rule.
And it also doesn't jive well with the many genocidal and infanticidal killing sprees of the OT.

In fact, the reason the Jews denied he was the messiah was because he was not a warlord that raised an army to conquer Israel's enemies.

Great. This doesn't make christianity the exclusive owner of morality at all, off course.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As an atheist, I don't think that humans get a top down morality imposed on them from an outside source. Instead, human morality comes from a bottom up approach. Just like every other physical and mental trait that humans possess, our conscience has evolved because it has helped our species survive. For most of our evolutionary history, we lived in small bands in very hostile environments where starvation, wild animals, enemy tribes and the elements threatened our existence at every turn. If we didn't care for our family members or didn't form cooperative relationships with others based on reciprocity and fairness, or if we regularly engaged in incest, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

I would argue that humans had a conscience long before the first religions appeared and this forms the basis for all moral systems throughout the world and throughout history. Moral systems were/are further influenced by culture and tradition. Certain behaviors might be considered deeply immoral in one culture, while at the same time be perfectly acceptable in others (e.g footbinding in ancient China, gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome, polygamy etc)

Humans created religion themselves and tried to codify what evolution had already given us (e.g. the Golden Rule) into their religions together with other "morals" such as "don't work on the Sabbath" or "don't worship other gods except me" etc.

Most people don't actually get their morals from the Bible, and to the extent that they do, they just pick and choose the nice bits (such as love your neighbor) and ignore the nasty bits (such as those that condone evils like slavery, genocide, rape, etc).

It's hard to say how I've gotten my morals. Are we talking my pre-Evangelical Christian days that came before age 17, or those that I began to develop during my existential roller-coaster ride during my Evangelical and post-mainstream days?

What I keep bumping into are people on the left and on the right, a few in between, who think they've just got this whole moral philosophy thing nailed down to a 'T.' It keeps it interesting, although I notice there's a whole lot of issues that Christians on one side, and non-Christians on the other, don't really address. I've always thought it odd that there exists this apparent 'exclusionary' caveat for what issues people are willing to discuss regarding the moral realm. In saying this, I do realize that some people avoid various topics due to trauma or other deep-seated experiences which inhibit them from doing so, but this still doesn't explain why some subjects just don't really get addressed very often or sometimes at all. And if we're not really be comprehensive about ethics, then how can any of us really fully claim that we ARE INDEED moral acting creatures. (Of course, I realize that it may be impossible for us to be comprehensive in our ethical understandings about the world, but if this is the case, shouldn't we all be honest about it and stop acting and claiming that we each are indeed, moral?)

 

[Halbhh]

As an atheist, I don't think that humans get a top down morality imposed on them from an outside source. Instead, human morality comes from a bottom up approach. Just like every other physical and mental trait that humans possess, our conscience has evolved because it has helped our species survive. For most of our evolutionary history, we lived in small bands in very hostile environments where starvation, wild animals, enemy tribes and the elements threatened our existence at every turn. If we didn't care for our family members or didn't form cooperative relationships with others based on reciprocity and fairness, or if we regularly engaged in incest, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

I would argue that humans had a conscience long before the first religions appeared and this forms the basis for all moral systems throughout the world and throughout history. Moral systems were/are further influenced by culture and tradition. Certain behaviors might be considered deeply immoral in one culture, while at the same time be perfectly acceptable in others (e.g footbinding in ancient China, gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome, polygamy etc)

Humans created religion themselves and tried to codify what evolution had already given us (e.g. the Golden Rule) into their religions together with other "morals" such as "don't work on the Sabbath" or "don't worship other gods except me" etc.

Most people don't actually get their morals from the Bible, and to the extent that they do, they just pick and choose the nice bits (such as love your neighbor) and ignore the nasty bits (such as those that condone evils like slavery, genocide, rape, etc).

What do you think of the archaeological examples from around the world, throughout all time periods, of ancient bones showing death by violent attack?

Do you think the reports are slanted or faked somehow, from the forensic archaeology?

If our innate morals are good, significant, strong...then why so much endless crime and war?

Not only the primitive, but also the 'civilized', such as China, with it's endless wars of sheer conquest and power, while being 'civilized'. (Chinese history has some of the most amazingly bloody wars of all, in sheer numbers killed, massive numbers and extremely high portions of all the population, from this 'civilization'.)

If you think the archaeologists aren't faking their reports, and you think our native condition as humans is tending to moral, then why is violence such a constant?

An Ancient, Brutal Massacre May Be the Earliest Evidence of War | Science | Smithsonian
Even nomadic hunter-gatherers engaged in deliberate mass killings 10,000 years ago

A Massacre Frozen in Time: Skeletons in Sweden Reveal Ancient Attack

A 500,000-year-old clue reveals world’s oldest known murder

5 Of The 10 Deadliest Wars Began In China

These are not cherry picking at all, but representative. If you read 100 reports about ancient remains you find violent death by weapons and bludgeoning to be not occasional, but a common means of death.

 

[durangodawood]

...If our innate morals are good, significant, strong...then why so much endless crime and war?...

Clearly the facts of our behavior are what they are regardless of whether our morals are revealed from God or developed in a naturalistic way.

And, both revealed and naturalistic explanations account for the evolution of morals over time.

 

[Halbhh]

Clearly the facts of our behavior are what they are regardless of whether our morals are revealed from God or developed in a naturalistic way.

And, both revealed and naturalistic explanations account for the evolution of morals over time.

Indeed. I agree.

Instead, I'm questioning the fundamental premise of the OP to begin with -- that we are tending to be moral by nature, that is, more moral than immoral, by nature.

That's what I question, because of evidence, and against my own preference.

I wanted us to be naturally good.

It was not what I found in thousands of hours of reading in diverse fields.

I didn't like the reality I learned about.

But its the real, the actual, and we ought to accept facts, real things, that are actual.

We should not start with an idea, like innate morality as strong and adequate, and then filter out facts to support our preferred theory.

Instead, the scientific approach is to try to find evidence that may contradict the theory, and see if the theory can hold up. Or fail.