On the origin of morals - and the preservation of favoured logic

[Dagobahn Eagle]

One argument I keep hearing from the superstitious God-worshipers is that without their God or any other mythological ruler and set of rules, there'd be no source of morality. There'd as such be no reason to not rape, there'd be no incentive for altruism, and all of the world's nations would descend into dictatorships on the same level as North Korea and the old Stalinist Soviet Union.

 

This is of course as ridiculous as it is ignorant. First of all, if morality stems from the Bible and/or other mythologies (and there are indeed individuals who claim the morals we live by is courtesy of the 10 commandments), how come animals without religion show altruism? If absence of religion breeds dictatorship, communism and evil, how come many countries that are predominately atheist, such as the Scandinavian kingdoms and republics, have lower levels of crime, divorce, STDs, and so on than the United States? Why is Norway, in which only 19% of the populace believes in an after-life and 70% are atheists, ranked first on the United Nations' Human Development Index? Surely with its convictions it should rank among the last on the list, with Sri Lanka, Niger, Yemen, and Haiti?

 

On a different note, do you know a single person who actually follows the moral code of the Bible? The reason I ask is that every Christian I've ever spoken to, even the most die-hard Bible-thumping fundamentalist, fails to do so. Instead, they adopt only the passages they agree with, and ignore the rest.

 

For example, anti-homosexuals are quick to point to the Biblical outrage against homosexuality, but equally swift to ignore and even forget the Scripture that does not agree with them. Take, for instance, what to do with those who tell you to worship other Gods than the Christian one:

 

"You must kill him. Your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to

death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone

him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh, your God..."

Homophobes, for example, do not necessarily make attempts to enforce or strenghten Blue Laws which call for stores to be closed on Sundays, in respect of the Sabbath. In fact, everyone who follows moral codes in the Bible do so because their own morals tell them what is right or wrong. You don't refrain from stealing, raping, and cheating on your spouse because God tells you not to - you do it because you know it's wrong. If God popped up tomorrow and proclaimed that the idiot he'd influenced to write the Bible had been mistaken and that in reality, he had no business directing you to kill or not kill, would you go out and murder people? Methinks not.

 

So what is the origin of pity, kindness, justice, and loyalty? Society. From where did human society get it? Its ancestors. Morals are common on Earth. Humans aren't the only species to choose one partner and stay faithful with him or her until death - many species do so. Homo sapiens is far from alone in protecting fellow individuals - just look at the wolves, nursing the injured pack members, protecting the pack from attack, and even adopting human infants. In fact, the behaviour of adopting other species' newborns is also commonplace in the animal society - who hasn't heard stories of dogs who've just gotten pups choosing to also take care of a stray kitty? There was even a story on Snopes of a dog mom adopting an injured squirrel as her newest "pup"!

 

Do I have to tell my dog to protect me from harm? Nope, it will do so instinctively. She needs no story of a guy with a long beard sitting in the clouds ready to smie her should she neglect to defend me - even my relatively unintelligent dog has enough common sense in her to realize that pack members should be defended.

 

I believe this post begs the questions:

1. If humans are dependant on superstitious belief in omni-potent law-givers and punishers to not do wrong, then why aren't anmials? Aren't we humans supposed to be better than animals (especially according to those Creationists who for the lives of them do not want to descend from monkeys)?
   
2. How can any intelligent, reasonable person argue that we will descend into dictatorships when we abandon the childish mythologies to which we cling? Is it not obvious from looking at the world around you - and the animal kingdom - that this is ignorant bollocks?

Morality stems from society, tradition, and a healthy does of good ole common sense. It's constantly evolving (well, how many slaves do you count in the States today?), it's backed by logic and reason (well, most of it), and it'll stay long after the last mythological doctrine of Abraham fades into history along with those of Thor, Zeus, Shiva, and Amon-Ra.

 

So in conclusion, if there's no God, why should I not murder? Because, naturally, it takes away the life the victim has been given by his parents, and will land me in prison faster than you can say "Richard Dawkins". Sounds reasonable enough to me.

God Bless Sincerely

--Safe-Keeper

[Nancy Allen``]

I agree. People who follow religion cannot by rights follow only what suits them and ignore the rest. And for homophobes to use the Bible to justify their hatred or those who hate America and the West to use the Quran as a cause for Jihad is reprehensible.

[Samuel Dravis]

DE, you touched a bit on the Euthyphro dilemma - “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it's commanded by God?”

 

This leaves interesting problems for divine morality. The first part would mean that God is only a passer on of moral knowledge, which is pretty much against what most faiths teach. Then, if the second part is true, it means that there is no real objective morality. For example, calling God 'good' would not mean anything other than that he is consistent. Were you to explain it like Aquinas does - that God's commands are good because God's nature is good, you'd still be left trying to prove that God is good...

 

Spider's empathetic moral code avoids this problem, though it still cannot prove that one way of reasoning out a solution is the 'right' way (at least to two different people).

[Spider AL]

Topic discussed to death in this thread.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

Morality stems from society, tradition, and a healthy does of good ole common sense.

Just the latter. If morality were based on "society and tradition" it would be intrinsically immoral, because morality (presumably based on empathy) must be logically arrived at and ONLY logically arrived at. If emotion, tradition or social considerations are thrown into the mix, it cannot be morality. At all.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

It's constantly evolving (well, how many slaves do you count in the States today?),

People's ability to percieve morality en-masse may constantly shift, but morality itself is static and unchanging, because it is arrived at logically. Logic is unchanging. What was true before is true now, and what is true now was also true at the dawn of man.

 

Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis:

Spider's empathetic moral code avoids this problem, though it still cannot prove that one way of reasoning out a solution is the 'right' way (at least to two different people).

I rather think it can, provided we accept that logical proofs are the ONLY proofs for anything. People may choose to disagree with a logically arrived at moral judgement, but that will merely mean that they are being amoral.

[Samuel Dravis]

I rather think it can, provided we accept that logical proofs are the ONLY proofs for anything. People may choose to disagree with a logically arrived at moral judgement, but that will merely mean that they are being amoral.

So, if I said, "X act is wrong because..." (a logically arrived at conclusion) to someone with superior cognitive abilities, they would agree with me. However, if they disagreed (also a logical conclusion), it would mean that I was simply unable to see all aspects of the situation.

 

How would I tell that the person has superior abilities in that regard than I do?

[Spider AL]

So, if I said, "X act is wrong because..." (a logically arrived at conclusion) to someone with superior cognitive abilities, they would agree with me. However, if they disagreed (also a logical conclusion), it would mean that I was simply unable to see all aspects of the situation.

 

How would I tell that the person has superior abilities in that regard than I do?

If you had a genuine desire to be moral and to arrive at the optimally moral solution... you would discuss it with the person, and through analysis of the train of thought that led the superior person to their conclusion, you would see the logic demonstrated. The only reason you wouldn't see the logic would be... oh, self-delusion or whatever.

 

Perceiving logic isn't difficult when someone explains it. The only real barrier to percieving explained logic (and attaining morality) is self-delusion.

 

But if you're asking whether morality itself contains an in-built means of transforming amoral people into moral people... no it doesn't. But that's just morality for you.

[Samuel Dravis]

Interesting. I'd have to agree about the explaining logic part. Would this change any if there was very little difference between two acts (i.e., both seem just as logical to the lesser person)?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis:

Interesting. I'd have to agree about the explaining logic part. Would this change any if there was very little difference between two acts (i.e., both seem just as logical to the lesser person)?

Well, if the superior individual perceives some small difference between the two acts, he can explain his perception of that difference to the other person in a logical manner.

 

It follows that within a group of people all with a genuine desire to be moral, if one person perceives the correct (optimally moral) course of action through heights of logical analysis that escape his fellows, he can then transfer this knowledge to the group through simply explaining his reasoning. The only problem would arise if some members of the group didn't have a true desire to be moral and/or were deluding themselves in some way.