Most ideas of right and wrong, reward and punishment, acceptance and rejection in many societies have a basis in the religious culture.

This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?

An animal does what it can to survive; there is no "murder" or "theft" or "rape" or "infanticide".

So why should there be ANY standard of behaviour for humans?

No trolling please; I would really like to discuss the topic (Jimmy, this is for you) from an atheists point of view.

You've got it backwards. People beget religion, not the other way around and morality is a concept derived from interaction.

There are many tribes and societies that form thier codes of conduct if you actually paid attention and they are not all xians and mooslims. Geez

Why we're not exactly like lower animals is called the development of the brain(laughs) and we can see how self-control and other developed traits can further our evolution. Animals DO have standards of behavior if you paid any attention to thier structure. One OBVIOUS point is they usually don't practice cannibalism or at least more evolved animals.

You've got it backwards. People beget religion, not the other way around and morality is a concept derived from interaction.

There are many tribes and societies that form thier codes of conduct if you actually paid attention and they are not all xians and mooslims. Geez

Why we're not exactly like lower animals is called the development of the brain(laughs) and we can see how self-control and other developed traits can further our evolution. Animals DO have standards of behavior if you paid any attention to thier structure. One OBVIOUS point is they usually don't practice cannibalism or at least more evolved animals.

Are any of them without religion? And you apparently haven't kept up with the literature. :)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Modern_era

Are animal standards of behaviour related to morality or ethics?

Cheetahs won't eat something that they didn't kill, although that probably has more to do with the unhealthiness of it. Great apes show some sense of morality. Also, have you read the Republic?

Moral behavior is evolved, religion only reflects it and codifies it. It comes from being social animals.

Moral behavior is evolved, religion only reflects it and codifies it. It comes from being social animals.

So reward and punishment are evolved social constructs?

Yes, as has been mentioned, this is behavior we see in apes. We also see murder and violence. If religion generated a moral society, there would be no need for punishment.

This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?

The same reason theists behave morally; punishment.

If religion generated a moral society, there would be no need for punishment.

If laws generated a moral society, there would be no need for laws :rolleyes:

Besides, you could have a religion founded on immorality.

MYUU

Besides, you could have a religion founded on immorality.

MYUU

Does not exist.

If laws generated a moral society, there would be no need for laws :rolleyes:

That is also true.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/

Most ideas of right and wrong, reward and punishment, acceptance and rejection in many societies have a basis in the religious culture.
This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?


Not believe in; if you want humans to survive, you have to understand morality is essential for human survival and you should behave nicely. If you don't care about humankind's future but just want to live happy yourself, you should obey the laws (and probably behave nicely because you feel good) otherwise you will go to jail. If you don't care about yourself or humankind, you can do whatever you want.

The same reason theists behave morally; punishment.

Let me elaborate.
Theists behave as wickedly as atheists. Theism is by no means an indicator of morality. The reason why most atheists behave 'morally' (which is entirely subjective to culture, btw), is the same as why most theists behave morally. To fit in and not get punished by the community. To say that theists behave morally because of their imaginary skylord is to ignore the fact that theists lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, pillage, plunder, whenever they get the chance, ie, whenever there isn't a wordly force preventing them.

Let me elaborate.
The reason why most atheists behave 'morally' (which is entirely subjective to culture, btw), is the same as why most theists behave morally. To fit in and not get punished by the community.
The only thing I'd want to add to this is that, by the time they've reached a certain age - early teens, I'd suggest - most people have internalised the laws and moral imperatives of their societies. The pressure to conform from this point on comes as much from within as without.

However: I think, left at that, this analysis is a bit overdeterministic. I'm not convinced that 'good' behaviour is driven entirely by fear of punishment. Empathy with others plays a large part in stable adults. The ability to feel fear, pain and distress gives us an insight into how others will feel in a similar situation. No doubt it's intertwined with fear of punishment/retaliation on the one hand, and avoidance of guilt/maintaining a good self-image on the other but I do think that some people are capable of altruism, just as some are capable of acts of great 'evil'. People are complex and capable of conformity in some circumstances and rebellion in others. Often one set of moral ideas conflicts with another, and in these circumstances we have a choice to make. It does us an injustice to suggest that we swallow and follow wholesale the moral rules we learn in childhood without question or any kind of internal (or external) debate.

And no morality isn't 'a religious construct'; like religion itself, it's a social one.

A simple way of understanding morality is pay attention to your interaction with your pets and vice versa. Do they try to eat you? attack you? Or do they see you as family and exhibit natural inclinations to cooperation with you? Do they expect you to mistreat them? No. Are they christian? muslim? atheist? No. It has nothing to do with religion, morality is natural. You don't need a book to tell you what you like or dislike. The concepts you form are then transferred to paper and the written word is a snapshot of the mind or moral values of those who wrote it. Simple.

The problem with morality is when its misunderstood as being outside of oneself or control. Morality should and can evolve just like any type of awareness. The development of empathy and other types of awareness is a product of this evolution.

Does not exist.

Does so! The voice in my head tells me so.

samcdkey:

Most ideas of right and wrong, reward and punishment, acceptance and rejection in many societies have a basis in the religious culture.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Religious culture has a basis in ideas of morality, which pre-exist for a number of complex reasons.

This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?

Lots of reasons. Self-interest is just one. "Do unto others... just in case they do unto you."

An animal does what it can to survive; there is no "murder" or "theft" or "rape" or "infanticide".

Not conceptualised in quite that way, no.

But there are all of those actions; I would think human motivation runs in the same way.

Atheists generally get their moral standards from the society they are part of.

These societies often have laws, rules, and cultural norms that originated from religious beliefs.

Hence, one could argue that atheists do follow a religious code of morality. They have just subtracted the God.

A simple way of understanding morality is pay attention to your interaction with your pets and vice versa. Do they try to eat you? attack you? Or do they see you as family and exhibit natural inclinations to cooperation with you? Do they expect you to mistreat them? No. Are they christian? muslim? atheist? No. It has nothing to do with religion, morality is natural. You don't need a book to tell you what you like or dislike. The concepts you form are then transferred to paper and the written word is a snapshot of the mind or moral values of those who wrote it. Simple.

The problem with morality is when its misunderstood as being outside of oneself or control. Morality should and can evolve just like any type of awareness. The development of empathy and other types of awareness is a product of this evolution.

Interaction with pets is not based on morality on their part. If you never feed them or take care of them, and beat them regularly, they are unlikely to look on you as a family member.:)

You can "teach" a pet right and wrong only in terms of what it can expect otherwise, but would you take the same chances with a wild dog you happened to come across?

Atheists generally get their moral standards from the society they are part of.

These societies often have laws, rules, and cultural norms that originated from religious beliefs.

Hence, one could argue that atheists do follow a religious code of morality. They have just subtracted the God.

So why do atheists believe in good or bad, right or wrong? Aren't those artificial constructs imposed upon us by society? What would be the point of assigning a moral value to an action?

But there are all of those actions; I would think human motivation runs in the same way.

Except that animals would not have a sense of guilt or victimisation associated with their actions; so should we discard these concepts that have had no effects on human motivation?

So why do atheists believe in good or bad, right or wrong? Aren't those artificial constructs imposed upon us by society? What would be the point of assigning a moral value to an action?

Good and bad existed before religions ever came into being. The same applies for right and wrong. Religion is a by-product of a patriarchal society and a wish to impose power and control.

Good and bad existed before religions ever came into being.

How do we know that?

Except that animals would not have a sense of guilt or victimisation associated with their actions; so should we discard these concepts that have had no effects on human motivation?

Animals are capable of feeling victimized or guilt!! Evidently you are not perceptive of it. Maybe not to the degree we are but certainly they do.

Animals are capable of feeling victimized or guilt!! Evidently you are not perceptive of it. Maybe not to the degree we are but certainly they do.

Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation.:p

Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation.

Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

When a dog or a puppy pees in the house, if that "look" on his face and his actions are not guilty, then pray tell, what is it? ...cause any other time, he's so happy to see his owner that he's ecstatic with happiness and joy. What changes? ...other than he peed on the carpet?

Baron Max

Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

When a dog or a puppy pees in the house, if that "look" on his face and his actions are not guilty, then pray tell, what is it? ...cause any other time, he's so happy to see his owner that he's ecstatic with happiness and joy. What changes? ...other than he peed on the carpet?

Baron Max

Really? And if its a dog that just walked in from outside and peed all over your furniture? Would he have "that look" on his face?:rolleyes:

Really? And if its a dog that just walked in from outside and peed all over your furniture? Would he have "that look" on his face?

As a matter of fact, they do!!

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

Baron Max

As a matter of fact, they do!!

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

Baron Max

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty". So if he "knew" it was "wrong" he wouldn't pee, but he pees anyway and "fears" the displeasure that he knows will come after. If you scold him for it an hour later, though, he will not associate it with the peeing.

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty".

Yes he does, Sam!! A brand new puppy, never been in the house before, never been punished for anything. If you leave for a while, then come back, he'll pout like a little kid if he's peed in the house. If he ain't peed, he'll greet you like the long lost mommy!

Sam, I've been there on three different puppies ...they all do it. They just know that it's wrong to pee or poop in the house ...and they damned sure feel "guilty" about doing it.

Sorry, Sam, but you just obviously don't know.

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

What's the matter, Sam? Why won't you answer that question??? How do you know what you claimed in the italic statement above?

Baron Max

Yes he does, Sam!! A brand new puppy, never been in the house before, never been punished for anything. If you leave for a while, then come back, he'll pout like a little kid if he's peed in the house. If he ain't peed, he'll greet you like the long lost mommy!

Sam, I've been there on three different puppies ...they all do it. They just know that it's wrong to pee or poop in the house ...and they damned sure feel "guilty" about doing it.

Sorry, Sam, but you just obviously don't know.

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

What's the matter, Sam? Why won't you answer that question??? How do you know what you claimed in the italic statement above?

Baron Max

Well I've actually had puppies and kittens and baby goats and chickens and mice and birds and a turtle.

Next time you get a puppy, don't scold him if he pees; act joyful, "good dog nice boy" etc, and see how guilty he feels about doing it again.:p

I even have a friend who breeds Shelties, and she lets them pee on newspapers all over the house when they are young; I've never seen them look abashed either.

Next time you get a puppy, don't scold him if he pees; act joyful, "good dog nice boy" etc, and see how guilty he feels about doing it again.:p

How many times do I have to say it, Sam!?! I've said it over and over and over, yet you disregard it. Why? Go back and reread my posts about the dogs/puppies ....please. Yo're trying to make a point about "scolding" when there is NOT one to make.

Baron Max

How many times do I have to say it, Sam!?! I've said it over and over and over, yet you disregard it. Why? Go back and reread my posts about the dogs/puppies ....please. Yo're trying to make a point about "scolding" when there is NOT one to make.

Baron Max

I've seen the reverse too, so whom should I believe?
So are the puppies abashed when they pee in the yard, or only when they pee in the house?

Morality is a consequence of ethical knowlege, wether it comes from religion or it comes from reading Desktop Reference of plato doesnt matter....

True and untrue knowledge are only manifests of absolute truth


Rick

How do we know that?

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions. For example, were Muslims not aware of what constituted "good and bad" before the writing of the Quran? What of the Bible and the Torah?

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions. For example, were Muslims not aware of what constituted "good and bad" before the writing of the Quran? What of the Bible and the Torah?

I mean how do we know that there were concepts of good and bad before there ever was religion? The Muslims were not atheists before they were Muslims.:)

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions.

No, Bells, "right n' wrong" was set long, long before any kind of religion was instituted. In the cave, when one man tried to steal another's food, and the owner smacked the theif with a big club, it was instantly recognized by every other caveman that ...stealing someone else's food is ...a bad thing to do!

As religions came along, they just incorporated all of those old "good n' bad" things into it's rules.

Baron Max

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty". So if he "knew" it was "wrong" he wouldn't pee, but he pees anyway and "fears" the displeasure that he knows will come after. If you scold him for it an hour later, though, he will not associate it with the peeing.

How do you know that if your mother hadn't punished you for being selfish, that you'd "feel guilty" when you were selfish later in life? Guilt itself may just be the sense we get when we know we "deserve" punishment that we are not getting. In that sense it might be Pavlovian...a reflection of some part of us that is anticipating punishment (even when the rational part of our brain knows that we've avoided it).

Mother chimpanzee punish children who refuse to share, and that's how chimpanzees learn that not sharing is bad. It gets ingrained into them over time. Chimpazees may not be "morally autonomous" in the philosophical sense, but there are debates about that (as there are about whether humans are truly morally autonomous).

That question, along with the question of whether animals "really" feel guilt or not are moot questions. We do know that other complex social animals exhibit behaviors very similar to those of humans to some extent or another.

Well, they certainly feel victimization. To not pick that up is quite unempathetic. I could post a vid of dogs being gassed and you can hear them cry out in pain. How dense can you be, of course they feel victimization.

Most ideas of right and wrong, reward and punishment, acceptance and rejection in many societies have a basis in the religious culture.

No, religion created those concepts to prop up the fear associated with the belief system. Those concepts have little relevance in reality.

This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?

"Good" and "bad" as represented by religion has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with with propagating fear. Accountability has no meaning in that regard, other than being accountable for propagation.

An animal does what it can to survive; there is no "murder" or "theft" or "rape" or "infanticide".

So what?

So why should there be ANY standard of behaviour for humans?

The standards can be quite simple. Do no harm to others.

No trolling please; I would really like to discuss the topic (Jimmy, this is for you) from an atheists point of view.

Who's Jimmy?

"Good" and "bad" as represented by religion has nothing to do with morality

Come again?:confused:


The standards can be quite simple. Do no harm to others.


Why?

The standards can be quite simple. Do no harm to others.

And what if someone does do something harmful? I'm a firm believer that evil people actually exist, are actually born that way. So ...what does your wonderous society do about those people when they actually harm someone? Nothing ...because of your high and simple standards?

Baron Max

I've seen the reverse too, so whom should I believe?

Sam, I have to recant my earlier posts. The problem is that I've never had a puppy right out of the womb! I've always gotten my puppies at about 9-12 weeks old ....so it's entirely possible that the previous owners/breeders actually scolded the puppies before I got them. Sorry about my earlier positive-sounding remarks ...I didn't think about it until later.

Baron Max

Sam, I have to recant my earlier posts. The problem is that I've never had a puppy right out of the womb! I've always gotten my puppies at about 9-12 weeks old ....so it's entirely possible that the previous owners/breeders actually scolded the puppies before I got them. Sorry about my earlier positive-sounding remarks ...I didn't think about it until later.

Baron Max

Ah, of course, now it makes sense, I was really surprised we had such different experiences.:)

I'm a firm believer

We may have discovered the problem. ;)

We may have discovered the problem. ;)

Ahem!:bugeye:


No trolling please

Come again?:confused:

I don't do requests. :p

Why?

For one who does not want harm to befall them, it is an assumption made if all had the same want.

Originally Posted by samcdkey
No trolling please

I uncovered the root of the problem. How is that trolling?

I don't do requests. :p

Yeah, I know.

For one who does not want harm to befall them, it is an assumption made if all had the same want.

So if someone attacks you, you assume it is because he does not want to be hurt?


I uncovered the root of the problem. How is that trolling?

Stop trolling.:poke:

No, the idea that morality is a religious constructs is one of the greatest fallacies in modern ethics.
Morality is based on an ancient emotional response mechanism; which even smaller mammals like mice have.
Certainly religion can be used to coerce people into being moral, but its not the source of morality.

No, the idea that morality is a religious constructs is one of the greatest fallacies in modern ethics.
Morality is based on an ancient emotional response mechanism; which even smaller mammals like mice have.
Certainly religion can be used to coerce people into being moral, but its not the source of morality.

Could you expand on this?

Well what i mean is - morality is based in a sort of visceral extra-rational process.
Much as we can understand what makes a good sentence 'good' and a bad sentence 'bad' outside of the linguistic principles we're taught (as people like chomsky have shown).
We also have a generalised sense of what's 'fair' outside of social tradition and coerced conduct (assuming that we listen to our intuitive moral voice that is).
For example - you wont find a culture on earth that doesnt understand the concepts of guilt, shame, or empathy - you'll have localised divergent ideas of where these repsonses are deemed appropriate of course.
But the core intuitive emotional framework that underpins all moral values is always ever-present, continually guiding our outwardly rationalised behaviour.

Wow, uh yeah. I don't need a book to tell me what is going to offend me or not. No one needs a book to tell them to run away from someone trying to kill them or attack them. No one needs a book to tell them when they feel nice or friendly toward someone or hateful or angry. These are experienced and are a rudimentary basis for the concept of morality. Writing it down does give a frame of reference in sharing points of view or common experience though. I don't need to run to a book to check if something I experienced was something I considered moral or immoral since everyone has an internal built-in compass. One's moral compass is transcribed to paper, the paper didn't write my moral compass unless you are that stupid.

Wow, uh yeah. I don't need a book to tell me what is going to offend me or not. No one needs a book to tell them to run away from someone trying to kill them or attack them. No one needs a book to tell them when they feel nice or friendly toward someone or hateful or angry. These are experienced and are a rudimentary basis for the concept of morality. Writing it down does give a frame of reference in sharing points of view or common experience though. I don't need to run to a book to check if something I experienced was something I considered moral or immoral since everyone has an internal built-in compass. One's moral compass is transcribed to paper, the paper didn't write my moral compass unless you are that stupid.

So you think that if one was brought up in the world away from religious influences, (e.g. feral children) they would have the same sense of right and wrong as you do?

I don't need to run to a book to check if something I experienced was something I considered moral or immoral since everyone has an internal built-in compass.
So why does "morality" vary throughout history and with geography?

No, Bells, "right n' wrong" was set long, long before any kind of religion was instituted. In the cave, when one man tried to steal another's food, and the owner smacked the theif with a big club, it was instantly recognized by every other caveman that ...stealing someone else's food is ...a bad thing to do!

As religions came along, they just incorporated all of those old "good n' bad" things into it's rules.

Baron Max
Psst..

That's what I said in the first place lol.:p

No, Bells, "right n' wrong" was set long, long before any kind of religion was instituted. In the cave, when one man tried to steal another's food, and the owner smacked the theif with a big club, it was instantly recognized by every other caveman that ...stealing someone else's food is ...a bad thing to do!

As religions came along, they just incorporated all of those old "good n' bad" things into it's rules.

Baron Max

How do you know thats what they did? How old are you? :confused:

In the cave, when one man tried to steal another's food, and the owner smacked the theif with a big club, it was instantly recognized by every other caveman that ...stealing someone else's food is ...a bad thing to do!
And if the guy stealing had a bigger club or was nastier it would be seen that it was a good thing to do... more food for the tough guys.

So you think that if one was brought up in the world away from religious influences, (e.g. feral children) they would have the same sense of right and wrong as you do?

Yes, they would have a moral compass in regard to their personal experiences which would be inexactly like mine but fundamentally similar in regard to basic needs. If they are feral, it would be more rudimentary but they would protect themselves, run away from predators, cry, feel etc. I can't believe this question is even asked.

So why does "morality" vary throughout history and with geography?

Because morality isn't perfect but a general consensus based on self-protection and usually those of your species. As you evolve that empathy can extend further.

And if the guy stealing had a bigger club or was nastier it would be seen that it was a good thing to do... more food for the tough guys.

This too happens and this is the point of morality, the interaction. The nastier guy can end up eventually meeting an equally nasty reaction and anger and learn morality especially as well if it were relying on the others as a pack member. It is a gradual process of learning and awareness.

Hardly. What that would teach is that you need to be bigger and nastier than anyone else.

So if someone attacks you, you assume it is because he does not want to be hurt?

That would depend on why I'm being attacked?

I can only assume, aside from the motive, that I'm being attacked because the attacker learned his morals from scripture.

That would depend on why I'm being attacked?

I can only assume, aside from the motive, that I'm being attacked because the attacker learned his morals from scripture.

So you agree then, that morality is a religious construct?

Hardly. What that would teach is that you need to be bigger and nastier than anyone else.

THINK, the dynamic of a PROCESS.

Maybe initially, it's not fixed in stone. Everything undergoes EVOLUTION, it doesn't happen overnight. Later they can learn cooperation, it's freaking possible when they start thinking, becoming more aware, develop conceptual thinking than just reacting. k?

peta9:

May I request you to delete the expletives?

So you agree then, that morality is a religious construct?

I never said that, and no, I don't agree.

Morality existed long before theists created their own versions of it.

I never said that, and no, I don't agree.

Morality existed long before theists created their own versions of it.

You haven't shown any indication of that excluding YHO.

Imbecile, PROCESS.
Maybe initially, it's not fixed in stone. Everything undergoes EVOLUTION, it doesn't happen overnight. Later they can learn cooperation, it's freaking possible when they start thinking, becoming more aware, develop conceptual thinking than just reacting. k?

Nice. I haven't been called an imbecile for a long time. Just learnt the word?
Yup, co-operate. get all the big nasty guys together, establish a hierarchy and pick on anyone smaller.
And then go out in gangs to take what they can't get as individuals.

Nice. I haven't been called an imbecile for a long time. Just learnt the word?
Yup, co-operate. get all the big nasty guys together, establish a hierarchy and pick on anyone smaller.
And then go out in gangs to take what they can't get as individuals.

Exactly.:p

Nice. I haven't been called an imbecile for a long time. Just learnt the word?
Yup, co-operate. get all the big nasty guys together, establish a hierarchy and pick on anyone smaller.
And then go out in gangs to take what they can't get as individuals.

So you are assuming everyones morals are just like this probably because that is the level of your own moral evolution. HAHA!

No, not everyone agrees and especially the smaller being picked on, that's the point. The point of morality starts with yourself, NO ONE WANTS TO BE VICTIMIZED, STOLEN FROM, HURT, KILLED ETC.

GET IT??? I NEVER SAID IT PLAYS OUT PERFECTLY. THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPATHY WHICH YOUR NEANDERTHAL BRAIN CAN'T FIGURE OUT IS REAL, THAT IS WHY MOST TRY TO PROTECT THEIR OFFSPRING AND THEIR INTERESTS AND ARE OFFENDED WHEN OTHERS INFRINGE ON IT. THIS IS RUDIMENTARY PREDATOR, PREY DEFENSIVE START. THE MORE EVOLVED HUMANS LEARN EMPATHY AND UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS EVEN GOING TO OTHER COUNTRIES TO HELP HUMANITY EVEN ANIMALS. LOL.

What, that I haven't been called an imbecile for a long time? :)

So you are assuming everyones morals are just like this probably because that is the level of your own moral evolution. HAHA!
You're the one making assumptions. My morals are not in question here. The discussion is where morals came from and why.

No, not everyone agrees and especially the smaller being picked on, that's the point. The point of morality starts with yourself, NO ONE WANTS TO BE VICTIMIZED, STOLEN FROM, HURT, KILLED ETC.
Exactly. But how did morality start if being bigger and nastier gets you what you want?

GET IT??? I NEVER SAID IT PLAYS OUT PERFECTLY. THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMPATHY WHICH YOUR NEANDERTHAL BRAIN CAN'T FIGURE OUT IS REAL, THAT IS WHY MOST TRY TO PROTECT THEIR OFFSPRING AND THEIR INTERESTS AND ARE OFFENDED WHEN OTHERS INFRINGE ON IT. THIS IS RUDIMENTARY PREDATOR, PREY DEFENSIVE START. THE MORE EVOLVED HUMANS LEARN EMPATHY AND UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS EVEN GOING TO OTHER COUNTRIES TO HELP HUMANITY EVEN ANIMALS. LOL.
A neaderthal brain now? I'm improving then. And you are still failing to to distinguish between myself and my arguments. Which indicates something about you, and your own empathy, surely.
Yes, empathy and understanding of others HAS (demonstrably) happened, but WHY? is the question. Protecting your offspring is self-centredness - protection of your own bloodline. And being bigger and nastier than anyone else is a sure way of doing that.

You haven't shown any indication of that excluding YHO.

Actually, I did, some time ago, when you were new here, as did others.

But, you also believe Allah split the moon in half, and a great deal of other myths propagated by Islam.

In other words, this thread is predictable, hence pointless.

In other words, this thread is predictable, hence pointless.

IOW, you have no desire to contribute, only opinionate. What a surprise.

Yes, empathy and understanding of others HAS (demonstrably) happened, but WHY? is the question. Protecting your offspring is self-centredness - protection of your own bloodline. And being bigger and nastier than anyone else is a sure way of doing that.

Thats an interesting POV; how do you believe morality originated?

I don't know.
I'm fairly sure it exists.
But that's why I'm "contributing" to this thread in the hopes that it will eventually kick out something to give me a lead.

Possible lead?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6278907.stm

IOW, you have no desire to contribute, only opinionate. What a surprise.

You're one to talk of contributing. By knowing exactly what you'd say on this thread, considering it's exactly what you've said all along, how is that contributing? You haven't changed your tune one iota. You've received the exact same answers to the same questions you asked before.

Predictable, hence pointless.

I don't know.
I'm fairly sure it exists.
But that's why I'm "contributing" to this thread in the hopes that it will eventually kick out something to give me a lead.

Yes, why would human beings consciously cultivate righteousness as the basis of cooperative society?

Possible lead?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6278907.stm

Hmm, cause or effect? ;)

We developed a section of our brain to cater for a social/ religious construct?
That would explain me then - nature's answer to stupidity. :)

We developed a section of our brain to cater for a social/ religious construct?
That would explain me then - nature's answer to stupidity. :)

More like, if you look for something you may find it? :p

I'm wondering if some ideas of right or wrong have been ubiquitous in widely disparate cultures. Transmission would be through active enforcement on children, so why does it persist? Murderers do know murder is wrong, but soldiers justify it. So why the concept that murder is wrong, when there are instances that justify it?

More like, if you look for something you may find it?
Like God? :D

I'm wondering if some ideas of right or wrong have been ubiquitous in widely disparate cultures.
And once again Saiyyadati you lead me into previously unknown waters (to me). Shukran Katheeran. I assume that's the case, but it IS an assumption. I have more reading to do now.

Murderers do know murder is wrong, but soldiers justify it. So why the concept that murder is wrong, when there are instances that justify it?
You mean "those who murder for a particular purpose" as opposed to "serial killers" and the like? Aren't the latter those who don't know that it's wrong, and can't see that it is?

"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. . . . If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives."
- Charles Darwin

Just found these - rapidly skimming them now:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/madigan.html

The second is (reportedly) heavily religion-biased but supposedly has some good points. :D

And once again Saiyyadati you lead me into previously unknown waters (to me). Shukran Katheeran. I assume that's the case, but it IS an assumption. I have more reading to do now.

Good, I love to delegate.:D


You mean "those who murder for a particular purpose" as opposed to "serial killers" and the like? Aren't the latter those who don't know that it's wrong, and can't see that it is?

Thats a POV isn't it? According to them, they are merely following their instincts.

If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives

Again, why would some acts "deserve" approbation and love? Isn't that merely a subjective expression of already deep seated views on right and wrong?

Just found these - rapidly skimming them now:
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Solano.html

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/madigan.html

The second is (reportedly) heavily religion-biased but supposedly has some good points. :D
Interesting, let me chew on these.

Good, I love to delegate.:D
Barakah?
Thats a POV isn't it? According to them, they are merely following their instincts.
I think one of those links said they don't KNOW that it's wrong. Isn't sociopathy an inability to empathise or see others as human as oneself. If you're not a human like me then I don't owe you any morality?

Again, why would some acts "deserve" approbation and love? Isn't that merely a subjective expression of already deep seated views on right and wrong?
It said receive, not deserve - maybe you get approbation from others so that when they do something similar they will get it from you and others. Enlightened self-interest? Keep the buddy system going?

Interesting, let me chew on these.
Maalesh.

I think one of those links said they don't KNOW that it's wrong.

Sez who? The ones who don't have the same instincts? So who doesn't follow whose driving needs?


It said receive, not deserve - maybe you get approbation from others so that when they do something similar they will get it from you and others. Enlightened self-interest? Keep the buddy system going?

Self-interest plus alpha leader?

Maalesh.


JAK.

Sez who? The ones who don't have the same instincts? So who doesn't follow whose driving needs?
From the first paper:
The person should now be considered an individual who is stricken with a deficit that has denied them the capability of feeling and interpreting their actions like the rest of us can.
Self-interest plus alpha leader?
It's possible, and then codified?
JAK.
?? New word? I miss the lessons... :bawl:

From the first paper:

Us against them, hmm?


It's possible, and then codified?

Quite possibly. So its about power then? A structured hierarchy?

?? New word? I miss the lessons... :bawl:

Standard convention in Muslims

JAK= Jazakallah Khairan (Thanks, or literally, may God bestow all good things on you)

We can start lessons again after end of June. :)

Us against them, hmm?
So you don't think that "type" has something missing? Or are you doing Satan's eggnog?
Quite possibly. So its about power then? A structured hierarchy?
Possibly to start with (I don't see it as such now). There are benefits to be achieved from morality (or a belief that it exists), so it's a mutual support thing, no? (This from the guy that refuses flat out to do "team training"!).
JAK= Jazakallah Khairan (Thanks, or literally, may God bestow all good things on you)
That's in my dictionary. I thought it was, but couldn't be sure.
We can start lessons again after end of June. :)

Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai, Shukran Jazeelan.
:worship:

So you don't think that "type" has something missing? Or are you doing Satan's eggnog?



Just thinking, does good exist without bad? Is it only relative?

Possibly to start with (I don't see it as such now). There are benefits to be achieved from morality (or a belief that it exists), so it's a mutual support thing, no? (This from the guy that refuses flat out to do "team training"!).

But it still requires the division of people into acceptable or inacceptable, so what determines that aspect?

That's in my dictionary. I thought it was, but couldn't be sure.


Saiyyadati min al-Yasmin Ibtasaamaat ilai, Shukran Jazeelan.
:worship:

Wallahi lazim, sounds like you're doing well enough on your own.:p

Just thinking, does good exist without bad? Is it only relative?
It is relative, but CAN one exist without the other? Do we need bad to recognise good?

But it still requires the division of people into acceptable or inacceptable, so what determines that aspect?
You mean morality divides? In and of itself? Not from my personal perspective and my own moral structure. Or just judges the difference?

Wallahi lazim, sounds like you're doing well enough on your own.:p
And there you prove yourself wrong. Help! :D

It is relative, but CAN one exist without the other? Do we need bad to recognise good?

Hey, I'm asking you!


You mean morality divides? In and of itself? Not from my personal perspective and my own moral structure. Or just judges the difference?


Is it individual or group? And if its group, is it merely a case of majority wins?

And there you prove yourself wrong. Help! :D

You mean wallahi lazim? Something like Absolutely, by God!

Hey, I'm asking you!
You're asking me? Wadooino?
I hope that they're not dependant upon each other. But... hmmm. Why do I always let you sucker me into these conversations?

Is it individual or group? And if its group, is it merely a case of majority wins?
Both of course, if we're talking about judging the difference between good and bad. The individual's judgement is formed and informed by the group within which that individual lives/ works/ plays, surely? Majority wins? Mostly, I'd say. And when it doesn't then the individual has to live with potential ostracism (to one degree or another) or worse.

You mean wallahi lazim? Something like Absolutely, by God!
Shukran.

You're asking me? Wadooino?
I hope that they're not dependant upon each other. But... hmmm. Why do I always let you sucker me into these conversations?


Both of course, if we're talking about judging the difference between good and bad. The individual's judgement is formed and informed by the group within which that individual lives/ works/ plays, surely? Majority wins? Mostly, I'd say. And when it doesn't then the individual has to live with potential ostracism (to one degree or another) or worse.


Shukran.

Still stuck on how and what determines the distinction between "good" and "bad"

Need to cogitate but later. Gotta work.

Maafi mushkila, Saiyyadati. Later.

Just found a paper on the neurobiology of morality - looks like it may be hardwired into us.

But the paper happens to be written in Estionian :eek:
I'm dead in the water on that...

Avatar, I'm pretty sure, can read Estonian.

Most ideas of right and wrong, reward and punishment, acceptance and rejection in many societies have a basis in the religious culture.

This being so, why would an atheist believe in morality? If there is no accountability, why should anyone be "good" or "bad"?

An animal does what it can to survive; there is no "murder" or "theft" or "rape" or "infanticide".

So why should there be ANY standard of behaviour for humans?

No trolling please; I would really like to discuss the topic (Jimmy, this is for you) from an atheists point of view.



Some morality are based on social constructs and some are measurable and tangible. That is, they are consistent throughout human evolution.

Yes, why would human beings consciously cultivate righteousness as the basis of cooperative society?

Cooperation and morality are mutually exclusive concepts. Society demands the former while God and, let's assume for the sake of argument, "true religions" demand the latter.

Cooperation and morality are mutually exclusive concepts. Society demands the former while God and, let's assume for the sake of argument, "true religions" demand the latter.

So a society can be cooperative without righteousness? Like gangs?