Morals in the Absence of a God

Heres a Paper I wrote last semester for a philosophy course. I have not cited any references but if you really want to know I can find the source. Its sorta a combination of many of the threads that have appeared here on the sciforums.

Morals in the Absence of a God​

Christianity is considered a “revealed” religion; that is God took it upon himself to reveal His existence and teachings to man. Other revealed religions include Judaism and Islam. In all these religions God left behind some sort of scripture that was to be worshipped and followed. In all of these scriptures you will find rules laid down by God concerning basic ethic principles, such as Judaism’s sixth commandment, “Though shall not murder” or oppositely one of the 613 Quran commandments, “"Fight those who do not believe in Allah…” Are we to believe that humans would not have developed morality structures without the aid of a God; having no way of being able to decide what is right and wrong? Morality is a product of any social animal’s environment. I believe basic moral principles would have developed in humans without any religion at all, as it did in all other socialized animals. ​

In nature, there are two basic rules; find a way to live, or die. Life for any solitary creature is a harsh one indeed. Throughout the development of life, creatures figured out the influence of “power in numbers.” Fish figured out that swimming in a school greatly increased individual protection while ants have thrived not on size but purely on numbers alone. Alternatively, some of the oldest and most antisocial creatures on Earth such as the crocodile and the shark abandon their young from day one, and some crocodiles will eat their own offspring if they wander too near. There is a mutual benefit gained for all animals in a group, it would not make sense for one fish to kill another for food, for it would only be increasing the chance that itself would be eaten by an attacking predator. Here is a very simple example of a creature realizing that killing another in his group is not a beneficial thing to do, without a revelation from God.​

In none of the scriptures left behind by any religion does God make mention of giving these same ethical rules to animals, although some do address animal’s creation (even if swiftly). Nowhere are there stories of this divine knowledge of right and wrong being passed to animals as well, for humans are favored solely for eternal life (whether in paradise or hell) above all other creatures. Was then this knowledge of morality instilled directly into animals by His will, while humans needed guidelines and rules to set a path? It is not all animals that show indications of moral values; it is particularly animals that have developed complex social groups they depend on to survive. The very intelligent and social elephant depends on the eldest female in the group to lead them, which is strikingly similar to “Thou shall honor your father and your mother…” Some animals observe the same basic ethical principles as humans, without any mention of a revelation to animals in any of the scriptures.​

Some may not consider one member of a group not killing another as a true sign of moral values. Let’s take it one step further and discuss altruism. In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behavior benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. Biological altruism is different than altruism applied to humans alone. Biological altruism is apparent through out the animal kingdom, but it is most noticeable in animals with complex social structures. For example vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood for members of the cave which did not feed that night ensuring they do not starve. A parallel to this would be any human who donates food to needy individuals, such as the homeless who have trouble getting food on their own.​

Altruism can also be seen in creatures which we consider to not have any conscience thoughts at all, mainly colonizing insects. In such cases, sterile workers devote their entire life to caring and protecting the nest, larvae, and most importantly the queen. Such actions are supremely altruistic, for these workers leave NO offspring of their own but do great amounts for the propagation of the colony as a whole. A creature devoid of conscience thought is devoting itself entirely to a specific purpose, with no thoughts inclined to self benefit. Perhaps it is this lack of thought that allows this to happen. Humans could never achieve altruistic behavior on this level for our own self-interests would conflict with that of the group. Using insects as an example, one may deduce that the perception of self (which only a few other creatures share along side humans) hinders altruistic behavior.​

For any reasonably intelligent social group of animals, you will also have the members which benefit from the altruism of other members, while contributing nothing of their own. Vervet monkeys have alarm calls to warn every member of the group of approaching predators. Monkeys who give the alarm put themselves at more risk by exposing their position, but increase the safety of the group. Conversely, monkeys who do not give an alarm call increase their own chances of survival while decreasing the safety of the group. This could be interpreted as the most primitive form of lying because it is the absence of communication which gives the false that impression that everything is safe.​

Deception is crucial to human’s creation of good and evil. It was the snake who deceived Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, who then gave some to Adam. Evil does not exist in nature without humans directly applying it. One animal killing another for food is not evil, it is necessary for survival. Two lions battling over a territory and its females where one male lies dead in the end (murder), is not evil, it is necessary for propagation of his genes. Necessity dictates what action to take; our actions only reflect what we need. Once we have what we need our actions reflect what we want. So for different cultures with different needs to develop different ethical values is normal.​

Man’s exponential dominance of the planet Earth can be attributed only to our intelligence. We are not the strongest, fastest, or most agile animal ever to exist. We are the most adaptable, which derives from our intelligence. Never has a single species before us been able to survive in harshest environments on Earth including the artic, tropics, wetlands, deserts, or even at sea without a major change in physiology (over along period of time). Our ingenuity is credited for these feats.​

Ancient scriptures deal not with science, math, agriculture, or astronomy as we know it today. Most scriptures serve as guidelines for teaching humans how to live with each other (whether peaceful or violent), presented through stories which are easy to identify with. Humans tentatively built scientific foundations from the ground up. These lessons were not revealed to us as simply as the 10 commandments were. Yet many of the necessary backbones of civilization as we know it today are based on engineering capable through math and science, which were not apart of any revelation given to man by God. It is not such a stretch then to consider that humans would have developed moral values without the aid of a revelation or prophet.​

What these scriptures do provide is a universal rulebook that spans generations and cultures, which almost anyone can relate to. In our history, these teachings were used to bridge the gaps between different cultures under a common set of “rules to live by”. With many of the commandments of the Christian/Jewish religion hitting so close to many of the altruistic behaviors described in this paper, it is easy to see why these religions are so widely accepted. Statements such as “Thou shall not murder” and "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (or you shall not lie) are observations taken from nature with human conscience/emotion applied to them. Jesus’, Moses’ and even Mohammed’s actions in life were truly altruistic in essence, which may be why they are considered the backbones of their respective religions.​

What humans consider moral behavior existed in animals well before any religion wrote them down in scriptures. It is helpful to keep in mind that the species of homosapien has only been present about 100,000 years in the 4 million plus years that the Earth has existed. Religion is thought to have originated about 3,700 years ago. It is absurd to think that without a message from God that human’s would not have developed ethical values that we base our many distinctive societies on. So then the question remains, what exactly was the purpose of God revealing His will to man through written rules He already infixed in all other creatures? Whatever the message, it is apparent through the many different sects and values of monotheist religions that His directive was not very clear. Yet despite our differences across cultures and religions, we all share a sense of basic ethical principles common to all man-kind (even if we forget/ignore them sometimes).​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A couple of errors to point out. You wrote that the Earth has been around for 4 million years. I'm assuming that was a typo, so I'm just going to go ahead and say 4 billion. Also, about religion being believed to have originated 3,700 years ago, it's not true at all. Archaeologists dealing with early hominids find evidence of ritual behavior in species that pre-date Homo Sapien, so it's as old as man himself.

None of this changes the substance of your argument, however. I wholeheartedly agree that ethical behavior is necessary for the survival of any social animal (as a species). Excellent post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jaster 4 billion...4 billion years and earth and even solar system didnt even exist...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...?

 

dragon -- it's 4.6 billion years old. Look it up.

 

I know what they say, but I do not agree. Its one of the things I do not agree with even though the scientists have supposevly radioactive isotope decay prove for this...
I just know Earth isnt this old. It is def. above 125 million years old but less then 4.5 billion years old.

 

Greetings

How do you define God? The reason why I ask is that you mention an absence of a God, yet that is not reality.

 

Oh really...not reality? Well were's your prove of God? Where is he? ... nowhere to be seen...

 

This paper asserts we obtained morals without God. And using the example of "thou shalt commit murder as often as thou can" is taking it too far, its not a realistic example because any socialized animal would immediately recognize this as not beneficial AT ALL to anyone in their group. You also have to differientate between murder (human act) and killing (animal act).

 

beautifully said.

 

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the entire premise of this paper assume that an animal in a social group has a sense of the individual?


I would argue that a social group replaces the concept of self with the concept of the group. So that the group becomes the self. In order to attribute morality to this concept of group/self, the group would be required to be altruistic toward other groups.

 

Not necessarily Raphael. The social group only becomes the self in supremely altruistic societies, ie insects. Social animals with higher brain functions do have a sense of the individual, as well as a sense of the group. Each creature must decide on its own to what degree in both of these areas it devote itself. (which is why you get the monkeys that do give alarms, and those that do not.)

 

My disagreement is likely due to a difference in definition for "sense of self". So, instead of debating definitions, I'll simply concede the point.


To continue though...
After much searching, I found a non-clinical description of a behavior in baboons, a social animal with higher brain functions, on this webpage. I thought I would share it with you so that you might point out the moral behavior involved.

A troop of Chacma baboons were in our camp at around midday, doing their usual thing. In typical fashion a mother was foraging peacefully with her tiny baby in playful close attendance. Suddenly a large male baboon came charging in, grabbed the youngster and ran off some distance. The mother started barking the alarm call which immediately caused the rest of the troop to scatter into the nearby trees. Heads were bobbing up all over the place as they all nervously started searching for the predator, probably suspecting a leopard, whilst the mother kept on sounding the alarm in frantic fashion. What the troop did not realize was that in this instance the predator was one of their own, who sat under a tree nearby and proceeded to eat the baby baboon! One of our experienced guides who witnessed this drama, had never yet seen this behavior in nearly 20 years of active guiding in the bush.

If you had never heard of such a thing, I encourage you to post your initial opinions on the incident before doing further research.

 

Regarding altruistic behavior, here's something I came across while studying heraldry. A Mr. Phillips of Cavendish Square, London (early 19th century) was swimming in the sea off Portsmouth when a current got hold of him and he started to drown. A passing Newfoundland hound went into the water after him and pulled him out. The dog had been a stray, and as such I would venture didn't regard Mr. Phillips as part of his pack (as pets tend to do).

What was Mr. Phillips to the dog? Nothing. What did the dog have to gain? Nothing. What did the dog have to lose? Everything.

I don't know much about the breed, but you don't see dogs just going for a dip at the local swimming hole, so I assume that dogs are predisposed to avoid deep water. This dog put that predisposition aside for whatever reason.

So do we guess that the dog made a conscious decision to perform an act of altruism? Or do we really stretch it and say the dog figured that if he helped Mr. Phillips he might get some material gain out of it (food, a home, etc)? Surely no animal has a base instinct to get itself killed in an act that will in no way prolong the life of the pack or species.

Oh, Mr. Phillips took the dog home and "gave him every kind attention that he deserved." The dog has been commemorated on his crest. (Oddly, the article didn't mention the dog's name.)

 

yeah oldest "known religion on earth" is zoroastriaism originated in Persia around 5000BC, my grandfather was one of the few remaining believers, its a blood religion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Newfoundlands are natural swimmers-- webbed feet, water resistant coat, and a rudder that doubles as a tail. They were bred as work dogs which, among other tasks, performed rescues of drowning people.

 

Raphael Thanks for the info. That's pretty cool. I wonder if the dog had been trained before and somehow got separated from his owner? There was no mention to if the dog looked like he'd been a stray for awhile.

Hee hee! You don't hear of cats doing anything like that very often.
SWIMMER: "Help! I'm drowning!"
CAT: "Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'll call 911 as soon as someone invents a telephone."

 

Did you take this into account?

Genesis 9:5
And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

Ecclesiastes 3:19
Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.​

 

Jenyar What version did your Gen 9:5 come from? Here are parallel verses from other versions of the bible that don't imply that an animal will have to account for his or her own life. To me they seem to say (in so many words) "Everybody dies eventually", not "Behave".

American Standard Version: And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

Bible In Basic English: And for your blood, which is your life, will I take payment; from every beast I will take it, and from every man will I take payment for the blood of his brother-man.

Darby Bible Translation: And indeed your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require: at the hand of every animal will I require it, and at the hand of Man, at the hand of each the blood of his brother, will I require the life of Man.

King James Version: And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

JPS Tanakh: And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

Webster's Bible Translation: And surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it: and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

World English Bible: I will surely require your blood of your lives. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, I will require the life of man.

Young's Literal Translation: And only your blood for your lives do I require; from the hand of every living thing I require it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of every man's brother I require the life of man;