Morality without god

I have seen umpteen times the faithful struggle with the concept that humans left to their own devices can be inherently moral as it is in the interest of the individual/group when dealing with social animals. This video shows that this even goes beyond humans.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=68d_1333648895

enjoy, discuss

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The issue isn't whether humans can be moral but will they be moral regardless of having the potential for morality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the answer is yes if for nothing more simple than humans are social animals and That means that "immoral" acts will be detrimental to the social group. It's as simple as that and fits in perfectly with the concept of evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it is easy to be moral in a small social group as is shows video , I wonder what is the attitude in a large group of baboons ?
Same way among human . In a small village the morality would higher then in a large city because of competition .

 

Can you qualify that statement, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

 

The pressure is maybe higher but the rules are the same a large city could never become a large city if the norms broke down. People would gravitate back to smaller groups.

 

Does morality means be good and not be offensive to others within the society ?

 

Is it not what we do by building suburbans living were the groups become smaller were for practical purpose we know each other ?

 

No, not at all, suburbia is a result of people simply wanting more space they are still a part of the larger society that is why suburbs always develop around cities.

 

I don't know what you mean ? If you live in a small community your attitude is to a graet extent restricted as to what people in the community may say about your attitude , If you are an outstanding bastard you will be discriminated , meaning chastised

 

Exactly because we are social animals, no need for god.

 

I believe to a great extend you are wrong . I and other moved to protect our children and give them a better opportunity for education.
There are a lot of suburbs with town houses that does not point into the direction of more space .

 

Who are you to tell we don;t need god , Let people have god if they want, as long it does not harm any body ,
Here comes your problem morality . Imposing your will upon others is that moral?

 

But what you're implying here is that people are only moral because of what being immoral would do to their reputation.

 

We people are moral or immoral for many complicated reasons , reputation can be a small reason . Basically in my view" do to others as you would like to be done to yourself."

 

I don't think we have any reason to believe that small-town people really are more moral than cityfolk, though. Fear of becoming a social pariah doesn't seem to deter certain behavior as much as it promotes the hiding of such behavior.

This raises an interesting question, one that we've discussed here before without resolution: is a good act truly moral if it is done purely for selfish reasons? Is the small-town husband who won't act on his desire to sleep with the pretty cashier strictly because he knows he can't get away with it truly a good, faithful husband? If you put a murderer in solitary confinement, is he good for not killing anyone else?

 

So what exactly would that be, "morality without god"?
Can someone describe it?

 

@JDawg --

I'm always hesitant to tie morality to unselfish motives because deep down all of our motives are selfish.

 

Morality motivates. I was born to help old women cross the street.

 

Well, you're talking about selfishness on a subconscious level. Most people who spend their holidays at soup kitchens don't do it because they consciously expect reciprocation or reward.

You'd recognize the difference between such a person and one who would only do so if it were court-ordered community service, no?