False Morality, Why?

Why do we have this false and fabricated morality that exists in all our modern societies and belief systems? and where has it come from? (especially attitudes to death and killing).

Obviously it originates in the teachings of the worlds modern religions, it is well documented in their teachings. If you believe in a religion such as this you will adopt its moral code.
The majority of atheists have adopted the moral values of religion and tried to intellectualise it by the fact that they don’t believe in god or the supernatural. This still doesn’t make it true or right.
All of us, almost unquestioningly, accept this false morality as correct and acceptable.

So lets get to the truth of the matter. We are an animal life form, a mammal to be exact. Morality does not exist in the natural world, which is OUR world.
Is it wrong for one animal to kill another? No.
Is it wrong for one human to kill another? Of course not.

I am NOT just talking about killing for food here, animals kill each other fighting for the right to mate and for the right over territory. Is it morally reprehensible when one animal takes another’s territory for food. Not at all, it is a natural system that is in place for the long term benefit of all animals and evolutions. So why try to moralise when the human animal kills and steals for its own survival?

Before the modern religions were in force, killing and stealing from neighbours were socially acceptable. War was considered a good thing. Murderers and torturers were often heroes. No one moralised over slavery. True, some pagan religions have some limited form of morality, but rarely concerned with the sanctity of life and a far cry from today’s sentimental morality.

The reason we agonise over morality and feel unhappy in modern society is that we have been taken from our natural state of existence, and we wont feel comfortable again until we return to that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This can be easily debated given that the overwhelming majority of religions are based upon things that the modern day world do not consider moral. Biblical morality for example states: women are subservient to men, homosexuality is outlawed, naughty children should be stoned to death, and it's ok to have slaves.

While it would seem religion is catching up with the rest of us, their laws and rules generally go against that which we deem moral.

Not true at all, but more vice versa. The religious were still out drowning witches when the rest of us had long since moved past such barbaric attitudes. The religious were out slaughtering millions for the sake of their "morals", while even the very first cavemen understood the principles of not killing each other, (otherwise we would most likely not even be here to debate it).

Of course it does, in it's own form. A male lion doesn't just eat every other lion because he can. An elephant doesn't just trample every other elephant because he can. Co-operation is a part of even the most basic of life - hell, even ants have systems in place. It will kill to survive, as would you, but that is not a moral issue - survival is above morals. However, that doesn't instantly make animals, (who don't have religion), complete lunatics.

No, but the important question is: Why don't they? Why isn't every animal at each others throats? Why doesn't a soldier ant kill the queen ant? It's not like it'll get punished.. right?

It's not down to morals.. all the ancient texts are is a diary of behaviour that is natural to pretty much every living creature.

A lion killing a deer wouldn't be a moral issue but a survival issue - just like a man killing a cow is not a moral issue. A lion will not generally kill another of it's own kind for the mere sake of it, and neither will a human. It will only be 'wrong' or 'right' depending on what angle you view it from. As a victim it's wrong, as the killer it's right.

In most cases a dominance dispute will be settled without death, but of course it does happen - and more so with some species. Hell, some spiders eat the male after he does his duty. Humans do the same. It is completely natural. You'll see two guys competing for the same woman and it will come to blows. You can also, if you spend some time looking, notice dominant males, subservient males and so on. Body language says a hell of a lot about a person.

However, ending ones life is usually avoided if possible.

Oh sort it out wouldya.

A) Read the code of Hammurabi, which predates your "modern religions" and yet has moral laws firmly established

B) Need I mention inquisition and every other form of anti-moralistic behaviour caused by the religious against everyone else - something that happily continues to the modern day. Just pay some attention the news channel. While the rest of the world tries to apply some resemblence of decency, the religious just show their true ugliness. Need I mention the religious aid that went to help the tsunami victims but refused to help unless they converted, or any one of thousands of examples from beheading innocents and self-detonation to the show of utter contempt for their fellow man.

Are you mad? The sane world had moved past it while the religious tried to cling onto it for dear life. The very book they live their lives by condones slavery.

And what would you know? Studied, or heard it in the local church?

The only unnatural state is a religion claiming it has morals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The primary difference between humans and other animals is our ability to communicate using speech. And this brought about the possibility of complaining to a higher authority. A non-human animal who's mate has been killed by a rival cannot make its feelings known to the rest of the troop, to the rest of its "society", if you like. But once speech was developed, the social cohesion which must have evolved almost instantly is of a different quality and nature to that of any animal species. This is because we no longer react purely on instinct, but upon a unique ability to empathise with the feelings of a fellow human being. Unlike any animal we can put ourselves in the position of someone who has been wronged or hurt in some way, and this in turn is because of the ability of another human to express how they feel about a particular wrong in direct terms.

Because of this unique social cohesion, the dominant entity, the leader, has to do more than impose his rule and domination by his strength - he has to demonstrate wisdom and judgement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sense you seek to disagree with me but, maybe you have misinterpreted my original statement. I am NOT asserting that religious morals are correct. They are absolutely and catergorically wrong and based on fasle concepts. I am saying that ALL morality is based on falsehood. You are simply giving me examples of religious imorality - which I agree is everywhere.

My question is where does morality come from - I suggest religion - I then says it is false.

Because I say that sometimes one animal will kill another. You come up the the strange extrapolation of - why are all animals not killing each other all the time - this is just silly. Humans can kill now and agian, so can animals - we are no different.

You say morals dont exist where survival is at stake. EXACTLY - for all our sweet morals, when it comes down to survival we are animals, pure and simple. And we will survive.

 

W

You are wrong about animals not making their feelings Known, dolphins, monkeys and whales have fairly complex language systems which we do not yet fully understand.

Animals pine for dead mates and offspring. This is proven.

Monkeys empathise - it is proven.

And no we are not unique in our cohesive society. Ants and bees have more cohesive societies. Lions and dolphins have equally cooperative societies. If anything, human society is dysfunctional by animal standards.

You fall into the usual trap of under estimating animals and over estimating yourself.

 

SNAKELORD

P.S.

why "did I hear it in my local church"?

I dont go to church, mosque, temple or synagoge. Never have.

Dont try to pin your you 'popularist culture' labels on me - cos I wont have it.

 

Silas: The primary difference between humans and other animals is our ability to communicate using speech. And this brought about the possibility of complaining to a higher authority. A non-human animal who's mate has been killed by a rival cannot make its feelings known to the rest of the troop, to the rest of its "society", if you like. But once speech was developed, the social cohesion which must have evolved almost instantly is of a different quality and nature to that of any animal species. This is because we no longer react purely on instinct, but upon a unique ability to empathise with the feelings of a fellow human being. Unlike any animal we can put ourselves in the position of someone who has been wronged or hurt in some way, and this in turn is because of the ability of another human to express how they feel about a particular wrong in direct terms.

Because of this unique social cohesion, the dominant entity, the leader, has to do more than impose his rule and domination by his strength - he has to demonstrate wisdom and judgement.
*************
M*W: On PBS several years ago there was a documentary about elephants, as I recall, that when one of their young was killed by a predator, they grieved openly.

In penguins, however, they lay more eggs than they can safely incubate and they somehow know this is part of their existence.

I've even seen my Labs panic and grieve for each other if one of them gets out of the yard. I took two of them to the vet. They are different sizes, and the attendants put them in separate cages -- four cages apart. The littler one, April, jumped four 8 foot fences to get to my bigger Lab! Well, actually, she climbed the cyclone fences to be with her "sister" Duchy. Although that's not unusual for April, she climbs the fence in my yard everyday! April instinctively felt that something wasn't "right" when they both were in separate cages.

When birds and squirrels come onto their territory, interestingly they bark but they don't kill. My other big Chocolate Lab, Mr. Charles Bailey Brown, who is a very passive dog, actually goes for the kill. Then they fight over the kill yet they don't officially eat it -- they just stand over it and dare the others to come near it. They chase cats, but they don't hurt them. My dogs aren't very good watch dogs. When strangers come into my yard, they lick and play with them. But let a cat be somewhere in the neighborhood, and they bark like hell. My dogs are so sensitive that I know they get their feelings hurt when I tell them to go lie down or go outside. I guess they become more "humanized," and I become more sensitive to dog communication. Dogs show emotions, but I believe when you live with them day and night, you are able to distinguish their behaviors and attach feelings to them. It's a wonder how dogs perceive us. I'm not exactly a stern mistress. My dogs are spoiled.

 

yes we are pat of the animal and plant world. we ARe Nature. we have grown out of Nature.
Patriarchy-in its various guises- dont like this and seeks escape from it....from its animality. towards a 'purity'--an idea of all-goodness. thus it inevitably crAEATES AN 'EVIL' that it sees and writes in its myth is the 'enemy' which must be defeated. so it divided itself against itself

carnivorous and preadatory animals and birs etc DO kill and eat. and there are 'mock' battels for terriry. but they do not NUKE! that's where we've got to in our ignorance. in our quest for the fukin pure we are willing to blow the f-in planet up

true morality is seeing through that bullshit game

 

It seems that you are treating morals as if morality is something that is inherently alien to humans.
How can that be? How could humans produce something that is inherently alien to them? Or is it that humans have not produced it (in any way), but morality ... came from ... up high?

 

Morality is produced by thoughts. If we THINK that it's wrong to kill and still we kill, our conscience will ask us: Why did you kill? And we will say: Because I'm stupid. Our higher self is going to punish us for doing that... it's very stupid to hear the voice of truth and not obey it. Animals never think that it's wrong to kill, so it's not wrong for them to kill. They're not as aware of themselves/truth as humans are.

 

So I believe what you are saying is that morals are a product of increased conscienceness and therefore a higher awareness of self, which is acheived through evolution. This sounds plausible.

But then I think - one mans moral judgement is not the same as anothers, yet we are all at the same evolutionary level.

No. Moral judgements are subjective not objective and are therefore not based in actual reality. Evolutionary abilities would be consistent across the race.

I still maintain the concept of morals is a false one. They are invented to explain the normal animal behaviour we exhibit.

 

People like Jesus or Buddha are definitely not at the same evolutionary level, having the same moral views as some "ordinary man". The difference between a Buddha and an ordinary man might be something like the difference between a chimp and an ordinary man.

 

I think thats true,
thankfuly we have moral rules as agreed upon by the majority.

and for those who wonder how atheists can be moral

I wonder,...
why are some people able to "believe"in something such as Gods as a fact when theres absolutely no evidence for it?

 

I seem to recall that Renaissance philosophers were involved in some ways in this discussion. Thomas Hobbes said that without an authority, lfe would be "violent, brutish, and short" (or something like that). Similarly, without the guide of morality our society might descend into chaos to the detriment of all. Quite possibly it is morals that have allowed us to rise above the level of animals and cannibalistic tribes, as well as get past the middle ages during which society backslided due to the constant conflicts. Yes, morality might be something imposed on 'nature,' but in fact that 'nature' is simply instinct controlled by the hindbrain and thalamus. The reason that we have evolved (yes, I believe in both creation and evolution, for those who may have read my other posts) such large forebrains, in particular the frontal lobe, is so that we can have the willpower to impose restrictions on our instincts. Therefore, morals are not at all arbitrary, or 'false,' but rather part of our nature that has allowed us to succeed where animals have not.

I don't really like all the religion-bashing that's going on here. There has indeed been grave misinterpretation of scripture in the past, but we are all (or almost all) rational people who do give good consideration to alternative views. (N. B. the book of Leviticus is where SnakeLord drew most of his examples, but remember that it was written for people of a completely different time living in a completely different society)

 

what would you prefer, apathy, anarchy, intolerance.
why do you think it is false and fabricated, is it holding you back.
my brother a devout xian, says if it was'nt for his fear of god he could kill, I said to him I have no such fear , and I have no wish to kill either, what is false and fabricated about that.
we all have an inherent need to do the right thing, except some times people go to far.
it seems to me that you are trying to justify, yourself for something you either wish to do or have done.

you have this back to front, man had a inherent need to socialise and do the right thing way way way before any religion.

it is most definitly wrong to kill, nothing has to be written for anybody to know that, but you seem to need to justify killing for some strange reason.

come on, if it's a kill or be killed situation, thats a whole different ball game, morality does'nt even enter the arena. but to indiscriminatly kill is undoubtedly wrong.
why are you trying your damnest to jusify killing.

 

I think I see things more clearly now.

Firstly PREACHER , when is this time "way way way before religion" that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about cavemen?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

Moral values have no objective reality, they are subjective and change between persons and societies. A persons moral code is a product of their belief system. Even people who say they have no belief system, believe in a moral code and this becomes their belief system.

All belief systems are exactly that "belief", and are therefore inventions of mind and have no foundation in reality. Morals are what you choose to believe in, from that you define what is good or bad, and this governs all the choices you make in life.

As morals have no objective foundation in reality, neither do your judements on good and bad / right and wrong.

Therefore the actual act of killing another human is neither good nor bad / right nor wrong. What makes it good or bad is the belief system that you choose to adhere to, which as a "belief" system is not real.

Another way of describing morals is;
A summarised version of a belief system, translated into a simple set of do's and dont's that govern all our choices in life.

 

Sorry, didn't want to sound like a closet murderer. I chose it as an extreme example that I thought would provoke reaction.

 

just read this on another thread as a reply to you from misty, and it answer all you queries so thank you misty

morals have nothing to do with a belief system.

 

PREACHER,

As you seem incapable of forming your own opinions, I can only suggest you passively read my reply to Miss T on the other thread. Instead of unecessarily taking up so much space on thi sone.

 

Everybody misunderstood what I said.

On the face of it, however complex their language system is it doesn't seem to have anything like the information bitrate of human speech - and the consequence is that you won't find dolphins and whales coming together in the kind of social meeting that the human sense of morality gives rise to - like one dolphin killing another, and the school coming together to examine testimony and evidence and then inflicting a punishment approved and determined by the whole community. However, I highlighted "On the face of it" because I'm perfectly willing to concede that dolphins are more advanced than humans and indeed behave equivalently to the way I've described as uniquely human but not in a way we can see, understand or detect. In which case, let us leave our cetacean friends out of the discussion.

I never said that they didn't. But an animal whose mate has been killed by a rival is unable to communicate specific details of the wrong that was done in such a way as to rouse the community of which she is a part into something approaching righteous indignation.

Uh, yes we are. I did not say that humans were unique in forming what can generally be termed "society". I said that the Human form of "society" was unique, which it is.

Of course, I'm completely aware of these forms of society. But it cannot be denied that human society, no matter how it evolved in the normal evolutionary way from primate societal and familial groups, nontheless has this added factor of speech, which causes us to behave in a distinctly different way from any other animal. Remember, the topic was morality, a sense of right and wrong, and a defined moral code, and my view is that our moral codes evolved initially from our unique (ignoring, as I said, the possibly far superior Dolphins) ability to communicate directly with each other and that sense of empathy with a wrong done against an individual that we able to disseminate amongst the whole of our community in the way that animals just cannot.

You yourself appear to have fallen into the "usual trap" of making assumptions. I have never overestimated humanity nor underestimated the rest of the animal kingdom.

Just to re-iterate my point - when talking about human empathy I of course did not intend to give the impression that I believe that animals are soulless robots who have no emotions. Obviously non-human animals feel emotions and are capable of communicating those emotions. But there is an ocean of difference between feeling a genuine sense of loss for a fellow creature and a moral code. And my thesis is that our moral code derives from our ability to talk and communicate abstract concepts.