Do Morals Stem From Religion?

[Max Power]

I assert that not only do morals NOT stem from religion,
but that those people who are only acting moral in order to avoid eternal damnation,
are NOT moral at all, but rather selfish, and are only concerned with consequences.


If consequences dictate a course of action
It doesn't matter what's right, you're only wrong if you get caught

 

[Shattered]

I agree that morals do not stem from religion. I'm not the least bit religious, but have plenty of morals.

As for the rest of your statement, I have no opinion.

 

[5stringJeff]

If morals do not stem from religion, where do they stem from?

 

[Max Power]

If morals do not stem from religion, where do they stem from?

Difficult question.

Within (your conscience).
Society.

 

[GotZoom]

If morals do not stem from religion, where do they stem from?

Parents.

 

[Shattered]

Parents.

Mine must have stemmed from somewhere else - my parents have *nothing* to do with who I am today...but they have a lot to do with who I was as a child, and that ain't cute.

 

[GotZoom]

Mine must have stemmed from somewhere else - my parents have *nothing* to do with who I am today...but they have a lot to do with who I was as a child, and that ain't cute.

Not to get personal...but did your parents "behaviour" make you think, "I'm not going to be like them."?

 

[5stringJeff]

Difficult question.

Within (your conscience).
Society.

If this is true, then are there ever any absolute morals?

 

[nakedemperor]

If this is true, then are there ever any absolute morals?

Only one: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yes, this golden rules can be found in the bible, but I understood this rule to be true before I'd ever heard it uttered. What makes more sense to a child than "How would you like that if it happened to you?"

 

[Shattered]

Not to get personal...but did your parents "behaviour" make you think, "I'm not going to be like them."?

If you want to twist it around that way, then yes, I suppose your right. Parents.

 

[GotZoom]

If you want to twist it around that way, then yes, I suppose your right. Parents.

That wasn't quite the angle I was talking about. Hopefully, the morals and ethics passed on to children are from their parent's positive behavior.

 

[Gem]

C.S. Lewis spent the first few chapters of "Mere Christianity" discussing the idea of absolute morals before he even began discussing the concept of Christianity and/or "Christian morals." If you have the time or inclination this summer pick it up...even reading the first few chapters is interesting and thought-provoking.

He basically hits on a very similar concept to what Naked Emperor has said...that there are "absolute morals" that we are all (if mentally normal, we aren't discussing sociopaths, etc) born with an innate sense that there was a right and a wrong...and we knew what that right and wrong were.

Now the more intricate morals...the ones that each society sets for itself, are tied to this absolute morality, but we are not born with an inner understanding of them. For instance, this way of looking at morals would state: we are born knowing that hurting another person is wrong...but we are not born knowing that committing adultery isn't right...we are taught that in our definition of marriage, you aren't supposed to cheat. However numerous other cultures throughout history have had much more fluid definitions, and many in our own societies choose to have "open marriages."

To respond to Max Powers negative opinion of religious "morals," it seems to me that you are being unneccesarily harsh on religious morality. All societies have ridiculous rules that people follow only so they don't get in trouble...would you pay taxes for all of the things you pay taxes to if you didn't have to? Or would you rather donate your money to causes you know are going to do good? Would you drive 25mph through and area you know is unpopulated and can be safetly driven at 35mph if you knew that the police officer who is always there ticketing wasn't going to be there? Or would you drive the speed at which you know you can drive safetly?

Religion, like society...sets up rules. The reasons why people follow the ones they do not personally agree with...to avoid punishments...are very similar. The ones that MOST people agree on...don't steal...kill people..etc. are part of the universal morality most people understand...and therefore those rules are no sillier in a religious text than they are in a court house. And the religious people that follow them are no more selfish than the citizens who follow their society's laws.

 

[Max Power]

C.S. Lewis spent the first few chapters of "Mere Christianity" discussing the idea of absolute morals before he even began discussing the concept of Christianity and/or "Christian morals." If you have the time or inclination this summer pick it up...even reading the first few chapters is interesting and thought-provoking.

He basically hits on a very similar concept to what Naked Emperor has said...that there are "absolute morals" that we are all (if mentally normal, we aren't discussing sociopaths, etc) born with an innate sense that there was a right and a wrong...and we knew what that right and wrong were.

Now the more intricate morals...the ones that each society sets for itself, are tied to this absolute morality, but we are not born with an inner understanding of them. For instance, this way of looking at morals would state: we are born knowing that hurting another person is wrong...but we are not born knowing that committing adultery isn't right...we are taught that in our definition of marriage, you aren't supposed to cheat. However numerous other cultures throughout history have had much more fluid definitions, and many in our own societies choose to have "open marriages."

To respond to Max Powers negative opinion of religious "morals," it seems to me that you are being unneccesarily harsh on religious morality. All societies have ridiculous rules that people follow only so they don't get in trouble...would you pay taxes for all of the things you pay taxes to if you didn't have to? Or would you rather donate your money to causes you know are going to do good? Would you drive 25mph through and area you know is unpopulated and can be safetly driven at 35mph if you knew that the police officer who is always there ticketing wasn't going to be there? Or would you drive the speed at which you know you can drive safetly?

Religion, like society...sets up rules. The reasons why people follow the ones they do not personally agree with...to avoid punishments...are very similar. The ones that MOST people agree on...don't steal...kill people..etc. are part of the universal morality most people understand...and therefore those rules are no sillier in a religious text than they are in a court house. And the religious people that follow them are no more selfish than the citizens who follow their society's laws.

Good post.

My point was that, just like a child behaving before Christmas because "Santa is watching," a person who is only being good because "God is watching," may be doing the right thing, but it's for the wrong reason...

And that is not moral at all.

And you know what? People who only donate money to get tax write-offs, or whatever, are not moral either.

 

[Shattered]

Good post.

My point was that, just like a child behaving before Christmas because "Santa is watching," a person who is only being good because "God is watching," may be doing the right thing, but it's for the wrong reason...

And that is not moral at all.

And you know what? People who only donate money to get tax write-offs, or whatever, are not moral either.

If we follow your line of thinking, then nobody is moral (yourself included). So now what?

Example: Speeding... Pretty much EVERYONE speeds (if you go 26 in a 25, 56 in a 55, you are speeding, you know). Those that don't do it aren't doing it not because it's wrong, but because the probability that they'll get caught is pretty high.

Are you telling us that you follow every single rule, and obey every single law to the letter? If you say yes, I'd bet you're lying.

 

[dilloduck]

I assert that not only do morals NOT stem from religion,
but that those people who are only acting moral in order to avoid eternal damnation,
are NOT moral at all, but rather selfish, and are only concerned with consequences.


If consequences dictate a course of action
It doesn't matter what's right, you're only wrong if you get caught

This would depend of your own unique definition of morals. While morality is commonly defined as knowing the difference between right and wrong is, it does not speak of right and wrong according to who? "Moral" social behavior varies around the world, from culture to culture, irregardless of religion.(Killing may be perfectly acceptable in some cultures)

My concept of morality is that we are born as creatures who are totally self (or ego) centric. Morals are the means that teach us that indeed are NOT the center of the universe and that we have a responsibility for the welfare of others and our surrounding environment. (Maturity)

The consequences of moral or immoral behavior are not only incurred after death but have daily consequences. People who have yet to overcome thier self-centerednesss (ego) often wonder why "negative" things happen because they have not acknowleded the fact that they have responsibilities that extend beyond the "self" and are clueless (even angry) when the results of thier selfishness comes back to "bite" them.

Being moral only to avoid consequences may sound selfish but if one realizes that immorality effects more than oneself, being moral ALSO is a postive thing for other people, things in our environment AND ourselves.

To summarize, moral behavior MAY be learned by trial and error yet simply not doing certain things to avoid consequences is only a half measure and this method will leave one acting only out of fear.True moral behavior that is learned by a process of surrendering selfish desires for the greater good of fellow man requires outside influence that has been influenced something larger than the self. This concept of "sacrifice" of the self for the good of the whole seems to only come through spiritual understanding and because a parent simply passes on concepts that they have "learned" via trial and error does NOT mean that they can pass on the wisdom behind morality.

I will add IMHO for those who feel an assertion such as this to be arrogant.

 

[colehart]

Now, go and do the right thing..........because it's the right thing to do. :blah2:

 

[dilloduck]

Now, go and do the right thing..........because it's the right thing to do. :kiss2:

I'm assuming this is sarcasm?

 

[007]

Where do Morals Come From?​

Rebekah Rich​

Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral codes, religious and secular alike.

It all begins with Dennett's assertion that everything- everything- is a product of an algorithmic process, which comes about as a result of random change. By definition these algorithmic processes, evolution included, are "matter first". Dennett uses a metaphor of "cranes"; that new changes in species or anything else are made possible by what already existed in the material world. When speaking about life it is also usefully explained by considering adaptation to be, in practice, exaptation. Nothing in the Darwinian story of the world suggests that anything about better or worse, or for that matter, good and evil.

This is the main point commonly used to dispel notions of Social Darwinism. But it, in my mind, is not sufficient. A few people are doing better in the world than others, and it is not because they are better than the others, or that the others are inferior, it just happened that way because of social circumstances. It has nothing to do with biology. So what! Science here offers no ethical insight; it only prompts indifference. Even if Darwinism is no justification for social injustice, it does nothing to suggest that there is an urgent need for social change. At worst, if one does not take away from this a warning not to mix ideas about society and biology lightly, it might lead one to think that social circumstances are just another random difference that exists within all populations; therefore it is still fair game to better one's circumstances even further with them. Consider it exaptation.

Can altruism- true altruism, not altruism among kin, not reciprocal altruism, but the fabled Good Samaritan altruism, exist as a product of evolution? There is no clear evolutionary advantage to helping those in the "out-group" that deals strictly with biology (which is not to say that there are not brands of altruism for which there is an evolutionary advantage). Those who accept only matter-first explanations of the world may be likely to argue that people do not, in fact, commit purely selfless acts. Others, including Mayr, allow that Good Samaritan-style altruism exists, but only as a product of culture. It would be hard to find an evolutionary advantage to many products of culture. Take monogamous males for an example. Of course there are plenty of them out there, just as there are plenty of people who commit acts of true altruism, but like altruism, monogamy is hardly the rule. While the question of altruism is by all means an important question, it may not take us where we want to go.

The question Dennett then asks is, if morals cannot be derived from the value-free natural world, then from where? His answer is "...ethics must be somehow based on an appreciation of human nature- a sense of what a human being is or might be, and on what a human being might want to have or want to be."." (p.468) Dennett tells us that though culture (ethics included) has a foundation in biology, it is largely autonomous of biology, and presumably it got to be that way because of human's fantastic capacity for learning. (p.491) Yet he also concedes that there is little hope that we will find an algorithm for ethics (culture presumably included). The reason may be that it is simply too complicated an algorithm, but if an algorithm must have a finite number of steps, it seems very dubious to try and apply it the infinite number of human beings and cultures and circumstances.

Dennett skips right over the key. If our brains "were truly capable of nonalgorithmic activity, and if we have such brains, and if our brains are themselves the products of an algorithmic evolutionary process, a curious inconsistency emerges: an algorithmic process... creates a nonalgorithmic subprocess..." (p448) That said, he goes on to ridicule what another scientist might make of this, without addressing this possibility seriously.

The idea that the human mind is at least in part a mind-first agent opens the possibility that we ourselves determine meanings by consciously choosing what we want something to mean. In class, Prof. Grobstein demonstrated our mind-first-ness best by explaining that a piece of written music, while it is matter, does not become music until it is interpreted by the human mind and made music.

Human nature, just as it implies, should be understood to be, and be defined by, nature. Therefore our understanding of human nature should be that can be neither inherently good nor evil. Nonetheless we do indeed have "a sense of what a human being is or might be, and ... what a human being might want to have or want to be" by which we create stories and go beyond nature. These stories themselves are often the motivation for what we determine to be evil upon examining an alternate story, but we do not have a choice about whether or not we tell stories at all. That is in our nature. Alternately, without our stories we would not experience good and beautiful.

The most dissatisfying aspect of a matter-first explanation of morality is that it absolves us from any responsibility for how we impact the natural world and other human beings. This could come as a welcome relief, after considering the incomprehensible responsibility of being an agent of creation. But consider again all the hope and possibilities that lie in being able to tell stories that change the world!


Works Cited

Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York, NY: Simon&Schuster, 1995.


http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s04/web2/rrich.html

 

[Gabriella84]

I assert that not only do morals NOT stem from religion,
but that those people who are only acting moral in order to avoid eternal damnation, are NOT moral at all, but rather selfish, and are only concerned with consequences.

Excellent post!
Morals do come from what you are taught at home. You can be taught Biblical morals everyday, but if they are not put in practice, you are lost.

 

[archangel]

That wasn't quite the angle I was talking about. Hopefully, the morals and ethics passed on to children are from their parent's positive behavior.

GOP Jeff got it right...after all where did the parents and ancestors for that matter come up with the "Golden Rule"...it sure was not DNA...Most likely religious teachings....sometimes people seem to prefer connecting to PC attitudes rather than address the truth! :scratch: