Where does morality come from?

[great_bay]

Morality comes from empathy. The only reason why we don't live in a society in which people send other people to fight to the death in an arena is because of empathy. Morality comes from an avoidant to hurt people because they empathize with them.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I'm sure that moral atheists dont need religion, you can go on living without legs arms or eyes but I'm not saying anyone should lop them off.

The point is that it seems human morality existed before religion. The other poster said religion is the source of morality but then said religion is the result of already preexisting human values.

 

[Cellmold]

The Emperor who sits on the golden throne at the heart of the Imperium of Man.

He was kind of a dick though....x#';#;;##EDITED#####

ALL HAIL THE EMPEROR AND THE IMPERIAL TRUTH!

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I'm sure.

Atheism is all hugs and kisses until you get around to social darwinism and malthusianism, from there its a hop, skip and jump to extermination camps and selective breeding.

Even if people did advocate social Darwinism it doesn't mean Darwinian evolution is false. Most people who accept Darwin's research also oppose social Darwinism. Also, there is no evidence to suggest atheism leads to extermination camps and selective breeding (you seem to be implying Nazism here).

Observe:

This standard issue Nazi belt buckle says "God with us." Going out on a limb here but this doesn't seem very atheistic at all. In fact, it implies the belief in a deity and the belief that the deity approves of the group the exact opposite of atheism. Now I could be a dunce and suggest that since Nazis were theistic that all theists must apologize concentration camps and selective breeding but that would be quite ridiculous wouldn't it? Just because Stalin and Hitler had mustaches doesn't mean that mustaches are responsible for their shittiness.

 

[Lark]

The point is that it seems human morality existed before religion. The other poster said religion is the source of morality but then said religion is the result of already preexisting human values.

If a spontaneous moral order existed which precluded religion how would religion possibly have emerged as an avatar?

The problem with any preexisting golden age, whatever way you choose to frame it, is explaining how humanity got from there to here.

Unless, wait, you dont think it was eating the apple from the tree of knowledge?

 

[Lark]

Even if people did advocate social Darwinism it doesn't mean Darwinian evolution is false. Most people who accept Darwin's research also oppose social Darwinism. Also, there is no evidence to suggest atheism leads to extermination camps and selective breeding (you seem to be implying Nazism here).

Observe:

This standard issue Nazi belt buckle says "God with us." Going out on a limb here but this doesn't seem very atheistic at all. In fact, it implies the belief in a deity and the belief that the deity approves of the group the exact opposite of atheism. Now I could be a dunce and suggest that since Nazis were theistic that all theists must apologize concentration camps and selective breeding but that would be quite ridiculous wouldn't it? Just because Stalin and Hitler had mustaches doesn't mean that mustaches are responsible for their shittiness.

Yeah, I know you're not going to see the connections.

One day maybe.

 

[anticlimatic]

Also, I think most religions (especially certain abrahamic religions) blocks one's empathy and tries to feed you ideas such as 'succumbing to the will of god or being humble to the will of god' as good and right, whereas when you think about it those have nothing much to do with morality.

I don't know. I think 'succumbing to the will of god' insinuates a state of natural grace wherein the beholder can be at peace with the absolute fact of his cosmic insignificance and futility. Most religions that evolve over time promote an etiquette born of generationally polished wisdom, and they employ many different devices to get people to abide by them- since what ultimately 'saves' a person is getting them to contradict their animal natures and elect instead to embrace their human ones- a feat that can be quite difficult.

Even though all morality is subjective, at least religion has had the time and the credentials to provide a code that actually works (when followed correctly). Individual subjective morality is dangerous, because the individual can't learn which aspects of their lives are actually more bad than good until it's too late. A single lifetime just isn't long enough to obtain an accurate moral wisdom- especially throughout it.

Certain moral principals are obvious- like don't hurt things, or destroy things for sport. An individual could probably figure those out on its own at some point in a single lifetime without any objective standard to influence them. Others are not so obvious, like how should we handle all aspects of reproduction? What makes us happy? Where aught meaning be assigned? You could take a guess at these questions, but how do you know you're right? How do you know if it's good for the human or just good for the animal?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Humans are capable of more (without religion)....rarely to sometimes.

practicing Christianity means you are ALWAYS called to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

A devout and righteous Christian is much more likely to do good in our world than a non-Christian human practicing random acts of kindness

 

[á´…eparted]

Humans are capable of more (without religion)....rarely to sometimes.

practicing Christianity means you are ALWAYS called to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

A devout and righteous Christian is much more likely to do good in our world than a non-Christian human practicing random acts of kindness

Oh please, do tell us more how devout righteous christians are somehow better and do more than anyone else. I didn't know this!

Oh that's right now I remember, they aren't.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I said "more likely" and explained why.

my argument is logical.

 

[á´…eparted]

I said "more likely" and explained why.

It doesn't explain a damn thing.

I'd actually argue that devout righteous christians cause more harm than good. Not going to waste my time because you'll just magically rationalize your way out of it like you do with everything else.

my argument is logical.

Ok you keep telling yourself that.

 

[Mole]

Morality and Institutions

Morality comes from empathy. The only reason why we don't live in a society in which people send other people to fight to the death in an arena is because of empathy. Morality comes from an avoidant to hurt people because they empathize with them.

Some say the fear of God is the beginning of morality. And some say that if God didn't exist, everything would be permissible.

But of course we have institutions between us and God, who enforce morality, such as the church, the police, the courts, the schools, professional associations, the military, peer groups, the family, popular culture, and current paradigms.

The death of God has not seen the death of even one of these controlling institutions. And thank God, for we are as dependent on these institutions as we are on the air we breathe.

Oddly enough though we are narcissists who wonder if we are naughty or nice, particularly at Christmas, and so the institutions which are the origin of our personal morality are ignored.

 

[great_bay]

Okay I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

 

[Mole]

Okay I have no idea what that has to do with what I said.

Empathy, as an explanation of morality, is an individual response that comes from the therapeutic culture of narcissism, whereas once the charismatic moment is over, morality is in the hands of institutions.

So empathy is not strong enough to carry morality any further than a charismatic individual, while institutions carry morality through the millennia.

 

[great_bay]

Ok...

 

[ZNP-TBA]

If a spontaneous moral order existed which precluded religion how would religion possibly have emerged as an avatar?

Simple, the very concept of morality in religion would never make sense if the notion of morality didn't preclude it. It's sort of like a cake. Morality or system of ethical behavior is one of the ingredients required in most religions which would be the cake. The cake didn't create the constituent ingredients rather vice versa.

The problem with any preexisting golden age, whatever way you choose to frame it, is explaining how humanity got from there to here.

Pre-existing golden age? Dafaq? Kind of a non-sequitur but okay. And?

Unless, wait, you dont think it was eating the apple from the tree of knowledge?

My personal view of this fairy tale is exactly that, a fairy tale. It's analogous to the 'stork theory' of child birth. Surely we can do better when trying to understand the complexities of human morality?

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Yeah, I know you're not going to see the connections.

One day maybe.

Please don't take this as an insult but it seems to me you have a very poor capacity for debate. I just scrolled over some of your arguments in various threads and it seems rather conclusive that you're a struggling sophist at best. I'm not just saying that or trying to insult you. I would be happy to quote various arguments you've made and point out which fallacies have been committed (repeatedly) so you know I'm not just hurling a baseless accusation. Just say the word and I'll compile a list.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Humans are capable of more (without religion)....rarely to sometimes.

More what?

practicing Christianity means you are ALWAYS called to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

You're also required to believe that people who do not accept your way of thinking as truth ( your version of Christianity) and accept Christ as their savior will suffer in hell forever no matter how many good things they might have done in their life. You're also required to believe that Jesus forgives anything except cursing/blaspheming the Holy Spirit. If someone says or thinks anything ill or negative of the Holy Spirit then there is no redemption for them.

A devout and righteous Christian is much more likely to do good in our world than a non-Christian human practicing random acts of kindness

Citation please?!

(also there's nothing to suggest non-religious acts/reasons for kindness are 'random.' If you're donating to a charity to help AIDS victims in Africa then that seems pretty deliberate and not random. Also, isn't it better to do good for goodness sake rather than under duress because you fear some awful consequence if you don't? How do I know a Christian is doing something good to genuinely be good or because they fear the crap out of God punishing them if they don't? At least with the non-religious person I know its not because they fear brutal consequences.)

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I said "more likely" and explained why.

my argument is logical.

You failed to explain anything or show any evidence of this claim.

You made a baseless assertion.

I'm sorry, that is not a well reasoned or logical argument. Try again.

 

[great_bay]

You failed to explain anything or show any evidence of this claim.

You made a baseless assertion.

I'm sorry, that is not a well reasoned or logical argument. Try again.

Is I win a sound argument?