BF2S Forums Morality: a matter of Religion or Evolution?

I think that while morality is seperate from religion, it is basically a part of the social "normal". If society didn't bother judging things and people, there would be no "normal" and hence no moral code. Morality is just saying that certain ways of life are more, I don't know the word, beneficial, maybe, so if there were no real thinking about the way other people go about their lives, there would be no "moral code". I hope you understand what I am saying, because then maybe you can explain it to me.

Absolutely not

It is not an evolutionary instinct to be moral, but rather to create the conditions for morality to appear. But no, while it is influenced by the religion, it is not inherently related to them.

No one is a perfect judge. Everyone is biased in some ways, and saying one person is better just implies that you have a bias toward thinking that person is better.

sergeriver wrote:

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.”  Arthur C. Clarke.

Some people here have swallowed the idea that morality and religion can't be separated.  But this concept is so wrong.  The man is a primate.  All primates have innate morality.  Even the orangutans.  Men and orangutans have codes of morality and standards of behaviour.  But only men have religious beliefs.  No other primate has developed Religion.  Morality does not require religion.  Religion does not require morality.
You can be a Religious guy and have a total lack of morality.  You can be an atheists and completely understand what ethics and moral are.

What do you think? 
Is it necessary to be a Religious guy to know what morality is? 
Is morality more related to Religion or to Mankind itself?
Are Religious persons better judges than agnostics or atheists?

No.
Mankind itself
No.

I believe we have all come to agreement on this, right?

topal63 wrote:

Perfectly true...
No.
Mankind itself.
No.

I've read that religion may have flourished due to its ability to encourage people to stick to the social morals that were already in place when nobody's around, therefore making social groups more effective. Religions tend to have the similar basis of an all knowing deity/deities that will know what you did, even if noboy's there, and a very severe reward/punishment system for breaking the morals.

Religion isn't the basis of morality, merely was a good way to enforce it back then. Now we have decent enough policing that the need for religion in that sense has gone.

Bertster7 wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

It is not an evolutionary instinct to be moral, but rather to create the conditions for morality to appear. But no, while it is influenced by the religion, it is not inherently related to them.

Why not? It has been shown that human instincts are affected by genetics and so in an evolutionary environment shifting from a survival of the fittest to survival of the most socially competent and fittest there is likely to be a change on the genetic level that reflects this.

The influences of any possibly ingrained moral instinct are likely to be modest in comparison to any social influences, but are almost certainly present.

While this may be true, there is ample evidence that the mostly environment the affects human behavior. You are also underestimating the time it takes to truly evolve on a genetic level. Homo Sapiens has not existed very long. Also, most human evolution has stopped, basically because humans no longer have a need to evolve; we have no reason to change genetically.

But you may be right. I'm pretty sure neither of us is a psychologist or anthropologist.

Bertster7 wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Why not? It has been shown that human instincts are affected by genetics and so in an evolutionary environment shifting from a survival of the fittest to survival of the most socially competent and fittest there is likely to be a change on the genetic level that reflects this.

The influences of any possibly ingrained moral instinct are likely to be modest in comparison to any social influences, but are almost certainly present.

While this may be true, there is ample evidence that the mostly environment the affects human behavior. You are also underestimating the time it takes to truly evolve on a genetic level. Homo Sapiens has not existed very long. Also, most human evolution has stopped, basically because humans no longer have a need to evolve; we have no reason to change genetically.

But you may be right. I'm pretty sure neither of us is a psychologist or anthropologist. :)

It wouldn't so much be a case of homo sapiens evolution specifically. But evolution from the point humans became social animals. I don't know when that was, but I'm betting there was sufficient time for genetic level evolution to occur, producing changes to insticts.

I agree that social factors are the most dominant force in determining what we consider to be moral, but I do also believe that instinct plays a role too.

I could be wrong though.

I am thinking this part is definitely generally right.  It's primarily biological... unless were talking about a Japanese "tea ceremony" and the moral value of the ceremony as to what it instructs in terms of sublimation contained in an act. Of course this type of tradition is dependent upon socially evolved customs that instruct: morally, culturally, spiritually. The details are culturally specific, though what is instructed may just be a form found in other cultures.

Yet the limit of that instruction can easily be shown to be universal in origin - or entirely dependent upon the human psyche - a product of biology.

How can morality have a foundation at all - if it is not founded upon nature? Seems to me to be an absurdity to suggest otherwise. Without the natural component of emotion - you would be more like a computer. Altruism, society, pair-bonding, fear, peace at rest, defending the tribe, defending the herd, child rearing, etc... all nature - found in nature. What we subjectively consider moral is dependent upon a natural foundation.

A rhetorical question:
Why do people often feel like their being attacked - and react emotionally - when moral questions are posed - if there isn't a direct correlation to the emotive aspect (natural component)?

Also if you tried to use abstract reasoning alone, it would be difficult to reason into existence "individual rights" if you could not consider individual self-preservation and that - that basis is rooted in fear. And, it would be difficult to extend attachments to others outside your family, group, tribe, etc; if attachments (emotional bonding) did not exist. Such a being might conclude individual rights are unimportant - only the whole is important - and any member insignificant - and immediately expendable for the greater reasoned good of the whole.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-06 07:54:53)

It is all just a matter of opinion.  Morals mean absolutely nothing.  Morals exist no where but in our puny minds.

It is all semantical bullshit.  imho.  We will do what we can do.

WinstontheWolf wrote:

Daysniper wrote:

No one is a perfect judge. Everyone is biased in some ways, and saying one person is better just implies that you have a bias toward thinking that person is better.

So, what you're saying is, basically, that any person, even the mentally disabled, barely conscious dude in the local nursing home, is as good a moral judge as anyone else? And also, do you not see the reasons why they dont convict children, mentally sick/disordered, etc the same way as 18 year old "sane" ppl? If you use a bit of common sense, its pretty absurd to say that even the ppl who can vote and be convicted with the highest penalties is all the same too.. Call me biased, but I think some people are "morally smarter" than others, making them capable of seing more clearly what actions and values that benefits the society as a whole, their family/friends, and/or themselves.

I'm not saying that everyone has an equal "moral intelligence". I'm just saying that everyone has biases and prejudices towards different things.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

No, Morality is independent of religion. I'm an atheist, and I have strong morals, based around 'I wouldn't like it if someone did that to me, so I'm not gonna do it to them'.
Ethics, on the other hand, I am short on. Humans don't deserve them, and won't until the majority of people I meet are smarter than my cat.
Now, either people are really stupid, or that is one intelligent cat.

Or you surround yourself with stupid people.

No, my friends are rather intelligent people, they're just vastly outnumbered by the rest of the world. I do not 'surround' myself with the people I meet in the street, or have to deal with in shops, or get into shouting matches through an open car window with.

Now start reading and stop trying to pick fights with people.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Or you surround yourself with stupid people.

No, my friends are rather intelligent people, they're just vastly outnumbered by the rest of the world. I do not 'surround' myself with the people I meet in the street, or have to deal with in shops, or get into shouting matches through an open car window with.

Now start reading and stop trying to pick fights with people.

its a joke budddddy.  Lighten up.

Well, it wasn't freaking funny.

religion was based off of morality. all religions teach us to be good...well most of the widely accepted ones...with an exception of islamic fundamentalism

Atheists and agnostics have morals (defined right or wrong) like everyone else.  In fact, last year someone scientific published a paper that proved it.  The same part of the brain was active for the religious and the atheists when confronted with moral dilemmas (sp).

However, I believe that morality is driven by society and is learned.  Therefore, it's not driven by something spiritual like believing or not believing.  And since several different societies exist, each with different sets of morals, morality is merely a point of view.