I don't think anyone is born with a sense of morality. While we can be taught morality by others we can still learn it early in life by ourselves. Empathy has a lot to do with it, we (humans) can put ourselves in other people's shoes. When we act, we know roughly how our actions will impact on other people involved. We're all in the same boat of existing in this universe. Immorality seems to stem from a person thinking they're better or more important than most people.
Mr. Zero> Or that, too. What I view as beneficial to me, is probably an “inbred” sociable trait that’ll ensure the survival of my genes in one way or another. Being self-conscious I try to interpret this need to interact with other people, and I get my code of honour and “do to others as you wish others should do to you” idea.
Whatever the reason – I also see atheists with better morals and a better good will towards their fellow man. You’ll be hard-pressed to find atheists who yell and whine at people being homosexuals, of “other religions” or what have you.
WhiteEagle> Good point. What bothers me about “Holier-than-thou” religious people is just that. Their idea, that because they pray to some divinity, they’re by definition better than people who don’t – AND have the right to judge others for actions that are harmless.
So the next question is probably where this fanaticism stems from. Does fundamentalist religion, lack of education and poverty go hand in hand?
I think a lot of people would very heavily question inborn morality in humans; it's more commonly put down to social factors.
And Tpt, that's unfair to religious people. They don't necessarily act morally out of fear; they do it because they know there is a third-party system of arbitration which says it is the right thing to do, and they know it. An atheist can never know that because there is nothing out there making judgments except for each other.
Omega, but surely if you could remove that sense of honour and be happier for it, that would be the rational thing to do? Some might- very reasonably- say that your sense of honour is merely obstructing your own potential. Those without such a sense are no endemically less happy than you, and perhaps endemically more; after all, the less restrictions you live with and get away with, the happier you are going to be.
Humanism is a very difficult area- and the most difficult thing of all is its self-justification. Morals, ultimately, don't do anything other than obstruct you. Society can certainly do without them, IF it is properly run. So why bother?
The difference between a hardcore atheist and a not hardcore one, Omega? One for you to think about, that...
The Omega - Totally agree with you. I despise the “Holier-than-thou” attitude that seems to be a standard feature in many religious people.
Ushgarak - I see what you mean, when it comes to 'getting ahead' in life morals do seem like a self-created obstacle. But I'm not a very ambitious person and many of the things that I could achieve by doing wrong to others just don't interest me. I value good relationships with people more than what I can get out of them, perhaps that is a weakness in this society.
Darth Revan - Heh, we're defiantly not the most logical species in the universe but it does make life more interesting. 🙂
Ush> I’m not entirely sure I’d be happier without my code of honour. Of course one could say it could go, and I’d be freer. But does freedom necessarily lead to happiness?
Of course people without my honour code me be just as happy as I am, but again I ask you: Does freedom lead straight to happiness? Being free of restrictions does that mean being able to do anything I want? Regardless of the impact my actions have on others?
That leads me straight back to “do to others as you wish others should do to you.” This works for me and I can leda the social life I require to function as another specimen of homo sapiens.
I agree – morals are in a sense restrictions. But only if you equal total freedom with happiness and personal joy. You can’t make that equation I think. The mere reason that we do things that may seem unprofitable shows we’re capable of doing things to please others – and thereby pleasing ourselves.
We should perhaps boil “morals” down to a few sentences. If we agree that humans are sociable creatures, and therefore can and will do something not directly in their own interest for the betterment of “the group”, morals are perhaps just extrapolating these actions to make them count for people outside this group. This is needed in these super-tribes known as cities.
well...all these thoughts and ideas still seem to confuse me as for the moral attitudes of most atheist or the lack thereof...
most if not all of you believe we are born with a sense of morality, of right and wrong...while others believe it is learned through experience and the wisdom of our elders...
while others say that we are taught and shown this from divine inspiration...while others through enlightenment of the mind through physical and mental discipline...
and if we go even further back, then as a means to further the survival of the species when the sick and the old were taken care of...when man had a concept of the right thing to do and when we developed an emotional attachment...even before the idea of spirits or a divine being was a spark in the collective pysche....
so in essence, the idea of right and wrong was born over 100,000 years ago at the time of the neanderthals? or maybe even further than that?
so let me ask you this...at the risk of your own personal safety
lets say you saw a group of thugs attacking someone and you knew that they are doing wrong - and in the back of your mind you think they may be even armed - and you're alone and know you've no power to stop what's happening...would go over and stop what's happening anyway because it's the right thing to do or keep going on your way and call for help knowing that that person may suffer deep if not fatal physical harm...
oh, and TO - i consider myself a practical human with an inclination towards God in the physical not the literal or biblical sense...
Not an easy question to answer, especially truthfully. I think it's hard to say without actually being there, while my own morals would play a part in the decision, other elements such as fear or rage would also contribute. I assume by a group you mean 3+ people attacking and the victim is a total stranger, so no personal attachment to them would come into play. Also, by breaking it up I assume you mean physically intervening. If I genuinely felt my life would be in danger should I interfere, sitting here, where I am now, self preservation seems to be my logical conclusion. But we're I in that situation for real, who knows? A mixture of my morals, fear, anger and plain ignorance to the danger I may put myself in would trigger a knee-jerk split second decision. I may try to break it up or even attack the group (not that it would be the smartest thing to do, but that's my point). Although this is a question of morals being put to the test, because of these other contributing factors it may not be the best scenario. It's really hard to imagine accurately what I would do in that situation, but I gave it a shot. I hope I've answered your question to a degree. 😕
Fëanor> Not all of us atheists have claimed we’re born with morals – I do not for example. I believe it is taught to us. Look at how small children will fight over a bag of candy – there is NO sharing-gene there 😄
But as we grow we realise that we NEED to socialise to “function”. Look at the animal kingdom in general. Some species live in groups, and need others of their kind for the betterment of the species in question.
Homo sapiens needed to gather and hunt in packs. No single human could bring down a mammoth – but a group? Roasted giant elephant for dinner!
To your question: How is that related to the discussion in question. Would our early ancestor have stopped a pack of, say, sabre-tooth tigers attacking a stray member of the tribe?
I can’t take on a group of thugs. I have, however, intervened in the past, when one thug was harassing a bus-driver or a ticket-conductor or some such (out of pure rage at the act of intimidation and the lack of any big men in the busses and/or trains to do anything but look out the window). Depending on the situation with the group of thugs, when and where, I might try to do something. My own preservation happens to be rather important – to me.
Personaly I believe that no religion is the foundation of a set of morals or ethics like the ten commandments from Christianity. Those are just the basic rules which a larger community of ppl needs to apply to be able to work properly, with a few divine rules added. IMO morals and ethics are in our blood we, atleast most of us, are born with a natural feeling for what is right and what is wrong, it only needs some fine tuning
Fire> Oh, sure. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any religion that doesn’t contain “the basics”: Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie.
Those laws obviously worked by themselves when we lived in small kin-groups before urbanisation. After we settled in villages with more and more people, the new leaders decided to invent “laws”, which were eventually made the word of various deities.
The more I read this, the more I kinda am formulating a theroy thingy.
I believe our sence of morals is part of our instict, coming from a sub-consious knowlage that we depend upon each other. This coming from our ansectrial hunter-gather roots. The reason that children seem to lack morals, is that they haven't logicly decided that we depend on one another.
The specifics of morals may waver on certian teachings but the basic principal is ancestrial.
Tpt> Yes, that sounds about right. Most offspring in the animal kingdom has to be taught various things by their parents, be it hunting, socialising or speaking.
We've been urbanised for such a short period of time compared to the time we spend hunting and gathering, that we haven't been able to adjust to giant "kin-groups".
Originally posted by The Omega
Ush> I’m not entirely sure I’d be happier without my code of honour. Of course one could say it could go, and I’d be freer. But does freedom necessarily lead to happiness?Of course people without my honour code me be just as happy as I am, but again I ask you: Does freedom lead straight to happiness? Being free of restrictions does that mean being able to do anything I want? Regardless of the impact my actions have on others?
That leads me straight back to “do to others as you wish others should do to you.” This works for me and I can leda the social life I require to function as another specimen of homo sapiens.I agree – morals are in a sense restrictions. But only if you equal total freedom with happiness and personal joy. You can’t make that equation I think. The mere reason that we do things that may seem unprofitable shows we’re capable of doing things to please others – and thereby pleasing ourselves.
We should perhaps boil “morals” down to a few sentences. If we agree that humans are sociable creatures, and therefore can and will do something not directly in their own interest for the betterment of “the group”, morals are perhaps just extrapolating these actions to make them count for people outside this group. This is needed in these super-tribes known as cities.
You seem to be thinking that I am saying you would be happy simply because you are un-restricted. That was never my argument. I was saying that morals deprive you of opportunities to be more happy than you are. Morals look like a curse in that regard- and we are living in fairy tale land if we think people who do 'good' (whatever that is in the world of the atheist) are always going to do well and be happy; we know full well the bastards do a lot better than the saints.
What the heck does the betterment of others matter at all? In a Godless universe, none of it matters at all. The future doesn't matter, and ultimately other people don't matter. Only yourself matters- in any rational sense.
Humans don't HAVE to be social creatures, and when some of the happiest- perhaps THE happiest- are the most immoral types you can get... can someone actually give any consolation to the people that have a code of honour and try to follow morals and yet are utterly miserable?
I actually doubt it.