The Origin of Morality without Religion

[Kylyssa]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/480619/where_morality_comes_from_one_atheists.html

I recently wrote this in response to a religious person arguing that god must exist because morality exists.

[SteveS]

Hey Kylyssa - I'm not at all an expert in this matter, but I like the idea of linking morality with empathy.  And, I wonder if empathy isn't anything other than an extension of theory of mind.

[Sidbob]

I believe that a lot of morality is social and begins from a very young age, children are very impressionable, so when your mother tells your for the 25th time to stop being nasty to your sibling its more likely that you will listen.

Empathy plays a big part also, we are taught to care about others and to care what they think of us. It makes sense that we try and fit in as it makes us feel accepted and part of a group, as opposed to being lonely.

[replikant]

Hi Kylyssa

One way of arguing about this is quite simple: Religions are usually (in part) a collection of moral rules. Its a simple chicken-and-egg question which of the two came first, religion or morality?

I think both versions are plausible, especially because religions often differ in their moralities.

As an atheist i don't doubt the existence of religions, i doubt the existence of god and see religions as man-made.

I come up with the following two explanations:

-Religion created morality
Religion is about rules. Thou shalt not this, Thou shalt that...
It's absolutely not unusual that people create rules for themselves and follow them. Whether it's a game of chess or the US constitution... we create rules and ethics for ourselves, follow and enforce these rules.

-Morality created religion
In this scenario people worked out a morality that worked for them nicely and turned them into a superior rule for everyone. Because rules usually get broken and people tend to forget them ("i told you not to take cookies from the jar!") people started to back them up with an image of god and a spiritual picture of the world and condensed it all in a memorizable form (chants, rituals, verses, books).

A person who believes in god but in no specific religion is likely to agree with this. A person who believes in a religion has to be asked why he believes in a religion, why not in god

[Seosamh]

very relevant: http://audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab042806.mp3

Nifty radio show/podcast thing I listen to regularly. This was their episode on morality.

[rational liberal]

Hi Kylyssa

One way of arguing about this is quite simple: Religions are usually (in part) a collection of moral rules. Its a simple chicken-and-egg question which of the two came first, religion or morality?

I think both versions are plausible, especially because religions often differ in their moralities.

As an atheist i don't doubt the existence of religions, i doubt the existence of god and see religions as man-made.

I come up with the following two explanations:

-Religion created morality
Religion is about rules. Thou shalt not this, Thou shalt that...
It's absolutely not unusual that people create rules for themselves and follow them. Whether it's a game of chess or the US constitution... we create rules and ethics for ourselves, follow and enforce these rules.

-Morality created religion
In this scenario people worked out a morality that worked for them nicely and turned them into a superior rule for everyone. Because rules usually get broken and people tend to forget them ("i told you not to take cookies from the jar!") people started to back them up with an image of god and a spiritual picture of the world and condensed it all in a memorizable form (chants, rituals, verses, books).

A person who believes in god but in no specific religion is likely to agree with this. A person who believes in a religion has to be asked why he believes in a religion, why not in god

Bravo on the excellent post, my friend. I believe exactly the same thing. As a Deist, I frankly can't see how man can think that they can know God through following a set of rules devised by man.(religion) I don't think that God(if there is one) would be pleased with any of mans attempts to understand him using religion.

[susangail]

Wow. I've never thought about the origin of morality before (I've never really had to I guess) But empathy and love... that just makes so must sense.

I heard debate on like Fox or something between an atheist and a Reverend. One thing the Reverend asked was "Where do you get your morals from? You don't believe in the Bible, so where do you get your morals from." I thought it was a weird question. We don't get our morals from anywhere in particular. Deciding your morals for yourself out of empathy and love makes more sense than doing what a book tells you to even if you don't agree.

[Tanker]

I totaly agree that morality and by proxy empathy must have evolved as a survival trait for a family group in specific and the species in general. As a soldier in Iraq, to do my job properly (infer what you will from that) I had to do an unnatural act, kill other people. Even in the wild, animals killing members of their own species is extemly rare (with a few notable exceptions, ie: chimp canibalism, male lions killing other males cubs, ect.) to do this I had turn my empathy off. After doing this the moral arguments and ambiguities within my own mind became nonexistant. To put it simply once you've "turned off" empathy for another person it becomes easy to kill. The fact that it was "them or me" made the switch that much easier. Of course it's been much harder to turn back on, I don't mean I want to kill anyone (I have no need) I still have trouble empathy for people I don't know. I assume that when other soldiers have become more emotionaly stable they become upset with the apparent imorality of their actions, one of the symtoms of P.T.S.D. If we had no empaty for others we would feel moral obligation not to kill others  every time we felt we had been wronged. I believe that while the Bible and other religious texts give guide lines for morality they just structure a system that evolved as a survivel trait for the species long befor the spoken word let alone the written.

[rickymooston]

I totaly agree that morality and by proxy empathy must have evolved as a survival trait for a family group in specific and the species in general. As a soldier in Iraq, to do my job properly (infer what you will from that) I had to do an unnatural act, kill other people. Even in the wild, animals killing members of their own species is extemly rare (with a few notable exceptions, ie: chimp canibalism, male lions killing other males cubs, ect.) to do this I had turn my empathy off. After doing this the moral arguments and ambiguities within my own mind became nonexistant. To put it simply once you've "turned off" empathy for another person it becomes easy to kill. The fact that it was "them or me" made the switch that much easier. Of course it's been much harder to turn back on, I don't mean I want to kill anyone (I have no need) I still have trouble empathy for people I don't know. I assume that when other soldiers have become more emotionaly stable they become upset with the apparent imorality of their actions, one of the symtoms of P.T.S.D. If we had no empaty for others we would feel moral obligation not to kill others  every time we felt we had been wronged. I believe that while the Bible and other religious texts give guide lines for morality they just structure a system that evolved as a survivel trait for the species long befor the spoken word let alone the written.

Well, ... interesting points. The killing question being such a SMALL part of morality but one that is almost universal to some extent. I'm unsure about this killing animals of own species being rare tho; fish do it all the time and bunnies, cats, dogs, etc, ...

I suspect something in us most in general allow us to kill "reasonably" easily, when we are exposed to it? I mean, most societies, religious or not, have wars. Obviously having some concept of "US" vs "THEM" was condusive to success. So, part of WAR is to dehumanize the enemy and turn off the empathy part. Curiously, doctors have to do the same thing and they are actually helping the person for whom they turn off empathy.


That said, I'm sure, that whatever turning off of empathy you have, you probably don't go out of the way to target the innocent or kill prisoners, ... Your morality is STILL likely very much in tact!!! (Assuming there is not another 'cover' up waiting to be unveiled)



As for post traumatic stress disorder? I'm not sure how that expresses itself. I mean, is one worried about cases they accidentally killed non-combattants or where their own lives were in danger? Sometimes in a civil war, non-combattants become hard to identify. Empathy or not, I'm sure this causes stress.

Now we also are from hunters and yet, most of us CANNOT kill our own food any more, depending on one's background.

The thing about morality is it encompasses all kinds of stuff. It is far more than not killing and not harming others we empathize with.

I think morality is as diverse as LANGUAGE. LAnGUAGE is NOT absolute either and yet, all cultures have one and that languages has accepted rules that change over time to varying degrees.

Driving forces for change in morality, probably involve changing needs of a society and also the social order of that society.