Truth and Morality

[agent_snot]

I will admit up front - I am a Christian.

I will also admit up front - I am not your usual Christian.  I would call myself an Evangelical Christian, yes, but normal, no way.  For one, take a peek at my avatar.  Yes, I fully and wholeheartedly support Barack Obama.  I even donated to his campaign.  I am a flaming liberal - some would be bold enough to name me a socialist at times.  I don't go around telling people they are going to Hell, I don't listen to Christian Music nonstop, I don't like or agree with most of what James Dobson and those crazy T.V. Preachers say, I don’t like traditional church, and I like watching normal T.V.  I do, however, believe in Jesus.

Now my question is a simple one â€" I don’t know if it has been asked before, but I genuinely want to know.  I have asked atheists before this question and really have not gotten a straight answer, so I am hoping to get one here, and maybe we can have a small discussion with this.  I was wondering, in an atheist worldview, how do you account for truth and morality?  If this world has no higher being â€" no higher authority, where does truth come from?  How is truth objective if we are just atoms bumping in to each other?  How can we even know if science is truth when 1) truth is different for each person and 2) even science keeps changing, since every day there is a new experiment that may prove the previous day’s one wrong?

Somewhat more importantly, how do atheists justify right and wrong?  If we are just random atoms bumping in to each other, what makes things right and wrong?  How do we have the right to call something right or wrong?  Obviously we differ in views about God, so what gives you the ability to say I’m wrong and vice versa?  And somewhat even deeper than that, where did thought and reason come from?  Where did we get the ability to think like we do and to discuss this topic?

I am also happy to answer any questions/criticisms of Christianity, but I would like an answer to at least some of these questions.

[curiosityandthecat]

I think you're conflating truth and Truth. There's a tremendous difference, and atheists, by and large, don't concern themselves with Truth per se. I'd love to go more in depth into your question, but that will have to wait. I'm at work and rather busy, just wanted to throw in my quick two pesos.

Incidentally, welcome to the forum

[Tom62]

Welcome to the forum. Humans always have been social creatures from the very beginning that they roamed the Earth in small tribes in Africa. In those early days of mankind the people of these tribes had to work hard for their survival. The only way to that that was by cooperation, because you'd not survive on your own if for example you were confronted by a sabertooth tiger. Naturally since they belonged to relatively small group of people, there must have been a great social control to ensure that the rules are set for survival, leadership, etc. and that everybody in the group follows them. All primates have that, you can see that not only in humans, but also in chimpanzee and baboon groups. Anyone that would harm the group would therefore by considered bad and will get the punishment that the group decided for them. What is wrong and what is right comes straight from the group (tribe, community, nation or what ever) where you belonged to. They judged over you when you did something wrong in their eyes. There is no supernatural being who sets the rules of morality, because every group has rules of its own how people should behave and these rules change over time. Until the mid twenties it was for example still o.k. to call black people an inferior race in high society, I would not dare to do that nowadays. There are countless other examples how morals have changed over time. You can read f.e. in the Bible that slavery was OK, that you could do with your enemies whatever you want, etc., all kind of things that would now cause an moral outcry. This is one of the reasons why I don't believe that there is an absolute Truth, Evil, Good and Bad, Morality, etc. nor that theists hold a monopoly on them.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I was wondering, in an atheist worldview, how do you account for truth and morality? If this world has no higher being â€" no higher authority, where does truth come from? How is truth objective if we are just atoms bumping in to each other? How can we even know if science is truth when 1) truth is different for each person and 2) even science keeps changing, since every day there is a new experiment that may prove the previous day’s one wrong?

Truth (non-mathematical) is based on individual perception ... it's a bit like what Kosh (Babylon 5) said (I know he didn't exactly say this), "truth is a three edged sword", your truth, their truth and the facts. Truth is a flexible commodity.

Yes scientific explanations, change but why is that a problem? By and large they remain the same and no truly objective observer believes that science has to be right all the time, it is only necessary for it to represent our current understanding. To me this seems like a positive thing rather than negative.

Morality is simply an ethical system that allows us to relate more effectively with other humans, specifically those in a given social structure (say a nation).

Somewhat more importantly, how do atheists justify right and wrong? If we are just random atoms bumping in to each other, what makes things right and wrong? How do we have the right to call something right or wrong? Obviously we differ in views about God, so what gives you the ability to say I’m wrong and vice versa? And somewhat even deeper than that, where did thought and reason come from? Where did we get the ability to think like we do and to discuss this topic?

I imagine we justify right from wrong in exactly the same way you do ... we observe things, events and we decide whether they are justifiable or not within the context of our upbringing. Is that not what we all do? Please, please don't tell me you open your bible every time you have to figure out what is or is not right because if you do that is truly, appalling sad.

Ultimately this seems to boil down to that age old theist claim that if we are all animals why do we not behave like we are in a barnyard? The answer, of course, is that in some ways we do (squabbles, wars, territorial claims and so on are simply modern day, technological versions of what our animal cousins do) but here's the key thing, just because we are animals does not prevent us from aspiring to be more, why should it? And w, we humans, we apes aspire to be so much more ... we have art, music, literature, computers, space-flight and warfare! Oops! That not so advanced is it?

Many animals are capable of reason and, as I recall, there have been reports that some higher animals are thought to have a sense of self, probably more basic than ours but there. I'm curious, why you are trying to separate us in this way from our animal brethren? Is it because you actually believe humans are divinely created and all your questions are oriented towards in some way validating that view? On thought and reason, why is it such a hard stretch to accept that consciousness might be simply a function of the greater "processing power" of the brain as it evolved and became more complex over time?

You know I've dealt with questions much like these before and it seems to me that you're not really the "different" Christian you are trying to claim yourself to be in fact I would say you're pretty much the same as many of the others I've dealt with in my time.

I am also happy to answer any questions/criticisms of Christianity, but I would like an answer to at least some of these questions.

Are you? How about this ... I'm guessing you don't believe in a literal creation such as that outlined in Genesis yet you do believe in Jesus, presumably his resurrection and in many other things in your book of holy scriptures. Why? I don't mean for you to tell me specifically why you believe what you believe but why do you reject (or consider allegorical) some parts (Genesis for instance) yet accept others? Given that the only real evidence for the essential claims of the bible (I'm not talking about its value as an historical source) is ... well ... the bible you presumably have some sort of method which allows you to distinguish between what is and what is not believable. What is it?

Kyu

[McQ]

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the question. This is a good subject. I think you'll be able to have some good, fruitful, discussion on truth, and the nature of how humans come about developing morality, ethics, and  social behavior.

I think it's a subject that we all take seriously and like to get into. To whittle down my feelings on it into something much less complicated than it is, I say it's social contract theory (or theories, 'cause there are a bunch). Essentially, I believe there is no such thing as the ultimate higher, indisputable Truth. We (humans) made it up so that we could have an ultimate trump card of Truth. but the problem is that lots of different cultures came up with their own versions of this ultimate Truth and they can't all be right, of course.

What works is self-correction and continued questioning of the status quo. Truth is elusive, but ethical behavior can be worked toward and achieved. Social Contract theory helps us do that.

But since I have to go to work, that's all I time for now.

[Jolly Sapper]

Since you've gotten some responses to your questions, I'll send some your way.

If this world has no higher being â€" no higher authority, where does truth come from?

What makes you think that the truth would have to "come" from a higher being?  Whats to preclude a god that exists but doesn't dole out "truth" spoonful by spoonful to each and every one of us?

Oh, and what do you consider "truth" by the way?

[agent_snot]

Wow.  Thank you all for your answers.  It's going to be hard to respond to each one of you in a complete and detailed manner, but I will try.

To start: Tom62 - You talked a lot about tribes in Africa that began the world.  You may be right that they were the beginning humans and all, but that still doesn't make what they thought moral.  As we well know, tribes were not the most well known for being the nicest people to women, for one example.  If they created morality, how come we disagree with some of their moral choices.  Also, what makes them the authority for morality?  What makes us need to follow them?  If we are just atoms bumping into each other, what makes us need to follow them, because my atoms may have come together differently than yours to make me have different morality.  If that is what I am made up of, then what right if my atoms say something different than yours?

You also stated:

You can read f.e. in the Bible that slavery was OK, that you could do with your enemies whatever you want, etc., all kind of things that would now cause an moral outcry.

You have to read those items in context.  For example, in the bible, slavery was actually a very different concept than we think of it today.  It was pretty much the same concept as you hiring a maid to clean your house... the slaves were compensated and actually appreciated the work.

Kyu - You talked about truth being about perception.  So my perception is that the sky is purple.  That cannot be proven empirically or mathematically because who defines what purple is.  And anyways, what makes mathematical truth the one that is always correct.  You yourself said:

Yes scientific explanations, change but why is that a problem? By and large they remain the same and no truly objective observer believes that science has to be right all the time, it is only necessary for it to represent our current understanding.

This itself proves that mathematical truth is not really truth at all.  You agreed that scientific explanations can change, so how can you be sure that anything is right?  It is based on your perception that mathematical and empirical truth is correct, but since it changes, you can never know if anything is correct, because there is always the possibility that it could be changed with another, better experiment.

I imagine we justify right from wrong in exactly the same way you do ... we observe things, events and we decide whether they are justifiable or not within the context of our upbringing. Is that not what we all do? Please, please don't tell me you open your bible every time you have to figure out what is or is not right because if you do that is truly, appalling sad.

No, I don't open my bible every single time I want to find out the answer to a moral problem.  I do, however think about what it would say because that is my basis for truth.  I was really hoping I wouldn't have to go here, but I will.  So what you are saying that by analyzing events correctly makes us morally right?  First of all, who says that this is the correct way to be moral?  If we are just atoms, how is analyzing situations the correct way to be moral?  Who says?  But here to the main point: If analyzing situations makes you moral, then Hitler analyzed the situation in Europe and sincerely believed that Jews were the problem with Europe during that day, and he analyzed the situation and found that it would be completely alright if he exterminated like they were bugs.  We both think this is wrong, but Hitler didn't, so according to your definition of morality, Hitler was moral because he analyzed the situation and thought that he would be correct in his actions.

On thought and reason, why is it such a hard stretch to accept that consciousness might be simply a function of the greater "processing power" of the brain as it evolved and became more complex over time?

I realize I didn't express myself well enough here.  What I mean by this is how can we go by standards of reason?  If we have a discussion (as we are now) then by what standard can we make arguments.  If I make a completely unbased claim, or don't follow logical process, then who is to tell me I'm wrong, because I used my own logic.

Anyways... I'm really tired and have to go to a meeting tomorrow early morning, so I'm going to stop there and finish up tomorrow.  Meanwhile, maybe respond to some of these questions.

[Kevin]

Me and my father once talked about the question people bring up about Atheists and morals. I am going to use his simple answer:
As society has developed, we have learned what needs to be done to keep it working right. We have learned that having no rules and people doing whatever they want freely will get us no where in life. Therefore, mankind has come up with rules, laws, and guidelines on how to live to keep society in order and make sure everybody lives in order and peace. This is where Atheist get their morals. Not from a higher power, or the Bible (But they can from the Bible), but from society learning what works to keep us together.

That's a very simple answer.

[Martian]

I will admit up front - I am a Christian.

I will also admit up front - I am not your usual Christian.  I would call myself an Evangelical Christian, yes, but normal, no way.  For one, take a peek at my avatar.  Yes, I fully and wholeheartedly support Barack Obama.  I even donated to his campaign.  I am a flaming liberal - some would be bold enough to name me a socialist at times.  I don't go around telling people they are going to Hell, I don't listen to Christian Music nonstop, I don't like or agree with most of what James Dobson and those crazy T.V. Preachers say, I don’t like traditional church, and I like watching normal T.V.  I do, however, believe in Jesus.

This is how I imagined most Christians to be, though I'm glad to hear you are eager to think about things for yourself.

As a side note though, I am always confused as to why people think communism is atheistic rather than theistic. Jesus sounds more like a socialist/communist than a capitalist. But anyway, back to the main topic.

Now my question is a simple one â€" I don’t know if it has been asked before, but I genuinely want to know.  I have asked atheists before this question and really have not gotten a straight answer, so I am hoping to get one here, and maybe we can have a small discussion with this.  I was wondering, in an atheist worldview, how do you account for truth and morality?  If this world has no higher being â€" no higher authority, where does truth come from?  How is truth objective if we are just atoms bumping in to each other?  How can we even know if science is truth when 1) truth is different for each person and 2) even science keeps changing, since every day there is a new experiment that may prove the previous day’s one wrong?

Question: "...in an atheist worldview, how do you account for truth and morality?" ... or in other words... How does one discover truth and morality without the existence of a God?

Answer: Simply, truth and morality exist independent of God, if they exist at all. In fact, I don't see how one discovers truth or morality from God. Of course, God could tell you what the truth and morality is, but that would not gaurantee that that itself is the truth. To see this problem, one could ask the questions:

How do I know God is there?

and if God's existence is know,
How do I know that God doesn't want to deceive me?
How do I know that God knows the truth?
etc.

Atheists, for the most part, come to conclusions about truth based on the scientific method and empericism (as also many non-atheistic people do). Of course, one cannot be certain of truth, but one can only do his/her best to practically model reality (to assist in making choices) by weighing evidence. I think most people do this, whether they are theist or atheist. Though, no one knows the actual Truth for certain; one can only try their best to come as close to it as possible through their observations, regardless of God's existence. I would also like to mention God has not espoused a single truth that we can check as of yet, so I don't see how theists get their truth from God either.

As for morality, things get more difficult. But they get difficult for both theists and atheists. Though, I will not get into that, rather I will just point out a simple logical fact. God's commands are either good because he made them OR they are good because they are good independent of God making them (the commands). Most theists espouse that God's commands are not simply good because they are commanded by God. For example, would God telling you to kill random people be good? Most theists would say, "No. But God would not command such a thing." That's fine, but that simply means that God is following a moral guideline whose standard is independent of God. Therefore, you must maintain that an Atheist can find morality too, because they are not believing in the thing (God) which is irrelevant to morality. I myself don't completely understand what morality is, and therefore can't say how one can discover this. But the job of finding out what morality is, is just as much of a problem for atheists as it is for theists.

However, I can say that I have certain perferences towards certain actions, outcomes and events, which have been conditioned in me by my parents, society, and my natural instincts (I believe that this is true for theists also). And this is what accounts for the rules that people choose follow and as well as their general pattern of behavior. I myself have a preference for freedom, liberty, voluntaryism, and cooperation, as well as other things. But as far as I have seen, most atheists choose to be humanitarians and are so because it fits their preferences for having a world with less pain and more happiness.

Somewhat more importantly, how do atheists justify right and wrong?  If we are just random atoms bumping in to each other, what makes things right and wrong?  How do we have the right to call something right or wrong?  Obviously we differ in views about God, so what gives you the ability to say I’m wrong and vice versa?  And somewhat even deeper than that, where did thought and reason come from?  Where did we get the ability to think like we do and to discuss this topic?

I am also happy to answer any questions/criticisms of Christianity, but I would like an answer to at least some of these questions.

I must stress that the problem of morality is just as much of a problem for theists as it is for atheists. How did you come to the conclusion as to what good and bad are through God? Was it simply because he said so? If that is true, then atheists could just as easily declare that certain things are good and bad for themselves, creating a contradiction. If you came to the conclusion of what good and bad are through God because he gave you the reasoning, then you could share that with everyone and we could all say that certain things are good and bad because reason dictates that they are so. Thereby, such a discovery of morality through reason would just as well apply to atheists as it does to theists, so long as someone has discovered it (theists included).

Also, we got the ability to think through a process of evolution.

[Kyuuketsuki]

AS,

First of all to your point made to Tom62 about why we would or would not agree with the moralities of ancient tribes ... simple answer morality is flexible varying not only across time (for instance slavery has been at times been considered entirely moral) and by culture (my understanding is that Greek warriors were paedophilic with their young apprentices, also cannibalism was viewed as acceptable within certain cultures). There is no requirement for us, today, to validate or accept as correct (except within an historical/cultural context) the moralities of our ancestors and, to be brutally honest, it’s up to you to demonstrate that there is one if that’s what you wish to argue.

You can read f.e. in the Bible that slavery was OK, that you could do with your enemies whatever you want, etc., all kind of things that would now cause an moral outcry.

You have to read those items in context.  For example, in the bible, slavery was actually a very different concept than we think of it today.  It was pretty much the same concept as you hiring a maid to clean your house... the slaves were compensated and actually appreciated the work.

That’s something you are going to have to support because, to my knowledge, it doesn’t say that in the bible. Seems to me that your “in context” really means “in a favourable light” ... why should we do your magic book any favours?

You talked about truth being about perception.  So my perception is that the sky is purple.  That cannot be proven empirically or mathematically because who defines what purple is.  And anyways, what makes mathematical truth the one that is always correct.

I didn’t say maths is always correct, I simply said it was an exception i.e. that in maths truth can be a logical thing for example true = 1, false = 0. Ever heard of truth tables?

Yes scientific explanations, change but why is that a problem? By and large they remain the same and no truly objective observer believes that science has to be right all the time, it is only necessary for it to represent our current understanding.

This itself proves that mathematical truth is not really truth at all.  You agreed that scientific explanations can change, so how can you be sure that anything is right?  It is based on your perception that mathematical and empirical truth is correct, but since it changes, you can never know if anything is correct, because there is always the possibility that it could be changed with another, better experiment.

First of all let’s get this experiment stuff out of the way ... experiments are not necessary for science, observations are; experiments are simply a means to generate observable data.

Yes scientific explanations can change in light of new observations and yes that means that effectively means that nothing must stay constant but, as I said previously, by and large the explanation remain the much the same and explanations don’t change from day to day but remain fairly constant for large periods of time. When Einstein demonstrated that Newtonian physics was flawed (unable to account for the motion of the planet Mercury), falling apples didn’t suspend themselves in the air waiting for whatever would be the new explanation nor did their behaviour change overnight and the fact is that in everyday usage Newtonian physics works just fine, it simply doesn’t work when you ramp up to a planetary, stellar, galactic or universal scale. Which is why Newtonian physics is still taught in school.

Nevertheless, because science is evidence based, because new evidence, potentially able to refine or trash existing explanations can be uncovered at any point, no scientific explanation is held to be absolutely beyond challenge. That is the nature of science and, if truth be known, one of its greatest strengths.

And again, to be brutally honest, if you think that it is necessary for explanations to remain constant you have to provide a good argument to support it ... I think few, if any, scientists would agree with you.

I imagine we justify right from wrong in exactly the same way you do ... we observe things, events and we decide whether they are justifiable or not within the context of our upbringing. Is that not what we all do? Please, please don't tell me you open your bible every time you have to figure out what is or is not right because if you do that is truly, appalling sad.

No, I don't open my bible every single time I want to find out the answer to a moral problem.  I do, however think about what it would say because that is my basis for truth.

OK so you base your morality on your bible ... would you care to tell me what your bible says about the morality of, say, environmental pollution or nuclear bombs? Please bear in mind I want specific information here, not wishy washy reinterpretation. Also, if your bible is your moral guide how do you explain the fact that your bible contains many examples of things that we, today, would consider immoral ... Tom already mentioned slavery, but there is sexism, racist, homophobia and that’s quite apart from the biblical god being a lying, vindictive bastard whose actions and character has much more in common with a jumped tribal chieftain than the loving, caring god you deluded lot seem to think it is.

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to go here, but I will.  So what you are saying that by analyzing events correctly makes us morally right?  First of all, who says that this is the correct way to be moral?  If we are just atoms, how is analyzing situations the correct way to be moral?  Who says?  But here to the main point: If analyzing situations makes you moral, then Hitler analyzed the situation in Europe and sincerely believed that Jews were the problem with Europe during that day, and he analyzed the situation and found that it would be completely alright if he exterminated like they were bugs.  We both think this is wrong, but Hitler didn't, so according to your definition of morality, Hitler was moral because he analyzed the situation and thought that he would be correct in his actions.

No, I am saying that morality is a system of ethics, ethics are a societal concept not one of individuals ... IOW morality is evaluated on a societal/cultural level and not on an individual one. Had all of Germany gone along with Hitler and agreed with his pogrom against the Jews then yes, within that culture, I suppose his actions could have been seen as moral (within that cultural context and it wouldn't have made much difference to the way we see him now) but I have not heard that that was the case. My best guess is that relatively few Germans really knew what was going on and if they suspected anything then, out of fear or whatever, they kept their heads down or perhaps turned a blind eye. The most culpable non directly involved party of course was the Catholic Church who not only turned a blind eye with fairly good knowledge of what was going on but declared Hitler to be Europe’s favoured son or some such. Such a marvellous religion I was brought up in don’t you think?

On thought and reason, why is it such a hard stretch to accept that consciousness might be simply a function of the greater "processing power" of the brain as it evolved and became more complex over time?

I realize I didn't express myself well enough here.  What I mean by this is how can we go by standards of reason?  If we have a discussion (as we are now) then by what standard can we make arguments.  If I make a completely unbased claim, or don't follow logical process, then who is to tell me I'm wrong, because I used my own logic.

Society establishes ethical principles against which it sets its moral code, an individual’s actions may then be judged against the morality of the time (and of others as, for instance, when we judge the actions of others in the past to be wrong).

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm really tired and have to go to a meeting tomorrow early morning, so I'm going to stop there and finish up tomorrow.

Apparently not "tomorrow" then ... I wonder when?

Kyu

[karadan]

I will admit up front - I am a Christian.

I will also admit up front - I am not your usual Christian.  I would call myself an Evangelical Christian, yes, but normal, no way.  For one, take a peek at my avatar.  Yes, I fully and wholeheartedly support Barack Obama.  I even donated to his campaign.  I am a flaming liberal - some would be bold enough to name me a socialist at times.  I don't go around telling people they are going to Hell, I don't listen to Christian Music nonstop, I don't like or agree with most of what James Dobson and those crazy T.V. Preachers say, I don’t like traditional church, and I like watching normal T.V.  I do, however, believe in Jesus.

Now my question is a simple one â€" I don’t know if it has been asked before, but I genuinely want to know.  I have asked atheists before this question and really have not gotten a straight answer, so I am hoping to get one here, and maybe we can have a small discussion with this.  I was wondering, in an atheist worldview, how do you account for truth and morality?  If this world has no higher being â€" no higher authority, where does truth come from?  How is truth objective if we are just atoms bumping in to each other?  How can we even know if science is truth when 1) truth is different for each person and 2) even science keeps changing, since every day there is a new experiment that may prove the previous day’s one wrong?

Somewhat more importantly, how do atheists justify right and wrong?  If we are just random atoms bumping in to each other, what makes things right and wrong?  How do we have the right to call something right or wrong?  Obviously we differ in views about God, so what gives you the ability to say I’m wrong and vice versa?  And somewhat even deeper than that, where did thought and reason come from?  Where did we get the ability to think like we do and to discuss this topic?

I am also happy to answer any questions/criticisms of Christianity, but I would like an answer to at least some of these questions.

I think it is easy to over-complicate simple questions. How do we know right from wrong? Easy. Every living thing with conciousness knows right from wrong as innately as we feel heat from the sun and cold from the wind. Morality is different. It is a human concept based upon human assumptions of the current mode of thought. It shouldn't be confused with the basics of right and wrong.

[Sophus]

I think it is easy to over-complicate simple questions. How do we know right from wrong? Easy. Every living thing with conciousness knows right from wrong as innately as we feel heat from the sun and cold from the wind. Morality is different. It is a human concept based upon human assumptions of the current mode of thought. It shouldn't be confused with the basics of right and wrong.

Not really. There are gray areas such as abortion, war, fibbing, etc.

Besides... what about the Sociopath?

[Squid]

Truth is too vague a concept to even be worth talking about here in my opinion so I won't bother with it.  Morality, however, is a different story - morality is a concept which can influence something tangible - human behavior.

Divine Command Theory (DCT) basically states that what is good is whatever God commands it to be. Therefore, religion is necessary for morality. Arthur (1984) rejects DCT for the reason that many others have, that morality is not contingent on religion or God(s).  The whole idea is contradictory as pointed out as early back as Plato's dialogues. The question is, as paraphrased from the Euthyphro dialogue is: (given there is/are God(s)) Does God command something because it's good or is it good because God commands it?

Arthur (1984) also points out:

If we say that it is simply God's loving something that makes it right, then what sense would it make to say God wants us to do right?

And he also points our that saying God is good is meaning:

God does what he pleases.

Theodore Schick (1997) examines the problem further by paralleling an unlikely detractor of DCT, Leibniz:

...if things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not a being worthy of worship.

Even John Hick (1973) concedes the solution to the problem itself is fallacious:

Perhaps the most promising resolution of the dilemma is a frankly circular one. Good is a relational concept, referring to the fulfillment of a being's nature and basic desires. When humans call God good, they mean that his existence and activity constitute the condition of man's highest good. The presupposition of such a belief is that God has made human nature in such as way that his highest good is to be found in relation to God. Ethics and value theory in general are independent of religion in that their principles can be formulated without any mention of God; yet they ultimately rest upon the character of God, who has endowed man with the nature who fulfillment defines his good.

For many though, the independence of something from God's influence is to take away from His supposed attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and so on. Steven Cahn (1996) sums it up saying:

To act morally is not to act out of fear of punishment; it is not to act as one is commanded to act. Rather, it is to act as one ought to act. And how one ought to act is not dependent upon anyone's power, even if the power be Divine.

From an evolutionary standpoint, morality arose out of social group interactions as well as protection of kin. All went to serve, ultimately, towards perpetuation of one's genetics.  From kin selection, tit-for-tat, and reciprocal altruism came "rules" of what should and shouldn't be done to promote welfare of everyone, the win-win situation.

Morris (2002) sums it up best :

Most human beings no longer live as hunter-gatherers on the African savannas. However, their behavior seems to be governed by the same principles that might have governed the behavior of our ancestors. When we perform favors, we generally expect to get something in return at a later date. If I invite you to a dinner party, and you accept the invitation, I am likely to feel slightly miffed if I don't receive a return invitation at some point. Similarly, close friends or relatives who give each other Christmas presents or send Christmas cards are likely to fell puzzled or angry if one year, for no apparent reason, the gesture is not returned. If you do a favor for someone you work with, you will probably expect to receive a return favor from that person sometime in the future. You may not be consciously thinking of this when you help your coworker, but you are likely to be puzzled or annoyed if that person refuses to give you some help when you need it.

Even though morality lies independently of religion there is no doubt it does exert influence over it, as Arthur points out.

Imagine being stranded on a desert island much like Tom Hanks in "Castaway". For Tom, what would his morality be? Would it matter truly how he behaved or what actions he took? Only to himself. Therefore, whatever he wished to do could be considered moral, it affects no one but him.  

This leads into Arthur's point of the ties morality has with social groups. Without others of which your actions might affect, moral guidelines are meaningless. Morals are a product of social function. What we know as morals evolved from the dawn of man when interacting in groups was more of a mode of survival than anything else. From these groups, interactions between members was inevitable.  Through mutual benefits and kin selection, moral guidelines formed in a rough sense.

Steven Pinker points this out:

There are several reasons why organisms may evolve a willingness to do good deeds. They may help other creatures while pursuing their own interests, say, when they form a herd that confuses predators or live off each other's byproducts.  This is called mutualism, symbiosis, or cooperation. Among humans, friends who have common tastes, hobbies, or enemies are a kind of symbiont pair...These shared interests set the stage for companionate love and marital love to evolve.

...since relatives share genes, any gene that inclines an organism toward helping a relative will increase the chance of survival of a copy of itself that sits inside that relative, even if the helper sacrifices its own fitness in the generous act...Family love -- the cherishing, siblings, parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts, nieces and nephews, and cousins -- can evolve. This is called nepotistic altruism.

Altruism can also evolve when organisms trade favors. One helps another by grooming, feeding, protecting, or backing him, and is helped in turn when the needs reverse. This is called reciprocal altruism, and it can evolve when the parties recognize each other, interact repeatedly, can confer a large benefit on others at small cost to themselves, keep a memory for favors offered or denied, and are impelled to reciprocate accordingly.  The demands of reciprocal altruism can explain why the social and moralistic emotions evolved. Sympathy and trust prompt people to extend the first favor. Gratitude and loyalty prompt them to repay favors. Guilt and shame deter them from hurting or failing to repay others.

Let's delve a little deeper into this.

Affiliative behaviors probably evolved in vertebrates, from basic patterns of parental nurturance. Kin selection theory suggests that the altruism that was directed from parents to offspring could easily evolve to be directed to other related individuals. Once group living organisms had reached a certain level of complexity, altruistic acts could be directed toward non-kin with the understanding that the assisted individuals would return the favor. Gratitude, sympathy, trust, suspicion, and guilt can be viewed as adaptation that facilitate the functioning of the highly evolved reciprocal altruism system of humans (188) (Palmer and Palmer, 2002).

The appearance of such behaviors was advantageous for grouped primates. There is strength and safety in numbers. For our ancestors, this became a major survival tool.  Those who displayed traits conducive to survival of the group were kept, those who did not were ostracized most likely and their genetics were not kept in the gene pool (Evans and Zarate, 1999). Because of this selection of group-beneficial predispositions in behavior, we have inherited those predispositions in our genetics and they are usually expressed in what we would term “universal morals” â€" something many often cite as evidence of a deity, however it is explained well by evolutionary means (Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides, 1992). There has been research which supports a biological basis for morality such as universal taboos like incest (Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides, 2003).

The formation of a social group aids in the ability to repel predators, help in the acquisition of food resources and the protection of offspring. Within the formation of these social groups, interaction is impossible to avoid. The groups became essential for survival of our ancestors and to help ensure that the species would continue to grow and thrive.

However, living within groups can have its consequences:

...with lots of other conspecifics around you, all with the same food preferences, competition becomes more intense. Squabbles for scare food resources become common (Evans and Zarate, 63).

The consequence of this problem was the formation of alliances with others which share common interests or goals. This splintering of the larger social unit gave way to a huge social group which is divided into smaller groups of individuals in alliances to achieve the same goals. This was the beginning catalyst for the formation of what we have become to know as morals.

Steven Pinker (2002), in his book The Blank Slate comments on three features of the group of cooperators:

One is the cognitive wherewithal to figure out how the world works. This yields know-how worth sharing and an ability to spread goods and information over larger territories, both of which expand opportunities for gains in trade. A second is language, which allows technology to be shared, bargains to be struck, and agreements to be enforced. A third is emotional repertoire â€" sympathy, trust, guilt, anger, self-esteem â€" that impels us to seek new cooperators, maintain relationships with them, and safeguard the relationships against possible exploitation. Long ago these endowments put our species on a moral escalator (168).

As with all other social groups, hierarchies would form and the most dominant individuals would keep control and delegate responsibilities. The enforcement of the traits of which the group would find acceptable behavior became the enforce “guidelines” of being part of the group. These traits of behavior within this group would find those people of like mindedness and as a subsequence, of like genetic predispositions to that behavior. Reproduction carried out within these groups would preserve these hereditary predispositions for a certain behavior.

From the evolutionary/biological standpoint of genetic heredity, certain behaviors will persist in a population as long as the individuals carrying those genetics are able to reproduce viable offspring. Within the formation of groups, our ancestors found that it could better protect young and provide a safe place in which to reproduce. Those of the predispositions toward an isolationistic lifestyle and one away from the protection of a large group would soon find themselves at a loss. Without the aid of others, a loner would find it harder to find food, defend themselves from predators and harder to find a mate.  With these overbearing problems, those who were prone to isolationism found themselves quickly excluded from the gene pool. This natural selection promoted the genetics for those who harbored tendencies toward social behaviors.

The sectionalization of the groups along with other environmental factors such as migration and geographic isolation contributed to the formation of the differentiated cultures as well as their differentiated morality and from that their moral codes of their cultures. The late Carl Sagan (1997) commented on such saying:

Moral codes that seek to regulate human behavior have been with us not only since the dawn of civilization but also among our pre-civilized, and highly social, hunter-gatherer ancestors (217).

The common formation through social groups and the division of smaller sub-groups into like-minded individuals provided the common ground for some of the moral items which seem to remain the same throughout different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Items such as murder being considered “bad” or “immoral” seem to be universal among all cultures, which can be attributed to those early social groups. The behavioral tendency to view murder as “wrong” was a trait of those ancestors to promote the general welfare of the group. Those who killed others in the group would quickly find themselves ejected from the group if not killed in return, the “eye for an eye” response which may have also originated either within the groups or interactions between two groups.

Common behavior is not just found in human groups but also with other primates as well.  Robert Pennock (1999) agrees with the common genesis of morality stating:

...the commonalities we find with other primates is persuasive evidence that the intellectual and emotional characteristics that allow moral action in human beings are the result of our evolutionary development (115).

Social interaction also gave rise to means of cooperation and what is considered “good” behaviors within the group.

One of the most widely studied forms of pro-social behavior is altruism, or helping behavior that is performed voluntarily for the benefit of another person with no anticipation of reward (Walster and Piliavin, 1972 ).

Such behaviors within groups would be seen as beneficial and encouraged. Reciprocal altruism is a major player in social interactions of groups. The idea of reciprocal altruism is that if one does something for another, that individual is expected to do something in return for the other. By this practice a sort of trading of favors came about which promoted beneficial interactions not only within a group but between separate groups as well.

From the exchanging of favors comes a problem however, that known as the “free rider” problem, or those who accept favors but do not return the favor. As a consequence, a modified version of the exchange of favors arose.

Free riders who have refused to do return favors can be punished by refusing to do any more favors for them. Cooperators can be rewarded by continuing to help them when they need it. This simple strategy is called ‘tit-for-tat’. We punish free riding by refusing to cooperate (Evans and Zarate, 68-69).

Along with these social items the concept we know today as reputation also arose in respect to interactions. Those who had a “bad reputation” would find it increasingly difficult to form alliances and receive favors. This helps to eliminate the free rider problem and make certain that only “good” individuals prosper in the group. We can still see the group dynamics of reputation at work in smaller social groups â€" a quick peak at our evolutionary history in action (Panchanathan and Boyd, 2004).

As the groups prospered and continued to grow and perpetuate themselves, change over time added to the complexity of the basic social interactions and “guidelines” of what is proper behavior within the group. The tendencies towards a socially aligned behavior were continually promoted and those against the group attitude were ostracized, basically speaking of course.

Much in the same vein, Freud (1961) mused:

...human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals (Freud 49).

Civilization progressed, human groups became large populations and the interactions became ever harder to keep track of in such large groups. However, with the “guidelines” still intact, societies decided to go further and began to set a sort of official “moral rules” within their populations. With the commonalities of their ancestors still with them, the “universal” ideas show up in most cultures and the variation can be seen as a product of the cultures special environment and their specific needs in order to promote the welfare of the population.

The behavior of how people interact with each other has become an extremely complex thing. Entire fields of science have been founded just to study the different aspects of the human social animal. Just as long as there have been social groups, there have been ideas of what is seen as “good” behavior or what is “best” to do within the group. The traits that led to what we call morals are nearly as old as the social aspect itself but it actually only a necessary product of the social construct.

The perseverance of certain behaviors thought of as “universal morals” is in actuality the result of natural selection and group interaction, and also explains why modern humans are so deeply social in nature. Some moral “guidelines” became actual codes of some cultures and even eventually evolved into what we think of as laws. Which, just like morals, have a common beginning but differ greatly in many aspects from country to country.

The human is often referred to as a “social animal”. From that social aspect came the genesis of morality. Therefore such a view might add credence to the assertion that man is a “moral animal” as well. Just as our social behaviors have evolved and become complex, so have our moral codes, guidelines and laws, which are often so complex that they come into contradiction with each other.

Also, the claim that we do not see morality in animals is unfounded and refuted by the evidence to the contrary. We see evidence of sharing, protection of kin, instances of reciprocal altruism et cetera. We also have observed culture among other primates as well such as chimpanzees â€" our closest living relatives â€" and orangutans (van Schaik, Ancrenaz, Borgen, Galdikas, Knott, Singleton et al, 2003). Behaviors such as social conformity to the group which most would see as a uniquely human social trait has also been documented (Whiten, Horner, and de Waal, 2005).

References:

Arthur, J. (1984) Morality, religion, and conscience. In Di Leo, J. (2002) Morality matters: Race, class, and gender in applied ethics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Barkow, J., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford U.P.

Cahn, S. (1996) Religion reconsidered. In Bowie, G., Michaels, M. & Solomon, R. (Eds.) Twenty questions: An introduction to philosophy (3rd ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

Evans, D. and Zarate, O. (1999). Introducing: Evolutionary Psychology. Duxford: Icon Books.

Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and Its Discontents. James Strachey (Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Hick, J. (1973) Philosophy of religion (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lieberman, D., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest.  Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B, 270, 819-826.

Morris, R. (2002) The big questions: Probing the promise and limits of science. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Palmer, J. and Palmer, L. (2002). Evolutionary Psychology: The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior. Boston: Pearson Education.

Panchanathan, K. and Boyd, R. (2004). Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem. Nature, 432, 499-502.

Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pinker, S. (2002) The blank slate. New York: Penguin Group.

Sagan, C. (1997). Billions and Billions: Thoughts On Life and Death at the Brink of the Millenium. New York: Ballantine Books.

Schick, T. (1997) Morality requires God ... or does it? Free Inquiry 17(3).

van Schaik, C., Ancrenaz, M., Borgen, G., Galdikas, B., Knott, C., Singleton, I. et al. (2003). Orangutan Cultures and the Evolution of Material Culture. Science, 299, 102-105.

Walster, E. and Piliavin, J. (1972). Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 165-189.

Whiten, A., Horner, V. and de Waal, F. (2005). Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737-740.

[curiosityandthecat]

Squid...  :hail: