Go back
Morality without a deity.

Morality without a deity.

Spirituality

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

I wrote in a previous thread:

'Humans have succeeded as a species primarily due to their ability to cooperate. This has led to highly evolved intelligence which has enabled societies to develop moral codes that help safeguard this cooperation...'

'The process from a life without morals to a life with morals materialised/evolved from our success of survival by cooperating with each other. Initially, this was not done due to altruism but out of largely selfish motivations. (It was in our own interest to cooperate with our fellow humans). This cooperation, in turn, led to societies and civilizations where moral codes and intelligence developed and in which its citizens developed a moral framework and for want of a better word, a 'conscience.'


Is this not a reasonable accounting for the existence of human morality? That in our earlier stages of development we grouped together out of necessity (protecting each other, working collectively to bring down a woolly mammoth etc.) And that this selfish motivation progressed into sociable behaviours, friendships, where man was no longer only concerned about his own life, but also the life of the people that he hunted with and ate with. This primitive grouping proved successful and these small groups grew into bigger groups and societies. Mankind no longer cooperated because they had to, they did so because they wanted to. They had grown to value other human beings and understand that what was bad for them personally was bad for the community also. (Killing me is bad, so killing you is bad). Hand in hand with advancing intelligence a moral framework within a given society was formed and a communal sense of right and wrong established. (Though not written in stone).

What, if anything, is unreasonable about this analysis?

Clock
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Not a thing, well-done. I'd give it an A.

Extra points for not insisting "no deity necessary", despite the thread title.

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Hand in hand with advancing intelligence a moral framework within a given society was formed and a communal sense of right and wrong established.
Many of these frameworks, over the many centuries, have come in the form of religions which don't need their god or gods to be real in order for the religious doctrines and moral values they promote to take hold of societies and provide rules and guidance to their members.

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wrote in a previous thread:

'Humans have succeeded as a species primarily due to their ability to cooperate. This has led to highly evolved intelligence which has enabled societies to develop moral codes that help safeguard this cooperation...'

'The process from a life without morals to a life with morals materialised/evolved from our success of survival by c ...[text shortened]... tablished. (Though not written in stone).

What, if anything, is unreasonable about this analysis?
I agree with your post completely.
I would add that we, as a species, succeeded and thrived by placing a high priority on the similarities each group shared . In some cases , I am sure, it bordered on zenophobia , but it enhanced our survival possibilities.
While that behavior were very important long ago, today it can be a serious impediment. Many people, almost instinctively, react negatively to anyone or thing which they consider "not like them". Similar is good, different is bad.
Racism is one of the results, I believe.
We, as a species, should strive to recognize that different is not necessarily a bad thing.

Clock
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@suzianne said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Not a thing, well-done. I'd give it an A.

Extra points for not insisting "no deity necessary", despite the thread title.
Yep, the title was just a hook. 😀

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-6

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wrote in a previous thread:

'Humans have succeeded as a species primarily due to their ability to cooperate. This has led to highly evolved intelligence which has enabled societies to develop moral codes that help safeguard this cooperation...'

'The process from a life without morals to a life with morals materialised/evolved from our success of survival by c ...[text shortened]... tablished. (Though not written in stone).

What, if anything, is unreasonable about this analysis?
Morals have something we believe is good worthy of protection don’t we? Simple cooperation doesn’t touch that, even reason can give us a variety of things, where some can value something, and others find the samething abhorrent.

Moral codes may suggest cooperation is better, but simply helping someone change a tire, move a barn, kidnap a child, rob a bank doesn’t at all scream morals to me because cooperation was used. A band of robbers and a high school musical band might differ on morals.

Clock
Vote Up
4
Vote Down

@kellyjay said
Morals have something we believe is good worthy of protection don’t we? Simple cooperation doesn’t touch that, even reason can give us a variety of things, where some can value something, and others find the samething abhorrent.

Moral codes may suggest cooperation is better, but simply helping someone change a tire, move a barn, kidnap a child, rob a bank doesn’t at all s ...[text shortened]... cause cooperation was used. A band of robbers and a high school musical band might differ on morals.
Sorry kelly but I think I made clear that 'cooperation' was the starting point of morality. You appear to have jumped upon that one word and then stopped reading. Of course, modern-day morality is more than simple cooperation. I believe my OP made that clear.

Clock
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down
-4

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Sorry kelly but I think I made clear that 'cooperation' was the starting point of morality. You appear to have jumped upon that one word and then stopped reading. Of course, modern-day morality is more than simple cooperation. I believe my OP made that clear.
I saw that and still disagree, because I don’t think you can actually get to something meaningful with respect to morals. Even taking what you said it is still us using others for our benefit nothing more.

Biblical morals say each person is of divine worth, taking that out of the equation personal use alone gives the worth. When we look at a evolutionary world view where does it become important to value what weakens us, drains our resources, slows us down? What is the reason for these notions? I can come up with cause to keep a useful idiot around until they are no longer useful than I can cut them loose. That moral can it be unjust, or justified, if either or both, are either real?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down
-5

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wrote in a previous thread:

'Humans have succeeded as a species primarily due to their ability to cooperate. This has led to highly evolved intelligence which has enabled societies to develop moral codes that help safeguard this cooperation...'

'The process from a life without morals to a life with morals materialised/evolved from our success of survival by c ...[text shortened]... tablished. (Though not written in stone).

What, if anything, is unreasonable about this analysis?
It's unreasonable because history shows it to be untrue and it's insufficient because it means that morality, rather than being objective and binding, is subjective and opportunistic, which means that when a man or group of men "evolve" to the point of no longer needing communal aid, there is nothing stopping them from removing potential threats to their hegemony but vestigial and unnecessary impulses.

Writing and law codes appear not only simultaneously and suddenly in history but universally with religious trappings--with "deity". Appeal is not made to the common good, but to the will of the gods.

There's no need to get into the abysmal lack of evidence for evolution, and in particular human evolution. Your theory is simply untrue vis-à-vis the historical record.

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-4

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I wrote in a previous thread:

'Humans have succeeded as a species primarily due to their ability to cooperate. This has led to highly evolved intelligence which has enabled societies to develop moral codes that help safeguard this cooperation...'

'The process from a life without morals to a life with morals materialised/evolved from our success of survival by c ...[text shortened]... tablished. (Though not written in stone).

What, if anything, is unreasonable about this analysis?
Sure, whatever you say, you don't need God.

Happy?


Good luck with that.

Clock
Vote Up
5
Vote Down

@whodey said
Sure, whatever you say, you don't need God.

Happy?


Good luck with that.
Not your strongest contribution to a thread whodey.

A thought for you to ponder. Human cooperation (first out of necessity and then out of choice) was the foundation for social living and shared moral outlook, aiding our survival as a species and intellectual development. And, wait for it,...It was this 'intellectual development' that enabled humans to intellectualize the existence of a deity to explain the world around them.

So, in short, it is not a question of me not needing God, but of God needing early human cooperation, and the intellectual growth it facilitated, for his very imaginary existence. (Sorry Suzianne).

Mankind came together, fashioned their own morality and then ironically bestowed it on a God of their own creation to hand it back to them. (True story).

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-4

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not your strongest contribution to a thread whodey.

A thought for you to ponder. Human cooperation (first out of necessity and then out of choice) was the foundation for social living and shared moral outlook, aiding our survival as a species and intellectual development. And, wait for it,...It was this 'intellectual development' that enabled humans to intellectual ...[text shortened]... nd then ironically bestowed it on a God of their own creation to hand it back to them. (True story).
Man is oppressive by nature, not cooperative. Most men who have walked the earth have either been a slave or of military use for their beloved leader.

First our leaders convinced us that they were a god, but when that fell out of favor our leaders convinced us that they spoke for God, but when that fell out of favor our leaders convinced us that God does not exist, thus making himself a god once again.

I personally don't really give a damn what man thinks regarding God but have hope that God can ultimately deliver me out of the hands of men.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Not your strongest contribution to a thread whodey.

A thought for you to ponder. Human cooperation (first out of necessity and then out of choice) was the foundation for social living and shared moral outlook, aiding our survival as a species and intellectual development. And, wait for it,...It was this 'intellectual development' that enabled humans to intellectual ...[text shortened]... nd then ironically bestowed it on a God of their own creation to hand it back to them. (True story).
God needs nothing from man, only the man made gods do.

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@whodey said
Man is oppressive by nature, not cooperative. Most men who have walked the earth have either been a slave or of military use for their beloved leader.

First our leaders convinced us that they were a god, but when that fell out of favor our leaders convinced us that they spoke for God, but when that fell out of favor our leaders convinced us that God does not exist, thus ma ...[text shortened]... t man thinks regarding God but have hope that God can ultimately deliver me out of the hands of men.
Hey, a much better post by you.

It is my contention sir that cooperation was the thing that gave us the edge as a species (initially) and not only ensured our survival but pathed the way to moral considerations. It is not my contention that humans remain primarily cooperative beings, but only that in the early stages of our journey it was in our own interest to work together with other humans and in so doing establish a common understanding of right and wrong. Without this initial cooperation, neither of us would be here to have this conversation.

Clock
Vote Up
3
Vote Down

@kellyjay said
Morals have something we believe is good worthy of protection don’t we? Simple cooperation doesn’t touch that, even reason can give us a variety of things, where some can value something, and others find the samething abhorrent.

Moral codes may suggest cooperation is better, but simply helping someone change a tire, move a barn, kidnap a child, rob a bank doesn’t at all s ...[text shortened]... cause cooperation was used. A band of robbers and a high school musical band might differ on morals.
I think you missed the point.

A bit.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.