Do you know anyone, who is not religious, but you would consider "moral?" If not, you need to get out more. If yes, then there's your example.

This has already been brought up. It's not evidence of where morality originated, its evidence of an atheistic person that lives with societal norms influenced by religious beliefs of others ... having morality. It's not at all evidence of what I am asking for. It's like creationists saying "here we are!" as evidence of creationism. Surely, you don't accept that idea as "proof", do you? I mean it's obvious that we're here ... and you know us.

Like I asked above: do you think all atheists lack morals? If not, there are additional examples.

I have already said that atheists do have morals. I am asking as to evidence of "where they came from". I want to know the origin, not the existence. You're saying that they just developed for the good of the population. I see many living populations that have existed millions of years longer than us that have zero morals, so I'm not readily accepting your opinion without evidence (and you're not understanding why because it is obvious to you. I get that).

I'm not going to take the time to rifle through history to locate "non-religous people with morals." If your philosophy of life indicates that such people don't exist, then I'll leave you alone, far, far off in your corner.

C'mon. I never said they didn't or couldn't exist. But, for people to say that you don't need to be influenced by religious beliefs in order to establish morality, they should provide an alternative example and evidence of it ... other than a "it's obvious to me" expression.

Not everyone has similar religious beliefs to you - and, amazingly, these people of differing beliefs are not out killing others, lying, stealing, and being immoral. They are living lives just as moral as you. If you can't take that as a given, I give up.

You keep saying that even though I don't once say otherwise. You keep pointing out modern behavior, I am asking about the origin.

Do we even agree about what I am asking about? =)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Ok, I get it. You are asking about the origin or morality. I have described my theory, but you want proof, which I cannot provide, because it doesn't exist. Just like the proof for your assertion that God gave us morals. No proof exists.

Let me ask you this......do you find my theory implausible for some reason? Illogical? Or is it simply unacceptable to you because you believe morality is/was given to us by God?

Just like the proof for your assertion that God gave us morals. No proof exists.

The proof is the Bible. Whether that proof is accepted is indidvidual.

Let me ask you this......do you find my theory implausible for some reason? Illogical? Or is it simply unacceptable to you because you believe morality is/was given to us by God?

I just understand the basis for doing something because it is "right" and not doing things that are "wrong", without a higher power outlining what's right and wrong. I don't see evidence of other living things doing this naturally.

I am smart enough not to kill the only guy that knows how to grow crops. That is not "not killing him because killing is wrong". Not killing someone because their older, bigger brother would kill you is not acting based on morality, it's acting based on survival.

I don't see a naturalistic need or pathway for the development of refraining from certain behaviors because they are viewed to be "wrong". I do see not doing certain things in order to help your survival ... but that is not morality, is it?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Yes- it IS morality - developed over generations. A concensus has emerged of what is wrong/right, what to do/not do, based on what has worked for thousands of years. That IS the "naturalistic pathway" you seem to be describing. We're going in circles here, so I'm not going to spend any more time on this. It's time for a bike ride, anyway.

Yes- it IS morality - developed over generations. A concensus has emerged of what is wrong/right, what to do/not do, based on what has worked for thousands of years

Okay ... again that is what I am asking. What evidence of there of this outside of a "just so" story? That's a "possible explanantion", not evidence.

I guess I see a difference between "killing is wrong" and "killing is not good for survival", and perhaps that is where we differ. And that's where I'd like to see some real-life examples to see why and how humans developed guidelines (morality) that restrained behavior that seems to come natural, and that many natural lliving populations readily display today.

We're going in circles here,

You keep saying that, but I've asked the exact same thing all along.

The stuff you have provided is not what I would call evidence, but rather a "possible explanantion". It's the equivalent of me saying "God created everything", and you saying "what evidence do you have?" and me providing "The Bible says so" and then me wondering why you cannot see the obvious. Maybe, I'll type in "origin of morality" into a search engine and see what comes up. If I do, I'll posy what I find.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

It's kind of a pointless argument - there's no "proof" and there can be no winner.

---

_______________________________________________

OK. What is the traditional/Vitus definition of morals?

I like how you insinuate that it's just my crazy notion that morality is more than utilitarianism. I must be a nutcase, right?

Consider this: In certain species, of birds, we observe fratricide. While the momma bird is off finding food to feed her two chicks, one chick will push the other right out of the nest, thus killing it, and making sure that the surviving chick has access to all the food provided by the momma bird. This increases the odds of the chicks survival, and presumably the survival of the species in the long run. Is the killer chick guilty of murder? Why, or why not?

Now, at certain points in human history, infanticide has been practiced. Weak, sick, deformed, or otherwise undesirable children were killed, thus freeing up the resources that would otherwise have been spent on their upbringing to devote to stronger children. One might argue, from a utilitarian point of view, that this is beneficial to society as a whole, and to the development and survival of the human species. Is infanticide moral or immoral?

One of my brother-in-laws has Downs Syndrome. His survival does nothing to further the human race, realistically speaking, and in many cultures in history he would have been smothered as a baby. Would his parents have been justified in doing so, or would it have been murder?

Do you believe animals are capable of committing evil acts? Do you think people are? What's the difference?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's kind of a pointless argument - there's no "proof" and there can be no winner.

JHC -- we seem to be leaning on opposite sides of the fence in many of these "backyard chats" ... or perhaps we just seem to discuss things we disagree about .... but your statement above could probably be applied to almost every discussion we see on this, and every other board, and in real-life.

Since we rarely see anyone change their mind, I'm hoping the continued discussion means people enjoy the sharing of differing ideas.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

I must be a nutcase, right?


You said it ;)

---

_______________________________________________

I didn't insinuate anything. I made some statements, and it's your decision if you choose to add meaning beyond what was stated. You are the one that seems to be saying that my defintion of morality is inadequate. How so? I recognize that morality can get complex, particularly when applied to difficult, contrived scenarios that you want me to analyze. Regardless of what my answer would be to any of those scenarios you posed, it doesn't change my belief that morality is based on a concensus of what is good for society, and that organized religion, while often supporting the same principles, is not a necessary element of morality.

"Do you believe animals are capable of committing evil acts?Do you think people are? What's the difference?"

The societies in which animals live have not the intellect or the need for a moral code. Our big brains have made us quite dangerous while at the same time making us quite good. Our morals help us balance the danger with the curing. Other animals are simpler and need no such controls.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

Regardless of what my answer would be to any of those scenarios you posed, it doesn't change my belief that morality is based on a concensus of what is good for society, and that organized religion, while often supporting the same principles, is not a necessary element of morality.

Just to reiterate, I am not saying that one needs to be religious in order to act morally. I'm saying that without the central facts of relgion, morality doesn't really exist at all- there isn't any moral good or bad, there's only the useful, or the harmful.

So, why don't you take a stab at addressing some of the scenarios in my post? If a society deems a practice such as infanticide acceptable, and if that practice is carried out in such a way so as not to endanger the future of the human species, is that practice immoral, or not?

And are animals capable of moral evil, or not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
- - John Adams

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

The top quote above - I'm not sure I understand, or if I do, I don't agree. What exactly do you mean "without the central facts of religion, morality doesn't really exist at all" - my point has been that morality exists, completely independent of religion, with morality defined as, in essence, a concensus of acceptable behaviour. If you are using a different definition, what is it?

my point has been that morality exists, completely independent of religion, with morality defined as, in essence, a concensus of acceptable behaviour. If you are using a different definition, what is it?

To be honest, I'm having trouble formulating a definition that isn't circular. I'll let you know if I come up with something concrete.

But I don't think your definition holds up. Are you saying that any behavior that is considered acceptable by the majority is moral? You don't think, then, that there can ever be a consensus to engage in actions that are immoral? What about my previous question about infanticide? Or what about slavery? Historically, slavery often wasn't considered immoral. Is it?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I pondered a bit to come up with a definition for "morality" that wasn't circular - and really, I couldn't. I don't contend that infanticide or slavery are "moral" - that is, in keeping with our morals today. And I certianly don't envision those examples becoming morally acceptable. But I do believe that morality changes over time along its edges - i.e. don't expect first degree murder to ever become acceptable, but the idea of two homosexuals being allowed to live out their lives together without being disturbed by others may be gaining acceptance, just as the idea of discriminatiing on the basis of race, while once morally acceptable, is losing favor.

I don't contend that infanticide or slavery are "moral" - that is, in keeping with our morals today. And I certianly don't envision those examples becoming morally acceptable. But I do believe that morality changes over time along its edges - i.e. don't expect first degree murder to ever become acceptable, but the idea of two homosexuals being allowed to live out their lives together without being disturbed by others may be gaining acceptance, just as the idea of discriminatiing on the basis of race, while once morally acceptable, is losing favor.

So it's your position that infanticide and slavery were moral, at certain points in history? That racism was a moral system at one time, just not now?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

No, that's not my position at all. Where did you get that from? I said that morality changes over time - I didn't say that infanticide or slavery were ever moral - but you'd agree that people in the South believed that racisim was moral (at one point), wouldn't you?

I said that morality changes over time - I didn't say that infanticide or slavery were ever moral - but you'd agree that people in the South believed that racisim was moral (at one point), wouldn't you?

Yes, I certainly agree the people in the South (and the North, for that matter) believed that racism was moral at one time. My point is, they were wrong, and just because there was a consensus on the matter didn't make them right.

If you believe that the two components of morality are 1- It's a shared consensus about what's right or wrong, and 2- It necessarily must be something that helps advance the survival of the human race, I don't see how you can claim that practices such as infanticide or slavery were never moral. They meet both of your conditions, don't they?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Even if "morality" possessed both of those traits, not everything that possessess both traits would be part of morality.

Obviously, I agree. Maybe we're getting somewhere.

It begs the question, though- what else, then, is necessary for something to be moral?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I think you are walking on shaky ground if you use a "shared consensus" to define morality, since every society has different social norms and each person's morality can be distinctly individual.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)