Morals - Just what are they

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Morals - Just what are they?

Quote:
I think that religion, in the sense that you mean it, is not a force in early HUMAN development---but rather a strong force early in our civilization's development. The genesis of our civilization occurred only about 10,000 years ago---that's relatively recent given the age of our species! This might seem a trivial point, but I think it might be helpful to keep in mind as we tackle the issue at hand.

I agree to some extent but those early hominids, it seems to me, would have had more of a 'reason' to start thinking about a god to explain the world around them. Maybe not religion, but I think the basis for future religious development was there...the beginning of the meme that we know as religion.

Quote:
morality in our culture (and largely, our world) has quite intimate ties to the major religious traditions. so many ties, in fact, that both believers and non-believers alike tend to hold many of the same ideas about what is "moral" behavior. the question is: which came first the chicken (religion), or the egg(morality)? It might be hard to determine unless we start to define our terms.

Moral: 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory>

hmmm...not much in the actual definitions that talks from religion huh? I do not refute the position that morals are tied to the religious traditions, my contention is that religion is not necessary for moral development, it just happened to find purchase in religion. I contend that moral development would have happened anyway, since it is a benefit to our species to treat each other well. So I feel that morality came first and religion was selected to promulgate said morals. For the primitive societies, it worked.

Quote:
Religion does/did help to explain things and reconcile the human psyche to the brutality of existence. Religion also seems to offer up justifications for us killing each other too. As for social cohesion---yes, for those in your community(religion)---perhaps too much, so much so that it inspires disdain for those who do not subscribe to your belief system. When you say religion, I assume you mean the major religious traditions of today.

And that is why I state that, even if religion was good to promote morality, it should be abandoned in favor of something more inclusive. I agree 100% with your analysis. Religion, when corrupted by moral-less individuals, has been used to divide and conquer. The cliquishness of todays religious groups, with the exception of very few, are a detriment to unity. We are moving toward a more global society with each passing day, yet our old traditions and loyalties are, IMHO, holding us back from realizing this. I guess I mean the major religions, but when I speak of religion, I generally mean all types of borrowed myths that find such a strong hold on civilization.

Quote:
Progression? Towards what? Morality must/will change with time. Morality must/will vary between geographic regions, cultures, etc.

Progression in its simplest form...nothing else. I agree with the non-teleological basis of evolution: There is no drive toward a perfect state. By progression, I just mean from one step to the next.

Now...let ME get back to work! lol

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT