Did Religion Give Birth to Morals?

I agree, anastasia, that the 'morality' topic has been done to death. Not by me, though. Morality is one of those subjects that makes my eyes glaze over, like 'predestination.' And for the same reason. I don't buy the premise.Here the premise seems to be that a special category of decisions exists, called 'moral decisions', separate and distinct from all other kinds of decisions. We are asked to regard 'morals' as so anamolous a thing compared to all other phenomena in the natural world that we have to find a special explanation for it.I submit that nothing special is involved. It's all about making choices. We are discussing decisions.When we decide anything we ask 'Which outcome is likely to best?' We assess that according to our priorities. With these in hand we ask 'Best how? Best for whom? Best compared to what other choices?'The process is the same whether we are deciding to put the pencils in the left or right drawer or to try to beat the yellow light or to strangle the boss. We decide each one by asking the same questions.Now a religious person might say 'Oh, but moral questions are different. Those are the questions where I have to consider what God wants. I have no reason to think God cares which drawer gets the pencils. I have every reason to think God cares if the boss gets strangled.'If putting God in the picture makes some decisions 'moral' by definition, okay. But in that case the definition does not entail a separate category, distinct in kind, at all. 'Moral' decisions' are just a subset of the category 'decisions.' We're back where we were before.In the case of the pencils we decide 'Best for whom?' We consider whether we are right-handed or left-handed, whether other people using the desk are right-handed or left-handed, whose work is most affected, and so on. In the case of 'moral' decisions we do the same thing. Religious persons just include God among those persons they have to consider. When they ask 'Best for whom?' they consider what is best for the deity--or, at least, what is best for them given the placement of a deity in the picture.So here's how I take these two points: Belief would seem to be the essential ingredient in any decision, yes. But the same belief compels any decision, 'moral' or not. The belief: Of my available choices, this one seems best. Everything else is just a factor that gets you there. I don't see a burden of proof on anybody when it comes to 'morality.' One only has to explain decision-making. Do that, and 'moral decisions'--a subset of the set 'decisions'--falls right in. Animals make choices all the time. Whether or not to flee a perceived threat (and in which direction?), whether to pursue or break off a confrontation with a rival, whether to mate with this suitor or that suitor, and so on. The stakes in these decisions couldn't be higher for the creatures making them--as anyone who has watched an indecisive squirrel darting back and forth on the highway can attest.Animals may not 'reason' these decisions out (verbal or syllogistic thinking) but without a doubt they are definitely presented with choices. They choose from the range of choices they perceive. They make decisions. Sometimes we see unanimity and sometimes we see individuals making different choices.Does 'belief' enter the picture for an animal? Sure. A rabbit who runs from a loud noise believes the noise presents sufficient evidence of a potential threat. No, it's not the kind of belief you write up and put in a Credo. But it doesn't have to be. All it has to do is compel a course of action. In that action we see an honest manifestation of the creature's belief.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : dissatisfaction with a few earlier choices.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I agree that our species generally places a higher value to altruism than on self-interest, however enlightened.But does belief in God encourage altruism? If religious people behave in an altruistic way in order to gain heaven or avoid hell, reciprocity remains very much part of the contract. These people just look to God to provide the reciprocity rather than their fellow human beings.The religious people who have the 'moral edge' by this standard are those who behave altruistically even though their beliefs do not include eventual punishments and paradises. Their conduct is more selfless than that of religious people who expect some reward. By that standard the palm for morality would go to most Jews over most Christians.But that just raises the question of why this is limited just to religious persons. If behaving altruistically with no expectation of reward shows superior moral character, altruistic atheists would also take the palm before their Christian counterparts. So that's why they do that. Of course--a scramble would be their best defense against a diving bird of prey. I wondered.That tactic is really not working for them on the highway.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I'm curious about something. Let me wend a tangential question your way.Take a religious person who operates on the assumption that God is in his heaven watching everything we do and preparing to reward or punish.That person's life then becomes a performance, doesn't it? The person acts in full awareness that, out in the dark, an audience watches, and a Critic out there is going to reward the show with a positive or negative review that will make or break any further career for the performer.What does 'performing for God' do to the idea of sincerity? Or altruism? City kids will do that.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

That's only true of amateurs. Performers who pay attention always are, and have, an audience. They improve with experience. As they do, the audience's expectations grow. In time it expects a lot for its investment.And why not? This audience is an expert on that one performer. It knows when it is being cheated. It knows when the artist is phoning it in. It knows when the show is uninspired.What that audience knows, the performer knows. No escaping those reviews. But someone is always watching. Hard to say how much altruism figures into it, really. Human motives are always mixed. But that's okay. One works with the material at hand. In time you realize it all comes to mean the same thing anyway.Give a performance you can be proud of. This is the only moment in front of the lights you have. It is not a rehearsal.Your audience needs meaning, structure, story. It wants truth, goodness, beauty. How do you bring that alive?You pay attention. You draw on everything you have learned. You lead, you support. You make the best decisions you can and follow through.

Throughout the world sounds one long cry from the heart of the artist:
Give me the chance to do my very best.

​

- Isak Dinesen, Babette's Feast

___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Likewise, m'lady.

'I have done my best.' That is about all the philosophy of living that one needs.

​

- Lin Yutang

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.