Morality without God is impossible

Morality is a social construct, it evolves with each society. This is why you can have variations between quite similar societies with quite similar backgrounds, but more significant differences with more different societies.You change the society (ie go to war) and the morality changes (it's ok to kill them now)It is learned from your parents and peers as you grow up (memes).Humans are tribal (herd/pack/flock/etc) animals and so the morals develop/evolve for the benefit of the tribe, weeding out behaviors that are detrimental (such as killing others for no cause).If our social structure were different our morals would be different. Compare behavior of lion pack, wolf pack, Buffalo herd, etc.It's quite simple.Enjoy

Culture evolves to become more inclusive, because not being at war with your neighbors means more survival of your tribe/group/etc...Let me propose a question to open the discussion a bit to give a perspectiveAre the morals of a lion the same as the morals of an antelope?Enjoy

Their behavior is predicated on the type of animal they are. The lion male taking over a pride kills all the current young to make the mothers go into estrus earlier so they can mate and start having offspring with their DNA.This doesn't happen with antelope (or many other species).The conclusion I draw is that this is moral behavior for the lions, but not for the antelope (or other species that don't indulge in infanticide).You also see parents and other adults protecting young from predators in many species.IFF there is an "absolute morality" then it would apply to all life, but we see here moral relativity would differ between species, so it would have to have many subchapters, amendments, exclusions, etc. Empathy and compassion have been observed in many animals, from dogs to horses to camels to whales, as well as in chimps, especially where deaths of offspring are mourned.We've also seen experiments with Capuchin monkeys have a sense of moralityWe also see whales and dolphins protecting/helping swimmersSo it should be rather obvious that "morality" is relative to the specific species and society and that it is an evolved behavior/trait.Enjoy

Or in other words, what is moral for the lion differs from what is moral for the antelope, and morality is relative to the species/society they live in. And any universal standard would need many chapters, with many subchapters, amendments and exclusions added over time in order to encompass all life. Each species would have their specific relative agent/s. Somehow I doubt there would be one common agent shared by all species.Enjoy

Yet you say and empathy and compassion can be observed in the behavior of many animals. Thus they have at least the basis for morality.We also have evidence of monkeys exhibiting behaviors we see a moral. Of course this perception is based on our own evolved morality which would be heavily biased towards apes/monkeys -- cousins. ... so unless an individual is capable of "understanding the difference between good behaviour and bad" they cannot have morals?Certainly many animals are capable of making decisions, and who are we to decide that they are or are not good/bad decisions? ... is this grass good to eat? or should we just smoke it?Enjoy

If they can make decisions, then they have the capacity to judge that one is better than the other, and that is a moral decision for them imho.Enjoy

and they make a choice when that behavior is observed, a choice that it is better to behave one way vs not behaving that way.That to me is a moral decision on their part, according to their morals. And I think the same can be applied to all species, without the anthropocentric biases.Enjoy

btw I kind of dislike the term "agency" as it implies something different in cognition development, while it seems to me that morality is an emergent ability/facet of cognitive development, just as cognitive development is an emergent ability/facet of processing information from sensory inputs. It's evolving.Enjoy

1. Live
2. ReproduceAny others?Enjoy

What is that? Don't expect a fully formed highly developed and nuanced moral concept to leap into existence.It's a choice between what is good to eat and what is bad to eat, consider it the first stage in determining what is good for the individual and what is bad for the individual.I don't think anyone will be able to point to one behavior/"agent"/etc and say that is where moral behavior starts ... and be able to justify it as anything other than opinion.Enjoy

To go back to the topic title (Morality without God is impossible) I would say that demonstrating rudimentary moral behavior in animals, with a progression of observed behavior consistent with human moral behavior, is sufficient to show that it is an emergent evolved capacity. As such either (1) the god/s in question have an overall plan applicable for all life or (2) they are not needed.If the first, then morality is just innate behavior according to the plan.We observe several behaviors occurring to different degrees in animals. Self awareness (eg recognizing yourself in a mirror), for instance: dogs have it, cats do not. Rescuing humans in danger for another: whales, dogs, apes all have been observed doing it.Making choices: as noted previously many many many animals make conscious choices.Distinguishing good from bad: documented in monkeys, apes and dogs. Everyone should be familiar with dogs that know they have been bad. Faith's example of the racoon that chooses not to bite is another example.Thus we can evidentiaryily conclude that there is a spectrum of evolved behaviors we associate with morality.Enjoy

To toss another stone into this pond to observe the ripples ...

quote:

---

The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates by Frans de Waal

​

​

In this lively and illuminating discussion of his landmark research, esteemed primatologist Frans de Waal argues that human morality is not imposed from above but instead comes from within. Moral behavior does not begin and end with religion but is in fact a product of evolution.

​

For many years, de Waal has observed chimpanzees soothe distressed neighbors and bonobos share their food. Now he delivers fascinating fresh evidence for the seeds of ethical behavior in primate societies that further cements the case for the biological origins of human fairness. Interweaving vivid tales from the animal kingdom with thoughtful philosophical analysis, de Waal seeks a bottom-up explanation of morality that emphasizes our connection with animals. In doing so, de Waal explores for the first time the implications of his work for our understanding of modern religion. Whatever the role of religious moral imperatives, he sees it as a Johnny-come-lately role that emerged only as an addition to our natural instincts for cooperation and empathy.

​

But unlike the dogmatic neo-atheist of his book’s title, de Waal does not scorn religion per se. Instead, he draws on the long tradition of humanism exemplified by the painter Hieronymus Bosch and asks reflective readers to consider these issues from a positive perspective: What role, if any, does religion play for a well-functioning society today? And where can believers and nonbelievers alike find the inspiration to lead a good life?

​

Rich with cultural references and anecdotes of primate behavior, The Bonobo and the Atheist engagingly builds a unique argument grounded in evolutionary biology and moral philosophy. Ever a pioneering thinker, de Waal delivers a heartening and inclusive new perspective on human nature and our struggle to find purpose in our lives.

---

Also read the comments for further explications.Curiously I just got this book out of the blue and started reading it. It wasn't long before I saw how it applied to this thread. I'm currently on pg 23 having just started, and already I'd recommend it.Morals are evolved. Then religion was plastered on it to create an external authority.Enjoy

"it" ... the finger of god? Is this a Christian finger or a generic finger (and which one? )As a deist/agnostic one essentially believes in non-communication from deities, IDists (a poor cousin to deism imho) think they can see the finger of god but I remain skeptical. I can't see how any communication can readily occur with god/s that are able to create a universe.Morality derived from the finger of god pointing the way seems a stretch, imho.Currently I am reading "The Bonobo and the Atheist" (see Message 205) and it is providing strong evidence of evolution of the basics of morality (emotion, empathy, self awareness, love, altruism, etc.) in other animals, hence it cannot be human centric, but an emergent property of evolution.Enjoy

The question is how it is done. Cultures evolve in response to changes in their cultural and natural environment/s. In the world around us. Visible, tangible. How? Not necessarily, it's observed in cases devoid of human intervention (other than observation) according to de Waal. Why not?What is good for the group can be selected over behavior not good for the group. The idea of fairness seems prevalent in virtually all primates. That's a rule.Enjoy