A question on morality. Did someone have to tell you that rape is wrong?

My point is...yes we have to teach that rape is wrong. That stealing is wrong. That murder is wrong. In environments of low morality and a lack of teaching---many murders, rapes and stealing is done by people who think they aren't doing anything wrong.

 

the important distinction to make is the 'consent' aspect. I agree that young teens (and worse, preteens) ought not be exposed to sexuality of the sort that is normally practised by adults. actually I find it bizarre (not to mention grubby, smutty, and disturbing) that people actually have ideas about what others should do with their bodies. when there is no harm involved, 'ain't no one's business but ours' - as Jack Twist said to Ennis del Mar on the flank of the mountain, that fateful morning.

 

perhaps for theists, this might be true. if belief in an invisible supernatural being is the only thing stopping you from stealing and raping - and you seem to be suggesting that this is so. evidently it's not a problem for atheists, else Norway would be a hotbed of unbridled murder and mayhem.

looks like you didn't think that one through, dear.

 

And I personally don't care what consenting adults do in their own homes. That's their business.

 

we're on the same page on this, clearly. I too, have considerable discomfort with the sexualising of preteens and teens. talking about it incessantly when they're raging hormones on legs doesn't help them learn to redirect their energies away from the distraction of sex. talking about it also sends the message that it's terribly important, and that simply EVERYONE is doing it. of course, kids will take this to mean "I must do this thing, since it's apparently SO important".

 

What I am asking is, the argument in the OP is flawed if society is the judge of morality then who chooses which society is right. In some societies it is perfectly acceptable to perform female genital mutilation, honor killings or even ritual human sacrifice. Others would condone these practices.

Now apply this to the Atheist point of view as society setting the limit of moral conduct. It would seem to me most Atheist would agree morals are a set standard of conduct within a society. So how would an Atheist say that the group in the next city, state, country is wrong for their practice to use your example of "killing non believers" is wrong. Does this mean an Atheist would be okay with these practices performed and accepted in another society or would they want to intervene?

Most Atheist that I have known have made the evils of mankind the evils of God. However, it is mankind's free will that brings evil to the world by our self centered choices to look out for #1 (example: any politician). I agree that there has been great evil done in this world in the name of religion, but when one examines the true teaching of most of the world's major religion's the core concept of morality is found and it is mankind that causes the evils of the world.

The simple fact of life is that morality at its core is based off of religion.

 

I can see you're new here, so I'll resist the temptation to employ cynicism.

Who or what do you think 'decides' what is moral? Now, and historically? Is it kittens, giraffes, clouds, the ocean, gods, fairies? Or is it PEOPLE? as in, society?

Who do you THINK should choose morality? If you say 'god', then which one? and why THAT one, when there are so many others? and who will actually decide what these god based morals are, then voice these morals if not ... once again, PEOPLE (ie, society)?

Finally, no ... morals have nothing to do with religion. morals developed a LONG time ago, when humans first started living together in groups. It was simply the compromises made to get along - thus ensuring the survival of the tribe. We learned that harming one, harms us all, so tried not to do it (whatever the particular tribe considered 'harm'). Dogs practice morality (tribe manners, if you like), and they apparently have no knowledge of the gods. How does someone like you explain that to yourself?

 

Or you misinterpreted what I was saying, dear.

Why do you assume that I was saying without religion their would be a "hotbed of unbridled murder and mayhem"? Most Atheists use this argument as a default setting to there belief system, but I was asking what is the point of morality without religion and who decides for any given society. The laws of the land do not necessarily make things right or wrong just legal or illegal (slavery for example) and not the same as morality.

All people are capable of good and evil regardless of belief, because we are all susceptible to the temptations of self interest even at the cost of our fellow man/women. Most the world's major religions teach the same principles (kindness to our fellow man, peace with thy neighbor, etc.) even though they differ in practice. Therefore, even in our society religion defines our moral compass whether one is a Theist or an Atheist. Theist merely acknowledge this fact.

 

First up, atheists don't have a 'belief system'. They simply have one less belief than theists. Do you have a belief system pertaining to not collecting stamps? Assuming you don't - collect them that is.

And again, morals (the compromises made to ensure the well being of the tribe) havd been around since we came down out of the trees. And they came about bevause we are social animals. The same reason dogs have 'morality'. Religions have merely distilled these and reflected them back at us. It's patently clear that religion (being human) merely echoes what is already there, and not the other way around - else animals would not have similar social structures.

 

Sure they do: Their belief system is composed of any thought that will prevent them from holding a belief in collecting stamps (assuming they don't collect stamps)

Assuming we "came down out of the trees". Don't you just love how convenient those assumptions are? Hello scientific method which is based on assumptions.

Social implies society and a society requires agreement between members of the society. Agreement requires 'reason'. Reason requires rational or logical thought; therefore all members of society are logical, rational, and possessing the ability to 'reason'...(assuming there is no physiological problem with an individual member that impedes his/her ability to 'reason'... which restraint does not preclude that individual from being a member). I really enjoy the convenience of 'assumptions'.... don't you?

'reason' in that context is synonymous with rationale; the act of rationalizing or justifying an action. In the case of a dog, it is 'animal instinct' or sometimes referred to as 'the law of the jungle'.

So now you are suggesting that "religion" has as an inherent quality the human ability of rational thought (in and of itself)? Religion is a concept: therefore according to your claim, any concept has within its own being the ability of rational thought (in and of itself).

 

Dog breeding has proved genetics plays a huge part of it, look at the domestication of the dog, you keep breeding the kinder gentler animals together and finally you get a domesticated dog

- - - Updated - - -

yes, it took religion to declare those immoral things... moral.. that I agree with

 

I am not advocated one religion I am merely stating that morality (right and wrong) is based on religion. Don't you think it is odd that the top three major religions in the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) teach exactly the same thing to the point will all three of there religious text talk about the same people(Moses, Noah, Abraham, even Jesus himself). All three even share the same God (a common belief even among Arab Muslim's).

"morals developed a LONG time ago, when humans first started living together in groups. It was simply the compromises made to get along - thus ensuring the survival of the tribe."

This is an example of social norming like what you would see inside a high school cafeteria (people that share common interest working together for a common goal). Like a football team or a cheerleading squad etc. this has nothing to do with right or wrong (morality)

"We learned that harming one, harms us all, so tried not to do it (whatever the particular tribe considered 'harm')."

Depending on the circumstance of your "tribe" this could be counter productive to survival (survival of the fittest). Using your example of ancient primitive man; being little more then an animal the strong protecting the weak would indicate a level of morality but is not a plausible example. Look any where in the animal kingdom you will find endless examples of the strong preying on the weak (i.e. lions killing the cubs of another lion to ensure his bloodline stays dominant) or the strong a leaving the weak behind to be preyed upon by other stronger animals (like deer leaving the old, sick or injured exposed for the wolves to kill). Apply these examples to humanity and I think you would agree that neither is an example of morality (right or wrong) but of a social norm (people or animals working together for a common goal)

"Dogs practice morality (tribe manners, if you like), and they apparently have no knowledge of the gods. How does someone like you explain that to yourself?"

Another social norm or "tribe manners" not reality.

The thing with Atheist or Humanists is that they do follow religious dogma all the time the just refuse to admit it. All standards of common morality are based in religion.

 

Actually...The world's top religions condemns all those immoral behaviors. It is not until man corrupts those teachings to suit his/her self interest and justify his/her actions do you see the immoral acts above.

But thanks for the example of Atheist making the evils of mankind the evils of God

 

is that what you meant to say, or did you mean to say "condemns"?

just to be clear..... I do not believe all the evils of mankind are the creation of a God.... I believe they are of man, and sometimes man uses religion as an excuse to commit those immoral acts, as in the examples you provided that I replied too


.

 

You are correct I ment to say condemns, thank you.

My apologies I misread what you were replying to.

 

"Rape," is the wrong definition when read in the Bible or understood as forced sexual attack against the will of the girl.

Date Rape is a better understanding of the idea.
In times different from our own sexually promiscuous social attitudes of today, guys were raised to marry before having sexual relationships, but the opportunity to be sexual still existed from time to time.
The guy could keep going and be nevertheless responsible for what happened if caught.

 

The idea that sex before marriage is the only and best way to raise the next generation in any society is now factual certified.


Biological, 2 parent home is safest environment for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc...-environment-f

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.


Patriarch society recognize that neighboring societies which raise sexually active unmarried people will in the end, attract their own young men and bring that sexual immorality into the patriarchy.
Hence, these Hebrew patriarchs saw attacking and fighting those other societies the same as using Quarantines for diseases.

Rough as exterminating the other society may be, in ancient times, that was all they could do to keep sexual morals in control, and protect the kids of the future and the society, itself.

 

Thank you

Neither would I .. however we are talking about a different time period where such things as rape were not seen as the heinous crime it is now, so we would have to look at it from the perspective of those people in that time.

Even 'murder' has a range of moral out looks, it really depends on whether the 'murder' is deemed justifiable or not, such as in war, or state sanctioned executions .. we all make reasons why those types of murders are justifiable.

But overall I do agree with you, there isn't a need for a book to say what is right and wrong

 

it's not even slightly "odd" that the Abrahamic religions have similarities .... they all have the same source material, from the same part of the world. it would be more "odd" if they were distinctly different. Not sure what you're driving at here, or what it has to do with morality.

what you call 'social norming' IS morality. if a tribe finds that the death of chickens means they eat less, with all that that might entail, then the killing of chickens will soon become a taboo. it's THAT simple. and yes, dogs do it for the same reasons - social animals, living in larger groups, needing to survive. if you have a religious background, and were raised to believe that morals come from the gods, then I understand that this fact will be unpalatable. it probably has the appearance of cheapening what you've been taught to elevate (morals) as some sacred 'gift'.

once again, again ... religions have pretty much always reflected back our own stuff, in slightly different words. if you chuck in the perceived weight of a god, claimed to be the source of everything, then it's an easy mistake to make.

your last line "all standards of common morality are based in religion" is utter nonsense. what religion? when? why? how? which countries? which cultures? which morals? if more than one religion, which are they? and which of their different interpretations of the human morality they describe are the common ones you say are standard? better yet, how do you explain the moral lives of people who don't do religion? even better than that, how do you explain the vast improvements in morality (ie, improvements to the human condition) which have come about since religion started to loose its strangle-hold?

 

Moral defined by dictionary.com - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

Social norm same source - an expected form of behavior in a given situation.

Your example of animals in the wild using ethics doesn't hold water. Morality by definition is counter productive to survival of the fittest.

Can you give me an example of a major religion in practice (Juadism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Wicca, etc) that has not contributed to what the world perceives as right behavior or wrong behavior. If you don't like my examples please feel free to search the internet for one of your own choosing.

better yet, how do you explain the moral lives of people who don't do religion?

I mentioned previously that religion is the basis or the foundation of morality, whether an individual chooses to follow a specific faith or non at all doesn't matter because civilizations around the globe and throughout history used their religious beliefs as guidance for right and wrong over time all these beliefs became ingrained within their cultures and still are very prevalent everywhere you look (do not murder, do not steal, do not lie and so on). By living within society the unfaithful can raised to have moral conduct because societies interpretation on right and wrong is based upon religion.

"even better than that, how do you explain the vast improvements in morality (ie, improvements to the human condition) which have come about since religion started to loose its strangle-hold?"

Last I checked a fundamental tenant to most religions is free choice. An individual chooses to believe and to have faith not the other way around. If you were to familiarize yourself further with the true context of a religion (pick one) you will find it was mankind's selfish desires that have led to the past evils of which you speak not the religion they claimed to be following. In other words religion does not strangle anyone or anything by itself. Mankind however, has proven very capable of such things.

"if you have a religious background, and were raised to believe that morals come from the gods, then I understand that this fact will be unpalatable. it probably has the appearance of cheapening what you've been taught to elevate (morals) as some sacred 'gift'."

I appreciate your concern for my sensibilities, but I am a grown adult, have traveled the world, interacted with people of differing cultures and beliefs and my conviction to my religious beliefs and values are not easily shaken by something as simple as a different point of view. In fact, my experiences have strengthened my faith which has guided me very well. I hope whatever you have faith in does the same for you.

 

you're still missing my point. religions REFLECT (back at us, like mirrors) that which is already there. they may distil these ideas, or word them in ways which give the appearance of novelty, but they are merely the formal utterances of HUMANness.

also, I strongly disagree that morality is counter productive to survival. you evidently haven't done much anthropology and human society, else you'd know that morals have arisen in response to the need to get along, and therefore SURVIVE, when living in larger groups. it's very V.E.R.Y basic stuff. modern morality may have the appearance of being counter-survival simply because we no longer have to fight to stay alive.

you seem hell bent (pardon the pun!) on ascribing morality to something other than what it is. does it disturb you to think of it as 'merely' an animal instinct peculiar to higher mammals?it's one of the great wonders of existence, for me. and it's as fascinating in our fellow higher mammals (dogs, dolphins, elephants, primates, etc) as it is in ourselves.

 

No I understand your point completely you are trying to say all living things in the world have some concept of right and wrong. I am stating that if you are a strict follower of Darwin's Theory, which you appear to be, your argument does not make sense. Survival is doing what it takes to live, no matter if that action is right or wrong. Would you let a stranger drown in a lake if there was a better then average chance you would also drown or get hurt? Or would you try to help that stranger not matter what the cost would be to yourself? If you choose the first it is survival if you choose the later it is morality.

If you believe you have an example of animals doing something that is ethically and morally right not because it may be or is necessary to survive please share.

Morality is something that is only found in Humans, why is that? Your point of view is that it was necessary to survive but survival has nothing to do with morality (right and wrong) it is all about living to see another day no matter what. My point of view is, that if morality is not necessary to survive why do we spend so much time worrying about what is right (Darwin's Theory fails in this regard). Humans would have to had learned the concept of right and wrong from somewhere and having to learn morality by "Bob and Joe killing Fred because he ate to much only for Bob and Joe to realize Fred was the only hunter" by trial and error would not have ended well for the human race. This is where religion comes into play.

Hope you didn't spend to much money on that anthropology class.

 

Absolutes do not think in, young Padawan.

 

Having morality IS a survival thing because it enables humans to live in groups and living in groups increases all our individual chances to survive. The difference between us and animals is that we have intelligence and so can recognize this fact, animals cannot. Like most people you will save a drowning person IF YOU CAN SWIM because that is what you would want done for you or yours in the same situation. If you cannot swim but your morality compels you to join the struggling swimmer in death it is foolishness, not proper conduct.

If the Wildebeest understood that as long as they stood together and defended each other from the lions then none of them would get eaten they would do so, but that "thought", nor any other, does not occur to them. All they know is that they are afraid and must run away, that is their instinct and instinct is all they have. We humans have thought, and thought is where morality comes from, not a book and not religion.

 

I didn't say all living things are moral. I said higher mammals have social "rules" which humans call morals or ethics. Dogs, in particular wolf packs, being a very good example. And no matter how much you'd prefer to believe that morals were uploaded by an invisible supernatural being, it won't change the reality. It's broadly understood that morals evolved as a necessity once we started living in groups. And yes, it was about survival.

You seem only to be thinking of the modern respect for life - meaning you're locked into your own tribal ethics of time and place. Travel back to the beginning. Then, when the survival of a group depended upon each member behaving in a certain way, and making certain compromises, you ended up with a 'moral code'.

Itcreally is rather silly to refuse to consider the facts (dogs have morals too, etc), and the long standing comprehension of how these behaviour codes evolved. Why would you do that? Why is it problematic for your faith to acknowledge that morals are a fundamental social adaptation of higher mammals?