To make this even more complicated, I'm not sure if you can really seperate all those things as independant influences. We DO have a biological imperative not to kill our own, it is called survival instinct. From the earliest days of our survival we discovered what many animals have, there is power in numbers. Better defense, better (more diverse) genetic material, greater variety of goods, and so on. So we started grouping up. In this grouping up, as our brains also grew, there came to be certain rules that were needed for many people to live together. You see it in any greater ape group. There are certain roles, certain stations, and certain things a member has to learn in order to survive in that troop. Mainly, they have to learn who is leading the troop, yes, but there are other, more subtle things as well.

As we refined these basic instincts we changed from pure survival to a point of abtract thought. We realized that killing off our own people not only hurt our chances at survival, but messed with how our "troop" worked and lived together. So for the best interest of this group, we figured out it was wrong to just randomly kill off members. I have no idea if the person leading the group claimed this was his idea, or if he claimed it came from a God, or if he claimed it came from a fig leaf. But when you see humans begin to group together and start a civilization, you see the development of laws, of ethics, of codes, and/or of morals,......because they had to figure out how to live together.

I decided to look up morality and the definition I read is:

conformity to the rules of right conduct; a doctrine of morals


If that's the case, then anytime you have rules, there has to be some type of negative consequence if they are broken. Also, that led me to believe that morality isn't this instinctual thing many people describe it as. Without some type of rules and dire consequence, I don't believe most of us, religious or not, would be moral. It just so happens that most of our rules, it seems, have a religious origin (of course I believe in the creation/Bible).

Yes I agree with danielb1, morality is a universal truth of mortals that is embedded/indwells in the mind of men that develops or not, through thought. It (morality) will increase/develop or decrease/lay dormant depending on the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking, or decrease for the lack of such thinking.

The Divine Spirit/Spirit of Truth makes contact with mortal man, not by feelings or emotions, but in the realm of the highest and most spiritualized thinking. It is your thoughts, not your feelings that lead you Godward. The divine nature and the Spirit of Truth may be perceived only with the eyes of the mind. But the mind that really discerns God, hears the indwelling Spirit of Truth, is the pure mind. "Without holiness no man may see the Lord." All such inner and spiritual communion is termed spiritual insight.

Such religious experiences result from the impress/imprint made upon the mind of man by the combined operations of the spirit of men/divine nature and the Spirit of Truth/Divine Spirit as they function amid and upon the ideas, ideals, insights, and spirit striving of the evolving sons of God.

The highest religious experience is not dependent on prior acts of belief, tradition, and authority; neither is religion the offspring of sublime feelings and purely mystical emotions. It is, rather, a profoundly deep and actual experience of spiritual communion with the spirit influences resident within the human mind, and as far as such an experience is definable in terms of psychology, and it is simply the experience of experiencing the reality of believing in God as the reality of such a purely personal experience.

Morality searches out the highest religious experience and not the other way around. There really is a true and genuine inner voice, a "true light which lights every man who comes into the world."

The age of enlightenment was seen as a secular movement but in reality was the acceptance of Truth that was ignored by the church. The truth of that Light which lights every man who comes into the world messes with other bible so-call truths as it strips away the fear that was implanted into man by the religious order of the day.

No, the enlightenment came way before religion, in some cases it never develop to be of use to the individual=Cain's thought were not on the high things. :Slap: :worm:

Well, what I'm saying is that morality doesn't seem to be what most people are making it out to be. In the example you gave, according to the definition of morality, it sounds like - I want to kill but I will not because I don't want to go to jail - is the definition. Morality doesn't sound like this fuzzy feeling you get because you're such a good person. I think it's possible that people have used the term incorrectly for so long that most take the incorrect meaning to be true.

I don't believe people are inherently moral, and then again, I don't see that as being a bad thing either. How can human nature be bad? It only becomes bad when you instate rules and consequences that make it so.

In order for society to function in an orderly manner, however, I do believe morals are necessary, which is why, IMO, God set them forth and man has taken them a step further.

I think you're exactly right. Even as a child before you're too young to even begin to comprehend, much less accept, a specific religion, your morals are shaped by your experiences. Your actions and their consequences teach you whether or not you should try to do something again. The reaction to what you've done is evidence enough of whether your actions were right or wrong, and it is common human behavior to want to do the "right" thing despite how often we do the "wrong" thing. Humans have an innate desire to please and be praised in return, and doing what is right often pleases those around you, causing you to desire to do the right thing. Your morals are shaped by those around you and your experiences long before religion comes into play.

There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Actually, the simpler the better, IMO. I'm assuming you think the second example you gave is the definition of morality. Which one is right or wrong, I don't know.





I'm not saying that consequences define right from wrong. The actual law makes that definition and the consequences enforce it. If murder was never viewed as being illegal, then I don't believe most people would view it as wrong. I'm going on raw, basic instinct with that one, not emotions and feelings.






Why do you think that? I'm actually quite calm, sitting here eating dinner.

I understand the distinction you were trying to make... I guess, in my head, the two seem somewhat similar. Your autonomous moral conscience is what turns you into a law-abiding citizen or turns you into an outlaw, after all. Laws that we think are unjust are often rallied against or willfully disobeyed, in some cases, which is a result of the moral conscience that you retain despite societal brainwashing and governmental insistences that you need to obey the law or be punished. Your inner moral compass overrides the moral compass instated in you by society- your gut feeling tells you what is right and what is wrong despite the law. I guess, to me, your inner moral conscience and your moral belief system due to external influence go hand in hand.

Before you think I'm picking on you, I just keep highlighting your posts because they are the most interesting and stood out the most to me. You have not annoyed me.

Based on the example you gave above, is it possible a child stops hitting and stealing crayons because they view their parents as authority figures and so to be chastised by authority leaves them with shame and and a negative feeling? I think emotion and acting on those emotions is what is in-bred and basic with man, moreso than morality being natural to man. My opinion, not fact, is that morality has to be taught, which leads me back to believing that people would not have morals if they were not taught and enforced somehow, whether that be early in our "psychological/social development" or not. Just by you describing it as a development leads me to again believe that morals are not in-bred, but something that has to be developed through instruction and consequence. If there were not the law or overall moral agreement that hitting and and stealing are wrong, then it would not be wrong. And the commandments to refrain from stealing and hurting one another definitely comes from a religious standpoint, if you are someone who believes in religion.

With that said, I think the only way the debate question can be answered is to ask whether one believes in religion or not. Based on the person's belief, the answer can go either way.

Polygamy is not anywhere near prostitution. Sure, it is against our own code of social ethics, but in many societies it wasn't. Obviously, the personal morality, that I believe everyone has, is variable on the issue of how many partners to have. Still doesn't show a lack of an inherent code of ethics, just one example where the inherent code doesn't match our social code.

Of course there is inbuilt morality. You are asking the wrong question. It should not be "why do these people kill those of the other village?" but "why don't these people kill those of their own village?". The answer to the latter question can be found in the natural sense of right and wrong that we all have.

I don't see why pure materialism, which still acknowledges feelings of others, wouldn't give rise to those same things that you mention here.

Forgive me for being slightly frustrated, but you're not giving me any reason to believe you. Where is the supporting evidence for your assertion that morality can only come from religion? I feel I need to see your reasoning more closely.

There is true religion and then there is religion that is lower base/flesh (outward) much of what we see today. Morality is to mortals as the instinct to fly are to birds, and yet all birds do not fly. Morality is that gift given to all of mankind; it is like a time releasing capsule that encloses the fruits of the spirit. Those fruits have the potential to grow as in you must grow into them. They are the response that must be the action/response to your dealings with the world/men. The more you use your moral capsule the more it releases its contents as needed. The more you use the more you get or is made available to you. They are not laws and in fact transcends law as in against such there is no law.

True religion is an insight into reality, the faith-child (does not speak to religious labeling) of the moral consciousness, and not a mere intellectual assent to any body of dogmatic doctrines. True religion consists in the experience that "the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Religion consists not in theological propositions but in spiritual insight and the sublimity of the soul's trust.

My deepest nature -- my divine spirit -- creates within me a hunger and thirst for righteousness, a certain craving for divine perfection. Religion is the faith act of the recognition of this inner urge to divine attainment; and is brought about that soul trust and assurance of which I become conscious as the way of salvation, the technique of the survival of personality and all those values which I have come to look upon as being true and good.

The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world's greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned.

Religion must be its own critic and judge; it can never be observed, much less understood, from the outside. Your only assurance of a personal God consists in your own insight as to your belief in, and experience with, things spiritual. To all of us who have had a similar experience, no argument about the personality or reality of God is necessary, while to all other men who are not sure of God no possible argument could ever be truly convincing. :D

They are both statements of morality. There is nothing wrong with being simplistic. If you want the truest statement of fact, you choose the simplest. In both statements the person is choosing not to kill because something external has told him killing is wrong. That's what morals are: a set of beliefs regarding right or wrong. It doesn't matter if those beliefs come from the Bible, the Koran, Kierkegaard, your parents, the law, your neighbor, or the little green men in your head.

I think many people are ignoring the effects of reason. True, lots of people seem to lack this quality, but it still exsists. I don't need to be told something is wrong or right. I can ponder it, and reason it, and come to a conclusion myself. I do not kill humans. Not because I'll go to jail, not because I'll go to hell, but because I have thought about the act, the universal consequences, and what the world would be like if everyone else followed those actions. Then I figured out it would be bad and decided not to do it. Theres no outright punishment involved, just an understanding that I am only one in a mass of many.

I think everyone can agree that if everyone was allowed to kill, this world would be in complete chaos. Just the same as being allowed to steal, or any other kind of "immoral" act. I don't believe religion is the reason we have these rules, I believe it is as ayshala says. It is soley upon personal principles, in an effort by people to maintain a calm environment for everyone.

Of course, each individual has a personal "moral conscience," but I believe we are not born with this quality. It is formed over time based on many life experiences and the teachings of others, as you pointed out in your crayon example. But teachings are just that, teachings, and while many in our current society have been effected by religious belief, that is not the sole source of morality.

In my opinion, many who are simply "law-abiding citizens" are immoral, but maybe that's due to hindsight being 20/20 and all. For example, I don't believe in racial segregation, but many people followed and practiced this a mere, what, fifty years ago? For those people, it was morally right that blacks and whites should be separate. And they had the support of the law. So, in many people's eyes Rosa Parks committed an immoral act by refusing to give up her seat on the bus...after all, it was against the law!

Thank goodness morality evolves and changes.

There are many that are separate from religion - such as utilitarian ethics and ethical egoism, but some might say that they are in fact derived from religion. There are some ethical systems that are based on reason, and espouse virtues based on reason alone, such as some Greek ethical systems - but whether that society would resemble ours is debatable. The only Greek ethical system that would fit closely with Western society is Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics.

Then of course, there are ethical philosophies that would not fit so closely with current society, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both featured reason at their core. Stoicism influenced Early Christianity and Epicureanism disavowed religion - actively attacking it.

There also various new systems of ethics such as the "ethics of care" which are based on a feminine understanding of ethical questions. It is based on female reactions, and those reactions that have been moulded by current society.



Indeed, and within religions we find the same common themes, the same common threads - to be kind to others (even the Satanist writings of Anton LeVey acknowledge this - they just leave it to your discretion who you should be kind to). Religions that developed around the world have developed the same kinds of rules for themselves, which means that there has to be some common kind of interest at the core of human groups.

And whatever it is, it runs deeper than reason. Reason says that if people were trying to kill you, you would kill them, or that if your country were in danger, you would fight for those at home. Duty says that one would kill for their country and on behalf of others. Not so - at least without the modern training techniques used today.

I was surprised to learn recently that despite what is believed widely by the community, it is actually harder to kill than not. The figure that blew me away was that 4% of infantry soldiers in fact aimed to kill in the Great World Wars according to a study done in c.1941. A further 25% of soldiers fired their guns intentionally missing, and the rest didn't fire at all.

For any who are interested, you can read more about killing in war and the myths surrounding it here:
Natural Killers - Turning the Tide of Battle

I think this is situational. Killing for a "great cause" or such is not as powerful as some might hope. BUT, watch how easily a mother can kill when someone is trying to kill her offspring. Or how easily someone can kill if they are in mortal danger. All self preservation/survival instinct of course. But as far as killing without having your life threatened, it is very rare. In all species there are "rogue" animals. Animals that do not follow survival instinct and are overly aggressive. Like the shark that the movie "Jaws" is based on. Humans have "rogues" too, our serial killers and such. People whos brains do not function along normal lines. Otherwise it does more harm, and more potential damage, for any animal to kill without reason.

Thus, our very survival instinct is what keeps us from murdering everyone. If religion is taken out of the equation, we will still have this instinct, and still have reasons not to kill.

Biological "instinct" is no less complicated in any case. Even among mammals, many mothers that can be extremely protective of their young will kill and consume them without a second thought when food becomes scarce.

At the most basic level is the instinct to spread one's own genetic material--the driving force for life in general. But that's at such a elemental level, I think it's impossible to connect it with a developed idea such as religion or justice. "Be fruitful and multiple" is just addressing what everyone already knows--they don't need some god to tell them that.

But arent those instincts the birth of morals?

That's true. I could develop nearly all moral laws simply from the desire to increase my own happiness and the observation that other people (and animals, for that matter) seek to do the same.

From that, I can deduce that I shouldn't murder, steal, rape etc. I can't even commit tax fraud because doing so, although perhaps giving me momentary happiness, will upset the happiness of others, and thus when they seek to prevent it to ensure their happiness (as per the observation), my happiness overall will decrease. I can't say that lies are outright wrong, because in some situations a lie can increase my happiness (eg "Sweetie, you look very pretty tonight"), but in most situations, if a person finds out they have been lied to, they will seek to prevent it from occuring again, thus decreasing my happiness. Even adultery could, in a few rare situations, be moral by these standards.

However, you will certainly find that this form of reason-based morality doesn't always match up with what people would actually do. For example, consider the following "trolley problem" where a trolley ('tram' or 'streetcar' - for those of you who are confused) is heading down a track at breakneck speed. You notice there is are a group of people on the track, and a side track with one person on it. You are standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto the side-track. Do you do it? (most people say yes)

Then, consider a similar situation, but instead of the lever, you are standing next to a big, burly guy. Pushing him onto the track will surely halt the tram enough to avoid the other people, but will kill that man. Do you do it? (logically, this is the same as the other one, but far fewer opt to push the man. An intended kill, even to say lives, is considered immoral in comparison to minimizing losses of an unavoidable accident).

This shows that reasonable morality, and instinctive morality, are often at odds.

I do neither. I yell at both groups of people to get out of the way. If they still choose to stay on the track, thats their decision.

To ensure the spread of our genetic material? I don't think so, but I couldn't be certain. You could just as easily say they lead to immorality.

I do know they predate morality, and religion, for that matter.

But that's the key to this situation - these men are in mortal danger - and they still don't do anything. They are in danger from the 4% - who are shooting them, and they don't do anything. These people were killed en masse and did nothing - in fact, there are reports of them hunkering down and being shot at - and are lucky to have one of the 4% with them, who takes out their opponents.

This is why for many centuries until recently a lot of uniforms were not camouflaged - it's a male display - made to frighten the enemy off as much as anything. From those red uniforms that are highly visible, to the shield bashing and blue woad painted on the faces of Celts - these are male displays - designed to avoid killing.

As for mothers killing someone who is trying to kill her offspring - sometimes mothers kill their offspring as well. During some ancient famines in Egypt, children's bodies were the ones found cannibalised for food.

The question of morality is complicated because we all would like to think we would do the right thing in any given situation, but reality is much more complicated. Think of the Milgram experiments: "He found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to deserve such punishment." link

65% is a huge number, for any type of research, let alone psych research! How many of those people, if they had been given a questionaire instead of participating in the actual research, would have said they could never do such a thing to another human being? How many people actively involved in a religion put up a "moral facade" in front of fellow churchgoers? How many of us put up a "moral facade" in front of neighbors or our boss?

The other 45%?? I for one, hate it wehn people get up in your face asking what you're religion is. I want to scream "Religion doesn't matter!?!?!' But that wouldn't help. Morality can come from many sources, and if you believe religion is one of them, then it is.

This is a very vague statement. I'm trying to clarify with the link you provided, but it has been down (at least for me), so my apologies if the link explains any of the following.... You are saying that of ALL the infantry soldiars in ALL the Great Wars, only 4% aimed to kill. Nothing is given about firing in defense. 25% missed intentionally.....so 71% never fired a shot? I'm sorry, but according to the death counts in those wars, the weapons and ammunition used, and the testimonies of people involved in the battles, I find that hard to swallow. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that many didn't fire, or missed on purpose.....but not in numbers like that. I also find it hard to take the stats as totally real since the study was done in 1941, and WWII didn't end until 1945. Thats four full, bloody, uncounted years of war.



Why would that matter or be any different at all? Childrens bodies were found cannibalised for food. As in, people were starving and had a choice to survive. Again, survival. Again, no non rogue animal has killed without a reason. It was a famine. They were starving to death. Someone killed off the weakest of the group and ate. How is this not survival? How is this not situational? How is it assumed that the parent killed the child? If they did, again, how is this not survival, how is this not situational?