Is the basis of ethics and morals and values religion..???? why and why not???


lets discuss...

Morality and ethics came before religion was even pondered on. Even many animals in natures kingdom practice a degree of morality and ethics just as we did when we were like that once.

So unless you see a horse pray to jesus or a rabbit on the jihad... I don't see how it's even remotely possible religion is the basis of morality.

Kratos I concur....and add

I think that as a values, ethics based system it is inadequate ...

reason being (in the relgiions that use heaven and hell as the crux specifically ) because it teaches self interest so we can never be sure if you are acting on behalf of self interest/personal gain ......

i also think in this construct by default it is self defeating because when we act on the behalf of reward or gain it is not genuine ethical behavior...therefore without some punishment or reward it creates a tension for the beleiver therefore imaking it think its alot harder the person to act ethically....

a reward and punishment construct works only if you are to remain in your own peer group with no other tradtions or values or ideas to challenge you..
so as the 'sole moral dictum' it would not serve us as a culture ...

in essence it creates tension for the beleiver....

No. A packaged bundle of ethics and morality that is passed on as established knowledge is a religion.

Well, yes and no. While I would not argue that religion is supposed to uphold morality, are the morals that are passed on objective? or are they subjective? If the morals are objective, and this moral code is followed through the universe, then we don't have a problem. However, if morality is subjective, then we do run into problems. How do you establish that morality is objective? Can you show that religion is indeed the shoots from which all morality grows? The problem with morality comes with the definitions of 'good' and 'evil'. What is good? What is evil? You can define good and evil, but that still makes the concept of good and evil subjective based on the individual. I might say Hitler was evil, where someone from Germany circa 1939 might disagree. So who is right and who is wrong? Obviously, we would think that Hitler is indeed a bad man. I sure think so. But if morality is subjective, then Hitler is only evil or good based on our understanding of good and evil. I understand the slaughter of 6 million Jews to be a pretty heinous act, where someone else might understand that to be a Godsend (I hope none of you).

Absolutely not. I know a lot of people, including myself, who are ethical and moral people and who's values are high that do not believe in religion or god/gods/goddesses. If anything, I have noticed in the people surrounding my life that those who do not believe or practice any religion are more ethical than those who do.

Thats a good point. I think we can safely say that morality is not dependent on religion, in that it is neither necessary to be religious to be 'moral', nor do morals stem from religion. Morals may be an evolutionary trait, but even if they are, are they not still subjective? After all, if they are a product of evolution, its not as if someone wrote them down on two tablets for everyone to understand. Its an instinct, but instinct can still be interpreted. For instance, my coffee cup is nearly empty, so instinct is telling me to fill it...

it seems to me that we inherit morals. ive looked and never seen any type of tangible evidence for the evolution of morality.

religion is the effort of understand that morality and meaning found within.

Is it possible that morality and ethics are somehow genetically encoded? Kratos brought up the very intriguing notion that even the non-human inhabitants of this universe seem to have a discernible sense of what we call morality and ethics; does this lead us to perhaps consider that Nature itself has an ethical and moral component?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Morality could, after all, be an evolutionary trait. Animals realize that its generally not a good idea to kill their kith and kin, as loosing a member is generally detrimental to the pack. In the end I think a lot of morality is subjective. ::shrugs:: But honestly, I don't know. I don't care if morality is subjective or objective, either way I still have morals.

I am waiting for the scientists we have on here to address this, i think its a great question also...

You will have some scientists like E.O. Wilson and philosophers like Michael Ruse, who hold the position that objective moral premises don't exist. There are causal mechanisms, such as kin and group selection and others that deceive us into thinking that there is such a thing as moral objectivity. In the end, these causal mechanism's purpose is to serve the best interest for genes.

If you subscribe to the notion set forth by Wilson and Ruse, then you also assert that the mind is not a blank slate. In addition, the human mind is not genetically predetermined (So you cannot have a single behavior and pinpoint a single gene that expresses said behavior). Subscribers do however, understand that thinking is under the control of mental epigenetics, and we are thus predisposed to choose one form of behavior over another (also can be described as 'inherited regularities) . For example, feelings of happiness serve as positive reinforcement to choose a right action, which also happens to be adaptive.

The bottom line is that Ethical choices are based on both reason and emotion, which are derived from these 'Epigenetic rules of moral development'

FYI for those of you who don't know what epigenetics means

In the most basic sense, it is when genes stay the same, but certain factors change the way in which the gene expresses itself.

If our morals, ethics, and values came from religion then we would not cherry pick the values we like from the books. Simple as that.

What does religion do? Codifies behaviour for one. And why is that necessary? All animals have rules of engagement - social animals ones are of course bound up with group interaction. Without them - how would there be stable societies to raise children etc.

Most societies, based on very disparate religions share the same basic morals. Even those 'false idols' seem to help their societies pretty well

Now if morals didn't have a biological basis, surely our decisions and codes of conduct would end in biological disaster more frequently than they do?

Lol I have put up my scientific examples in these threads many times before so I am gonna just put in some WIKI ! …..I have been doing this a lot lately he he.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals

In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, altruism refers to behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor.[1]. Research in evolutionary theory has been applied to social behaviour, including altruism. Some animal altruistic behaviour is explained by kin selection. Beyond the physical exertions that mothers, and in some species fathers, undertake to protect their young, extreme examples of sacrifice may occur. One example is matriphagy (the consumption of the mother by her offspring) in the spider Stegodyphus. Hamilton's rule describes the benefit of such altruism in terms of Wright's coefficient of relationship to the beneficiary and the benefit granted to the beneficiary minus the cost to the sacrificer. Should this sum be greater than zero a fitness gain will result from the sacrifice.

Belle, thankyou hon...this is excellent data ...

Just for fun, and that the board seems flooded with 'moral threads', here is a little quiz that looks at certain dimensions of your morality...it only takes a couple of minutes.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/morality_play.htm

Morality Play

In this activity you will be presented with 19 different scenarios. In each case, you will be asked to make a judgment about what is the morally right thing to do. When you have answered all the questions, you will be presented with an analysis of your responses which should reveal some interesting things about your moral framework and how it compares to others who have completed the activity.

Edit:Sorry forgot: I got 85.

That was intersting. I scored 100% in all categories but the last which means my moral tolerance is very low. ie I have fairly absolute values of right and wrong, and apply them logically, rather than allowing other variables to influence my morality. This is true, and a moral system i have worked hard to develop.

However some of the questions are ambiguous in intent. and in the last category, while they were assessing what they thought were my responses to the scale of a dilemma, i was actually replying based on whether i had to physically act, ie killling 10 people will save 100 , would you kill the 10 My answer is no. But if asked "you can physically save 10 lives but this means 100 others will die" then yes i would act to save the 10 lives. It is my actions i am primarily responsible for, not some hypothetical consequences inherent in a test like this. ie i will save the 10 because i can. I wont kill the 10 because i choose not to exercise my power to do so.

In real life the fate of the other 100 is simply not going to be contingent on my actions, and so i cant take it into account. Given this misinterpretation of my moral intent, my rating would probably be a full 100% for all categories.

No, you do not need religion to know right from wrong these are things that your parents/family should be teaching you.

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 100%

but life isn't so cut and dry as those questions either.

I wouldn't give my kidney to a serial killer !

No, you are quite right lt Ripley, in real life i would refuse to accept the artificial parameters set by the questions, and act in ways outside the parameters. Would i give my kidney to a serial killer? Perhaps; if she was my daughter. As you say, life/ morality is not so cut and dried.

True perhaps, but who taught them, and who taught the ones that taught the?. If we rely on parenting to teach morality, you only need one break, or even a weak link in the chain, for the morals and ethics to be lost. Societal ethics and morality need to be taught at a societal level, so that all know them, and they cannot be lost or easily modified.

Religion is one(of several) mechanisms for passing on societal ethics and morality.

There are plenty of parents who teach their kids not only that it is moral to shoplift, but also how to do it. The same, perhaps to a to a lesser extent, with drug taking. People who abuse alcohol, and see that as normal behaviour, are not likely to teach their kids any different values. Adults who believe, and display, that problems are most effectively solved by force, will also pass on that ethical value to their kids.

There's actually a powerful ad on Australian TV at the moment, which illustrates this vividly. I think its called ," kids see-kids do"

I got a mere 64%.

Thats still better than both Bush and Congress's approval ratings combined.

I would think being logical that it wasn't actually religion which taught ethics and morals but the ability to empathize and relate which was long before religion existed or held the ideals it claims it holds.
Primitive man could relate via experience to another ..... no religion necessary at all. If I had badly burned my hand in a fire I could relate to someone else that did. for example. not one religious thought needed.

I don't think early religious beliefs were about compassion or understanding ( ethics and values). But luck , safety , power . good hunting,food and shelter, the weather .........but not as it is today. Yet we do know early man lived in groups and compassion and understanding would be needed......... as can be attested to anyone here that lives with anyone else.

You may be correct. i am just going by the archaelogical evidence available, which suggests that religious/spiritual concepts and beliefs were in existence from the same time precursors to modern man were able to think.

Once you can think, some religious/spiritual element is unavoidable. Spiritual/ religious ideas come from logical application of the mind to nature and problems encountered in the world around you. Logic only allows the application of available knowledge, then it relies on extrapolation interpretation and deduction. Early gods were quite logical explanations for observed phenomenum.

100% and i find the moral dictum of religion to be non effective at best....I have to concur with Lady R...

Some religions in other civilizations do not have the concept that ethics and morals are the property of religion and they exist separately. Religion though in some cultures has become the agent of ethics and morals and two have become closely entwined. Once that religion is removed the ethics and morals of a society can diminish leading to social ills. They all interplay with each other in such societies.

It would do one well to look into deviance from a sociological standpoint. What is deviance in one society is not in another. There are also biological theories to deviance such as presented by Cesare Lombroso which was then disproved by Charles Goring. Durkheim developed the concept of anomie in his book 'Suicide'. What greater form of deviance is there than that?

In the end from a sociological perspective it would seem conformity to society's values are what some people would base their determination on if another or they themselves were maintaining the ethics and morals of the society they live in. Ethics and morals, just as deviance, are not the same in every culture. Even in a culture they vary especially in the underclass.

Clovis quotes:

"Once that religion is removed the ethics and morals of a society can diminish leading to social ills. They all interplay with each other in such societies. "

yet this has not been the observable outcome ...religion has done little in the way of preventing social ills if anything it has done more in sustaining them....

if you use input output as any kind of consideration.. this is not to say it hasn't done good things such as feed the hungry or bring medicine to places that other wise may of not gotten it ....but ..

we can be fairly confident in saying that in the absence of religion we would not have had for instance say the inquistion etc etc....

So if those people would of had religion in thier lives everything would be great! Your post reads like bad things only happen without some sort of religion in peoples lives.

Well we are discussing two different things SS. One can go on all day about if they believe religion is good or not, or if secularism is good or not, then compare the Inquisition to Stalin's or North Korea's programs and how they affect society.

Clearly I am not discussing if religion is good or not so we are on two different pages.

I should add though that the causes of social disintegration and moral decline, two different though closely related concepts, are not solely due to the decline of religion in some of the societies where the correlation can be made between the two. Such things as the decline of public trust, the economy, and even war can all lead to social disintegration and moral decay. Some countries such as Nazi Germany can have a strong sense of social solidarity but due to certain issues and beliefs, such as racism, or a propensity for war, both products of a long social history and not of their own invention, can then lead to undo all the good they had going for them. There is not one clear model for every civilization, culture, or society.

The most studied civilization do undergo social disintegration would have to be Rome and the reasons for it are varied and complex.

why woudn't you be asking the merits and value of religion??? why wouldn't the input output be imperative????? these are very sound questions...

right and wrong changes as the needs of a culture change... its when you are insisting that morals are static what you see as change and growth may be interpreted as decline and upheavel........when the issue its the lack of adaptabiltiy...

why is it that after 2000 plus years religion has been unable to institute peace and non violence???? do you know why becasue i do...
our systems our behaviors reflect the beleifs we have and value......until this connection is made we will continue to generate the issues we have.... meaning unti we choose peace instead of war , war will continue etc etc........until we make love our only choice hate will continue.....

No religion isnt the basis of morals and values.....infinite consciousness or spirit which underlies, pervades and transcends all existence and spews forth religions (not because it has a plan but because it is more or less inevitable when the metaphysic is ever interpreted or systematized).

This metaphysic is 'love'. This 'love' is our true basic nature and is the ground of religion. Therefore ethics comes from our true being and not from written scriptures.

it greatly depends on how you define love.....we have some sects that call punishment, threats and strong arming "love".....


there is a whole relgious faith and canon centered around the sacraficing killing of a life( the dietys child) to repay for a percieved slight and this has been called a great act of love...

bravey as much as I agree few really have a good understanding of unconditional love let alone live it....

I will comment a bit now. Religion has provided peace as well as war in the past so to emphasize one while ignoring the other speaks more about the unbalanced view of the person commenting rather than religion itself. Peace or war at any given time has more to do with mankind and would still exist without the slightest notion of religion.

Also to be of the notion that religion should somehow bring peace to mankind and has failed seems to me that one is missing the purpose of religion and judging it by something it never aspired to do. I cannot think of any other religion with this goal in mind.

Just as religion is only one form by which humanity seeks to explain and organise its existence, religious persecution is but one form by which humanity harms and diminishes itself. Race and sexuality are two other fairly common forms by which humanity organises, and racial and sexual persecution are consequently almost universal.

All are based on fear of difference, and none can operate if individuals refuse to surrender power to a larger society.

My argument would be that if you are operating by ethical or moral codes, then you are operating under a spiritual belief system , because thats what ethical and moral belief systems are. Religion is merely the formal codification of a group's spiritual understandings; and ethics and morality are the same thing.

Eg if you have a belief, "you shall not kill," you must examine why you hold that belief. It is almost impossible to differentiate between logical and spiritual reasons which arise in the course of such an examination.

Try it with "you should not cause unneccesary pain and suffering to an animal"
As you break down your argument you will come to a point where your answer depends on your beliefs.
Then you have to look at what your beliefs are, and how they are formed.

It should make for a fun evening.

Having spent many such fun evenings, i am now convinced that ethics and morality have little, if anything, to do with instinct or even evolutionary biology.

I think they are absolutely a construct of intelligence. They are sentience's evolutionary response to a species which developed beyond the constraints of either its evolutionary biological responses, or its animal nature/ instincts.

Intelligence gives us power over the environment , and in return provides us with a tool to operate such power more safely within both our social, and our natural, environments.

Interestingly, most religioius writings are full of what happens when humanity exercises the power of its intelligence, without using compensatory ethical and moral judgements.

There's a word for that Mr Walker, introspection. I try to practice it often.

Clovis, on one hand you say relgion has brought peace then a few sentences later you say its not the goal of religion....


Religion does proffess itself to be the one true path doesn't it.??

it also touts itself to be the only book you'll ever need yet on matters that really matter it is ineffective as you said: "its has failed seems to me that one is missing the purpose of religion and judging it by something it never aspired to do. I cannot think of any other religion with this goal in mind "

I think buddhism has this goal in mind ...ever heard of ht Dali Lama ???

MW on one hand you have a command don't kill, on the other you have a diety that uses killing to solve conflict alot of times for reasons you can't figure out sometimes he has none....... you may not be aware of this but our correctional system is set up the same way...


intellegence is only as good as th culture or the one using it.. its a tool not a magic pill....


how did you connvince yourself that ethics and morals have no biological frame??? I am not understanding how this works????

What Archaeological evidence shows this?

As far as I know the oldest Archaeological evidence of religious/spiritual concepts and beliefs, are found at Çatal Höyük.

Çatal Höyük is a Neolithic site from 7300-6200bc, in the Central Anatolia region. And has evidence of religion, mostly Bucrania (warship of bulls) and they may have had a goddess figure.

7300-6200bc. is hardly the time precursors to modern man were around. You need to go back a few hundred thousand years.

It is most likely religion developed at the same time language did and other critical mental skills. A fully developed cerebral cortex is necessary for such changes. Most likely when this did occur in its most modern stage it allowed the Neolithic Revolution to happen. There is evidence of religion existing before that, Neanderthal burials which date back hundreds of thousands of years ago, but there is a dispute to whether that is actual religion or if burial was done for other reasons such as keeping carnivores away from near their camps sites. We do have other possible evidence of religion though in the Paleolithic. Catalhoyuk would not be the oldest as you stated since the Venus of Dolni Vestonice is dated to be from 29000 - 25000 BCE. It is the oldest known ceramic figurine in the world along with the other figurines from the same site. Most likely we have not found everything there is to find at other uncovered sites as well. Of course as stated previously that evolution most likely is not finished and the Neolithic is just the last step taken...

Ok. I used a hypothetical example of an ethical system which had a rule thou shalt not kill.

Despite common misunderstandings the christian ethical system has no such rule. Their rule says "you shalt not kill unlawfully(commit murder)"

It specifically sanctions killing in war. or via instruments of the state.

Coincidentallly my god, as far as i am aware, has no specific injunction about killing, but you need to have some pretty good reasons for it, starting with, but not limited to; self defence, defence of innocent people, and defence of those you have a moral duty of care for.

Not sure about your detention system, but ours is a wuss. It long ago banned capital punishment, and overtly states it is set up for rehabilitating people, not punishung them or creating a deterrent to crime (and it certainly isnt doing that)

A moral detention system would take into acccount the effets of a crime on victims, in sentencing. Ours pays lip service to this but in practice does little.

Any intelligence is better than none at all.

Biologists tend to argue that there is a biological frame. Few others do. The most that can be proven ids that animals sometimes behave in ways which in humans would be considered ethical Some social behaviours may be evolutionary precurssors tto ethics and morality. But in your terms ethics and morality are constructs of intelligence.

The simply cannot exist, in the terms we understand , i n animals which do not have a level of sentience/ intelligence closely approximating human, because they do not have the ability to form the concepts, let alone make choices based on conceptual development.
Ethical and moral behaviour simply cant exist ,ndependent of the ability to distinguish multiple alternative choices, their consequent outcomes,and enough sentient self awareness to evaluate and make those choices.

It also cannot exist where an animal is limited by/tied to,environmentally conditioned responses or geneticallly programmed responses.

Ethical and moral decision making requires a conscious ability to override such programming, in order to make decisions based on "ntellectual" choices. If its a progerammed, environmentally conditioned response, then it may well promote positive outcomes, but this alone does not make it a moral or an ethical behaviour.

Sorry but the evidence for connection between intelligence and spirituality goes back far further than this. You could go back 16 500 years to the lascaux caves and other even earlier cromagnon paintings of approx 40000 years ago, where evidence exists that the hunters were trying to influence the outcome of their hunts, through religious ceremonies and through the paintings them selves.

You can go back a little further, about 60000 years BP, and look at the neanderthal burials where flowers, ochre, and other artifacts were buried with bodies. This indicates not only a philosophical realistion of the nature of death , but a spiritual connection to the dead, through honouring or remembering them in specific burial practices.

You will find even older cases of altars of cave bears where, again, humans were either specifically worshipping these powerful beasts which often occupied prime habitats sought by people at the time or, again, were trying to propitiate/ alter their behaviour in some way.

The absolute first linkages occur as soon as you can identify that humans are actually burying their dead with respect and ceremony. The conceptualisation of death, and its difference to life, as evidenced by burial practices, is one of the earliest archaeological proofs that both sentience and religion have developed.
They occur back as far as early tool making, although i cant remember the specific dates, but we are getting into your realm of 100,000 years plus.

Fertility goddesses were one of the first human artefacts outside of stone tools which survived, and they certainly date back to neolithic times, possibly even mesolithic. (in fact a quick google confirms they were even present in the paleolithic or early stone age.) The earliest dated human art comes from africa 77000 years BP.

Given that modern humanity is confirmed from about 100,000 years ago we are now getting back to the earliest possible dates which involved confirmed precursors to modern man (discounting australo pithecus and homo habilus, for example.)

My little one, forgive me if I cannot provide you with a scholarly dissertation outlining my personal views.

I believe that ethics and morals are the result of human nature to seek personal happiness. We've created a code to live by in hopes to prevent what we fear for ourselves to happen to others.

I also feel that religions have taken advantage of this to further strengthen their gospel.

As narcissistic as it may sound, humankind's ultimate goal is to find personal happiness. Even a martyr who gives their life for a cause is doing so for some sort of personal satisfaction.

In short, we want the best for ourselves, and if that means giving our lives for our children, our community, or our country we will do so without question.

That does not mean that we do not accept and reciprocate the love from others. It simply means, like it or not, we as individuals must come first.

With that, a kiss and a hug.

Last I heard the Neanderthal grave sites were devoid of any ornamentation. Some suspect it had nothing to do with religion. Also the bear cult is also in question since the evidence regarding it is bear skulls lined up in a cave underground but some think scavengers could have lined them up so without any religious notion. The oldest burial that is most commonly agreed upon having religious significance is from 130,000 years ago, due to the presence of red ochre, at Qafzeh, Israel.

Yes I see a connection with morals, ethics & religion. But predominantly bad ethics & morals.

As in bad ethics and morals you mean the ones you do not agree with because they spoil your want of gratification? If not please explain from your point of view what you mean...

On the neandertals im going by recollection from what i teach, but ive defiinitelyr read that they showed a "reverence"for the dead, in both their placemen,t and in the presence of pollen (from plants placed in the grave) and ochre.
The details are probably not worth arguing over. Any people /culture which displays a "reverence" for the dead has developed the concept of spirituality, if not organised religion. This is also true of any culture which evidences belief that "worship" may effect practical outcomes.

The cave bear examples i read about required specific placement by intelligent beings, and were in caves where soot and other evidence indicated contemporary human habitation. but this may not be considered conclusive proof.

Bad ethics & morals as in the massive amount of death & torture carried out over the centuries & continuing now in the name of religion.

''you do not agree with because they spoil your want of gratification?''...I don't understand what this sentance means.

The concepts of what is right and wrong are subjective and are matters of perspective and opinion. The basis of ethics is ourselves...religion didn't teach us ethics we developed them ourselves and then built religions around those ethics.