Skepticologist

It's been observed that there are plenty of good people who aren't religious, and I can think of several of my own acquaintance. For the first 40+ years of my life, as a practicing christian, I assumed that my moral values either came straight from the bible, or indirectly through my parents. Admittedly, a lot of viable moral values are contained in the bible, as well as most all texts of world religions. But, having evolved into an agnostic, I can no longer attribute their origin to a supreme being.

So, my question is, "If morality didn't come from god, where did it come from?" I'm certain there are lots of philosophical and psychological treatises on this subject, but I currently lack the discretionary time to ferret them out. Instead, I'm taking the easy way out and hoping those of you who have done some ferreting in this regard will provide me with some shortcuts. And I'm certainly open to uninformed ideas.

My own preliminary conclusion is that the development or morality is entirely consistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Most of the moral codes I can think of would serve, if observed, to perpetuate the human species because, without them, we'd end up killing each other off until the species was annihilated.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

Geshtinnanna

I guess morality comes form peer pressure. Just on a larger scale.

__________________

greywolf90

i think it's possible that right and wrong depend on our perceptions. morality is something that has evolved over time. we would consider ancient societys more brutal than our own.

Jacob

Tell that to Rwandans, the black people of Darfur and Tibetan buddhists.

Jacob

Probability_Amplitude

Darwin's laws can explain it up to a point and only in a general sense. There will be many situations where it would considered ethical (moral) to not act in the benefit of the perpetuation of our species. If I were to jump in front of a car, thereby sacrificng myself to save an 88 year old man with lung cancer, it would not act to the benefit of the perpetuation of my species at all, but it would be considered ethical in some quarters, even honourable!

Another example. Female infanticide. In pre-medieval (and some modern) societies, when a female was born into a poor family, they would kill her so they would not have to waste scarce resources raising a baby which will be unable to earn like a male would. This is a classic example of adaptation to survive - but if anyone were to do it, it would be considered a most vile and horrendous act!

The issue is better understood if you look at certain normative frameworks. Utilitarianism, whose goal is happiness maximisation (the greatest good for the greatest number) is very much a "survival of the fittest" compatible theory - but it fails in many areas. If we were to take utilitarianism and darwinism to serious levels, completely immoral activities like eugenics or the killing of disabled people/ people with aids etc could easily be justified.

Western society, in general, holds individual rights in high regard. This itself is a testimony to the failure of utilitarianism.

So why is it, that with our highly developed intellect and access to resources, that we don't try to increase the chances of the survival of our species?

I'd say it has to do with a discrepancy between intellect and instinct. That is, our immediate instinct tells us that killing another human being is wrong, whilst our intellect may tell us that killing this one human being could save hundreds more, but in the end, instinct wins because it is our stronger sense. Maybe one day, our powers of reason will develop so much, and our basic animal instincts become so dormant, that we bring eugenics et al back.

Hope I'm not alive to see that!

__________________
I am free, at last.

Maximus

Morality has been used as a tool in recent times by liberal democracies as a means by which to control prison populations.

Executions have been in recent times by many countries banned because of the extensive measures by which to prove someone is unquestionably guilty.

In short, morality and ethics have been more used as a means by which to save money and boost economy by spending less on police and jail forces by making people think mentally what is right and wrong.

I think it's as simple as that, it's just another tool of government.

Gaius

Amen

And tell that to the Jews who resided in Nazi-Germany which just so happened to be one of the most educated societies of all-time.

Gaius

Then armed with that information you should be able to move past it. Are you gonna go on then and live without morals? The fact that they would need police in the first place goes to show that they themselves have ideas of right and wrong. If the daughter of a man is raped he may feel justified in killing that man. However if he does the government will still throw him in jail. Your explanation is FAR too simple and vague.

Maximus

That's the problem, liberal democracies do not encourage vigilantiasm.

Gettin' In Tune

Whoa!!! This is called civility. Vigilantism is not civil nor moral. Who has the right to commit vigilantism? It is individually subjective as is a god concept. It is also primitive. Refer to Skepticologist's preliminary conclusion of morality

Correct me if I am wrong, but the above definition is morally enlightening and nurtures personal responsibility while promoting a common good. Vigilantism is not a common good. This is one of the reason why I do not support the death penalty.

To answer the original question, morality is intrinsic in nature. No species are self-destructive. This could be referred to as a deist stance since we do not understand the origins of life, but it seems conducive. But the 'multiverse' theory introduces atheism and that life is a random occurrence. Regardless, life has an absolute; it strives towards self perpetuation (and human life towards progress).

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan