Human morals are variations of a theme that occurs over and over and over in nature. We use technology, but so do chimpanzees, ourangutangs, and bonbos, as they use sticks and rocks. A bonobo will modify a twig to fish for termites in a mound.
My point is that our technology is more sophisticated, and the morality that we follow is more sophisticated, but it’s still grounded in our brain structure.
As I said before, if there is a problem with certain parts of the brain, then morality vanishes . . . as happens with a sociopath.
Of course, there is a relationship between the structure of the brain and morality, just as there is a relationship between a driver (ideology) and a car engine (the brain). By altering the engine, the outcome will be different, but this does not mean that the driver is a minor factor.
However, while the morality of orangutans and chimpanzees probably hasn’t changed significantly in the last 100,000 years, our morality has evolved multiple times.
This is because the morality of orangutans and chimpanzees is mainly rooted in their biology and requires physical changes in the brain to evolve, which only occur over hundreds of thousands of years. While there may be some cultural inheritances in apes, these are minor compared to the predominant biological factors. In contrast, our morality is rooted in culture and evolves much faster. Obviously, our morality is not the same as that of the Mesopotamians, and even today, depending on the culture in which you are born, your morality can vary significantly. Therefore, our morality is not embedded in our genes but is instead shaped significantly by cultural foundations. This does not mean that our morality is independent of the brain; it only means that the main factor behind our morals is culture, which likely defines how our instincts are expressed.
To support this point, consider the famous case of Victor of Aveyron, who lacked our morality (and many other human traits) because he wasn’t in contact with other human groups and lacked any cultural influence. This is just one more piece of evidence that without cultural contact, our morals can’t be developed.
At this point, it seems quite clear that there is a difference between human morality and that of animals. This is important because we can consciously change our morals, while animals cannot do so to the same degree. This brings us back to the question of dogmas:
Do we need dogmas to sustain our morals? Does reason lead to morality?
This is a very poor analogy, since the driver has intent, while the car is just a tool, it might be slightly better if reversed, but not much, and you seem to have totally missed the point.
Indeed, a larger brain more suited to analyse complex ideas would enable problem solving and thus add a massive survival benefit, this doesn’t indicate the origins of empathy and morality are not all derived from precursors in our evolved past. No deity, no dogma, and no superstitious woo woo is needed or evidenced in explaining this, only the objective fact of species evolution through natural selection.
I hate to break it to you but the taxonomical grouping of great apes includes humans, and we are the youngest of those species, which include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, and orangutans. Your spiel is not just unevidenced hearsay, it is simply wrong.
Moving away from the archaic superstitious religious morality you are trying to champion in a very short time, and whilst humans would have had this ability (the same brains) 200k years ago when humans first evolved in their current form, as small groups of hunter gatherers, they would not have the time, longevity or need to ponder complex moral ideas, the agricultural revolution, and later the industrial revolution provided that time.
Our brains contain our ability to examine moral ideas, our empathy mirrors all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups, the cultures that are constantly changing and evolving alongside morality that does the same, is a result of our evolved brains.
Nonsense, your misrepresent correlation as causation, the brain is the cause, the culture and morality are the result. Since all morality is subjective, of course societies and cultures that evolved in isolation from each other have wildly differing notions about what is moral.
So what? Of course if as a child a single human is lost to all human contact, it would have no way to examine moral ideas, this doesn’t mean it lacks that ability as do all humans, the common factor among all species that exhibit empathy and morality is they have evolved to live in societal groups, so how does a human isolated and along not developing or learning that morality aid your claim, it simply doesn’t, quite the opposite in fact. Your one example also fails as it is countered by countless billions who learn and develop beliefs and ideas from the people around them, and formative development is paramount, as was the case with your example:
" Although the results of this endeavor were disappointing—after 5 years, Victor was able to speak, read, and write only some words and phrases and was marginally socialized—Itard’s effort is considered an important early development in the special education of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities."
So despite everything he was still able to learn, again you are simply projecting your beliefs and bending all facts to suit it.
No one has suggested otherwise, only your clownish characterisation of how and why that happens. IIt happens because human animals have evolved mush larger brains, and so are able to imagine more complex ideas, and this includes moral and ethical ideas. Our brains enable us to shape cultures, and our morals reflect this, the brain and evolution are the cause the culture and dogma are the result.
No we don’t, and reason helps us examine more complex moral ideas, as we are doing right here of course. Cling to dogma simply negates that, and we would become moral automatons. Even “good” Nazis managed to blindly follow dogma, do you share their notion of morality? Their culture was millenia old, and for centuries was overwhelmingly Christian, this and their blind adherence to dogma destroys your argument utterly.
After the war, when the people who risked their lives to shelter persecuted minorities from the Nazis, were questioned why they had taken such a risk, when countless millions stood by and let it happen, one shared trait was common, they had all been raised to think for themselves and question dogma and authority.
We cannot save the planet with or without religion. We have convinced ourselves we’ve evolved but, have we? If you look around all you see is war, depression and high expenses. I believe that humans are not and never will be able to save the planet. We are a plague to it, we are slowly destroying it.
While trying to sound as belligerent as possible, you essentially confirmed the fundamental points I’m making about human morality vs animal morality.
Here is the problem I presented at the beginning of this debate: reason does not necessarily lead to morality. Contrary to what you suggest, when we examine our morals, including those of atheists, we find dogmas that lack justification.
Humanity is capable of doing things right, but not everyone wants a better world. This is the problem.
There are people and groups so selfish, so self-centered, so egotistical that they don’t care about others; they only care about their own madness and foolish ideas. And they always find “rational” arguments to support their behavior.
I believe this behavior will come to an end at some point. The question is, what are you doing in all the areas you can control?
If you follow the debate, you’ll see that the point is rationality does not necessarily lead to morality. This is why I ask whether a religion focused on environmental preservation, with specific dogmas enforcing respect for the environment, would be more effective than our current rational dead end
Current religions are not focused on environmental preservation; they are centered on the individual. The only exceptions are some primitive animist cults that place great importance on not offending the spirits of the jungle, which ultimately leads to environmentally friendly behavior. However, this is not a viable option for our society—we need something stronger.
Are you suggesting someone start a new religion/cult that focuses on the environment? Odd that you seem to choose Christianity since it’s a doomsday cult with the end goal of Earth’s destruction.
“But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.”
Not that others haven’t managed to tweak christianity for their own ends. Just look at the mormons. Heck, just write some of your own scripture and say Jesus personally handed it to you to share with the world. To amass enough followers to actually initiate actions to help the environment might take a while though. I would say good luck with that, but unfortunately even with the best of intentions religions seem to manage to do more harm than good.
Sigh…
If I follow the debate? WTAF?
I’ll see the point blah blah blah? WTAF
I read what you write. You wrote, “nothing is being done.” I actually used the quote function where you asserted that “it is clear nothing is being done.” Are you going to substantiate what you wrote or walk it back?
Nope, your spiel is nonsense, and you’re clearly utterly closed minded, any can read my posts and see I have done no such thing.
Straw man fallacy, as that’s not what I claimed, read it again more carefully.
That is not contrary to anything I’ve suggested, quite the opposite, so another straw man fallacy.
Here is the problem, you’re not here for honest debate, as anyone can see from this handwaving response that contains nothing but two dishonest straw men. You failed to address any of the refutations to your endless irrational and unevidenced claims.
Do you underrated why? I’d bet my house you don;t, and would invoke the same nonsense you’ve been peddling thus far.
Could you tell me what you think rational means please, as that statement seems very dubious to me.
That’s hardly prophetic now is it? Our sun will go the way of all stars in a few billion years, but first it will destroy this planet and everything on it.
Without religion? What a spectacularly stupid lie?
No it isn’t, the point is in your thread title, and having read your posts, I am extremely dubious you now what rationality means, if you did you’d know your claim is a false dichotomy fallacy, and therefore irrational by definition.
Like the largest christian church on the planet decrying contraception, and trying to meddle in developing countries to maximise birth rates, when we already have an exponentially increasing population. How does unevidenced archaic superstition help at all? You have failed utterly to offer anything beyond strident unevidenced assertion to support your claim.
That is fucking hilarious fair play, you think their sustainable lifestyle is down to their superstitious beliefs in animal spirits, jesus wept.
No shit, something that doesn’t involve unevidenced superstition as well.
There is no problem with morality. Human beings are social animals, I don’t want you harming my family or friends. I don’t want you stealing my stuff. We get together, one human being to another, an we agree, I won’t damage, steal, or harm your stuff, if you agree not to damage, steal, or harm my stuff. Then religion comes in and calls it a dictate from God and tries to steal from humans what is very human, a need to get along, care for one another, and function as a group. (JUST LIKE MOST MAMMALS ON THIS PLANET). There is no great secret to moral behavior.
Unless of course maximizing personal pleasure involves behaving morally. Even children learn delayed gratification. Momentary pleasures are not the things that maximize pleasure. How would behaving amorally, maximize pleasure? Cite an amoral behavior that does not come with emotional, social, or legal consequences (That acting morally could avoid.)
If this were the case, churches that profess to help and convince people that they do help as well as other helping organizations that actually do help "Doctors without Boarders’ for example, would not exist. You are demonstrably “WRONG.”
Nothing guarantees happiness, Not even hedonistic behaviors. What’s your point? Your just rambling on and making assertions with no thought going into anything you are saying.
A thought in favor of moral behavior? WTF are you on about? Who is arguing against behaving morally? You have completely lost focus on whatever point you were trying to make. Something about someone’s goal being an attempt to maximize pleasure or something like that. Do you even know how to formulate an argument? What in the hell are you talking about?
Religious Dogma upholds moral values? Are you serious"
Adultery: Biblical hero Abraham impregnates his wife’s servant.
Animal cruelty: Jesus sends 2,000 pigs plunging into the sea where they choke to death.
Anti-family values: Jesus proclaims, 'For I am come to set man against his father, and daughter against her mother … ’
Backstabbing: God allows a faithful servant to be tortured to prove the servant’s loyalty in Job.
Total fumble-nut lack of responsibility: The all-knowing god creates man in his image, calls it all good, Then punishes people who have no concept of bad for eating some fruit, Which he knew they would do in the first place because he was all-knowing. Then punishes all generations of humans after that by allowing "original sin’ to come into the world. Then killing everyone in the world because of sin and starts over, when he is all-knowing and knew he was going to do that from the very beginning. The Bible is a list of your god’s sins, failures, blunders, and amoral acts against humanity, and you want to pretend that your murderous, human-sacrificing, cannibalistic, cult and its god are somehow dishing out morality to the world? Really? (I think the world will do just fine without them.)
Unless delayed gratification exceeds the lifetime of an individual, reason and logic suggest that it makes no sense to behave this way. Sacrificing your own lifetime pleasures for a benefit that will be experienced by future generations is irrational, because you will never see, touch, or experience it—like believing in Santa Claus. Where is the logic in engaging in such behavior?
Yet, we all agree that this is the right thing to do. This concern for the future has become a dogma, shared by both theists and atheists.
You might argue that it’s justified by a biological predisposition, but our morals are shaped more by culture than biology. Regardless of whether this behavior’s origin is biological or cultural, it has already failed. Our society does not follow this principle; we are destroying the future of our species to ensure our own generation’s pleasures and comfort. Even when we agree this is wrong, society continues to act this way. This indicates that our culture has become non-functional.
I believe that the real origin of this destructive path lies in reason and logic themselves. While we claim to care about the future, our actions show otherwise. Reason cannot change this because, in the end, it makes no sense to renounce our lifetime comfort for a future we will never witness. We all agree this is bad, but we keep doing it anyway.
Is there anything other than dogma that can change this?
As you know, all powerful and influential groups in our society are deeply involved in activities that are highly immoral. We see this in all sorts of wars, conflicts, assassinations, political persecutions, and more. The question we should be asking is whether there is any moral behavior that doesn’t have negative consequences, given what is happening in the world today. In today’s society, someone who is not self-interested faces far more problems than egocentric people.
The Kayapo tribes in Brazil have deeply rooted animist beliefs that drive them not only to respect their environment but to actively fight against the deforestation of the Amazonian forest.
Their “irrational” beliefs result in a far more rational relationship with their environment than our technologically advanced society, which prides itself on intellect. This is why I wonder if a dogma might be better than all these never-ending debates and “create consciousness” campaigns that lead nowhere.
It seems you don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation, a simply understanding that their lives rely on the forest is all they need, the superstition is redundant.
It has nothing to do with logic, they exist in vastly smaller numbers, this means a sustainable existence that doesn’t use too many resources is much easier to achieve. It isn’t technology that harms the environment, it’s an overuse of resources, some of them finite that can’t be renewed.
Which principle of logic does it violate and why?
Or believing in a deity that will magically grant you an afterlife.
This is the same error you keep making, our biology is how we are able to shapes our culture, and our morals and culture reflect our reasoning, even if our reasoning results in pernicious actions.
Nope, it has succeeded as we still exist as a species, and that what is what natural selection does, species that fail end up extinct. Ultimately all species will of course go that way, it’s unavoidable, but we have been so successful that sheer weight of numbers are going to harm the environment we and other species need to survive.
Yes so you keep saying, what you have failed to is explain how superstitious religious beliefs will solve that, especially as religions have had countless millennia already, and much of religious dogma is likely to make the situation worse, like the obsession with breeding out of control, and the unevidenced notion this life and world are test, a stepping stone to an afterlife.
Or it’s not a simple task to manage resources when it would act against national interests, in case you failed to notice some countries have no interest in following international guidelines to reduce carbon emissions, for example.
How would religious dogma help? You haven’t evidenced your assumption at all, just made broad sweeping assertions, it obviously hasn’t helped thus far.
Please tell me you’re not going to start peddling conspiracy theories?
Another sweeping unevidenced assertion, are you going to actually try and objectively evidence your claims at any point, or are you just here to preach?
