Morality within a Secular Society.

[jascowhiz0]

I read here off and on, so if the topic is covered can you link me to that topic.

Can a secular society have morality? If so what is it based off of?

[improvident]

does a 100% purely secular society exist?

Every culture is based on some sort of religious belief.. whether it be a widely accepted religion or not.. its still a religion.. and every religion hold some morals of some sorts

[tinybear]

It's quite simple. Morality within a secular society is simply those values and norms which are generally accepted by the majority of people in that society. Naturally this generally accepted standard changes from time to time.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality can be based on reason as well as a myth

[tinybear]

Care to elaborate on that remark?

[SoylentGreen]

We can find good reasons for modifying our behaviour and behaving in a moral fashion.

[Athena]

Quote by: jascowhiz0 I read here off and on, so if the topic is covered can you link me to that topic. Can a secular society have morality? If so what is it based off of?

The basis of our morality is genetic. We share much in common with dogs, such as loyalty and deference to the leader. We are even closer to the Bonobo genetically and in social behavior. We are closer to the
Bonobo than chimpanzees.

Bonobo Sex and Society The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution Bonobo ( 'Pygmy Chimpanzee' ) sex and society

[Athena]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Morality can be based on reason as well as a myth

To answer Tiny Bear's question, not knowing if SoylentGreen and I agree or not....

Religion is morality based on myth, coming from earlier concepts of gods and morality. These require a belief that can not be confirmed with empirical information.

However, morale stories such as "The Little Red", "The Fox and the Grapes" and "The Little Engine that Could", are moral stories of cause and effect. We would read these stories to children and then ask, "What is the moral of that story"? The answer would be the reasoning of cause and effect. Such as no would help the Little Red Hen make her bread, so she didn't share it. The fox gave up on getting the grapes, and walked away mumbling they were probably sour any way, and the moral is, giving up isn't a good way to get what we want. However, the Little Engine that Could, didn't give up and made it over the hill, and was so proud himself. We have high self esteem when we don't give up and achieve our goal.

Or we might reason, having a baby without a husband to support the mother and child, means having a hard time surviving with a child, so it is best to void the sex than may result in a child, until marriage. This is also a good way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, and emotional and psychological injury. Waiting for the right partner and then having only this one partner has benefits. This is just the reasoning for what we might call moral behavior. But for those who read about "Bonobo Sex and Society" there are also good reasons for being sexual. It is better to be a highly sexual Bonobo, than a less sexual, but more competitive, chimpanzee.

[The Bacon Guy]

I agree with Athena that our basic morality is genetically based. Religion doesn't invent moralities; it simply hijacks pre-existing moral codes and uses them to gain power. I'm confident that morality would survive without religion.

[tinybear]

I disagree. If moral values are genetically based, how come they can change from time to time and are so dependent on external and often man-made factors?

[SoylentGreen]

Genetic as in we are genetically coded to act as social creatures such as the ones Athene pointed out.
But as to which moral choices we make that is dependent on nurture rather than nature

[The Bacon Guy]

What he said.

Although thinking about it, there probably are some morals which are genetically based. For example, finding infanticide immoral would be evolutionarily beneficial, since it means you're less likely to kill the means of propagating your genes. Social influences can overcome anything if they're strong enough, but I think genetics do play a large part in determining morality.

[tinybear]

Mixed marriages would be evolutionarily beneficial; yet such marriages have only gained acceptance within the past few decades.

By the way, did you know that, until recently, Chinese societies positively encouraged marriage between cousins (cousins on the maternal side that is; marriage between cousins from the paternal side, on the other hand, are frowned upon).

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Bear Mixed marriages would be evolutionarily beneficial; yet such marriages have only gained acceptance within the past few decades.

That's possibly because intolerance is also an instinctive trait à la Tajfel's social identity theory. It could be that, in this case, the instinct for prejudice overcomes the instinct for strengthening the gene pool.

[SoylentGreen]

Some societies practiced infanticide as a means of ridding themselves of weak or deformed babies. Nomadic societies were known for this.
And I believe I have read somewhere that predators like wolves and lions will kill cubs when a new alpha male takes over the pack. A way of the new leader making sure that his genetic line carries on.

[tinybear]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Some societies practiced infanticide as a means of ridding themselves of weak or deformed babies. Nomadic societies were known for this. And I believe I have read somewhere that predators like wolves and lions will kill cubs when a new alpha male takes over the pack. A way of the new leader making sure that his genetic line carries on.

Chinese societies killed baby girls because they were viewed as a burden to the family. More recently baby girls were killed because of the one child policy.

I've not known step-dads killing off his wife's children from a previous marriage, have you?

All this shows that the link between morality and genetics is quite tenuous.

[Zhavric]

Before we talk about why morality changes, there's two things we need to understand first:

1) Morality in a Darwinian context. - You guys made it here yourself and I'm proud of you (particularly Bacon Guy). Whenever we ask anything about ourselves that reaches as far back in time as morality, it has to make sense in a Darwinian / evolution / natural selection context.

Evolution and common sense tell us humans who are able to cooperate with one another have a tremendous advantage over humans who cannot. Athena pointed out that morality is present in other mammals and not just bonobos, but all apes, whales, canines, some felines, dolphins and elephants.

Our morality has evolved, but we've leapt far ahead.

2) The proper timeframe. - Biologically, we're little different from our cave dwelling ancestors who would have seen fire and stone tools as "technology". The small group of hunter/gatherers. The pack. The extended family unit. That is what our morality has evolved to deal with.

Actions which harm the group are negative to us. Actions which benefit the group are positive to us.

The more complex our society becomes, the more room for interpretation there is in our morality. The "group" becomes amorphous; family, co-workers, neighbors, neighborhoods, cities, counties, countries, sports team fandoms, etc. We all belong to dozens of groups and often what's helpful to one is harmful to another. Spend time with your family or go down to the corner to hang out with the guys at the bar?

Quote by: Tinybear I disagree. If moral values are genetically based, how come they can change from time to time and are so dependent on external and often man-made factors?

As I stated, our morals didn't evolve to deal with a society as complex & sophisticated as our own... so we spend a lot of time arguing and being unsure. Does the death penalty protect society by eliminating a deviant or harm society by deliberatly ending a life?

We make interpretations of these basic genetic morals. Societies base their morals on the collective interpretations of their members.

Consider the bombings during WWII and the bombings during Gulf War II. In GWII, Chenney and Rumsfeld are seen as warhawks... men who want to wage war. By WWII standards, these two would have been seen as bleeding heart liberals. Both men were repeatedly on television making apologies for (compared to WWII) "small" numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties.

In WWII, we the American people knew that we were bombing the hell out of civilians and we were okay with that. "Some kraut lives next to a gun factory? Guns that are killin' our G.I.'s? Screw 'em! Darn kraut prolly works there..."

Our morality does change. Why and how it changes are matters of speculation. There really isn't one specific thing that changes our morality. From the time of WWII to GWII, warfare became far more precise. Now, there's no reason to have tons of civilian casualties... so in that instance our morality has changed due to reason and facts.

[ZNFYRH]

tinybear

I think instead of genetics, the better term is instinct.

We instinctively want to protect ourselves first. There is a secondary instinct to protect our family. I think that might set the foundation for morality right there.

What comes next is a realization that if you are nice to others they are usually nice to you in return. You also extend that desire for niceness to be delivered unto those close to you. So you conduct yourself how you perceive moral and ethical. Eventually, groups with similar moral perspectives get together and even create laws based around this morality.

The underlying concept is that by living according to morals you are, on some level, ensuring more comfortable survival of those most important to you. And that survival of my family aspect is on the instinctive level.

[SoylentGreen]

tinybear All this shows that the link between morality and genetics is quite tenuous

The genetic link is given as to why humans have a need for morality.
There is still the fact that we can give good reasons for creating a moral position in that it is of benefit to us personally and as a group.
So what is morality based on in a secular group would be our intelligence and ability to reason for the greater good .

[Battig1370]

Have you ever heard of the farrow children? These are children that have been abandoned from human care for a very lengthy time. The most serious cases are that these children have not developed a sense of wrong and right according to any human society.

I conclude that humans are not born with an innate sense of wrong and right, but morality of what is right or wrong is learned from the cultural/religious belief system that human is exposed to.