Morality - Created or Hijacked?

[The Bacon Guy]

It’s fairly common argument that Christianity is responsible for some of the enduring values of the Western world. Theists will argue that the Ten Commandments are the basis for much of the law and morality in the civilized world. But is this the case, or has religion simply hijacked inherent moral values of mankind?

Let’s take the Ten Commandments. I would say most of them can be explained secularly. Honour thy mother and thy father can be explained by the fact that morality is generally imparted by the individual’s parents. Obviously it’s in parents’ interests to teach their kids to respect them.

Aversion to stealing and killing can be explained by the social nature of human beings. A society which promotes killing and stealing wouldn’t last long.

Thou shalt not commit adultery can be explained by the fact that we are hardwired to be jealous of potential competition when it comes to mating. Males because they want to be sure it’s their child that they’re providing for, and females because they need the male to provide for their child.

But it’s not just Christians who are guilty of making this argument. People on the other side of the fence will often claim that the uglier sides of the Bible, most notably homophobic bigotry, are responsible for the bigoted attitudes of many in society. However, this again can be explained by a natural characteristic of human beings, in this case, a tendency towards prejudice, á la Tajfel’s social identity theory.

So, does religion really create our values, or does it simply hijack them?

[ruksak]

Quote by: TBG So, does religion really create our values, or does it simply hijack them?

I like the way you worded that. I would say that it is a clear case of self-accreditation. Many of the principals of the Ten Commandments existed going back to times of pre-history. Tribes of primitive hominid would understand many of these "moral" principals.

Primitive South American societies, many of which still exist in a state of primitivism, can be seen displaying these socio-moral principals. Stealing, adultery, killing, all infractions that can lead to banishment from the tribe. Much of the churches doctrine can be far more realistically viewed as ancient law in text format, as opposed to innovative and before unheard of moral structure.

[Osborn F Enready]

I vote for "hi-jacked".

[Winter wind]

So, does religion really create our values, or does it simply hijack them?

Har, this is going to be fun...

Religion can not "create a value" (God can, but the Bible didn't)
Religion can spread values and solidify them.
Also, if you compare the values of taoism with Christianity, you will see startling differences. (ie, kids are more expendable then parents in taoism.)

(side note: I'm 17 years and 20 minutes old now. Whee...)

[ruksak]

Quote by: Winter wind Har, this is going to be fun... Religion can not "create a value" (God can, but the Bible didn't) Religion can spread values and solidify them. Also, if you compare the values of taoism with Christianity, you will see startling differences. (ie, kids are more expendable then parents in taoism.) (side note: I'm 17 years and 20 minutes old now. Whee...)

Birthday boy? CONGRATS!!

1 year and you can buy porno and cigarettes.

As to the OP; Religion has defined these morals that most civilizations already recognized. Then they (the Christian hierarchy) commence to slaughtering countless thousands of Muslims and committing massive atrocities throughout time.

I claim their hypocrisy as means enough to discount their self-accreditation for establishing moral principal.

[Winter wind]

hypocrisy is right, thats why it makes me burn when I see people who abuse Christianity. I burn up more then the average joe. To focus people on hate and war when they should be thinking about Christian kindness makes me physically sick (not extreme, but still).

But the Establishment and ideology are not one and the same. I'm young, and can still be a dreamer.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: wind Religion can not "create a value" (God can, but the Bible didn't)

Well, that depends on whether you accept God to be a part of Christianity.

Quote by: wind Also, if you compare the values of taoism with Christianity, you will see startling differences.

My question isn't whether different societies have different moralities; it's whether the religions of said societies are responsible for creating/maintaining these values. Christians often claim that an atheistic society would be an immoral or amoral society. My position is that much of our morality is not derived from religion, but from instinct.

[Winter wind]

morality is derived from neither religion, nor instinct. It's grown, normally by parents and the society around you which religion can be a part. So I guess the answer is religion is a factor of gaining morality, but not the whole thing. Plus religion doesn't have to be a positive factor (I think it is more positive then not).

[grandpa]

Quote by: Winter wind morality is derived from neither religion, nor instinct. It's grown, normally by parents and the society around you which religion can be a part.

I basically agree, although an interesting topic is how much of perceived morality is instinctive, and how much even our instincts are shaped by society, and by religion (even for nonbelievers).

I personally can't define such questions in any simple way. They're pretty complex.

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy It’s fairly common argument that Christianity is responsible for some of the enduring values of the Western world. Theists will argue that the Ten Commandments are the basis for much of the law and morality in the civilized world. But is this the case, or has religion simply hijacked inherent moral values of mankind? Let’s take the Ten Commandments. I would say most of them can be explained secularly. Honour thy mother and thy father can be explained by the fact that morality is generally imparted by the individual’s parents. Obviously it’s in parents’ interests to teach their kids to respect them. Aversion to stealing and killing can be explained by the social nature of human beings. A society which promotes killing and stealing wouldn’t last long. Thou shalt not commit adultery can be explained by the fact that we are hardwired to be jealous of potential competition when it comes to mating. Males because they want to be sure it’s their child that they’re providing for, and females because they need the male to provide for their child. But it’s not just Christians who are guilty of making this argument. People on the other side of the fence will often claim that the uglier sides of the Bible, most notably homophobic bigotry, are responsible for the bigoted attitudes of many in society. However, this again can be explained by a natural characteristic of human beings, in this case, a tendency towards prejudice, á la Tajfel’s social identity theory. So, does religion really create our values, or does it simply hijack them?

The Mayans and countries where Buddhaism is popular, also have the equalivant of the Ten commandments, and such understanding is not unique to the religion of the God of Abraham. How do we understand this sameness of human consciousness? How about, human consciousness is shared by all of humanity, because of our common experience of being humans.

Much of our morality is based on survival needs shared with other social animals. While animals can not think abstractly, and therefore label and discuss morals, neither do we create them. We no more create morals than a life saving water pool in the middle of the desert. These things exist, and we only become aware of them. In ancient times, moral consciousness was understood as knowledge of universal law.

Going from what Winter Wind said, Socrates taught conscience is a matter of consciousness. We can know that of which we are not conscious, and we are not born all knowing, but our minds are blank slates full of potential. Mass moral education is essential to humanity achieving its full potential of goodness. Thomas Jefferson understood this and did his best to establish free public schools. This goes with believing democracy is a good thing, and it is secular.

[Suburbanite]

I think that the bible only taught one new type of morality which didn't exist prior. That type is that the meek shall inherit the earth. Before Christianity their is no religion which empowered the poor. The bible even says you're shit out of luck if you're rich and trying to get into heaven.

[Cephus]

Quote by: ruksak I like the way you worded that. I would say that it is a clear case of self-accreditation. Many of the principals of the Ten Commandments existed going back to times of pre-history. Tribes of primitive hominid would understand many of these "moral" principals.

Since the Ten Commandments were directly hijacked from pre-existing documents like the Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Oath of Clearance, it's clear what the answer is. There is little in Christianity that is at all original, especially not the so-called morality.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: wind morality is derived from neither religion, nor instinct. It's grown, normally by parents and the society around you

Right, so it comes from the instinctive desire of humans, as social animals, to conform to the norms of society.

But the question is really where the norms of society come from. I would argue, based on what's in my OP, that it's either evolutionary or instinctive.

[Alive]

Bacon, you act like religion and "society" are separable, but this is a modern idea: secularism. The law codes of old were essentially secular legal codes imbued with religious meaning; society and culture/religion are inherently connected.

Put another way, you say that: "Aversion to stealing and killing can be explained by the social nature of human beings. A society which promotes killing and stealing wouldn’t last long."

This is exactly right. And one of the ways society manages to deter stealing and killing is through religion. The social nature of human beings IS to be religious. Only in modern times have we found replacements for religion which serve similar functions (though I think many of these replacements aren't actually that different than their predecessors.

The fact that morality is intrinsic to the running of human societies does not imply that religion doesn't provide a moral basis for many humans. Morality is a natural tendency of human beings, but so is religion, so maybe there's a connection.

[triad]

Quote by: Alive Bacon, you act like religion and "society" are separable, but this is a modern idea: secularism. The law codes of old were essentially secular legal codes imbued with religious meaning; society and culture/religion are inherently connected.

Through the evolution of mankind, however, there seems to be those that disagree with religion. So I don't think that society in general is connected to religion, but individual intellect creates the path of either religious or not. I am not religious, but I do not steal, kill, etc... So connecting religion to "morals" would be valid only in cases of extreme subjectivity.

The social nature of human beings IS to be religious. Only in modern times have we found replacements for religion which serve similar functions (though I think many of these replacements aren't actually that different than their predecessors.

Hm, this kind of goes with the evolution of society, why have some ditched religion all together? I suppose it would be due to the irrationality behind its fictional proposals of creation of all that exists. I dont think, again, that culture is directly connected to religion because two people in the same culture could choose different religions. Its a matter of one's own subjective perspective, hence with the advancements in our understanding of the universe (may be small but significant nonetheless) some have realized religion may be outdated.

The fact that morality is intrinsic to the running of human societies does not imply that religion doesn't provide a moral basis for many humans. Morality is a natural tendency of human beings, but so is religion, so maybe there's a connection.

I would say religion WAS a natural tendency, which has been passed on generation to generation (a reason for the evolution within religion), and will slowly cease to exist. Like you said, it wasn't until recently small groups of humans have found alternatives to religion, possibly soon that will be the belief values of the majority - agnostic/atheism beliefs. If that happens, I simply don't see the morals of humanity also ceasing to exist, because they are based on instinct and not taught directly - otherwise they wouldn't exist at all. That is only true if you are not religious yourself, like me.

[Alive]

Quote by: triad Through the evolution of mankind, however, there seems to be those that disagree with religion.

Not really. "Atheism" exists only in a few cultures. Of course, atheism doesn't even make sense in the majority of religious cultures, which are not theistic (no gods) but very religious. But no, you won't find groups of apostates in ancestor-worship cultures.

What we have in modern society is a segregation of religion and culture; that is, we have explicitly secular culture (and its counterpart: explicitely religious culture). An example of this is our code of laws, another is our literature and television shows, which we intentionally partition away from religious culture, which takes place in church (and other television shows). This partition did not exist, say, in Sumerian culture; their literature IS religious, their law codes ARE religious, and yet they are quite similar in broad terms to our literature and our law codes. We have separated one aspect of culture from the rest of it.

So I don't think that society in general is connected to religion, but individual intellect creates the path of either religious or not. I am not religious, but I do not steal, kill, etc... So connecting religion to "morals" would be valid only in cases of extreme subjectivity.

Religion is one aspect of culture that influences beliefs and behavior; there are many others. In the modern West we have many other means; for example, massive education systems, mass media, political ideology, professional sports, philosophy. All of these share aspects of the old religions and fulfill needs those old religions no longer fill for secularists.

There are two separate questions we can ask. One: Is religion necessary for morality? This is a boring question, the answer is no, of course. A more interesting set of questions: What social purpose does religion fulfill? What does it give people? How does it affect them? Moral education is one task fulfilled by religion, but as I said, modern societies have new means of accomplishing the same goal.

I suppose it would be due to the irrationality behind its fictional proposals of creation of all that exists.

Perhaps. Keep in mind, however, that all aspects of culture are "irrational", including morality itself. The messages sent on the TV are no more logically derived than the messages in the Bible, yet somehow literature gets a free pass for rationalists while religion is attacked constantly. I suspect it is because literature is seen to be metaphoric while people take religion literally, but it doesn't matter--both literature and religion communicate irrational (but very important) values. And in a sense, they are therefore interchangeable.

I dont think, again, that culture is directly connected to religion because two people in the same culture could choose different religions.

And two people in the same culture "could" choose different cultures. In practice, religion tends to be homogeneous; when it is not, either the religions are close enough it doesn't matter or other cultural mechanisms partially replace it. Even very different religions can communicate the same message, anyways; murder is forbidden by pretty much all religions.

Just keep in mind that all culture is irrational, and yet serves essential purpose. Religion is not special in that regard; it is also not necessary. But in most societies historically it has served the purpose that other entities serve in the modern secular world--and those new entities might be insufficient for human well-being.

[Winter wind]

Right, so it comes from the instinctive desire of humans, as social animals, to conform to the norms of society.

Love it, or hate it, humans are generally conforming creatures (even so called non-conformist have this bizarre tendency to conform to their own non-conformist friends...). It comes from the old village mentality which if you didn't conform, you were kicked out where you died poor, hungry and lonely.

[Athena]

Quote by: Suburbanite I think that the bible only taught one new type of morality which didn't exist prior. That type is that the meek shall inherit the earth. Before Christianity their is no religion which empowered the poor. The bible even says you're shit out of luck if you're rich and trying to get into heaven.

Ah, how do you know this as a fact? I didn't realize anyone here had made a study of the earliest cultures. What do you think of the differences between female dominated cultures and the male dominated cultures? Do you think we have the culture we have today, if femaled cultures had not evolved in the fertile valley? Is it possible, Jesus is the voice of the older female dominate cultures? What do you think of Isis who was the bread and water, before Jesus became the bread and wine?

[Athena]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Right, so it comes from the instinctive desire of humans, as social animals, to conform to the norms of society. But the question is really where the norms of society come from. I would argue, based on what's in my OP, that it's either evolutionary or instinctive.

There is an increasing amount of information that morality is in our genes, evolved from animals. However, animals do not have the power of abstract thinking, so they are not moral because they reason right and wrong. Humans are moral both by evolution and the ability to reason.
We know dogs are loyal. We know they defer to a leader. We know wolves work in teams and take care of their young. We know humans with bad information, make bad decisions. Sometimes humans have emotional problems, and make very bad decisions. In times of war, a kind of insanity spreads and they can do really terrible things, such as the employees of Blackwater who joyed killing indiscriminately, and prison gaurds in our own prisions who become brutal people.

Some tribes raise their young to be aggressive killers. The Hopi are well known for raising their children to be non aggressive. In the US, public education focused on sharing and conforming, and turned to advancing competitiveness and amorality. Amorality is when a society has so many different morals, it is equal to having none at all. Our liberty depends on a shared morality and because we have promoted amorality, we now have serious social problems and a growing police state.

[Athena]

Quote by: Winter wind Love it, or hate it, humans are generally conforming creatures (even so called non-conformist have this bizarre tendency to conform to their own non-conformist friends...). It comes from the old village mentality which if you didn't conform, you were kicked out where you died poor, hungry and lonely.

Monkeys and apes do exactly the same thing. Chimps and Bonobo have different social organizations. Chimps are male dominated and more aggressive than, Bonobo, which are female dominted and coorperative. Such differences makes it hard to make a blankey statement, but members of these communities who not get along with others, are pushed out. The outcast may be allowed to hang around the fringes of the troop, but occasionally they are forced to separate from the troop completely. Such decisions will depend largely on the leader.