Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Casey Fritz on June 1, 2011 at 10:12pm

I'm not sure if evolution is the right word, but I would say it has been adapted into ourself as a means to integrate into societies and make us be able to survive in them. Morals are completely separate, and have nothing at all to do with religion. Morals were created through trial and error, the ones that stuck stayed around, the ones that didn't died out (similar to evolution yes lol) and that's my take.

Permalink Reply by Natalie Fritz on June 1, 2011 at 10:34pm

In my opinion, morals are evolutionary and I think changes in cultural norms shape morality through the enculturation of each new generation.

Other mammals have a very basic understanding of what behavior and is acceptable/unacceptable in their group. They also understand that norms can be broken and that there are physical or emotional consequences if they are caught. When interacting with humans and other primates through sign language, orangutans have figured out the gift of lying through sign language to get more treats. They also understand that if they don't abide by social norms, they receive some sort of punishment. They also express certain behaviors for rewards. The emotions they experience lead them to correct their behavior and even give something to the individual they've wronged to appease them.

I refer to hunter gatherer societies a lot because I think they are the closest living example of early humans and the early development of religion and behavior. Shared reciprocity and the egalitarian approach to society isn't done out of nobility, but simply because it works. Societies have different feelings and standards of morality to keep members in check. My favorite example is a social norm that the African !Kung society uses known as "insulting one's kill" to keep arrogant, overconfident hunters from expressing feelings of selfishness or greed. It is an absolute no-no to brag in this society. The !Kung admit that they don't do it for religious reasons or because "greed is bad." They call it "cooling the heart" to make sure everyone in the group gets enough food to survive because a network of sharing kill keeps food in everyone's stomach. No one person can take over and try to stratify the society.

In my opinion, religion is a tool intended to shape a culture's terms of morality. Religion has had to bend with the times to keep up. I think about the Industrial Revolution when it was a sin to for a business owner to make more than a 2% profit. People had to pay huge fines and were excommunicated from the church. Nowadays, would you invest in a company that only makes 2% profit? : )

The interesting thing about religion itself is that there is evidence that other mammals might have some basic form or ritual in attempting to explain or react to environmental phenomena they can't explain (kind of like religion or magic). When it rains and thunders, primates are observed standing in the rain pounding their hands for no visible purpose. When elephants come across the bones of dead elephants, they rub their trunks all over the bones.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. : )

Permalink Reply by Dale on June 2, 2011 at 5:20pm

I don't think comparing ourselves to early hunters and gatherers is far off actually. I forgot where I got the idea, but humans band together still in small families and friends rather than say "ants" with millions. One of the reasons I believe so many problems with trying to organize so many is we cannot have any conviction for that many people only the immediate people we interact with around us. So the idea of a country or one world united is a very abstract concept to our primal brain--only technology and abstract thought allows us to band together in this big a scale. Compared to say ants where if one is attacked millions of other ants might respond immediately with whole hearted conviction as if your brother might have been killed.

anyhoo, that was a bit off subject. back to morals. I like the idea that morals are a universal truth only in it's early evolution. Morals are relative to the society we know..as a baby being killed to prevent it from starvation by it's mother is wrong to us but is common sense to an inuit. What if morals we one day scientifically figured out what right or wrong was? This seems impossible but it could happen. If we use morals only as relative values to a culture then we could also say the world is flat or we live on a giant back of a turtle floating in a lake. today we know that as untrue through science and technology. My idea is that it could be the same with morals even if we can't understand right now how to measure morals.

Permalink Reply by Natalie Fritz on June 4, 2011 at 10:47pm

Hmm, measuring morals. That's very interesting. I've never thought of it that way. : )

Permalink Reply by Dale on March 6, 2012 at 12:02pm

I'm playing devils advocate. So morals are relative, but relativity is flawed. People used to believe the universe revolved around the earth but that doesn't make it true.