One of the major problems with the Great Morality Debate is that no-one ever seems to define their terms. The word ‘morality’ gets flung about like shit in an unstimulating chimp enclosure, but people often end up speaking at cross-purposes because they’re talking about different concepts. When the theofanboiz ask, ‘where does morality come from?’ they’re talking about absolute right and wrong, and how to distinguish between them.

The Tree of Knowledge’s (per Genesis) full title was, after all, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Quite aside from the fucking ridiculous theological knots this presents us with, the fundamental idea is that Good and Evil not only absolutely exist and are in some way in actual constant contest with each other, and the only reason we can tell the difference between the two sides is because that bitch Eve had no self-control around quinces. Which is odd, really, because if we can tell the difference as a result of a bit of inadvertent scrumping, then why would we need to be told? More fucking knots than Mistress Truss-em-up on a good Friday night…

In reality, there’s about as much evidence for the existence of Good and Evil as there is for God, which is to say bugger-all. To those of us minded to take our cues from reality as opposed to made-up bullshit, morality is nothing to do with these illusive constructs. Morality is an interplay between two things:
i)The group of behaviours exhibited by evolved social animals, which both grew out of and enabled the development of said social animals, also known as Why Not Everyone’s a Cunt; and
ii)The process – and product – of the application of abstract reasoning to our perceptions and experiences of our interaction with others and our wider environment, also known as Thinking About How Not to be a Cunt.

Where does morality come from? Well, it’s an artificial (as much as anything is) construct that pretty much just acts as an excuse for whatever it is that you’ve just done, or are about to do. That’s the very simplified answer dealing with the religious version of morality. It’s a fucking excuse. No foul, though, in a larger sense, since that’s pretty much what your consciousness acts as: a generator of excuses.

Our evolutionary development has armed us with certain behavioural responses to certain stimuli. Reciprocal altruism is one, and generally cast as a rather nice one. Tribalism may well be another, and if so, it’s a fucking ugly one. It fits, though.

The point is that even if my behavioural tendencies, inherited through selection over millions of years, are such that I’m inclined to be a right cunt, reason trumps that. I may, possibly, be hardwired to be wary or suspicious of people with brown skin. I don’t know if I am, but it stands out as a prominent example. I may be hardwired somehow to class women as some mysterious baby-generating devices. Even were that the case, I also have the capacity to weigh such behavioural tendencies and realise that they’re bullshit.

When the religious buggers come and spout ‘morality’ at us, it may behoove us to remember that they’re talking another language. They may be using words that sound the same, but they mean something completely fucking different.

I'm not a native english speaker, so I did not quite understand OP.
shall we consider morality as set of norms, established by social convention? (that is what I consider by morality)

Why do you have need to make "they" (theists) and "us" (atheists) division, on this matter?
I know large number of theists does so, but why would you follow their example?

Gourdinmange is pointing out that theists make a distinction in general, because they think that morals come from their pet celestial peeping-tom. He points this out so that it is understood that they are talking about something different.

hackenslash wrote:Gourdinmange is pointing out that theists make a distinction in general, because they think that morals come from their pet celestial peeping-tom. He points this out so that it is understood that they are talking about something different.

ok, let's define morality.
Is it a set of norms of behaviour, established by social convention, and different from society to society?

Morality is that which allows us to function as social animals.

hackenslash wrote:Morality is that which allows us to function as social animals.

so, honey-bees and ants have morals too?

Yep.

hackenslash wrote:Yep.

ahahha I would never say
Can you provide any link to a source wich consideres morality of bees and ants?

(what would amoral honey-bee act like? )

I always thought that morality has something to do with concepts of good, and evil, and, therefore, nesseserily can be applied only to those who are able to develope concepts

sanja wrote:I always thought that morality has something to do with concepts of good, and evil, and, therefore, nesseserily can be applied only to those who are able to develope concepts

Rationality is not indispensable to morality: What Rationality Adds to Animal Morality

Philosophical tradition demands rational reflection as a condition for genuine moral acts. But the grounds for that requirement are untenable, and when the requirement is dropped morality comes into clearer view as a naturally developing phenomenon that is not confined to human beings and does not require higher-level rational reflective processes. Rational consideration of rules and duties can enhance and extend moral behavior, but rationality is not necessary for morality and (contrary to the Kantian tradition represented by Thomas Nagel) morality cannot transcend its biological roots. Recognizing this helps forge a complementary rather than competitive relation between feminist care-based ethics and rationalistic duty-based ethics.

Young toddlers show moral behavior. Animals, too. Some good books are:

- Wild Justice by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce

- The mysterious senses of animals, by Vitus B Droscher (and any of his books).

- Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives, by David Sloan Wilson

Edited to add book

sanja wrote:I always thought that morality has something to do with concepts of good, and evil, and, therefore, nesseserily can be applied only to those who are able to develope concepts

And here we see the difference highlighted.

Morality is, in real terms, simply a collection of behavioural tendencies which allow us to exist as social animals. If you were going to wholly invent the idea of social animals, you would have to come up with a mechanism for social interaction. That mechanism is morality, or moral behaviour. It is what defines social animals: the general tendencies pertaining to social interaction.

It's really only because of the structural limitations of our brains that we also have a tendency to assign Mysterious Truth value to shit that is dictated by our very biology, and informed by our ability to indulge in abstract mental processes (which are, strictly speak, biochemical in nature anyway). We're clever enough to invent excuses/concepts like good and evil, but we're also stupid enough to give these ideas weight that they don't actually merit. It's a mis-assignment of cause/effect pairing, like thinking that thunder is the result of gods fighting, or farting, or bowling. Or thinking that a full moon brings out the crazies. Or that people who don't believe unsupported bullshit claims about invisible genocidal superbeings with ego problems are evil.

Actually, on that latter note: that's an example of why it is all bullshit, this notion of Good and Evil. It's magical fucking thinking, and magical thinking is almost always fucking wrong.

Elena wrote:
Rationality is not indispensable to morality: What Rationality Adds to Animal Morality

erm ... what is the credibility of that link?
Who's the guy?
The article does not seem too serious to me. If one can argue about something, and claim "it is so" or "it is not so" without defining the main concept he is discussing about - that does not seem serious to me.
And it most certainly is not scientific, because it does not follow one of basic scientific principles (defining key concepts)
There is no definition of morality on the link you gave.

It seem to me that guy is trying to debunk the whole history of philosophy, to debunk a bunch of people who dealt with the issue much more serious than he has.

Elena wrote:
Young toddlers show moral behavior.

But what is MORAL?
How do we know that specific behaviour is moral?

Elena wrote:
Animals, too. Some good books are:

- Wild Justice by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce

- The mysterious senses of animals, by Vitus B Droscher (and any of his books).

- Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives, by David Sloan Wilson

Edited to add book

If you have those books (I doubt I can find them here) - can you give me some real arguments?
(what are their arguments? How do they, in the first place, define morality?)

sanja wrote: I would never say

Do you know anything at all about the lives of bees or ants? Are you even aware of the social structure inherent in the way they live? You actually picked the perfect examples, because they are given over wholly to the benefit of their society, with a complex social structure.

Can you provide any link to a source wich consideres morality of bees and ants?

Yep.
ants
Ants and bees

(what would amoral honey-bee act like? )

I'd be surprised if you could find an example. Amorality requires abstract thought. Further, amorality can only exist in a species that doesn't cast out the amoral, or the sociopath.

I know that morality is your pet topic, so it really is time you learned something about it.

Goldenmane wrote:
And here we see the difference highlighted.

Morality is, in real terms, simply a collection of behavioural tendencies which allow us to exist as social animals.

whos definition is that?
It must be very young definition, isn't it?
Who came to it?

And, let's analise it:
ants are social animals.
One of behavioural tendencies which allows them to exist as social animals is - ant war, for example.
Do you find human tendention to cause wars as an issue of morallity?
(it's just one example)

Goldenmane wrote:
If you were going to wholly invent the idea of social animals, you would have to come up with a mechanism for social interaction. That mechanism is morality, or moral behaviour. It is what defines social animals: the general tendencies pertaining to social interaction.

so, every social interaction (including war) is moral behaviour?
If one ant is wounded neer ant hill, some ants will come to him, and take him away from ant hill.
I've watched it myself.

Is it moral behaviour, considering humans too?
If someone is ill or wounded - it takes much less effort to get rid of him/her?
(considering that, we could say that antient spartans were much more moral than nowdays people)

Goldenmane wrote:
It's really only because of the structural limitations of our brains that we also have a tendency to assign Mysterious Truth value to shit that is dictated by our very biology, and informed by our ability to indulge in abstract mental processes (which are, strictly speak, biochemical in nature anyway) .

I am still not convinced that it is a matter of biology (what I consider as morality), but I do agree that morality issue is, basicly, shit.

Goldenmane wrote:
We're clever enough to invent excuses/concepts like good and evil, but we're also stupid enough to give these ideas weight that they don't actually merit.

true.
I do not give them that merit.
I do not believe in absolute good, or absolute evil.
I define "good" as "what is good for me", and "bad" as "what is bad for me".
I also do realise that one thing can be good for me, and bad for someone else.

sanja wrote:

Elena wrote:
Rationality is not indispensable to morality: What Rationality Adds to Animal Morality

erm ... what is the credibility of that link?
Who's the guy?
The article does not seem too serious to me. If one can argue about something, and claim "it is so" or "it is not so" without defining the main concept he is discussing about - that does not seem serious to me.
And it most certainly is not scientific, because it does not follow one of basic scientific principles (defining key concepts)
There is no definition of morality on the link you gave.

As there was no flagship definition of rationality or atheism in this forum when you and I decided to join The article is published in a journal that makes certain definitions redundant.

sanja wrote:

Elena wrote:
Young toddlers show moral behavior.

But what is MORAL?
How do we know that specific behaviour is moral?

Toddlers in several behavioral experiments sow moral emotions (empathy, compassion, distress, anger) in conflict situations that elicit the same emotions in most adjusted adults. Among adults, recent studies are finding correlates between moral emotions (elicited by strong impressions of "fair" vs "unfair," for example) and imaging changes in brain activity.

sanja wrote: If you have those books (I doubt I can find them here) - can you give me some real arguments?
(what are their arguments? How do they, in the first place, define morality?)

From Evolution for everyone, chapter "Love Thy Neighbor Microbe:"

We already began our journey in Chapter 5, where I showed that morally laden terms such as "good" and "evil" have a surprisingly simple biological interpretation. Traits associated with "good" cause groups to function well as units, while traits associated with 'evil" favor individuals at the expense of their groups."

Most of the book illustrates these concepts, including detailed descriptions of bacteria and beehives.

Edit: messed up quotes x3

The definition Goldenmane gave you is the accepted descriptive definition. You, it would seem, are relying on the normative definition. That being the case, it is up to you to support the normative definition as being valid. I reject it, because it assumes that there is such a thing as absolute morality. Since the universe doesn't care, there can be no absolute, objective morality.

It has been said, I forget by whom, that you could grind the universe to atoms and you would not find a single atom of morality. That is what you need to do to support a normative position.

Go for it.

sanja, I'm too pissed (drunk) to respond at length. I have to go to bed right soon. But I'll go so far as to chuck this in for you to think on: Morality was a concept that we came up with in the attempt (whilst retarded by magical thinking) for how the fuck we managed to get along at all. It may well be argued that ethics springs more from the abstract contemplation, or something, of How Not to be a Cunt.

To put it another way: morality is to ethics as alchemy is to chemistry. That's a really bad fucking about with terms, but I'm tired and drinking tequila, so I don't care.

Now, see, that's immoral, only bringing one drink when there are two of us.

hackenslash wrote:

sanja wrote: I would never say

Do you know anything at all about the lives of bees or ants?

yes, I do.
I had a book "the world of science" when I was a kid
And I've learned about them in highschool, on biology classes.
So, I do know some things.

hackenslash wrote:
Are you even aware of the social structure inherent in the way they live?

yes, very much.
I even teach my pupils about that.

hackenslash wrote:
You actually picked the perfect examples, because they are given over wholly to the benefit of their society, with a complex social structure.

I know, I know.
I was not denying that they are not social animals, I just picked them specifically because they are social animals.
But we are talking about morality here.

hackenslash wrote:

Can you provide any link to a source wich consideres morality of bees and ants?

Yep.
ants
Ants and bees

the same guy again?
ok, I shall check it out and get back to you with my impressions

hackenslash wrote:

(what would amoral honey-bee act like? )

I'd be surprised if you could find an example.

I'd be surprised if you could find one too
So, what you wanna say is that everything that animal does, in interaction with other animals of their species, is moral?
If that is so - and humans re animals too - than it must be applyed to humans to.
If that is so - EVERY social behaviour is moral behaviour.
Ans that is nonsense.

hackenslash wrote:
Amorality requires abstract thought.

No, it does not.
If one man grows up in a wild (with wolves, for example, there were such cases) - he would have not develope abstract thought. Yet, if you put him in human society again - until he learnes about moral norms, he would be amoral.
A-morality is just lack of morality (if my transation of "amoral" is correct, and in my language, amoral=no morality; just like atheist=no god belief)

hackenslash wrote:
Further, amorality can only exist in a species that doesn't cast out the amoral, or the sociopath.

why do you consider amoral person as a sociopath?

hackenslash wrote:
I know that morality is your pet topic, so it really is time you learned something about it.

ahh.
Why do you think that you do not have to learn about it any more?
(btw, topics about education are my favorite topics )