sanja wrote:

Teshi wrote:Yes, people have a "sense" of morality.

I do not agree with that.

DanDare wrote:

sanja wrote:

Teshi wrote:Yes, people have a "sense" of morality.

I do not agree with that.

Because.....................?

Teshi wrote:People who have been systematically neglected as children have not always developed a "sense" of morality, but presumably they had they ability to. But going to these incredible extremes means that there is not that much that makes humans human without some level of socialisation. Our brains require socialization in our early years but assuming we get that the vast majority of poeple ahve a "sense" of morality. That is, they understand and can apply morality.

Frans de Waal, PhD, director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Research Center, and Kristi Leimgruber, research specialist, led a team of researchers who exchanged tokens for food with eight adult female capuchins. Each capuchin was paired with a relative, an unrelated familiar female from her own social group or a stranger (a female from a different group). The capuchins then were given the choice of two tokens: the selfish option, which rewarded that capuchin alone with an apple slice; or the prosocial option, which rewarded both capuchins with an apple slice. The monkeys predominantly selected the prosocial token when paired with a relative or familiar individual but not when paired with a stranger.

The researchers concluded that the monkeys must find sharing to be pleasurable.

"The fact the capuchins predominantly selected the prosocial option must mean seeing another monkey receive food is satisfying or rewarding for them," said de Waal. "We believe prosocial behavior is empathy based. Empathy increases in both humans and animals with social closeness, and in our study, closer partners made more prosocial choices. They seem to care for the welfare of those they know," continued de Waal.

A recent imaging study on humans showed that there is activity in the reward centres of the brain when giving charitable donations. Empathy in seeing the pleasure of another's fortune is thought to be the impetus for sharing, a trait this study shows transcends primate species.

The study is available online in the Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

de Waal and his research team next will attempt to determine whether giving is self-rewarding to capuchins because they can eat together or if the monkeys simply like to see the other monkey enjoying food.

We are told by the critics of secular humanist morality that, without belief in God, immorality would engulf us. This position is held by many conservative, even centrist, political leaders today. They say that society needs a religious framework to maintain the general order. But they are, I submit, profoundly mistaken.

What they overlook is the fact that humanist ethics is so deeply ingrained in human culture that even religious conservatives accept many (if not all) of its ethical premises-though, like Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who was surprised when he was told that he spoke and wrote in prose, many people will be equally surprised to discover this.

May I point out five aspects of humanist morality that are widely accepted today. Humanist ethics is not some recent invention; it has deep roots in world civilization, and it can be found in the great thinkers, from Aristotle and Confucius to Spinoza, Adam Smith, Mill, and Dewey. What are these philosophers saying?

First, that the pursuit of happiness-eudaimonia, as the Greeks called it-is a basic goal of ethical life, both for the individual and society. This point of view came into prominence during the Renaissance; it is expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and indeed in virtually every modern democratic system of ethics. People may dispute about the meaning of happiness, but nonetheless most humanists say that the good life involves satisfying and pleasurable experience, creative actualization, and human realization. We wish a full life in which the fruits of our labor contribute to a meaningful existence. We recognize that religious believers want salvation in the next world, but few today would want unhappiness in this life.

A second principle is the recognition that each person has equal dignity and value, and that he or she ought to be considered as an end and not a mere means. This doctrine was implicit in the American and French democratic revolutions; it was used to overthrow slavery and hierarchical societies, and it is appealed to in order to eliminate racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual discrimination.

A third value of humanism is the ideal of moral freedom. Humanists defend free societies that allow wide latitude for individuals to express their own needs, desires, interests, goals, and their diverse visions of the good life, however idiosyncratic they may be. Nevertheless, humanist ethics emphasizes the higher intellectual, moral, and æsthetic values, and it focuses on moral growth and development as essential to happiness.

Fourth, this implies that we tolerate the diversity of values and principles in different individuals and groups in society. We need not necessarily accept different lifestyles; we simply allow them to co-exist. Moral freedom does not necessarily mean license or corruption; it does not mean a libertine style of life; for there is concern not only with freedom but with virtue. It does not condone the fleshpot, the shallow or egotistical individual; for even while humanist morality maintains that individuals should be allowed to pursue their own ends without repression, it asks that they learn to behave responsibly, that they cultivate the common moral decencies, and that their behavior be considerate of the needs of others. That means that they will develop an appreciation for the basic shared moral virtues of a civilized community-truth, sincerity, integrity, fairness, empathy, etc. This presupposes the development of moral character in the young; for self-control and an altruistic regard for others are essential for the full flowering of the individual.

Fifth, humanist ethics focuses on human reason as the basis of ethical choice. This is insufficiently understood by dogmatic religionists who fail to appreciate the fact that there are often difficult choices to be made in life; though we may share principles and values, we need to recognize that society is undergoing rapid change and that new moral problems may emerge. Often we must choose between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, not between good and evil. Thus there are the classical moral dilemmas that all individuals in society encounter, in which competing values and principles contend. Humanists maintain that in such situations ethical inquiry ought to be emphasized, and that a reflective moral intelligence-aware of one's own interests and values and also of the needs and interests of others-should seek to negotiate differences and work out compromises. Humanists believe that science and technology, if used wisely, can help us to improve human life and contribute to the common welfare. Thus, in our view, ethical rationality is essential for moral growth and development.

In any case, humanist values and principles underlie three powerful social movements that have emerged in modern society, especially since the Renaissance. Let me enunciate them.

Secularization: The institutions of modern society have sought to liberate morality from repressive theocratic creeds. This entails a separation of church and state as a precondition of freedom from authoritarian or totalitarian control.
Democracy: This is a further precondition for humanist morality to flourish; for it is in a free, open, and democratic society that individuals are allowed to make their own decisions and universal human rights are defended, both on the social and the planetary scale. Democracy entails an open market of ideas, rule by majorities, and the right of dissent.
Consumerism: Modern economic systems are predicated on the assumption that individual consumers should have the freedom to produce, purchase, and consume goods and services of their own choice. This has led to an enormous improvement of the human condition, the extension of the fruits of industry and of happiness to all citizens.
Yet many religionists today decry humanist ethics and they proclaim absolute declarations and creeds. In the past, they often opposed democracy and moral freedom, tolerance, and respect for diversity. Many emphasize still today the virtue of obedience rather than of individual autonomy. Humanists respond that belief in God is no guarantee of moral virtue. Indeed, devoted believers will often kill each other over differences in doctrine or authority, and they oppose each other on issues concerning public morality: some are for and some against capital punishment, war or peace, the rights of women, minorities, euthanasia, sexual freedom, etc. Dogmatic religious doctrines especially set people against each other, leading to hypocrisy, greed, policies of retribution and punishment, chauvinism, and pride, rather than an empathetic moral regard for the needs of others. Thus there is a genuine humanist alternative to such doctrinaire points of view, which needs to be appreciated.

I submit that humanist ethical ideals, which emphasize the pursuit of happiness, moral freedom, tolerance, moral responsibility, and rational moral inquiry, are basic for social peace and ethical improvement, and that both religious and nonreligious people can share these values. To castigate humanist ethics would endanger the hard-won gains to achieve a secular state, a democratic society, and a prosperous economy serving all the citizens of society. Shall we risk the advances of social, political, and economic progress in the name of an authoritarian creed? To reject humanist morality would do precisely that: It would repeal the modern world.

atrasicarius wrote:It seems like you've got a pretty mild flavor of Christianity.

There's just one point I'd like to bring up. How come you identify as a Christian in particular? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you disagree with standard Christian tradition on a lot of points.

You dont have to be a Christian to follow the teachings of Jesus.

theidiot wrote:

atrasicarius wrote:It seems like you've got a pretty mild flavor of Christianity.

Far from it, very few people would called me mild. I'm an orthodox christian, there's only very little that I don't share with the theology of catholics, eastern orthodox, mainline protestants, and a number of evangelicals. I don't share much in common with liberal christians, and find their expression rather weak.

theidiot wrote:I was just pointing to a particular sort of view that leads me to be a believer, of course there's far more to it, but it all relates to what i said previously.

theidiot wrote:All religions serve to convey a certain way of life. Their function is more like music than science books. They serve to inspire an imitation of an art form, that embodies all of life's celebration and woes. They serve as the aesthetic foundation for those communities to hold what they find beautiful and sacred at the center of life. What Gospels claim is that all aesthetics that are contrary to the christian picture are all false understandings of reality, a distortion of the truth.

theidiot wrote:What atheist here might have a hard time getting their head around, is that here there in no division between the performative and the propositional. The meaning of a portrait we convey in words, and how we are provoked by it are not two separate truths.

Those that are too infatuated with the hard sciences, may be puzzled by what this means, because this medium they are obsessed with requires very little contemplation of their own emotions to understand it's claims. Here we need inferential capacity, and less autism, more exposure to life beyond the laboratory.

theidiot wrote:

There's just one point I'd like to bring up. How come you identify as a Christian in particular? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you disagree with standard Christian tradition on a lot of points.

No i don't disagree with the standard Christian tradition on a lot of points. I consider myself a standard christian, since most christians do not belong to the fundie evangelical camp.

You dont have to be a Christian to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Well, that would be sort of like an oxymoron. You don't have to be a christian to find what Jesus has to say is pretty, but to follow him, to be empowered by his message, well that's what it means to be a believer, 'a christ follower'.

sanja wrote:

DanDare wrote:

sanja wrote:

Teshi wrote:Yes, people have a "sense" of morality.

I do not agree with that.

Because.....................?

morality is taught.
It's a social convention.
(that's what I consider by morality)

theidiot wrote:All religions serve to convey a certain way of life. Their function is more like music than science books. They serve to inspire an imitation of an art form, that embodies all of life's celebration and woes. They serve as the aesthetic foundation for those communities to hold what they find beautiful and sacred at the center of life. What Gospels claim is that all aesthetics that are contrary to the christian picture are all false understandings of reality, a distortion of the truth.

What atheist here might have a hard time getting their head around, is that here there in no division between the performative and the propositional. The meaning of a portrait we convey in words, and how we are provoked by it are not two separate truths.

Those that are too infatuated with the hard sciences, may be puzzled by what this means, because this medium they are obsessed with requires very little contemplation of their own emotions to understand it's claims. Here we need inferential capacity, and less autism, more exposure to life beyond the laboratory.

Teshi wrote:A lot of atheists aren't even soft scientists. You don't have to totally understand or study science to be an atheist.

Teshi wrote:
EDIT: I for example, came to science indirectly, although I've been an atheist all my life. I objected on more historical inconsistencies, understanding of literature and storytelling, and moral yuckiness than scientific absurdity.

Xeno wrote:
The core of our ethics is intrinsic and universal regardless of religion or not.

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:
The core of our ethics is intrinsic and universal regardless of religion or not.

I know, almost every atheist on this forum tells me that.
Though, they cannot present any valid evidence for that, yet.

On the other hand, I can present a lot of evidence that morality is thaught.

Raise a child in sweden - you will have a man which most likely will not consider killing of gay person as a moral act.
Raise a child in some country where sharia law is on power - you will most likely have a man who will most likely consider the same thing as moral.


raise a kid in USA - you will most likely have a man who most likely sees no problem with invading other countries by war.
raise a kid in japan - you will probably have a man who most likely consideres invading other countries by war as uncivilised and immoral.

It's the matter of environmant and upbringing, that' all.

Xeno wrote:
No it ain't, sfaik.

Xeno wrote:
Your examples are of cultural differences.

Xeno wrote:
There are also differences between religions.

Xeno wrote:
Recall, I said that our brains allow us to develop the theory and application of ethics and morality and this is given in education.

Xeno wrote:
The core ethics about which I am talking all relate to moral dilemma problems (of a general form "save who and how many"). These are answered very consistently.

Xeno wrote:
I shall look for references. With a bit of luck Mr Samsa or Lazar will be able to help out.

Xeno wrote:

sanja wrote:

Xeno wrote:
The core of our ethics is intrinsic and universal regardless of religion or not.

I know, almost every atheist on this forum tells me that.
Though, they cannot present any valid evidence for that, yet.

On the other hand, I can present a lot of evidence that morality is thaught.

Raise a child in sweden - you will have a man which most likely will not consider killing of gay person as a moral act.
Raise a child in some country where sharia law is on power - you will most likely have a man who will most likely consider the same thing as moral.


raise a kid in USA - you will most likely have a man who most likely sees no problem with invading other countries by war.
raise a kid in japan - you will probably have a man who most likely consideres invading other countries by war as uncivilised and immoral.

It's the matter of environmant and upbringing, that' all.

No it ain't, sfaik. Your examples are of cultural differences. There are also differences between religions. Recall, I said that our brains allow us to develop the theory and application of ethics and morality and this is given in education. The core ethics about which I am talking all relate to moral dilemma problems (of a general form "save who and how many"). These are answered very consistently.

I shall look for references. With a bit of luck Mr Samsa or Lazar will be able to help out.

Agrippina wrote:I don't agree that there is anything aesthetic in religion.

Agrippina wrote:
Most of the religious people I've met's interest in music and art has been limited to anything that doesn't offend their particular meme.

Agrippina wrote:
Also people living in the bush - the San of Africa and some indigenous tribes in South American jungles, do believe in gods, and mostly ancestor worship, they are not atheists.

Agrippina wrote:Atheists are people who have heard of gods, have made a point of learning more about them and then discarded the belief in gods..